Can someone please show us a image that is sharp end to end?

A

alitech

Messages
230
Name
Ali
Edit My Images
Yes
I am always stumped by this. I am yet to see an example of an image that anyone claims to be sharp from end to end. I have been using manual focus lenses and i WANT to see something sharp.

I have been playing around with DOF and focus quite a bit. I have an LCDVF on my camera to help with the MF lenses.

Does a sharp image mean that everything is in focus, like in infinity or am I mistaken?
 
it's down to the photographer on what area of the image they want to be sharp. for instance, a portrait shot would at least require the eyes to be in focus and nice and sharp. If you look at a portrait image and the tip of the nose is in focus but the eyes are slightly off, then the focus has been missed (as an example). There's certain times when the photographer wants everything sharp and in focus... for example home interiors, product shots etc..

in summary, a sharp image is when the specific area of the image that the photographer wanted to be sharp... is sharp. If you get me :thumbs:
 
Ok, thanks I think I understand that. Allow me to rephrase.

Been reading up on all the different kind of lenses you guys are using and I cannot understand what you guys mean by sharpness.

When I read of "this lens is sharp end to end" or "very very sharp lens" i try to picture images coming from these "sharp" cameras and I am none the wiser.

When we refer to sharpness, are we referring to an image that has been taken at a particular aperture so that everything is in focus?

Can we measure sharpness if there is bokeh in the image or is it taboo mentioning sharpness and bokeh in the same sentence?

Can someone please post some samples of SHARP pictures, end to end etc etc and something that isn't so sharp, so I can become a more learned person in this vast and mind boggling world of photography?

Some comparison shots should really do it for me and perhaps everyone else who might hit up this thread in the future
 
My understanding of sharp end to end is that the lens is sharp at both extreme apertures so it's just as sharp at say f/1.4 as it is at f/22. Some lens go soft at the extremes.

Obviously there's going to be a lot of bokeh at 1.4 and none at 22 but the area that is in focus will always be sharp.

But that's just my assumption so it could be wrong.
 
I would assume 'end to end' refers to a zoom lens which is capable of focussing sharp imaged from the wide end of its zoom range to the long end.
 
I'm glad to see that there are others that have similar assumptions / confusions over this.

Let me put a lens into perspective.

There are numerous sites, reviews and pages that speak of the Contax 50mm 1.7 to be possibly the sharpest lens of all. Wikipedia says that same, however it only says that this lens is "known for its sharpness" and some sites that say its sharp "end to end", but no images to qualify this claim.

My question is surrounding this "end to end" dilemma. I want to get to the bottom of it. I would like to see an image produced by any lens that is "sharp end to end". This would put things into perspective and resolve this for me personally.

Anyone?
 
Something being in focus doesn't necessarily mean it's sharp, if something is in focus with a low quality lens it will still be soft (see: lomography and plastic lenses). You won't get many shots that are sharp end to end* either because most lenses are weaker away from the centre and most compositions will have some out of focus (or at least less in focus) areas in them.
What counts as "very sharp" is subjective, if you've only ever used poor lenses then something average will seem sharp to you.

*I take end to end to mean from one edge of the image to the other, but as puggie says it could mean from one end of the zoom range to the other as one end of the zoom range is usually weaker than the other. Obviously this wouldn't apply to prime lenses. As Kane says it could also mean from one end of the aperture range to the other as it's common for the wider end of the aperture range to be a bit soft, then the lens gets sharper as you reduce the aperture before starting to suffer from diffraction at very small apertures.

If you have a look at this and roll your mouse over the images it should show the difference between a sharp lens and a not sharp lens. The sharp lens produces clear detail while the not sharp lens produces softer, less defined edges.
 
Last edited:
puggie said:
I would assume 'end to end' refers to a zoom lens which is capable of focussing sharp imaged from the wide end of its zoom range to the long end.
Click to expand...

+1 for this. When I had a 70-200 f4 L it gave 'sharp' images, in the area I was focussing on, from 70mm right up to 200mm. It also gave me 'sharp' images from f4, on the subject in focus, right out to f22 or whatever I went to. Obviously, more of the image was 'in focus' when the lens was at f22. I've got to say it was one of the best lenses I've owned. The only other one that really comes close is my 100 f2.8 L macro, which is sharp from f2.8 to whatever.
 
