Sharpness?

I often heard that the 135L is one of the sharpestt but not the sharpest lens around. But i have a hard time believing that there is really anything sharper than that?

I mean how can something be sharper than the resolution allows it to be?

What is the sharpest lens you think?

From what I've read 200mm f2, 200mm f1.8, 300mm f2.8, 55mm 1.4 Otus - are probably all good candidates for sharpest wide open.

Also the Zeiss 135 is supposed to be sharper than the 135L, especially wide open.

And then there's Leica M glass....

The Leica M 50 Summicon APO is certainly one of the sharpest and is the M 90 Summicron and the 50 0.95 Noctilux is sharp wide open and really has the best Bokeh of any 50 that I've seen. In fact I would say the bokeh as good as my 200 2L.

Th sharpest 35 is probably the Leica M 35 Summilux FLE. Sharper in the corners than the 35L is in the center.

And yes the 200 2L is sharper that 135 2L and has IS.

200mm II L and 85mm 1.2 II L in my view.

The 300mm f/2.8L II is the sharpest lens *I* have ever used. The detail is just so crazy, even compared with lenses such as the 135L, 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 85L, etc... And it should, for the price!

It is just on a slightly different level. I am sure most of the new super-tele's are the best-of-the-best at this point.

I can imagine on a higher resolution sensor it would shine even more. It most likely out-resolves the sensor of the 5D3 at this point.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1365424

it's not the sharpest, but very sharp. Pretty sure that the 70-200 zoom was sharper wide open than the 135 wide open. On the wide end of the tamron 24-70 wide open was sharper than the 135 wide open. *not exactly an apples to apples comparison of course.

At the same aperture, the 85L was slightly sharper, but wide open, the 135L slightly sharper than the 85L wide open. Super teles as mentioned are also sharper wide open.

what about the macro lenses?

50 yrs ago sharp was difficult. Today it is highly overrated and common. Might be easier to list the current lenses that are not sharp than those that are.

gasrocks wrote in post #16772933
50 yrs ago sharp was difficult. Today it is highly overrated and common. Might be easier to list the current lenses that are not sharp than those that are.

This. I don't see how it matters. There's no point comparing the sharpness of excellent lenses. The difference won't matter in real world end results. Unless it's just a fun comparison like "who can throw a pumpkin the furthest?".
(That being said, I do believe there's use in comparing the sharpness of more modest lenses.)

Who cares? You guys realize what you're doing don't you? And in case you're confused, I'll tell you. Mine is better in every way!!

Do those of you who obsess about sharpness keep every sharp shot whether it is crap or not? Do you trash otherwise excellent shots because they don't look good at 100%?

Sharpness is one quality of a photo. There are others, and most of them are more important. Framing, lighting, subject choice, lens choice, any of the exposure parameters, tracking ability (yours and the camera's), post processing and I'm sure a bunch more. I used to have a pile of red-ring prime lenses. Not one of them ever improved my work, even a little. Now I use mostly zooms, and half of them aren't even Canon, let alone L.

Is there a logical explanation for the obsession with sharpness?

SqueekyBoy wrote in post #16773216
Is there a logical explanation for the obsession with sharpness?

That just opens a whole can of "is any obsession with quality" associated with a "logical" thing, in regards to aesthetic photography. It makes sense, if the photography is important for research (such as photographing something like deep space objects, or doing very precise medical photographs). But for something that is basically art? There's no logical explanation with the obsession of anything in art photography, especially when you consider the vast majority of the planet is content with sharing their iphone photographs.

Just being nit-picky.

Very best,

TJays wrote in post #16772434
200mm II L and 85mm 1.2 II L in my view.

Which 200 LII? The f/2 or the f/2.8?