Nikon 85mm 1.8s (Page 2): I think a sharp lens is essential to any photography. The sharper the better. One can soften an image during processing. One cannot sharpen a soft image in...

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I think a sharp lens is essential to any photography. The sharper the better. One can soften an image during processing. One cannot sharpen a soft image in processing. I'll take sharp. My favorite for portraits, expecially black and white portraits is a 210mm f/5.6 Schneider.
--Bob

Hammer wrote:

Sorry I did not make myself clear . This is all re... (show quote)

Strange

Rodenstock made the Imagon lens for portraits. I have one for my Nikon cameras and suggest you try it, sharp, but soft.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

For portraits it's good to have a really sharp lens. It's really easy to decrease sharpness, but really difficult to increase it.

Sharpness is useful for eyes, eyelashes, and hair on women (and possibly attire). The skin can be made less sharp in post.

Men can deal with bumps and dents.

User ID

rmalarz wrote:

I think a sharp lens is essential to any photography. The sharper the better. One can soften an image during processing. One cannot sharpen a soft image in processing. I'll take sharp. My favorite for portraits, expecially black and white portraits is a 210mm f/5.6 Schneider.
--Bob

Just wanna be clear that I too am in favor of sharp lenses. But I do find the lust for “sharper than sharp” is ridiculous.

I know your 210/5.6 very well. It is sharp. Some of us, back when, were lusting after the later “S” version of it ... not seeking sharper than sharp, but wanting its larger image circle. Extra coverage is useful but sharper than sharp wouldn’t visibly show up in 16x20 prints ... that being just a 4X enlargement.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The S is the version I have. I don't think I made any reference to sharper than sharp. How does that work?
--Bob

User ID wrote:

Just wanna be clear that I too am in favor of sharp lenses. But I do find the lust for “sharper than sharp” is ridiculous.

I know your 210/5.6 very well. It is sharp. Some of us, back when, were lusting after the later “S” version of it ... not seeking sharper than sharp, but wanting its larger image circle. Extra coverage is useful but sharper than sharp wouldn’t visibly show up in 16x20 prints ... that being just a 4X enlargement.

User ID

rmalarz wrote:

The S is the version I have. I don't think I made any reference to sharper than sharp. How does that work?
--Bob

Tonight I will have a dream that it is still 1980, and I will be verrrrrrry envious of your Symmar-S ;-)

As to how “sharper than sharp” works, it’s kinda like darker than dark or faster than fast, based on the fabled “more is more” special law of relativity.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

User ID wrote:

...As to how “sharper than sharp” works, it’s kinda like darker than dark or faster than fast, based on the fabled “more is more” special law of relativity.

I thought it was "more is less" or "less is more" (Van Der Rohe)

But it might be related to "some is none" or "many is few" or maybe even "hot is chill" (not related to "chili is hot").

Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Hammer wrote:

I have been using the 70-200 2.8 but have been trying to convince my-self that it restricts my shooting because of the restriction inherent in the aperture .

I think I need help !!!!!!

I was feeling like moving back to Nikon a year or so ago and watched some youtube videos for advice and came across a video by the much maligned Tony Northrup on, "why he wanted to switch to Nikon but couldn't." That kinda made me put the brakes on since probably my most often used Canon lens is the 70-200 II 2.8L IS. I don't do many portraits but I found this interesting if not kinda persuasive when it comes to portraits and Nikon's 70-200: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE&t=45s