I would also say that whether it refers zoom range or aperture you're not going to get a landscape going for a 1km in focus/sharp from start to finish. But a technique like hyperfocal focusing will help.

However something such as a product shot of a mobile phone it is resonable to expect the image edge to edge to be sharp/in focus with a "good" lens.
 
I was wondering the same thing, I own a 550d and I am relatively new to photography. My thoughts on a sharp lens was that the image is sharp as whatever it is that you are focusing on is crystal clear. An example would be if I enlarged an image or magnified into it then it did not lose any IQ.
I recently upgraded my lens from the kit 18-135 to the 24-105L, I have taken a few pictures and as yet I only notice a marginal difference. I was toying with getting the 24-70, but got a good deal on the classifieds. However I expected every image I took to be razor sharp.
Maybe my thoughts are wrong on this topic as well.
 
alitech said:
I'm glad to see that there are others that have similar assumptions / confusions over this.

Let me put a lens into perspective.

There are numerous sites, reviews and pages that speak of the Contax 50mm 1.7 to be possibly the sharpest lens of all. Wikipedia says that same, however it only says that this lens is "known for its sharpness" and some sites that say its sharp "end to end", but no images to qualify this claim.

My question is surrounding this "end to end" dilemma. I want to get to the bottom of it. I would like to see an image produced by any lens that is "sharp end to end". This would put things into perspective and resolve this for me personally.

Anyone?
Click to expand...

You won't get 1 single image showing the lens to be sharp at both ends.

You can see 1 image taken at F1.7 and a second taken at F16 using the Contax example.
 
kanebaguley said:
I would also say that whether it refers zoom range or aperture you're not going to get a landscape going for a 1km in focus/sharp from start to finish. But a technique like hyperfocal focusing will help.

However something such as a product shot of a mobile phone it is resonable to expect the image edge to edge to be sharp/in focus with a "good" lens.
Click to expand...

Its relatively simple to get 1km of landscape in focus/sharp you need the right tools for the job, a lens with some tilt to shift the plane of focus to the horizontal rather than vertical plane.
 
I spend way too much time on forums and I've never heard the phrase 'sharp end to end' until I opened this thread.

However I am familiar with the phrase 'edge to edge sharpness' which refers to lenses Beijing as sharp at the edge of the frame as they are in the middle.

Due to the way lenses work it's very difficult to achieve this.

Others have described 'sharpness' and I'm sure you're aware of the difference in output from a cheap lens to a very expensive one. If you're using MF lenses you are seeing the sharp image appear as you focus. Although there are other factors that will affect the output of your camera, such as camera or subject movement, if you're using small apertures in order to maximise depth of field you need to read up on diffraction too, as there's an optimum amount of DoF before diffraction takes over and softens an image.

You're better off in the gear head forums for examples because in real world use you'll not really see edge to edge sharpness. For instance lots of us are drawn to serious gear so that we can control depth of field, so to us the sign of a quality image is that it'll have a shallow DoF to draw attention to the subject.

If I want a landscape shot with front to back sharpness I'll use my phone.
 
Phil V said:
If I want a landscape shot with front to back sharpness I'll use my phone.
Click to expand...

Nearly lost my cup of tea when I read that:)
 
Mani Gill said:
I was wondering the same thing, I own a 550d and I am relatively new to photography. My thoughts on a sharp lens was that the image is sharp as whatever it is that you are focusing on is crystal clear. An example would be if I enlarged an image or magnified into it then it did not lose any IQ.
I recently upgraded my lens from the kit 18-135 to the 24-105L, I have taken a few pictures and as yet I only notice a marginal difference. I was toying with getting the 24-70, but got a good deal on the classifieds. However I expected every image I took to be razor sharp.
Maybe my thoughts are wrong on this topic as well.
Click to expand...

The 24-105 is capable of excellent results, there's a lot more to image sharpness that the lenses mtf data.

If you post a example of a shot you're not impressed by I'm sure you'll get pointers towards the problem / solution.
 
PsiFox said:
Nearly lost my cup of tea when I read that:)
Click to expand...

It's sort of true though. If you want everything in focus from no distance to as far as the eye can see, tiny sensors do it easily, in fact you can't really stop them doing it. With DSLR sized sensors and larger we end up messing around with hyperfocal calculations and tiny apertures.

I'd still pick a DSRL for the job, but I get Phil's point.
 
