i think sharpness is thru the photographer's skill though. i give you the 200mm f2L, you no skill, also die.
What is the sharpest lens of all?
- Thread starter thomas123123
- Start date
- Status
i think sharpness is thru the photographer's skill though. i give you the 200mm f2L, you no skill, also die.
1.6x, bro.
thomas123123
Deregistered
What about the leica s2? Is it a good dslr?
To get the same angle of view, one need a shorther focal length lens on a crop frame compare to a full frame. How can it be the other way around?
i think you guys talking about different things, dingaroo is talking about the multiplication number, and you are talking in the sense of getting the same field of view.
For example, a 28 mm lens delivers a moderately wide-angle FOV on a 35 mm format full-frame camera, but on a camera with a 1.6 crop factor, an image made with the same lens will have the same field of view that a full-frame camera would make with a ~45 mm lens (28 × 1.6 = 44.8)
Please go back and read what he said before jumping the gun on me then.
He said a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop frame is equivalent to a 35mm on a 35mm film SDR. How can that be?
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
True.. The same lens might even exhibit different sharpness at different subject distance, not to mention different lens of the same batch or different batches of lens.
For e.g. the C100 macro, at macro distances the images can be very sharp, but when used for portrait/landscape, it may not be as "sharp" (althou it is usually considered "sharp enough").
ok, some may say it's a macro lens so of course optimized for macro distance. But the point is, the same lens can produce different degree of sharpness at different subject distances.
So all lens probably have their own "sweet spot", whether it's aperture or subject distance.
True.. The same lens might even exhibit different sharpness at different subject distance, not to mention different lens of the same batch or different batches of lens.
For e.g. the C100 macro, at macro distances the images can be very sharp, but when used for portrait/landscape, it may not be as "sharp" (althou it is usually considered "sharp enough").
ok, some may say it's a macro lens so of course optimized for macro distance. But the point is, the same lens can produce different degree of sharpness at different subject distances.
So all lens probably have their own "sweet spot", whether it's aperture or subject distance.
Last edited:
i SEE that u have DEEP pockets.
if thats the case, go get a LAB with EXPERTS, and get ALL the lens and get them to test it out, and give u the SHARPEST lens.
you will have the most accurate answer. and since you are paying them, they won't say things that you don't like to hear.
driveanegg
Senior Member
A serious important consideration is what the end user's intended output is.
If only for websized pictures, any lens is good enough.
If poster sized pictures, perhaps any lens stopped down / L series lenses may be good enough.
If anything larger, consider medium format as suggested by night86mare.
If the picture from the kit lens is not sharp enough, there are several possibilities.
1. Front-/back focusing issues of the lens
(my 24-105mm came with severe front focusing issues at infinity at f8. Solved with a trip to CSC, magic now)
2. User error.
Motion blur, improper technique (focus/recompose for wide aperture), misfocusing.
All these are considerations.
3. Unrealistic expectations of user
The large MP sensors we have today places ridiculous stress in terms of resolution. If all pictures are viewed for 21MP at 100%/200% resolution, sorry, nothing on earth will be sharp.
Trying to help....
If only for websized pictures, any lens is good enough.
If poster sized pictures, perhaps any lens stopped down / L series lenses may be good enough.
If anything larger, consider medium format as suggested by night86mare.
If the picture from the kit lens is not sharp enough, there are several possibilities.
1. Front-/back focusing issues of the lens
(my 24-105mm came with severe front focusing issues at infinity at f8. Solved with a trip to CSC, magic now)
2. User error.
Motion blur, improper technique (focus/recompose for wide aperture), misfocusing.
All these are considerations.
3. Unrealistic expectations of user
The large MP sensors we have today places ridiculous stress in terms of resolution. If all pictures are viewed for 21MP at 100%/200% resolution, sorry, nothing on earth will be sharp.
Trying to help....
thomas123123
Deregistered
Thanks for all your opinions! I am going to rent a few lens now and will get back to you guys again.
night86mare
Deregistered
:bsmilie::bsmilie:
ok, next time you want to capture ultra wide angle (10mm) perspective, please zoom out with your legs. i wish you good luck.
night86mare
Deregistered
not everything can be zoomed too. twice the focal length? it's different from say, 50mm versus 55mm, just for example.
ovaltinemilo
Senior Member
That depends on the photographers on what kind of perspective plus effect they want for their shoot on watches...you can't use the mentioned 100mm macro and go around shooting like a walkabout lens...coz it juz won't work...so does the availability of a "sharpest lens"...even the best cameras have variations...which is the best then??
Last edited:
ovaltinemilo
Senior Member
probably need to take taxi to somewhere really far down before wide angle happens:bsmilie:
ovaltinemilo
Senior Member
Leica produce primes like 50mm f0.95...Willy foo used "Noctilux 50mm which costs S$16k by itself" on Fann Wong's wedding...go get one...it's sharp! hmmm...sharpest.... I swear by that...:bsmilie:
but got to buy an M9 to use the mount for best sharpness...have fun...
Last edited:
night86mare
Deregistered
then when get off the taxi and pay the fee, then realise the view is blocked by hdb flat..... tsk....
ovaltinemilo
Senior Member
:bsmilie::bsmilie:saddest moment of the day then..
ovaltinemilo
Senior Member
:dunno:not sure...can't stand too many oof shots?
- Status
Similar threads
