3 ms·
> Do modern sensors have enough more resolution than film that they show the loss of sharpness in the lens at smaller apertures? Film quite obviously shows sof
by rangibaby 8y ago
> Do modern sensors have enough more resolution than film that they show the loss of sharpness in the lens at smaller apertures?
Film quite obviously shows soft corners too, just most people didn't care because they weren't obvious at the sizes normal people view or printed photos.
I wouldn't worry about soft corners to be honest. It's like criticizing a classic muscle car because it has a slower 0-100 than newer ones
- jasomill 8y agoI agree. And if your underlying question is "are these lenses going to take good pictures with this camera", the best advice I can give is: try it! I say this because some of my favorite lens/camera combinations are those with issues far beyond mere unsharpness, and that would likely be rejected by the mass of Internet forum cognoscenti in favor of native lenses that I know from experience that I'd never use even if I already owned them. Case in point: an old Arri/Zeiss 16mm f/1.2 cine lens that I shoot on Micro Four Thirds, despite the fact that it was designed for the much smaller 16mm (motion picture) format: in spite of edges are soft at all apertures, corners that aren't so much "soft" as "missing altogether", an overall image almost certainly less sharp than the average native kit zoom, and various other technical considerations compromising optical performance, I enjoy both the process of shooting with the lens and the results when I do. So why, then, should I give a damn what the Internet thinks? Whereas, I sold the more "appropriate" Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 native lens several years ago, at a considerable loss, for lack of use.