It's odd, I've never been a landscape photographer, and the only 2 landscape pictures I've ever taken that I was happy with, were shot on phones, seriously!:shrug:

I could never be bothered with all the planning involved for doing landscapes properly, and it's so rare to happen upon a great landscape photo by accident, and so the camera phone was there when a proper camera wasn't.
 
Apologies to the OP if this sounds a little 'off' compared to some of the helpful comments that have all ready been offered, but I personally think you are getting a little hung up on this.

My advice (for what its worth), go outside with your camera and maybe a tripod, and experiment using different focal points, and apertures and study the results. You will learn a lot more about photography that way :thumbs:
 
Phil V said:
I spend way too much time on forums and I've never heard the phrase 'sharp end to end' until I opened this thread.

However I am familiar with the phrase 'edge to edge sharpness' which refers to lenses Beijing as sharp at the edge of the frame as they are in the middle.
Click to expand...

That is also what I assumed the op meant.

Steve
 
I think this is probably like when you get a tune stuck in your head and can't stop singing it to yourself.

My advice is to trap your hand in a drawer and hopefully that'll break the cycle and you'll forget all this :D
 
Thanks for all your responses and the insight guys. I am only doing what the forum suggests. No question is a dumb question and frankly, I can see that I am not the only one confused by this.

end to end - edge to edge.. I stand corrected thanks.

Now, to my original request. Does *anyone* have an example image that is sharp end to end / edge to edge and which lens was used please?

To Nikon Nick.

I am certainly not hung up on this, I have a lot of other questions and confusions that I will be putting forward to you all. I agree, I am still very very new to this and just started learning. 1 year in now and already on my 3rd camera and 20th lens. I think I am a fast learner but I have a long way to go. I visit forums almost every day and just wanted to put this question forward which no one was able to provide a straight answer to.

My current kit:

5D mark 2
Canon 24-105 L
CZ 50 1.7 Planar
CZ 28 2.8 Distagon
CZ 35-70 3.4 Vario Sonar
Canon 15 2.8
Minolta Rokkor X 58 1.2 (converted to EOS by Jim Buchanan)
Canon FL 55 1.2 (converted to EOS myself)
Olympus 50 1.8
Olympus 50 1.4
Canon 480 EX2
Edelkrone Pocket Rig
LCDVF
Lots of other bits

All legacy glass have appropriate adapters and are infinity adjusted to perfection.

I will admit though, I chase technical detail more than I spend time on the field and I hope to break this habit soon.
 
You've git some good glass, including L glass and primes, all of which should be very sharp. Maybe, like you say, you need to just get out and take some photos, find which lenses work for you and give the results you want?
 
You've git some good glass, including L glass and primes, all of which should be very sharp. Maybe, like you say, you need to just get out and take some photos, find which lenses work for you and give the results you want?
 
You might be a novice, but you've got equipment that's capable of producing awesome results.

You've got a choice now, you can either spend the rest of your photographic life shooting charts, and obsessing over every new technological advance (a very valid hobby, that many pursue), or you can start studying something else to improve your photography - light and composition.

It's often said that the most important piece of equipment is the 6 inches behind the viewfinder. someone posted a link yesterday showing a pro shooting a model with a really cheap p&s, proving the gear is such a small part of the process.
 
If it is edge to edge sharpness being discussed, it's really easy to see the effect, especially as you're using full frame. Pick more or less any of your lenses, find a brick wall or a tiled wall or something similarly flat with a bit of texture. Get the camera square on to the wall and take a photo wide open. Now take one at F/8. When you look at the two images side by side, you'll almost certainly see that both exhibit sharp centres but the one taken wide open will probably be a little fuzzy/soft around the edges. It's in focus, as it's on the same plane as the centre, it's just what most lenses do. Generally the more expensive lenses do better in this regard but I've not heard of any that don't exhibit this trait to some extent.

As Phil says though, what shows up on tests like this and what matters in reality are two totally different things. If I'm shooting wide open, I'm probably going to want to isolate my subject anyway with a shallow depth of field. If my corners are soft, it really doesn't matter. If I'm shooting a landscape, I'd want my corners not to be soft but I'd also likely be using F8 or F11, so this issue won't arise anyway.
 
With equipment like that, if you're not getting sharp images side to side, end to end and top to bottom, then the most likely cause is manual focusing.

