This is almost a definitional thing. For Kasson, capture sharpening should have essentially no overshoot. When we look at an image to evaluate sharpening, we're necessarily looking at some sort of output, and for psychophysical reasons some overshoot almost always looks better.
I think "sharpness" is pursued far too much. Maybe it is the result of 15-20 years of wanting digital photography to be "good enough" -- a target passed more than a decade ago, but the momentum continues. We all want technically perfect photos rather than pictures that please us and move us.
I see endless lens tests scrutinising sharpness to levels no ordinary mortal will ever see, but not enough consideration of the overall visual quality of images. Maybe it is time for a "return to vinyl" retro movement which connects us to the great pictures taken in the past?
rob_ww wrote:
I think "sharpness" is pursued far too much. Maybe it is the result of 15-20 years of wanting digital photography to be "good enough" -- a target passed more than a decade ago, but the momentum continues. We all want technically perfect photos rather than pictures that please us and move us.
I see endless lens tests scrutinising sharpness to levels no ordinary mortal will ever see, but not enough consideration of the overall visual quality of images. Maybe it is time for a "return to vinyl" retro movement which connects us to the great pictures taken in the past?
I think you mean the "return to film" movement; an aesthetic that was never fully abandoned.
Not sure about the retro part; film is still very popular (as are albums).
The tremendous popularity of old lenses and newly manufactured models designed to produce "classical" renderings are testament to that.
Same with "filmic" filters; Glimmerglass, BPMs, etc.
Dozens of presets, plug-ins, LUTS, and profiles are employed to help round off digital's sharp edges.
etc; etc.
In many cases being overly concerned with sharpness is a beginners mistake.
One of the top concerns about a specific lens is if it's "sharp" and for many photographers, the sharper and more contrasty the better, since we must take advantage of all these megapixels. Right?
We've notice that from comments in blogs, videos and forums. Post-processing software also contributes to this and we see many articles about sharpening and how to push our photos to the limit without creating undesirable side-effects.
I agree that we may have overshot here and perhaps it's the reason classic lenses and film are becoming more popular today. Perhaps the sharpening 'pendulum' is starting to move to the other side while rendering, color and composition are becoming the main focus again. Aside from landscape photography, I can see this in my own photography today.
Fred Miranda wrote:
One of the top concerns about a specific lens is if it's "sharp" and for many photographers, the sharper and more contrasty the better, since we must take advantage of all these megapixels. Right?
We've notice that from comments in blogs, videos and forums. Post-processing software also contributes to this and we see many articles about sharpening and how to push our photos to the limit without creating undesirable side-effects.
I agree that we may have overshot here and perhaps it's the reason classic lenses and film are becoming more popular today. Perhaps the sharpening 'pendulum' is starting to move to the other side while rendering, color and composition are becoming the main focus again. Aside from landscape photography, I can see this in my own photography today....Show more →
Interesting point Fred... I too am seeing this more and more as of late. I think images have become quite clinical to the point that the debate on "sharpness" never ends. When I look back on some my works from 10 years ago with my A99 with old Minolta G lens seem to have that look that I am more drawn to when I am doing landscape work. Those lens have something magical to them in their own right.
Still there is some magic in using a current 50mm APO f/2 lens when shot wide open with a close subject – that rendering – ultra-sharp subject against blurred background – reminds me of a short portrait lens used on 6x7 film, for example the Pentax 105 on the Pentax 67. With the CV 50 f/1, sometimes the results look like a wide aperture lens used on 4x5 film.
For landscape, lens sharpness is not as critical as lens resolving power. Output from using a 50-year old lens can look very sharp on a 50-100mp camera, but put on a modern APO lens and there is a substantial increase in the amount of detail that is discernible in the photo. This is important to many landscape shooters, as we work our way toward matching 8x10 film as far as level of detail.
Overall though, this is a gear forum, so when we post a shot, we like to label the camera and lens used. Doing so in another context would be somewhat ridiculous, much like a painter titling their painting the name of the paint type or brushes used.
