Sure is hard to argue with measured data.... LOL

I believe that aperature CAN affect sharpnes. While aperature certainly affects depth of field and exposure (available light striking the sensor), there are physical phenomenon like dispersion and diffraction which cause light to bend around corners of objects....similar to how waves bend around a breakwater in the ocean. Light travels in straight lines in all directions from the source (both reflected light and emitted light). But, if you research "single slit or double slit experiment" you will see how secondary wavefronts are formed as light passes through a narrow opening.....helping support the theory that light has wave properties. There is a whole branch of physics devoted to studying this. So: if one stops-down (smaller apperature) too much, dispersion around the aperature will cause dispersion/diffraction....which will be seen in the image as "unsharp." I also feel that every lense, no matter the manufacturer or cost, has a "sweet spot".....a combination of focal distance, magnification, and aperature where the image will be at its best. Changing any of these CAN effect apparent sharpness of the image produced.

Wow....a blast from the past. We had a wonderful 'Southern Photo and News' in St. Petersburg years ago. I had several 35mm Nikons serviced by them and was always pleased with their work. Seems to me they also offered 'push processing' of ASA 400 (Tri-X pan) to 1000 with only slight/tolerable increase in grain. I think they worked closely with the 'St. Petersburg Times' photo staff and processing too.

When I first started using Photoshop....I had both PS Elements, and the full/complete Photoshop version. I quickly found that Elements worked just fine and was waaaay less confusing and easier to use than the full version of Photoshop. I bought books (Mark Galer and others) but I learn better with hands-on practice.

At the time, I found an evening class (3 hours, twice a week, 6 weeks) at our local community college designed to teach Photoshop Elements. We met in a computer lab...the instructor gave us a photocopied booklet with each technique he would cover in class....and he gave us a CD with data files/images we were going to practice on (both in class and at home). His screen was projected for all to see. He explained....we watched him do it....he asked us to do it....he walked around and provided assistance for those who struggled. Because it was hands-on, and because I was actually doing the technique as he did it....it stuck. Each three hour class flew by. It was fun. AND....because it was an adult class at the Community College....it was dirt cheap. You may want to investigate something like this in your area.

You didn't mention what type of camera you are using. As an aside....after photoshop, I began using Nikon Capture NX2....and loved it! It seemed way easier to use, handled RAW files, and did everything I needed. Long story short...I upgraded my computer, and NX2 is no longer supported on the newer operating system. Nikon does provides some decent post-processing software FREE on the internet.

Good luck. Hope you find what helps you best.

Another 2 cents worth. The Red Dot scopes made for firearms, are made to mount on Picitanny or Weaver scope mounts. I'm not sure how easy one would be to mount to a hot shoe.....and then how easy it would be to "sight-in." And I agree with another member that it is likely an LED light source, rather than a laser. I know the small round pancake battery in mine seems to have lasted years. A true laser, even Helium-Neon, is very energy intensive. In very bright ambient light (strong sunlight), it may be difficult to see the red dot even on the highest intensity setting. I have no trouble using mine (on my pistol) because I shoot at an outdoor range that has a roof over the firing line....thus I can easily see the red dot even though it is bright out where the target is set. With my red dot sight, I can routinely manage a 1" group at 50 yards.

I agree....great read Jerry. I also found it interesting that her husband William, who helped found the NSA, later quit because he believed that the NSA was a threat to American democracy....like Snowden professed later.

Good answer, Bison Bud. I use a "Red Dot" on several of my target pistols. Generally, the "Red Dot" is variable in color (red, or green are common), in shape (dot, cross, bull's eye target, etc), and intensity (higher intensities for brighter ambient lighting). As previously mentioned, they do not project any form of light to the target. Instead, they project a "dot" on a hollographic screen....which the user places on the target. Some of the more expensive "Red Dot" scopes are designed to withstand higher power recoil guns. I have a cheap (about $50) red dot on my Ruger Hunter Mark III (.22 cal) which produces very little felt recoil....and it works very well. Cameras don't exhibit recoil, so I assume a cheaper red dot would do the trick. I can imagine that this type of quick target aquisition could work well on a camera too.

