*51 <*51@area51.com> wrote in message <3503048a.24151761@nntp.netcom.ca>...

>While I love my 50mm standard lens, I sometimes wonder if we are too
>"preoccupied" with sharpness. Isn't 'shapness' only one element of a
>photograph? I mean, if you want a sharp photo, then you *want* a
>sharp photo and need a sharp lens... and a tripod... the right film
>and conditions, and possibly mirror lock-up. But why such a
>pre-occupation with 'crispness' that people will spend hundreds or
>even thousands of extra dollars to get it? Is it because it seems an
>'easy' problem to solve - just throw money at it and presto, problem
>solved, and you're instantly a better photographer?
>
>Recently, I've been looking at taken with home-made, plastic lenses.
>The emphasis was placed on composition, design, colour... and
>generally, creativity - not on image sharpness. It really makes you
>think just how much more important these things are in a photograph
>than sharpness, and how relatively un-important sharpness is in *most*
>pictures (macro and scientific photographs aside).
>
>Does the 'sharpness' of a picture warrant as much emphasis as we seem
>to give it? I don't believe so - please correct me.


While you make some excellent points, given the choice I would prefer
to start with an optically perfect lens - after that I could choose
to use or not to use its excellent qualities, but I would have the
choice. With poor lenses I can still make good photographs, but my
choices are more restricted. Think of it this way: would you willingly
use a lens for everything that could only render green images? I feel
that a lens that is not especially sharp, or is always soft on the
edges of the frame, is just as limiting (though quite capable of being
used for taking great photographs...).
--
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
ruether@fcinet.com