Fred Miranda wrote:
One of the top concerns about a specific lens is if it's "sharp" and for many photographers, the sharper and more contrasty the better, since we must take advantage of all these megapixels. Right?
...
Perhaps the sharpening 'pendulum' is starting to move to the other side while rendering, color and composition are becoming the main focus again....
Nice thought...
but... sometimes, when I read about "character", "rendering", etc... I wonder... what keeps super sharp lenses like Voigtlander 50mm APO away to "render" and "composing" brilliantly? Why cann't we have this performance if we use a super sharp lens like this?
I rather believe that maybe not-as-sharp lenses manufacturers needs some rhetoric and poetry to be able to sell that lenses, just how it is call "redefining language". Or in other words, to absorb the property of an attribute for oneself, and exclude others from having them.
This is just theory and of course rhetoric, what I'm also telling here, but, let's go to the practical arena:
Let's say we find another "arty" lens such, for instance, as a Voigtlander 50mm f:1,2 (or any other of your choice) with more "character", and better rendering than his APO sibling. What keeps us away to process the image to match the rendering of the first one? Can anyone with the first one process the image to match the latter?
Cheers
luismanibarro wrote:
Can anyone with the first one process the image to match the latter?
While technically you can "create" any picture that has ever been and will ever be taken with Photosthop today, the answer for practical purposes is no.
BastianK wrote:
While technically you can "create" any picture that has ever been and will ever be taken with Photosthop today, the answer for practical purposes is no.
You cannot turn this:
voigtlander_35_1.4_nokton_e_bokeh_1.4_Bokeh_Comp
With a simple click of a button into this:
voigtlander_35_1.7_ultron_VM_bokeh_1.7
And vice versa.
Well, you are right, and I would bear that in mind... if I would shoot lots of light balls...
But, those onion rings in the first image are also produced by a Voigtlander 50mm apo?
from your very same reviewer... not the very best bokeh in the world, but good enough for me.
Maybe your 35 ultron shines on bokeh, but I can not accept a heavy color shift and field curvature as it has, just to enjoy a bit better bokeh.
You are mixing up many things and terminology here.
You also don't have to shoot with point light sources in the back to notice the differences between two lenses.
The differences are there, many people will be able to see them in a direct comparison, less people will care about them.
Few will even be remotely able to make a picture taken with the 2/50 Apo look like one taken with the 1.2/50.
Either way: if you are happy with what images taken with the 2/50 Apo look like: go for it.
I am not here to convince anyone what lens to buy, I honestly couldn't care less what lenses people buy.
luismanibarro wrote:
but... sometimes, when I read about "character", "rendering", etc... I wonder... what keeps super sharp lenses like Voigtlander 50mm APO away to "render" and "composing" brilliantly? Why cann't we have this performance if we use a super sharp lens like this?
Regarding this point, I think there are rare exceptions to this, e.g. Sigma 35/1.2 is very sharp (nearly as sharp as the best 35mms out there) but retains pleasant and smooth rendering. Well, at the cost of weight & size unfortunately .
rob_ww wrote:
I think "sharpness" is pursued far too much. Maybe it is the result of 15-20 years of wanting digital photography to be "good enough" -- a target passed more than a decade ago, but the momentum continues. We all want technically perfect photos rather than pictures that please us and move us.
I see endless lens tests scrutinising sharpness to levels no ordinary mortal will ever see, but not enough consideration of the overall visual quality of images. Maybe it is time for a "return to vinyl" retro movement which connects us to the great pictures taken in the past?
I own a 61mp camera so sharpness and resolving power of a lens matters to me greatly but not at the expense of how a lens renders for a given shooting scenario. Its why I own 2 50mm lenses - The 50mm f1.2 GM, 50mm f1.2 Nokton Aspherical and I also have the 55mm f1.8 ZA. Each of these serves a very different purpose in my kit and below are some examples of my images with each lens
50mm f1.2 GM - Portraits - The mix of high resolving detail and wonderful rendering truly is something special.
