Originally posted by fs999 So how do you explain these photos. F2 1/125 100 ISO
F2 1/250 100 ISO
F2 1/30 100 ISO
The edge sharpness of many photos is not to critical to the photo. Lens has to be very dull to show soft edges at reduced sizes.
My worst lens reduced to 3840 appears to be sharp.
My FA 28-200, a universally acknowledged terrible lens and Tamron rebadge rated at 7.3. By my scale, since I get amore accurate reading by subtracting unused numbers, (there are no lenses rate under 5 so I subtract 5, and just use the numbers actually used by the rating scale, that's 2.3 out of 5.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-28-200mm-F3.8-5.6-Zoom-Lens.html
Just for the record, I've never paid over $100 for a lens rated less than 3.5. I've never paid $1000 for lens rated less than 4/5 (9/10).
Yet reduce the images to 3840x2160 and you get useable images. Softness usually applies only to pixel peeping. Only my Vivtar M 135 ƒ/2.8 is so bad as to be unusable even at reduced size.
I quite like these images, but since getting the D FA 28-105 I hardly use it, and last time I used it I tossed 100% of the images. You always have choice, use a newer lens that's sharp or an older on like the FA 28-200 that isn't. That doesn't mean you'll never get keepers at reduced size from older glass. It's not that you never get good images, it's that you don't get consistently good images in all circumstances. You increase your odds with a better lens.