[photoptimist]

The importance of sharpness varies by the type of photograph.

Sharpness is absolutely essential to some types of images (astrophotography, many landscapes, many in architecture, museum technical photography, and large group photos). Such images can be ruined by edge or corner softness.

And other types of images (portraiture, abstracts, street) don't need corner-to-corner sharpness and may not even need central sharpness. In fact, sharpness degrades some of these types of images.

It all depends on the role of image detail (are details essential to the image or distracting to the emotion/message of the image) and whether those details are clustered in the center (e.g., a face, flower, BIF, or a product) or extend all the way to the edges and corners (e.g.,a star field or panoramic landscape).

It's all about picking the right equipment (and right settings on that equipment) for the job and knowing whether the job requires sharpness, requires softness, or it does not matter.

[Roadboat24]

Taken yesterday, just before I walked my daughter down the aisle. If I re-shot it to get the focus right the emotion would have been lost (and I had more important things to do).

So it's not sharp, but I absolutely love it.


Shall we take a walk?

This one is razor sharp (same lens, same aperture, same camera), but it doesn't move me to the same degree.


Hair and makeup 1

Congratulations Sandy, Lovely young lady.
As far as lenses go, I would argue that most, if not all, modern lens, are capable of producing images with sharpness that's well within the acceptable range.
Yes, some modern lenses are better than others. As long as an image is properly focused, composed and exposed. I would say "Sharpness" is just not that high on the priority list.

[catfishjohn]

Sharpness is not the most important thing. But having more than you need is ok, less than you need not ok. I will take sharper anytime.

[microlight]

Congratulations, Sandy! I walked my daughter down the aisle in 2016; it was a wonderful day. Your first photo is excellent, really 'in the moment' - your daughter is almost glowing. A lack of absolute sharpness in this situation is understandable and doesn't detract, and indeed many of my daughter's photos of her day (taken by a pro tog on a C*non 5D mk II) are only acceptably sharp to me, but she thinks that they're wonderful.

The sharpness that we see in photos is of course not only down to the lens, it's only one of at least three contributory factors that are necessary for a sharp rendition of a subject: the other two are nailing correct focus, and dealing with low shutter-speed and therefore photographer/subject movement. If you suffer from these last two, the level of sharpness of the lens becomes academic.

[stevebrot]

His basic argument is that lack of sharpness is usually due to the photographer more so than the lens but that, in any case, sharpness as a value to strive for in lenses is greatly overrated.

Despite the article being 10 years old I agree with him.

As do I, particularly in regard to lack of intentional detail capture (not quite the same as sharpness/resolution) being a lapse of technique rather than a problem with the lens.

As for not being obsessive about sharpness, there is something to be said for working with what one can afford and leveraging the strengths of the lenses in one's bag. A good example might be the two macro lenses that share space on my shelf. My Sigma 50/2.8 EX DG Macro is a very useful tool that I have happily used for years of close-focus work. Next to it sits a Tamron 100/2.8 (72B) that I purchased last year. The Tamron easily blows the Sigma out of the water in regards to sharpness, but it is the Sigma that finds its way into the bag simply because it is easier to focus and use hand-held.

I also own a lens that is famously soft wide-open, but is also famous for superb bokeh and very reasonable sharpness and contrast stopped down. Yes, I do dreamy soft work with my Jupiter-9 85/2. I have also shot active sports (!) and "sharp is good" shots with it at f/8. I don't sweat which range I am in. That is why I use an SLR, after all.


Steve

[macman24054]

9 times out of 10 times images that are not sharp enough is due to an image not in focus, camera movement or a shutter speed to slow for the subject movement.

[leekil]

I also like that he uses the term "corn dog" here: "Only corn dogs use cameras to photograph flat test charts; smarter people stick flat charts in a $50 scanner for better results!"

[Madaboutpix]

Like both bridal shots a lot, Sandy, and congrats on your daughter's wedding. The second one is a keeper in my book - lighting, framing, focus, gesture, direction of view, sense of place, moment (yes, even if a less important one) - and I think it will grow on you over time.

As for Ken Rockwell, I'm finding it increasingly hard to think of him without feeling my hackles rise and will, therefore, refrain from further comment, lest I may sound judgmental or even patronizing. But I do think that Alex645 has made some spot-on points above.

[Rondec]

I don't see why it has to be one or the other. Yes, things like composition, lighting and subject are probably more important than sharpness, but if you can make a sharp image, why wouldn't you? To me, it really comes down to trying to do the best you can. I do agree with the comment that often the lack of sharpness isn't a lens thing at all, but rather photographer error -- missed focus, too slow shutter speed or too high iso. There are times that I keep soft images because they are the best I have a particular moment or event, but if I have the choice, I somehow always choose the sharper image and delete the soft one.

[monochrome]

I have lenses that I know are sharp. I use them when I specifically want sharp images

• Tamron 90/2.5 Macro (most abrupt ‘snap’ into focus of any lens I own)
• FA50/2.8 Macro
• Vivitar 105/2.5 Macro
• Vivitar 90/2.5 Macro (OOF areas also nice)

My latest OMG that’s sharp! lens is the used DFA* 70-200/2.8 I got here for a good price.

My favorite lenses aren’t razor sharp, though

• Auto-Tak 85/1.8 + SMC 85/1.8
• FA43/1.9
• K35/3.5
• K200/2.5

Certainly they produce crisp images, esp. the central subject, but rendering of the entire frame, color, contrast, OOF areas are also important.

[mikeSF]

I won't read the article because I refuse to add clicks to that man's drivel, but sharp images depend upon many factors of technique and equipment, most people would agree.

[StiffLegged]

Ken Rockwell aside, when Adams and Weston shot on large format, they had to focus accurately - there is no accurate infinity mark on a Linhof or similar. They also had the benefit of lens tilt to increase the sharp area in a photograph, something we mostly dream of unless your budget runs to tilt&shift lenses. Adams' photos were sharp, if you've seen any of his huge prints you'll know what I mean. He often shot on 6x6 and occasionally a 35mm Contax, but I digress...

[Madaboutpix]

Now, I can sure relate to this concept of a less than critically sharp yet quite satisfying photograph. To this day, for instance, some of those images taken by Robert Capa during the D-Day landings rank among the most haunting war images ever taken in my book:

You Tube

You Tube

God has spared me such harrowing moments so far, and I'm so a lesser photographer, but I have on occasion experimented with tracking shots, and there are at least two I'm pretty happy with, one from London and one from Prague. The Prague one was not even "planned" as such: I just spotted those guards, instinctively raised my K-7 - which at the time would have been likely in Aperture Priority mode - and BANG. It's definitely anything but tack-sharp, but whenever I look at it, it takes me right back to Prague Castle:

[swanlefitte]

This thread has me thinking. Does the depth of field/circle of confusion aspects change because of the sharpness of a lens? It seems either a sharper lens will have a slighty bigger dof OR a less sharp lens would be more forgiving on critical focus.
If i am 1mm off will the sharper lens lose more focus than the less sharp? If so the sharper lens will also draw more attention away from the desired focus point.
This would mean under less than ideal conditions the less sharp lens might be preferred.

[AggieDad]

I notice that my lenses seem to have dual sharpness qualities. When I "nail" the photo I am appreciative for their degree of sharpness. When I don't nail (screw up?) the photo, then the lenses seem to have less than acceptable sharpness. It is an interesting phenomenon that Mr. Rockwell doesn't seem to address.