Jump to content

Can a lens be too sharp?


kirktuck

Recommended Posts

I've been shooting 3 of the Leica 50's recently, the 50 Summilux, the current version of the Summicron, and most recently the previous version of the Summicron. While the current Summicron is blazingly sharp, I mostly shoot people ( http//www.kirktuck.com) and I've found the newest Summi a bit biting at around 5.6 or f8. Didn't realize it was so clinical until I picked up the previous version. That lens is sharp but at the same time just a bit smoother.

Such a thing as too sharp? Any other shooters notice these difference? With landscapes, products, details, etc. the most current lens is very three dimensional. Am I just conditioned to accept as correct the softer look from previous generations or what?

 

<p>

 

Vaguely conflicted in Austin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting question... I believe the answer is a definate "No."

However, I also do not believe sharpness is the only consideration

important in selecting a lens. I switched to Leica's as my 35 of

preference primarily because of the range and smoothness of tonality

expressed by the optics; secondarily however I was also impressed by

their resolving power. Generally speaking, you give up tonal range as

optical contrast increases, but resolution increases with contrast.

As these lenses offered me a terrific balance of both great

resolution and broad tonal range, I fell instantly in love. So, I

think on balance you have to look at the trade-offs, and decide which

traits will give you the image you're looking for. If tonal gradation

is more important than resolution, then yes, some of the earlier

Leica lenses are indeed better choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirk,

 

<p>

 

I have always suspected that in terms of absolute sharpness Leica has

designed its premier optics to appoach perfection in both the areas

of spherical and chromatic abberations however, they do not over-

correct for spherical abberations.... allowing some "residual"

signature to the glass that gives it good background bokeh. I have

some foreground "out-of-focus" shots with my 75 lux and I can attest

that the lovely bokeh of the background OOF shots is reversed in the

foreground OOF shots. The newer generation of lenses incorporating

the ASPH advantage go a step further in the correction of spherical

abberations and vignetting (as attested by the excellent wide-open

performance of the 21, 24, 35, 90 ASPH lenses) but this is at the

expense of that little bit of spherical abberation that gives the

Leica lenses their "soul". For sure, the look of the current Leica

lenses is much better than the current Nikkors (where Nikon has

chosen to over-correct for spherical abberations) but compared to the

older generation of Leica lenses you trade one thing for another.

Edge to edge sharpness for more "complexity" of the bokeh. It is

certainly hard to quantify (its more subjective) but compare a F4

shot from a 35 Summicron (non-ASPH) to one from a current 35 Cron and

you'll see a minute difference. It may be inconsequential to some

and the tradeoff for uniform field sharpness may be a good one. But

that older 35 Cron has just the right amount of sharpness and "cream"

for me. I feel the same way about the 50 Cron.

 

<p>

 

Luckily for me... I was able to source out a previous incarnation of

the current generation 50 Cron. (With the rigid lens shade and tab).

I can't wait to get my hands on it and behold its bokeh!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny because I also noticed that the current version seems

sharper than the last generation tabbed lens, even though all the

experts say the glass is suppose to be identical. I like my lenses

super sharp for the most part, but also have a few vintage lenses

that offer a slightly different look. I especially like to be able to

get high sharpness at large apertures- that look where what little is

in focus just jumps right off the page. The screw mount 50 f3.5 Elmar

has a nice quality to the images and it is still sharp, just not as

much so as the current lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

<p>

 

When I first bought the 75/1.4 I took it with me to dinner. My wife

was next to me and my best friend and his wife were across the table.

We ate around 7 PM and it was a cloudy; the late afternoon light was

a little bit harsh. I popped off about ten shots of my best friend's

wife who was across the table from us. Afterwards, I had the prints

developed and gave them to her.

 

<p>

 

She saw every wrinkle in her face with the 75/1.4. Although she is

not really that old, it freaked her out and put her on a fast track

for plastic surgery (eyes). So the lens was too sharp for her, but

not for the plastic surgeon. In retrospect, the lens was most likely

too sharp for my best friend.

 

<p>

 

Eddie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Yip that "sharp is good because then you have a choice".

However, I prefer to soften up, for female/child portraits, using a

vaseline-smeared filter or stocking mesh. I like it better than

defocusing. YMMV

 

<p>

 

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a lens can be too sharp. It's like saying can a single

malt be too smooth? It is easy to soften the image either with a

diffuser while shooting or softening during printing. It is more

dissapointing to miss details when you wanted them because your lens

is not sharp enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got both the 11817 and 11819 (latest w. pull-out hood), as well

as both versions of the 50/2-R lens. If you shoot them at f/2 or

f/2.8 the lower contrast of the earlier lenses is evident, and in

very big enlargements you can see a drop in the recording of

extremely fine details also. Perhaps that contributes to the

smoother look in more usual enlargements. From f/4 on down, I

confess I can't see any difference in these lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everytime I have run a trial in order to compare lenses, I have to be

honest, I found no objective differences between them. Last time was

comparing a Rollei 35T versus 50mm f2 Leica R. I don't mean that there

are not differences, I mean that I couldn't detect them using Velvia

and a x6 loupe (in this forum has been said that at least x20 is

necessary in order to pick up differences). I believe that my trials

were not appropriate although I used a tripod and the same conditions

in both lenses, but I also believe that my trials are similar or even

maybe better than the ones made for others. Thus it amazes me how

easily some people can detect differences between lenses in sharpness,

colour rendition and another endless number of variables. I should

concede that I am a bit thick, anyway, I am not the enemy, I am a

Leica user but I like to be objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In therory I think a lens can never be sharp enough, and agree with

the comparison to single malt scotch (it appears from this and

previous posts that Leica users are really helping the Scottish as

well as the German economies) :-) That being said, for a lot of the

work I do (fine-art nudes) I find myself resorting to my coated Elmar

50mm. Softening under the enlarger (mentioned in previous post) just

does not give the soft, gentle quality some of the older Leica glass

gives. Leica is now (in the R series) one of the few manufactures that

does not produce a 'soft' or 'defocus' lens - there are instances

where things can be t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading the responses here, I think I see that there are two

distinct questions here. Can a lens be too sharp? Probably not.

Can a subject matter be rendered with too much detail? Definately

so. I usually use a Tiffen Soft EFX 3 with my 90 Elmarit for close

up portraits of anyone over about 12 years old. It still gives nice

sharp eyes but blends the skin tones just enough so it gives a more

natural look without resolving every pore and wrinkle. There has

been some talk that a lens can be too contrasty and coupled with many

of todays higher contrast films, leads to an unattractive image that

misses a full tonal range. Other optics experts say this is not true-

a lens can not be too high in contrast. About the current 50 seeming

to be sharper than the tabbed version, one Leica dealer told me he

thought Leica was always improving their coatings, even though the

glass formula of a certain lens was unchanged. That could certainly

explain an increase in contrast at wide apertures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think a lens is too sharp for certain application, and a soft

filter does not provide the soft and sharp effect, then get a cheap

UV filter, on the center of it, put a little vaseline, about a dime

in diameter, they may do the trick. The center part of the lens

is always the sharpest. Blocking the axial ray with slightly opaque

material soften the lens slightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Some people seek out the older lenses because of the beautiful

character: softer, smoother midtones, slightly diffused highlights,

etc. But talking to most photographers about lens character is like

talking about the character of a Steinway piano to a pop keyboard

player--the nuances have been steamrolled over in the noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...