Lens sharpness is the ultimate measure of a lens?

So, I have been struggling with something after reading these forums for a while.

It seems like whenever a conversation of lenses comes up the primary thing that is factored is sharpness. While I certainly believe that lens sharpness is important it just seems like there are other things that are important too.

Autofocus speed and accuracy, a quality stabilization system, strong contrast, build quality, susceptibility to zoom creep, weight, size, etc, etc...

Maybe it is the way I shoot but I have lost way more shots to poor focus than I have to exceeding the sharpness of the lens.

Maybe I am being over critical but it just seems like half the posts I read people are comparing minute differences in sharpness on 100% crops to make buying decisions and ignoring other important lens performance criteria.

So, how much do you factor sharpness in your buying decision?

I blame the ability to view pics and blow them up on a computer screen.

most of these sharpness complaints wouldn't be noticed on prints unless you're going extreme.

dalto wrote in post #12459586
So, how much do you factor sharpness in your buying decision?

For long lenses used for birding and/or aviation, quite a bit, but that's because sometimes I want to crop as I simply cannot afford more reach. I'm similarly picky about macro lenses, because it's not unusual to crop to blow things up a bit more.

On other lenses, not a great deal in comparison. Sure I don't want it to be soft, but unlike the above I normally look at the complete image without cropping (or without much cropping), and I don't print huge.

Sharpness is appreciated, but since I mostly shoot landscapes, I'm actually much more concerned over distortion in the image. Suppressed chromatic aberration is also very, very welcome.

Autofocus speed, zoom creep, image stabilization, I do not pay any attention to these

Portability is a big factor to me, which is why I tend to stay away from the L lenses.

Build quality is essential.

When buying a lens, I find the lens with specification that suits me (aperture, FL, IS).
Then I care about sharpness.

Sharpness is not my main interest.

There are lenses that are not sharp enough, and because of this I do not use them, like the Tokina 17/3.5 on FF. But probably I should use it again, was only a problem with trees again the sky. I have made very good images (my opinon) with that old manual lens. Furthermore it is very good for infrared photography on my crop camera.

My Porst 135/1.8 is not sharp, and has many image problem - I think it shows nearly all image abberations But I like its capability to work at low light levels, and its small DOF and bokeh.

My Meyer Goerlitz Trioplan 100mm/2.8 has only three lenses. Images appear sharp enough for normal viewing size - but I better doesn´t compare it with my EF 28-135 IS USM lens in regards of eg. corner sharpness. But because of it´s special unique bokeh it is one of my favorite lenses.

And if I have lenses that are sharp enough for me, I prefer not the sharper lens but the better build lens (because of this mainly manual lenses). Or the lens with better bokeh (but that depends on the background distances...).

Sharpness is important to me, but I consider it along with all the other factors such as bokeh quality, build quality, price, CA etc...

In no particular order:
- Weight
- Build
- Wx Sealing
- Speed
- Contrast
- Color Fidelity
- Sharpness
- Flare Control
- Accuracy (control of CA)
- Bokeh
- Price
- Manufacturer (Reputation)
- Images from other shooters

These are all factors that get mixed and matched in considering lenses...

Price, Bokeh quality, micro-contrast, chromatic aberrations, focal length, usage, weight, autofocus... are very important too. Of course I prefer lenses giving "sharp" results but I check other criterias too.

Titi

Sharpness is everything. All other attributes, even if 100%, dissipate when sharpness is lacking.

I agree with the OP.
I find that some people tend to look on L lenses as having the ultimate sharpness, ignoring the fact that not all L lenses are the same, and forgetting that things like build quality, sealing etc are also a bit part of the cost.
Questions like "what L lens should i get" make me laugh. Its like they will only buy L even though something like a 17-40 f/4 or 24-105 f/4 can be bettered quite easily by a cheaper or non L lens as far as IQ goes.


These people might end up getting a lens that isnt really ideal for them, thinking that sharpness is the be all and end all and so automatically go for a L.