View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3702 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:47 pm Post subject: Lens with Optimal Sharpness |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
What interests me is how do you perceive optimal sharpness. I came to believe that everyone sees it differently and by a lot. Thus showcases of sharp lenses tend to be very different and variable. Even more if presented in 1024 pixels.
Now this is my heretic belief: 99% of every healthy lens ever produced (with exception of some soft-focus and mirror-reflex) can make 1024 pixels usefully sharp in times of post-production and sharpening algorithms.
I opened this topic to gather examples of thesis above. Please post your 1024 pixels photos that you see as ultimately sharp. Sharp-perfect. That makes you think: wow this lens totally rocks! I'd like to buy it right away (or never sell my specimen). Wide-open usage or closed down isn't an issue here. Show both. _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16628 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
Well, I guess what you REALLY mean is optimal ACUTANCE, which is sharpness AND contrast. May I refer to the famous paper of Zeiss' Dr Hubert Nasse about that. What woudl it help you if the SHARPNESS is really high but the contrast really low or vice versa? _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
kds315* wrote: |
Well, I guess what you REALLY mean is optimal ACUTANCE, which is sharpness AND contrast. May I refer to the famous paper of Zeiss' Dr Hubert Nasse about that. What woudl it help you if the SHARPNESS is really high but the contrast really low or vice versa? |
I guess that people use words in different ways. My own understanding of Sharpness is that it is a function of both Resolution and Acutance, with Acutance being a measure of edge contrast. See for example. _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3702 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
Of course you are both right and thank you for additional explanation.
Nevertheless the "challenge" remains the same. Here's a "perfect" one for me. It's friend's Gujo Vinjerac and AT-X Tokina 2.8/60-120mm:
_________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AhamB
Joined: 22 Jun 2008 Posts: 733 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AhamB wrote:
Nearly perfect for me. I am seeing some sharpening haloes around the windows. It's a nice shot though.
I think it depends a lot on the type of shot whether sharpening can equalize the difference between a sharp lens with a lot of micro contrast and a less sharp lens with a more flat rendering. Anyway, the rendering in its totality (including color separation, colour balance, bokeh, etc.) is more important for me than just sharpness. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
For me sharpness is only about how good details are looking.
So contrast, resolution and colors/tones are more imortant than accurate and clean borders of objects
The pic by Pancolart does not look sharp to me. The sharpening killed many details.
This pic I made today looks sharp to me (no PP)
_________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jito
Joined: 29 Nov 2011 Posts: 113
|
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jito wrote:
I do think sharpness is the most relevant characteristic of lenses.
I've used sharpning a couple of times but I don't think sharpening should be included in this discussion. There is no way for your computer to know what to sharp and what not to. For example, I used sharpening on a picture of a bird, the smooth edges of the feathers obviously got sharpened too. How do you prevent this from happening? There is just no way. A picture MUST capture a both sharp and smooth edges, IMHO there's no way around softness with post processing.
I think the way you put it, it becomes more a discussion about pixel counting and about what fate do pictures get. But I'm not sure about the usefulness of a 1024px wide picture.
My first digital camera had a 1.3MP sensor which is roughly the size we're talking about and it was clearly not enough resolution for a 10x15cm print. When I upgraded to a 2MP camera, the pictures came out noticeably sharper.
Even the picture you posted, sure it's fine to look at, but I feel like zooming in a bit to see the houses and I can't. If it would be a print, I would sure bring it closer to my eyes to see more detail, and then we hit the resolution limitation again.
I'm not a megapixel sucker, my camera has a 12MP sensor and I usually don't even use the maximum resolution. But in a couple of occasions, it could be nice to have more resolution so I could crop more. In those situations sharpness is essential. Maybe it's not visible at 1MP, but at 3MP, I ensure you that my canon kit lens is noticeably soft. Add some cropping and there you have it, you reach the lens sharpness limitation. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10959 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:46 pm Post subject: Re: Lens with Optimal Sharpness |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Pancolart wrote: |
What interests me is how do you perceive optimal sharpness. I came to believe that everyone sees it differently and by a lot. Thus showcases of sharp lenses tend to be very different and variable. Even more if presented in 1024 pixels.
