Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TedG954" data-source="post: 162710" data-attributes="member: 9701">&quot;Sharpness&quot; is a subjective term. All I can say is that it appears sharp enough for me. Again, I am more concerned with the overall photo and what it represents.&nbsp; The stairway photos would be the best representatives in this group of photos. Is it sharp enough?There are always trade-offs.&nbsp; The 11-16 is sharper. It also costs twice as much. Personally, I am satisfied with the overall performance of this lens. Would I do it over again? Yes.PS... I have to add this.&nbsp; Remember when you got your D5100, with the &quot;kit&quot; lens? Remember how amazed we were with the photographs it produced?&nbsp; I have to ask, &quot;What happened to that amazement?&quot; Here's what happened.... someone told us about sharpness. And soft corners. And barrel distortion. We traded joy for technological perks.We've all been influenced away from that pure joy of what we take pictures for. We've been sold on keeping up with the Jones'. How far are we going to chase the hype for the perfect photo?Some people on this forum wouldn't be caught dead with this lens. Others would be excited just to have one for a day. If I was so concerned with the technical abilities of the camera/lens, I would only use my D800, with high-end Nikon lenses. And I'd always use a tripod. Always. As it is, that's not my concern.I see photos on this site that are terrible when you consider them only from a technical aspect. BUT.... some of those photos are far better in interest and creativity than the sharpest flower or bug pictures ever posted.&nbsp; It's art vs science. Take your pick.&nbsp; You know which one I've chosen.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TedG954, post: 162710, member: 9701"] "Sharpness" is a subjective term. All I can say is that it appears sharp enough for me. Again, I am more concerned with the overall photo and what it represents. The stairway photos would be the best representatives in this group of photos. Is it sharp enough? There are always trade-offs. The 11-16 [I]is[/I] sharper. It also costs twice as much. Personally, I am satisfied with the overall performance of this lens. Would I do it over again? Yes. PS... I [I]have [/I]to add this. Remember when you got your D5100, with the "kit" lens? Remember how amazed we were with the photographs it produced? I have to ask, "What happened to that amazement?" Here's [I]what [/I]happened.... someone told us about sharpness. And soft corners. And barrel distortion. We traded joy for technological perks. We've all been influenced away from that pure joy of what we take pictures for. We've been sold on [I]keeping up with the Jones'. [/I]How far are we going to chase the hype for the [I]perfect [/I]photo? Some people on this forum wouldn't be caught dead with this lens. Others would be excited just to have one for a day. If I was so concerned with the technical abilities of the camera/lens, I would [U]only[/U] use my D800, with [U]high-end[/U] Nikon lenses. And I'd [U]always[/U] use a tripod. Always. As it is, that's [I]not [/I]my concern. I see photos on this site that are [I]terrible[/I] when you consider them only from a technical aspect. BUT.... some of those photos are [U]far better[/U] in interest and creativity than the sharpest flower or bug pictures ever posted. It's art vs science. Take your pick. You know which one I've chosen. [/QUOTE]

Verification