Is lens sharpness an amature's perspective?

[loosecanon]

Sharpness can be measured and so reviews etc can include this data. When Canon first introduced the FD lenses (with chrome breachlock) they had a wonderful tonal quality, rather Leica like - the images were certainly sharp but they also had something else about them, unlike Nikons which though sharp were lacking this tonal quality. Sadly this changed when magazines in the 1970's started to publish mtf date, and line pairs per mm, etc etc. Sharpness became the be all for lenses, and yes later Canons were bright and sharp, but they lost something in tonal quality.

[proseak]

The OP's "seasoned professional" does have a point - sharpness isn't the only desirable quality in a lens, just as a high megapixel count isn't the only way tp assess a camera. Both are used for marketing purposes by people trying to sell us stuff.

On another note, the sharpness of the finished image is greatly dependent on the processing; a well sharpened image from an OK lens will often outshine one from a top-flight lens poorly processed.

On the other hand, buying new toys is fun, learning better skills less so.

[Abitconfused]

Just as I walked out the door, my Sigma 18-35mm lens arrived. Once latched onto a D7100 I started testing for, well, sharpness, amateur that I am. And, to further my shame, I recall the day when a manufacturer's rep admonished me in front of assembled colleagues, "Amateurs are concerned about equipment, real photographers are concerned with substance and composition." Here several years later I am still a rank amateur. Some of us never grow up!



Sigma 18-35, 33mm, f/7.1, 1/400s, ISO: 100. Sharpened twice in Photoshop initial and output. RAW adjustments to correct lens distortion, and pull highlights toward midtones and add clarity. Lens adjustment filter used to tilt both vertically and horizontally, Curves applied to add contrast in 3/4 tones.