Originally posted by twilhelm I feel compelled to reply... I can respect the desire for an ultra sharp lens. I’ve had a couple of Sigma lenses (very good copies) that I considered sharp, but the image was lifeless. Yet I can take my FA31 or FA43 which were designed with some fall off at the edges, and get stunning photos. I haven’t purchased one YET, but I believe the new D FA* 50 will be the best of both worlds.
All that being said, many of the older lenses do produce professional quality images in the right hands. A poor photographer can make the most expensive equipment worthless.
I totally agree with your words.
It's all about how the final image looks to your eyes. It's a "pack", not only sharpness/detail or color or distorsions or etc.
For example, everyone know that Canon's color rendition leans towards the "warm" side. Why? Simple. They have always been specialized/focused to social events and portraits, where that color rendition shows its best. In my opinion no other brand can beat Canon's skin tones and that's why it's the "best" for weddings, people, portraits... Traditionally Canon's software has always been faster than other brands too and that's why altogether make Canon the right choice for those photographers who shoot mainly sports and people. I do have 5 Canon DSLRs (#4 7D and #1 600D) and have been quite happy with them, matched with different lenses (Canon, Tokina, Sigma and Tamron). As I'm mainly a landscape photographer, I do actually prefer the color rendition from Nikon (which is more "neutral" than Canon, with more vivid colors, especially greens and blues -i.e. vegetation and skies-) and now Pentax (which leans a bit towards the "cold" side though). Both Nikon and Pentax awsome for nature and landscapes, but not so for people and portraits (cold skin tones).
When using my Canon 600D, I noticed that my Tamron lens also leans towards the "warm" side, making the photos look too warm ("warm" Canon + "warm" Tamron = 2× "warm" results), what was really disappointing after a trip to Iceland, where the real "fresh" and "chlorophillic" greens watched by my eyes didn't correspond at all with my photos, which turned onto sort of "dried" and "lifeless" vegetation, much more brownish and therefore much less crisp and exciting. That was the reason why I started using Nikon and now Pentax for my landscape photography. It's true when professionals say "Canon better for people/portraits" and "Nikon better for landscape/nature".
Not all is about sharpness or color though as you say. If you are not using the same brand for your lens (which is intended to be the perfect match for your camera, the perfect tandem right out of the factory), you'll have to play with different lenses to get your perfect match (like people do when trying to pair their Hi-Fi systems with the right speakers: "warm" electronics usually work better with "bright/metallic" speakers and viceversa).
I wouldn't like either super-sharp lenses which deliver lifeless images. But I try to get all, including the sharpness, a way to justify high resolution cameras.
But as the digital cameras have increased significantly their resolutions along the years, the manufacturers know that these new sensors demand more and more resolutive lenses, and that's why an old lens may be good but may be not so good too for a new high-res camera, which demands a high-res lens to allow crops without lose of detail, etc.