six4 wrote in post #10893239
well - I'd say I'm not unreasonable about it - hence why I try to have some type of objective approach to the matter.
It seems sharpness is one of the main reason why we are willing to pay more for glass therefore it is important (to me) to distinguish between glass.
Yes, sharpness is important. However, so are bokeh, colour, contrast, CA, barrel distortion, vignetting etc., most of which are either not going to show up on a test chart, or be very hard to judge how they will look in a real world situation.
I also have a 300 f/2.8L, which was mentioned above as being a ridiculously sharp lens, and I have a 100-400L which is merely 'sharp'. If I pixel peep, I can see a difference at 100% in the RAW image. Once I have done the PP and sharpened for output, then produced the final image as a print or for the web, I can't see any noticeable sharpness difference between the two. I can see differences in bokeh, in particular (the 300 kicks the 100-400s ass there) and subject separation (same again, 300 wins, due to the fast aperture) and those are far more important to me.
Yes, I can spot the difference between a soft lens and a sharp lens at final image stage, the difference between the 28-135mm and the 24-105L I replaced it with is very noticeable. But between a sharp and very sharp lens? Sure, you can tell the difference pixel peeping at charts and by looking at MTF numbers, but in the real world that doesn't matter.