[TourDeForce]

I disagree. If you are aspiring to be a "pro" I'm sure you already know not all "pro" shots are "sharp", some are taken out-of-focus, etc. on purpose.

we are not talking about purpously out of focus shots, are we now?

we are talking about level of sharpness and how one judges what is sharp and what it is not.

if you feel that a particular photograph is sharp, thats your call, my bar is higher.

Gooshin can take an out of focus, soft, fuzzy picture with any lens that anybody would consider sharp. With those same lenses he can collect some nice, sharp, crisp pictures also.

From that perspective, I'd say Gooshins approach to pro photography is vindicated.

Soldier on, Gooshin!

That said, try taking good pictures of a soccer game, in the rain, with crappy lighting. I take out the trusty Vivitar 135mm with it's horrific depth of field and snap shots that look like the player I'm focused on is ready to leap off the paper. Just 'IN YOUR FACE' kinda photography. Love it! (and the lens is dirt cheap so I don't care if it gets dropped in the mud)

---

Last edited by TourDeForce; 04-02-2008 at 09:01 PM.

[selar]

"Ideal conditions" are not real-world shots. I posted a random shot to showcase what this lens can do at any given time.

Well, thank you for that, I was a bit curious about the Poor rating for this lens in the slosdb. Now I see that it is justified.

[jsherman999]

.

Actually, the lens is quite good, especially for portraiture. I've taken the same shot with my 77ltd and my 85 several times to compare, and the 85 holds up very, very well to the 77. It also seems to show less fringing than the 77, although the fringe it does have is sometimes blue, which is weird.

The 'slosdb' is only one source of information, both subjective and objective.

Gooshin and Selar, did an 85mm lens fall and hit you on the head, or something? Why all the bitterness?


.

[selar]

Gooshin and Selar, did an 85mm lens fall and hit you on the head, or something? Why all the bitterness?
.

No, I haven't had any experiences with M85/2, physical or otherwise.

And I don't think either Gooshin or I have expressed bitterness, its Metalfab that got personal in his posts.

[jsherman999]

No, I haven't had any experiences with M85/2, physical or otherwise.

And I don't think either Gooshin or I have expressed bitterness, its Metalfab that got personal in his posts.

Hmm. Well, fair enough. I guess that's a good example of the wide range of subjective interpretations a series of posts could have, I'd say it was the other way around.

Gooshin/Selar (assuming you're actually two different people,) you guys make a good team! Why don't you post your examples of sharpness? We could use some 'professional' help here, apparently.


.

[metalfab]

No, I haven't had any experiences with M85/2, physical or otherwise.

And I don't think either Gooshin or I have expressed bitterness, its Metalfab that got personal in his posts.

Yes, I'll admit I got somewhat personal. I had too because you haven't even used the lens. So, until you've tried it I don't think you have the right to say the M85 is "poor". Just like I have no right to say anything about the DA* 50-135 as I have never used it (half the posts say there is issues, the other half say otherwise). If I took everything said here and other forums as correct I'd never buy any camera due to all the negative crud that is written.

To finalize my decision, I look at actual photo databases eg; pbase, flikr, etc. to see what people are capturing and if it looks good and its the lens I'm after, I get it.

[aegisphan]

To the OP: Now you see why sharpness is a subjective matter, unless it gets quantified in form of MTF data.

As for the picture posted by metalfab, I honestly don't see anything wrong with it. I would consider that is quite decent at f/11. Most lenses would drop their performance quite quickly passing the point f/8.

And I have to agree with jsherman, we need to see different POV in what sharpness truly is.

To quantify it, I think we need Blende. He tends to show MTF chart shots of a lens. That would definitely give a much better idea. Personally, I just shoot until I like what I see.

[selar]

Why don't you post your examples of sharpness? We could use some 'professional' help here, apparently.
.

Why, I'd consider the examples you posted with SMC Takumar 135 3.5 earlier on in this thread to be very sharp examples indeed!

While I don't know Gooshin from a bar of soap, I do share his point of view on the acquisition of a bag of lenses, that one should get the best that one can afford.

However, I do find your insinuation that he and I are the same person, in very poor taste. Let us not forget that we are only discussing pieces of metal and glass here, and stop making personal attacks on each other. I have acquired my fair share of less than stellar lenses, I just moved on and bought a better lens when I could afford it.

[ukbluetooth]

I had no idea that I was opening a can of such vicious worms.

However your replies have helped my dilemma, and, possibly more importantly, stopped me worrying about it.

Obviously sharpness = f(A, C, B, S, L(f$))^po

Where:
A = ability
C = conditions
B = body
S = sensor
L(f$) = cash spent on the glass
^po = raised to the power of personal opinion.

On the other hand, tack sharp = well er ... tack sharp.



Thanks Gary

[VHDEL]

Not my sharpest shot
But does has a bloody "SHARP" beak
Taken with my el cheepo Sigma 70-300

[Gooshin]

Hmm. Well, fair enough. I guess that's a good example of the wide range of subjective interpretations a series of posts could have, I'd say it was the other way around.

Gooshin/Selar (assuming you're actually two different people,) you guys make a good team! Why don't you post your examples of sharpness? We could use some 'professional' help here, apparently.


.

i never said i was a professional, i said i am aspiring to be one (Image Arts Photography at Ryerson University...)

i have not yet made pictures that are both sharp and worthwhile to look at, so i dont have anything to show you what i feel is just the right amount of sharpness, which only goes to prove how high my standards are.

also keep in mind that tripod + low iso will produce better results, and most of my photography is done at night handheld.

plus i have a K100D, so the sensor is the limiting factor here.

but here is something that i find barely acceptable if it were to be printed on a 11X8 sheet or something

http://fork.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p115868566.jpg

remember what looks sharp is also a factor of how far away you are looking at a picture.


i remember awhile ago someone posted a hasslbrad picture... that was sharp even zoomed in at like 100% you were overwhelmed with detail, megapixle count DOES factor into sharpness.

[and]

That shot was not viewable... content protected by owner..

[Gooshin]

should work now

[and]

I thought you said you were picky And at iso 1600 theres some detail out the window already. Well it shows how subjective this all is. Everyone talking and offering their own standard of sharpness. Regarding the hasselblad comment I agree that if I have a shot that I can use a 100% crop of and no one will complain about the sharpness then its a sharp lens

[Gooshin]

I thought you said you were picky And at iso 1600 theres some detail out the window already. Well it shows how subjective this all is. Everyone talking and offering their own standard of sharpness. Regarding the hasselblad comment I agree that if I have a shot that I can use a 100% crop of and no one will complain about the sharpness then its a sharp lens

like i said, i havent shot anything worth my own standard yet, in fact going through my archive i'm having trouble finding decent photographs in general LOL