sharpest lens ever

[Drew Wiley]

There's really no such thing as sharpening after the fact. You're merely faking it with an
illusion of acutance - adding something not there on the film in the first place. An obviously popular trick in Fauxtoshop etc, but also easy to do with unsharp masking in
traditional analog workflow, basically enhancing the perceived edge contrast. So here again, depends how you define the terms, i.e., "sharpness" versus "acutance". I generally
find the real thing more dependent on the specific film and developer, and the degree of
print magnification, than on the absolute MTF of the lens per se. I get more MTF fussy
when I start using small formats like 6X9.

[Ron Marshall]

Less subjective:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

[Armin Seeholzer]

Back to the Xenar... Are you sure the bokeh is smooth on it? It's a Tessar after all, right?

Its so for me but it will maybe not be for you, bokeh is very subjectiv, some will like it some not. At least in studio distances it is, outside I did not test it jet.

Cheers Armin

[E. von Hoegh]

Is sharp good? Is sharp eminently important? Do it in Photoshop and you can sharpen it until it's unrecognizable!!!

If you want to reproduce fine detail, sharp is good. Photoshop will not replace detail that was missed in the original image (be it a negative or a digital file), the illusion of detail is not detail.

[Trius]

Some of the images were quite fuzzy, but I liked 'em.

Not LF, but if it had been LF I would have shot it the same way. Sharpness isn't always everything, or even important.

[Noah A]

I'm not sure what the above photo adds to the discussion since the OP was inquiring about sharp lenses. I can't figure out why so many people offer their negative opinions about sharpness or resolution whenever anyone makes such an inquiry.

I hope the point has been made that many, if not most, modern lenses are sharp and that fussing over minute differences may be futile.

I can't speak for the OP here but I understand why a photographer would want sharp lenses. I do very large color prints from my 4x5 negs and I do want the sharpness to hold up. As I said in my first post, given a relatively modern lens, sharpness will likely have more to do with technique and other factors besides lens sharpness. But the question of lens sharpness is a valid one if you're trying to do a certain kind of work.

That doesn't mean that sharpness is the MOST important thing about a photo. It just means that some photographers are looking for a level of technical precision that (hopefully) complements the aesthetic and conceptual goals of their photographs.

Maybe someone can explain to me why whenever someone asks about a sharp lens, a handful of other people feel the need to say sharpness isn't important and they talk about soft-focus or post out-of-focus photos. Soft focus is fine and every bit as valid as a technique as sharp-focus.

Personally the only thing I like less than a soft petzval photo is a tilted aero-ektar photo with only one random thing in focus and the rest blurred to oblivion. But while I'm sure I'm not the only one here who doesn't care for that style personally, I don't feel the need to post my sharp photographs in the threads about soft-focus lenses. Just sayin'.

[Trius]

That wasn't a negative opinion about sharpness. My response was not to the OP, but to the post I quoted. I like my lenses sharp as anyone. The OP provided no context to his question(s) so it seemed a variety of perspectives and contributions was fair game. I apologize for not understanding the expected behaviour here. I'd be happy to remove my post if it helps.

And BTW, the photo was NOT out of focus, nor soft focus. Look at it again.

[rdenney]

Back to the Xenar... Are you sure the bokeh is smooth on it? It's a Tessar after all, right?

When it comes to bokeh, or anything else, there are tessars and there are tessars. I have an old B&L Tessar that has rotten bokeh and an Ilex Paragon that is very nice. The Ilex-Calumet Caltar (a replacement for the Commercial Ektar) is my sharpest Tessar, but the Caltar Y (an Ysarex) is contrastier in ways that count.

Rick "no such thing as 'best'; 'most appropriate' is the most that can be hoped for" Denney

[Heroique]

This thread brought to mind the very famous quote below, which will add a dose of salt to our claims and may help us ruminate further about specific lenses:

“I don’t know what it is about the [150mm APO Sironar-S],” forum member Kerry Thalmann says in his Future Classics article, “but images made with it just scream ‘SHARP!’ and have an incredible sense of “depth.” I’ve used a lot 4x5 “normal” lenses, both modern and classic, and this one beats them all IMHO. Out of all the lenses I own, this is the last one I would ever part with (you’ll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands).” (He later says the same holds true for the 110mm XL & 135mm APO Sironar-S.)

When Kerry says “screams SHARP!” and “beats them all,” one naturally asks whether he’s talking about the results of carefully controlled laboratory tests (for he has conducted them), or real-world use (for he’s been known as a busy practitioner, too).

Because he mentions “depth,” I suspect he’s talking about real-world use…

[Noah A]

That wasn't a negative opinion about sharpness. My response was not to the OP, but to the post I quoted. I like my lenses sharp as anyone. The OP provided no context to his question(s) so it seemed a variety of perspectives and contributions was fair game. I apologize for not understanding the expected behaviour here. I'd be happy to remove my post if it helps.

And BTW, the photo was NOT out of focus, nor soft focus. Look at it again.

I didn't mean to single you out, lots of folks replied with comments about sharpness not being everything, etc. Sorry about the rant, but it just seems like whenever someone asks about sharpness or resolution, he/she gets jumped on and/or dismissed.