Thanks aellman. I'm not familiar with STAR-D. I should have noticed that from the pic. I remember the day when several manufacturers made inexpensive lenses with a variety of camera mounts. I had an old Vivitar 85-205mm (I think)....it worked but not the crispest image. I suspect this might be similar in quality.

It is a 39-85mm, Macro focus zoom, f/3.5. Looks like it might have a Nikon bayonet mount??? Looks like it has a near focus at around 2'....which is impressive for a zoom. Manual focus and manual aperature adjustment?? Looks like it has a "stop down" lever so the camera activates the chosen f-stop just preceding exposure. No telling about the optical quality or characteristics. I don't know that I have ever seen a lens without manufacturer identification. I recommend you take it to a camera shop....have them correctly identify the camera mount type....mount it on one of their cameras....take a few clicks to determine sharpness, mechanical issues, etc. Looks like you have a nice adventure ahead. Hope it turns out to be a gem.

I can deal with sarcasm, tj.....just don't prefer it. I guess if one doesn't have a positive comment or relevent information, perhaps they needn't respond at all? Just my humble opinion.

I don't think I said that.....or at least didn't mean to if I did. What I meant to say is that the refractive index of a material directly affects optical properties. Researching alternate materials with higher refractive index to glass, could lead to lighter, smaller lenses with excellent optical properties. I'm sure that there are many fine "light" lenses out there. From my experience, my best lenses are heavy.

The science of optics is complex. Lenses refract (bend) light in order to form a sharp image. The "lensemaker's formula" helps us determine what radius of curvature, refractive index, etc. are necessary to produce the desired focal length. Related to this question....the refractive index of the material (glass, plastic, crystal, etc) determines the size and curvature required to form a desired image. Investigating materials with higher refractive index, could lead to lighter weight optics.

Other considerations: the optic must maintain shape through wide temperature ranges and some physical abuse; must be durable; must be able to be ground or formed within close tolerances (prevent abberations, vignetting, etc), and be cheap enough that an affordable product can be made.

Lastly, from my experience, the heavier lenses are the "long" lenses....which scream to be tripod mounted. The old statement, "No pain, no gain" comes to mind here.

My name is Bob, and I live in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. I have been into photography since I can remember....I'm 68 now. My dad had a "Speed Graphic" (4x5), incredible Carl Zeiss optics, and maintained a B&W darkroom. Mom was talented at "coloring/tinting" the B&W prints. I learned as much as I could from as many people as possible. My first 35mm camera (rangefiner, 45mm, 3.5 lens, leaf shutter, no automation or meter) I purchased for $12 at a pawn shop. It took fantastic images within its range. (Important lesson #1: "Within it's range...")

I bought a used 35 mm Nikkormat. 50mm standard lens, Vivatar 85-205mm, close up adapters, extension tubes (actually bellows), and finally bought the Nikon 105mm macro lens. Took some good (and not so good, lol) images in B&W, Kodachrome, Ectachrome, and color print film. Invested in a nice Bessler enlarger with color head, and got into processing color slides and prints (Cibachrome) in my darkroom.

Along the way...also played with 120/620 twin-lens format, and had a Mamiya 625 with a variety of lenses

I am retired now....and not as agile as I once was. I currently use a Nikon D200, 18-70mm (Nikkor, AF-S, DX, f3.5-4.5, ED, kit lens), 18-200mm (Sigma, f3.5-6.3, stabilized), 105mm (AF-S Micro Nikkor, f2.8G ED, VR), and 70-200mm (AF-S, VR, Nikkor, f2.8G, ED)....and extension tubes, tripod, monopod, filters, cable release, polarizer, etc. The D200 serves my needs well and does a fine job for my purposes. The 70-200 Nikkor is probably my best glass...wasn't cheap but incredible optics. The 18-70 kit lens "is not bad for walk around shots". I am routinely able to get 24"x36" prints with incredible detail. Never tried going larger....never needed to. lol

Anyway, I am a new member to the forum. I have enjoyed reading the many questions and responses so far. I'm not a fan of sarcasm, and just wish a few trolls who post unhelpful or unrelated comments, would just keep it to themselves...