Originally posted by Theov39 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.
Originally posted by pschlute 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