Is this lens sharp?

[woodrim]

Here is a full size image from a 16mp APS-C. The photograph isn't anything special, just a sample picture. How would you rate the sharpness of the lens?

[iangreenhalgh1]

On my monitor, it is sharp but not very sharp, certainly sharp enough though, 7 out of 10 I think.

Looks like running it through a good sharpener like NIK Software's would make a sizeable improvement,

[sichko]

The full sized version is certainly sharp enough to demonstrate the inadequacies of the resizing software used by the server. Both the full-screen version (1650 x 1097 on my monitor) and the small version, included in the post, show distinct resizing artefacts.

[Lightshow]

Sharpness isn't too bad, there are some jpg compression artifacts that will mask the real sharpness available in the raw, as seen in the "NO BOAT DOCKING" sign.

[poilu]

[woodrim]

[Nordentro]

[Tervueren]

Looks fine on my apple screen but someones nicked the birds head lol

[woodrim]

[Lightshow]

[JohnBee]

[poilu]

[skida]

I thought the original picture had been sharpened and that was causing a light fringe on the straight lines, but I bow to more knowledgeable people if they are telling me it is resizing artefacts.

[peterqd]

[woodrim]

Okay, I suppose all are right to some degree. The picture was out of the camera jpeg, then mildly sharpened. I will take another after checking setting in the camera - I've started taking pictures before going through everything in camera. Perhaps I'll start with a raw, but I haven't much expertise in processing raw. To do a fair job of this, I will wait for the viewfinder hood I ordered; it has a +2.75 diopter which I'm hoping will solve my up close eyesight problem.

[woodrim]

Aside from the jpeg issues, I'm coming to the conclusion that this lens does live up to its reputation. I'm learning more about this new NEX, so the future will be more successful for my images. I've discovered that so far all of my lenses go past infinity with these adapters. That's actually preferable to me since otherwise it could stop short, providing for less than optimum sharpness, and I wouldn't necessarily know. I learned today how to use the zoom feature for detail focusing. I still won't be able to see well enough outdoors until the hood arrives, but I was able to focus very accurately today indoors.

[woodrim]

I was able to give this lens a better workout on the NEX-5N and now have a much better appreciation. The lens is known for its resolution in macro, but it can also perform in regular use. However, as a landscape lens - anything at infinity - it isn't quite as good as my better mid range lenses, but is still quite respectable. At medium distances, what you would do at portrait length or across the room, it excels with excellent sharpness. I gave it a go yesterday at the creek along with the Series 1 200mm reported in another thread.

This lens, as well as the 200mm, gets little attention in the forum. Perhaps it's because of the cost; these do get a premium and probably more than they should, but they are also not as available as other lenses in the focal length. But when it comes to versatility, this will give you macro, portrait, and whatever else with very good results. I caution using it as a portrait lens for women.

1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8


9

[luisalegria]

More seagulls !

Well done. Yes it does look more than sharp enough.

[IAZA]

#5 is outstanding
I believe the lens can do both macro and portrait, and landsape too