In article <5j3t1g$n1k$1@hpax.cup.hp.com>, dtran@cup.hp.com says...

>Let's me clarify my former posting,
>what I mean is smaller aperture lens,
>which is smaller than the same lens
>with larger aperture, are sharper.
>
>For example:
>
>zuiko 50f1.8 is generally sharper than zuiko 50f1.4
>Summilux 50f2 is sharper than summilux 50f1.4
>Nikkor 50f1.8(?) is known to be sharper than Nikkor 50f1.4, etc...
>
>35mm lens has more resolution (lines/mm) than MF lens, etc...
>
>I don't say that big lens 300f2.8 is not sharp, but
>if everything is equal I think 300f4 can be sharper since
>the lens area is smaller and is easier to design than
>larger area of glass.
>
>This observation is based on certain lens test. Any comments?

Well, in the Nikon line, the 50mm f1.8 is excellent, but
(depending on what you look for) the f1.4, the f1.2, or the
Noct f1.2 could be considered higher-performance lenses in
some respects...
35mm format lenses may have higher unit-area sharpness than
larger format lenses, but the larger film area more than erases
the difference (you are not arguing that the print made from
a 4x5 negative is less sharp than an equal-size print made from
a negative shot with an equally fine 35mm-format lens, I trust...).
Your comment about the 300mm's is probably accurate, but given
the far higher prices of 300mm f2.8's compared with 300mm f4's,
it is not surprising to find the 2.8's a bit better than the
slower versions. All things being *exactly* equal, your point
would be valid, but given real-world effects (different market
conditions/decisions, different designers, different tools
available at different times, etc.), I don't think I would use
it as a very reliable rule-of-thumb... Try an 80-200mm f2.8
Nikkor, and you will value big glass, good as the slower
Nikon versions are...;-) Or, the 135mm f2 MF vs. the 135mm
f3.5 Nikkor... Etc...
Hope This Helps