 Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
| scsambrook wrote: |
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
| . . . However, there are quite a lot of lenses that are sharp wide open but don't look that sharp due to less than perfect corrections at that aperture. One good example is the Pancolar 1.8/50, it is sharp wide open but residual aberrations mask that somewhat. |
Ian - I'm maybe a bit slow on the uptake today because I can't quite figure out how a lens can be sharp but not actually look sharp. Help the slow and aging, please  |
Misuse of the word sharp. There's the actual resolution that the lens can resolve and the perceived sharpness, the latter being a function of both resolution and contrast.
A lens can have fairly high resolution wide open but not so high perceived sharpness due to lower contrast and residual aberrations is what I should have said I suppose.
You can see it with the Pancolar 1.8/50, shots taken wide open don't look all that sharp, but pump up the contrast in photoshop and you can see there is plenty of resolved detail there.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
