[zapp]

Photography combines science with art - both extremes are possible, pure science and pure art. Just realize that pure metric tests don’t tell the whole story and vice versa.

[stevebrot]

I cannot remember a single instance where I published an image to either PF or Flickr (or committed to print, for that matter) where critical elements were not sharply defined. To do that, one requires resolution appropriate for the final viewing distance and (usually) contrast adequate to make use of the resolution.

Note: The key qualifier in the above is the term "critical elements". I have posted plenty of photos that do not include test chart detail, but not where the the subject demanded. Note to that the "critical element" may be as limited to a single edge of a leaf or the leading edge of an eyebrow.

Interestingly, test chart performance correlates strongly with having critical elements sharply defined. That is why I use test charts for both AF fine tune and (along with test shots) for general lens evaluation. FWIW, test shots are the most sensitive indicator of lens softness. To put it even more bluntly, I don't even bother with AF fine tune or test charts if test shots are soft.*


Steve

* I'm sort of fortunate to only own a few lenses that are too soft for serious work.

[Wheatfield]

The major problem with testing lenses is testing lenses. Very few people have the skills or equipment necessary to do an accurate, repeatable test.
About the only person on this forum that I would trust to be able to run an accurate test on a lens is bdery.

[pinholecam]

Beyond a certain point of sharpness, its no longer obvious to the viewer and distracts from the photo.
There on, things like composition, situation, comes in and are more important than just edge to edge sharp.

There are also the unmeasured benefits of some lenses, like small size, bokeh in more situations, tactile feel and for some people even the focus the right/wrong way, etc.

I go on week long photo trips that start at 4.30am and end at 11pm, every day for the whole week. A macho all sharp lens may be good to write about from the comfort of my desk, but I would probably be so beaten up by day 3-4 that I'd take some off days from shooting for that week. (ie. missed opportunities)

Often, I shoot in total darkness just before or at the hint of sunrise, nightscapes, sunsets. A more familiar tactile lens does make it easier to do the focus compared to a focus by wire one where I am always in doubt on what the camera chose as the highest contrast to focus on.

[tibbitts]

Beyond a certain point of sharpness, its no longer obvious to the viewer and distracts from the photo.

Well, you can usually create more unsharpness at will if you find sharpness distracting, but you can't create more sharpness if it isn't in the image to start with. Well, arguably software sharpening can create the illusion of sharpness, but not really add detail the way unsharpen tools can obscure it.

[Rondec]

Test charts are useful to quantify stuff for reviews. If you want to compare distortion or border sharpness, you kind of need to have some baseline for different lenses. I think this sort of information is not understood and people try to compare numbers shot on different cameras and that isn't really possible.

I think contrast and microcontrast are more important than sharpness in creating high quality images, but I don't know that there is a reason to act as though sharpness is unimportant. I seldom deliberately shoot soft images (there's a difference between creative blur and images that are just not sharp) and with landscape photos I typically use a tripod, electronic shutter and pixel shift to maximize the sharpness, color depth and dynamic range of my image. Certainly I prefer to use lenses that have some level of sharpness stopped down a little.

[house]

My experience is that normal and short tele prime lenses are sharp enough stopped down. Wides and ultra wides generally have visible deterioration towards the corners at modest reproduction sizes even stopped down. Only recent releases have changed that.

[mikesbike]

I agree with the video presentation to a degree- only practical experience will reveal the particular lens needs of each individual, according to the types of shooting in which that individual is typically engaged. But then, based on this, one can read lens reviews in a knowledgeable way to decide whether the lens reviewed will be the most useful choice. So information provided by these reviews can definitely be of significant assistance. I always read lens reviews to find out about the properties of a lens to help determine whether it could be suitable for my needs.

---------- Post added 03-03-22 at 06:52 PM ----------

TL;DNR: some images require sharpness, some images don't require sharpness, some images require softness. If sharpness really is required, then test targets provide objective and comparable data across lenses and settings.

I too agree with this. Another basic reason for many of us having more than one lens in the same FL range, in addition to other considerations, such as size/weight, FL (range) for versatility or special applications, and aperture capability.

---------- Post added 03-03-22 at 07:02 PM ----------

As an example the FA77 does not lab test as wonderfully as the images users get with it.

I also agree with this. In some cases, results from a particular lens frequently present far better than test reviews would predict. The DA 18-135mm DC WR lens is another one of these.

[AggieDad]

I cannot remember a single instance where I published an image to either PF or Flickr (or committed to print, for that matter) where critical elements were not sharply defined. To do that, one requires resolution appropriate for the final viewing distance and (usually) contrast adequate to make use of the resolution.

On the other hand,I cannot remember a single instance where someone looked at one of my images and said, "Ooh, I really like that. It is so sharply defined."

But then there are reasons why some folks prefer Caravaggio to Renoir.

[MikeMcE]

On the other hand,I cannot remember a single instance where someone looked at one of my images and said, "Ooh, I really like that. It is so sharply defined."

But then there are reasons why some folks prefer Caravaggio to Renoir.

Reason being it’s expected to be sharp , crisp , and colorful! I also comment regularly about lack of all three.


Hang up and DRIVE!

[Wheatfield]

On the other hand,I cannot remember a single instance where someone looked at one of my images and said, "Ooh, I really like that. It is so sharply defined."

But then there are reasons why some folks prefer Caravaggio to Renoir.

If the genre expects a high degree of sharpness and the picture doesn't supply it, then the picture fails.
A Group 64 style landscape that isn't sharp from corner to corner and front to back fails. Well actually, it wouldn't be a Group 64 landscape, it would just be a junk picture trying to be something it isn't.

At the same time, if the image calls for a softer rendering then excessive sharpness will cause it to fail.

This is why good photographers flex their styles based on their subject.

[stevebrot]

On the other hand,I cannot remember a single instance where someone looked at one of my images and said, "Ooh, I really like that. It is so sharply defined."

Ummm...OK

But then there are reasons why some folks prefer Caravaggio to Renoir.

I was not fully honest in the comment quoted. I have plenty of photos on Flickr that have more in common with Renoir or Monet than with Ansel Adams or where missed focus is part of the composition or haze intrinsic to the subject. More correctly, I should have qualified by saying "where the subject demands" and/or "where softness would be a detriment".

If the genre expects a high degree of sharpness and the picture doesn't supply it, then the picture fails.

Sadly, this is so.

I regularly reject PEG entries having obvious missed focus or where intentional softness is broadly applied to simulate "dreamy" to the detriment of a subject that would obviously benefit from a more focused approach.

Similarly, corner to corner sharp where subject, composition, or technique are non-compelling will not help overcome those serious deficiencies.


Steve

[Wheatfield]

Similarly, corner to corner sharp where subject, composition, or technique are non-compelling will not help overcome those serious deficiencies.

Steve

Somewhere in a box I have the world's worst picture. I shot it myself.
I got dragged along on some sort of outing that ended up in a place with miles and miles of miles and miles. Never had I been to a more dreary place.
Anyway, as I always did at that time, I had a camera with me. In this case it was a Burke & James 4x5 monorail.
Anyway, I took a picture of a rusty oil drum that was being used as a trash can with some broken glass in the foreground. It is beautifully sharp from corner to corner, has great tonality, and is absolutely the most useless excuse for a picture ever made. To say it has serious deficiencies is being kind to it.