50mm f1.2 Nokton - Some of my street photography - This lens gives me a more film inspired look SOOC and can this can be further enhanced in post. For the images I want to create I wanted a lens that was; MF, not clinically sharp even at narrower apertures and mounts natively onto my camera with EXIF data as I no longer wanted to use vintage lenses.
55mm f1.8 - Regular street photography - Used to be my previous portrait lens but often I’m not a fan of its rendering, has noticeable CA and its a bit soft at f1.8. However its small size makes its a wonderful street photography lens as this lens its very very sharp stopped down.
BastianK wrote:
You are mixing up many things and terminology here.
You also don't have to shoot with point light sources in the back to notice the differences between two lenses.
The differences are there, many people will be able to see them in a direct comparison, less people will care about them.
Few will even be remotely able to make a picture taken with the 2/50 Apo look like one taken with the 1.2/50.
Either way: if you are happy with what images taken with the 2/50 Apo look like: go for it.
I am not here to convince anyone what lens to buy, I honestly couldn't care less what lenses people buy....Show more →
You also mixed up the terms I used. And by no means I want and I'm not gonna be so rude to you. I do not want to convince anyone either about my vision, nor I felt you were doing so.
You actually understood what I wanted to mean and tried to show it the way it isn't by tweaking my words.
And that's enough for me.
SNJOps wrote:
I own a 61mp camera so sharpness and resolving power of a lens matters to me greatly but not at the expense of how a lens renders for a given shooting scenario. Its why I own 2 50mm lenses - The 50mm f1.2 GM, 50mm f1.2 Nokton Aspherical and I also have the 55mm f1.8 ZA. Each of these serves a very different purpose in my kit and below are some examples of my images with each lens
50mm f1.2 GM - Portraits - The mix of high resolving detail and wonderful rendering truly is something special.
50mm f1.2 Nokton - Some of my street photography - This lens gives me a more film inspired look SOOC and can this can be further enhanced in post. For the images I want to create I wanted a lens that was; MF, not clinically sharp even at narrower apertures and mounts natively onto my camera with EXIF data as I no longer wanted to use vintage lenses.
55mm f1.8 - Regular street photography - Used to be my previous portrait lens but often I’m not a fan of its rendering, has noticeable CA and its a bit soft at f1.8. However its small size makes its a wonderful street photography lens as this lens its very very sharp stopped down. ...Show more →
I think we are in serious agreement I have 61Mp too and I can see differences at 200% zoom ratios sometimes. But when I go back to looking at the picture at normal viewing levels, even after substantial cropping, the differences do not stand out. Your sample photos are great and reinforce the point that different lenses have different properties. I would argue greater sharpness is not the decisive factor between the examples given. To my eye the 55ZA is a wonderful photo. That is because of the scene, the time, the position and decisions of the photographer, of course, but the lens did not let you down!
rob_ww wrote:
I think we are in serious agreement I have 61Mp too and I can see differences at 200% zoom ratios sometimes. But when I go back to looking at the picture at normal viewing levels, even after substantial cropping, the differences do not stand out. Your sample photos are great and reinforce the point that different lenses have different properties. I would argue greater sharpness is not the decisive factor between the examples given. To my eye the 55ZA is a wonderful photo. That is because of the scene, the time, the position and decisions of the photographer, of course, but the lens did not let you down!...Show more →
The 55/1.8 ZA is a wonderful AF lens. It lacks a bit of contrast wide open but resolution is high across the field. The CV 50/2 APO beats it in everything though, especially in regards to color, axial CA and onion ring pattern in the highlights.
When I saw that review some time ago, I liked APO's shots better almost every time when the exposure settings were the same. For many comparisons there ZA has lower shutter speed and on those shots they look more comparable.
I feel like both APO 35 and 50 lenses are ones of the brightest F2 lenses at F2 I used. Checked DXO and they rate 1.4/50 ZA as 1.8 T stops which is not cool.
.