Now this is my heretic belief: 99% of every healthy lens ever produced (with exception of some soft-focus and mirror-reflex) can make 1024 pixels usefully sharp in times of post-production and sharpening algorithms.
I opened this topic to gather examples of thesis above. Please post your 1024 pixels photos that you see as ultimately sharp. Sharp-perfect. That makes you think: wow this lens totally rocks! I'd like to buy it right away (or never sell my specimen). Wide-open usage or closed down isn't an issue here. Show both. |
Very interesting topic!
I have noticed some cross-sensory effects when I see a sharp photo. For example, I can smell the apple shown in the link below, and some flower images posted by members here have scent, especially the lilies.
But I can only really compare my results to decide if lens is 'sharp' compared to my other lens' results. I know some lenses I have are capable of sharper results than I have got (yet, I hope! ), because I have seen the better results from the same camera posted online. I look for examples from FF cameras!
I think showcase is wild because 1024 pixels is a different area, greater or less than the area shown using 1024 pixels from different camera megapixels and sensor sizes.
To compare a lens sharpness among different cameras, the same size areas should be compared -- the same size portion of the image circle projected by the lens onto the sensor.
If I have 12mp and 24mp FF cameras, the crop from 24mp might be 240kp (1/100). The crop from 12mp would be 120kp, or half as many pixels, to have the same size area, 1/100 of full size. To show both 1/100 areas on the screen at the same size, the 240kp image needs to be reduced by 1/2 . In reducing the pixel dimensions, pixels from the 24mp image crop need to be (intelligently) thrown and combined with adjacent pixels, maybe introducing artifacts not from the lens. Comparing using different size sensors is a little more complex but has the same need to equalize pixel dimensions for proper comparative viewing.
Two recent examples of lenses that I think are sharp, with photos & crops:
http://forum.mflenses.com/asahi-opt-co-super-multi-coated-takumar-14-200-t40953.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/super-multi-coated-takumar-11-9-85mm-m42-rare-lens-t46061.html _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjphoto
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 Posts: 410
|
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jjphoto wrote:
Sharpness is cheap and only a slider away but you can't make resolution no matter what you do. It's either there or it's not, at least at the optically challenging end of the aperture range, ie wide open.
Last edited by jjphoto on Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:02 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
This group has a keen ability to complicate subjects. Pancolart: I understood your post to recognize the different perceptions people have and you're looking for examples from us that fall within those perceptions. One thing I've realized just recently is that my images aren't showing up as sharp in my pbase. Since I've only just now recognized it, I wonder if they've changed their compression or resizing methods recently. To save space and expense, I had always selected an option there that resized my uploads to a 800 pixel size. This save space and also discourages people from copying images for other use. I've just started to resize them myself before uploading and notice a considerably better definition. My images will still typically be 800 pixels in the largest direction, but for this posting I'm loading the images directly here in the requested 1024 size. I find that most lenses are pretty sharp, as you said, and even more so when taking close-ups. Here's a few from various lenses that I consider very sharp; are they?
_________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
100% crop from Zeiss 60/2.8 Makro-Planar. I think I had two tubes stacked.
I am not overly concerned with sharpness. It's more important to create an interesting image. That said, this is the sharpest lens I own. It would be the next to last lens I'd sell if forced to at gunpoint! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
Woodrim, they all look sharp to me. Maybe the wasp's eye isn't but that tree trunk sure is! What lens was used for the tree trunk? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Kram: The tree bark-art is from one of my most recent additions, the Meyer Lydith. I was surprised how sharp it is. I may post some other pictures from it soon. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
sichko wrote: |
My own understanding of Sharpness is that it is a function of both Resolution and Acutance, with Acutance being a measure of edge contrast. See for example. |
I also learned it this way.
Sharpness = Resolvance + Acutance (Micro-Contrast)
As for the 1024 pixel thing: at 1024 pixel size, every lens is sharp. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
Orio wrote: |
As for the 1024 pixel thing: at 1024 pixel size, every lens is sharp |
+1
even my Nokia phone is very sharp everywhere, 28mm wide open f2.8
_________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|