99% of the time, AF is more accurate than manual (use centre point only, focus-recompose technique) and much faster. If you want to persist with MF, have you changed the focusing screen? That would help.

Edit: old legacy lenses will not be as sharp as newer ones, especially those two f/1.2 jobbies. Soft as anything wide open, edges just mush.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
With equipment like that, if you're not getting sharp images side to side, end to end and top to bottom, then the most likely cause is manual focusing.

99% of the time, AF is more accurate than manual (use centre point only, focus-recompose technique) and much faster. If you want to persist with MF, have you changed the focusing screen? That would help.

Edit: old legacy lenses will not be as sharp as newer ones, especially those two f/1.2 jobbies. Soft as anything wide open, edges just mush.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Some old lenses are pretty sharp. For example, the Cz 28 2.8 will give you a paper cut at f4

The only other less sharp lenses are rightly pointed out by you but I am not using them for sharpness, I love playing around with the dof on them and the bokeh is just so smooth.

I don't need to change the focusing screen as I always use live view, however I did change to eg-s a while ago, not used so much though. Only use it when I have a focus confirm chip installed.
 
The issue here is clear if you read back through the thread. You've only really engaged with people when you can challenge them on technical aspects of the gear. Nothing at all about the photography, other than admitting you should put a bit more effort in.

I fear it's too late and you've moved from being a photographer to a gear junkie. There are other forums better suited to this kind of discussion, they're usually full of photos of ducks and walls.

I'm sure there's still time for you to go cold turkey, but you need to find out what it is you love to photograph. Because you can't take great pictures until you get passionate about your subject.

The best gear in the world will never take great pictures, but the greatest photographers shoot great photos with whatever gear is at hand.

Have a look on Jeff Ascoughs blog at his landscapes taken on his phone, he shoots landscapes just for fun, and to relax, but they're great pictures. Without having the great image quality that his paid work has which is taken with top quality gear.
 
Phil, apologies but I have almost always been in a rush when I get an email notification for this thread come through and I tend to reply to the last post. With all due respect, I posted a technical question and was seeking a technical answer. I never touched the subject of composition, lighting etc, that is for another thread.

I admit, I think I am a bit of a gear junkie and you are absolutely right, I will need to stop obsessing about technicalities because its not getting me anywhere with what I can actually achieve with my gear. I have already done about 18,000 shutters on my 5d already in 4 months, out of which I really like less than 1%. I am going to work on improving on this over the summer. I will most certainly have a look at Jeff Ascoughs blog, thanks for pointing it out. I think its a bit of a hit or miss for me right now with the composition and exposure, mostly hit though.

I guess this is subject is a bit of a dud so ill move on to the next one.
 
Serious advice - it might have been lost in my previous post:

Find something you like to photograph. From there you will find the desire to improve your photography.

I've spent way too much time on photographic forums in the last 10 years or so, and there are swathes of photographers who spend all their time and energy on their gear, as I said - it's a worthwhile hobby in itself - but it's not photography.

The people who become photographers have found their niche, have a look how lively the specialist sections are, both photo sharing and advice. You'll see that the Nature forum has a different bunch of contributors to the Sports etc. Sometimes, people from those forums will offer specialist advice in the gear forums, but largely the gear forums are full of people for whom the gear is an end in itself.
 
Phil's comments :thumbs:

Seeing the kit list, my 2p is the OP's problem is more likely to be technique.
I suspect he is wanting the whole image to be pin sharp, even viewed at 100%.
IMHO there is nothing a bit of pixel peeping, as long as it is part of an exercise directed at improving technique.
Here's a post I wrote about how to get a 5DII image that looks sharp at 100%
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=3949409&postcount=25

If you are 'only' printing to A3, you can relax a lot of the constraints.
The image will often look rubbish viewed at 100%, but that doesn't matter.
Here's a post on how I use the 5DII in real world conditions.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=3952038&postcount=31

Hope this helps - Duncan
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
Seeing the kit list, my 2p is the OP's problem is more likely to be technique.
Click to expand...

My first guess wouldn't be technique but worry and disappointment brought on by pixel peeping. In 't olden days when most people only got relatively small prints pictures that many people would reject these days on technical grounds would be thought of as being good. These days some obsess at 200% on screen when in reality the problems that you see on screen will probably not be a problem in a print, even a larger print than most would have produced not so long ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top