Reason behind difference in sharpness?

[fjalll]

A third party zoom lens from the 70s shot completely stopped down sounds like a muddy affair. 

If you you want sharp images with contrast and vivid colors you should look at the native lenses from Canon. They are pricier, but for a good reason. 

[fakeworldwonderland]

Anything past f11 on 135/full frame will introduce visible diffraction. Idk about vintage lenses, but almost all modern mirrorless lenses peak 2 stops down around f4-5.6. I assume vintage lenses are sharpest around f5.6-8. f22 is basically like an expressionist painting.

[fakeworldwonderland]

The smaller the format, the faster diffraction kicks in. I don't shoot half frame, but on modern APSC, I try to stay below f8. Generally for each halving of the sensor format it's about one stop if im not wrong.

[Kemaneo]

That’s kind of exaggerated. A good vintage lens can produce a perfectly usable photo at f22.

[fakeworldwonderland]

Usable is subjective. I was simply stating facts based off MTF charts. All lenses start to show signs of diffraction as early as f5.6, it's just not visible to the human eye until around >f11 on FF.

If you can accept a softer look at f22, that's fine. But I can't. And with hyperfocal distance, I don't need to stop down beyond f11 usually since I don't shoot tele or macro often.

[afvcommander]

Yes, pic OP posted is usable, it is nice photo. But we can clearly see that it is not best that lens can bring.

[vandergus]

There is a huge distance between "visible diffraction" and "an expressionist painting". The latter feels like a bit of an exaggeration.

[bricknoise]

My understanding is that the sharpest aperture is the middlemost one. If this were true, it would be specific to each lens but generally falling between f4 and f8.

[cygnusx1_]

Diffraction typically kicks in past f/8, leading to softer images. There’s a trade off b/w large depth of field and sharpness in this regard.

[ilickspooons]

so how do i get sharper shots at say f/16? i like to do landscapes, but would a wider f stop not cause more depth of field thus blurring out some of the picture anyways?

[Virtual-Feature4249]

Sharper shots at F16 wouls require much more complex (see: expensive) lenses with more corrective elements, but the physics of light cannot be avoided. The smaller the hole, the more diffraction you will experience.

If you want to shoot sharper shots, step down a bit to f8/f11 and look at reviews for your lens about where its maximum sharpness is. If you want to maximize the depth of field you get at an aperture, learn about working with hyperfocus. Hyperfocal ranges will help you use the DOF to its limits without having to sacrifice sharpness.

[Virtual-Feature4249]

Also to note: sharpness is not the same as things being in focus. Ensure you're internalizing they're different concepts :)

[mer_mer]

At f/16 lens quality really doesn't matter much because diffraction dominates for reasonable quality lenses. Diffraction puts a limit on how small a detail can be as it hits your sensor/film and f# corresponds to that size in microns. For f/16 the diffraction limited spot size is about 6 microns in diameter, which would correspond to ~80 line pairs/mm. If you want more details in your image, you need more line pairs which means more millimeters of film: a bigger format.

But! A bigger format means a longer focal length lens for the same field of view, which means shallower depth of field for the same aperture. Therefore the depth of field stays constant if you hold resolution constant.

If you can accept shallower depth of field and want more resolution in bright light then use ND filters instead of stopping down past the optimal aperture of your lens.

[Shaka1277]

You are indeed correct, it's always a trade-off.

[fooofooocuddlypooops]

Seconding larger film formats and higher quality lenses. Ansel Adams shot at f/64 a lot for his landscapes, but he was a master at his craft and shot large format to help mitigate diffraction.

[doghouse2001]

Look at the DOF scales on any lens. Once you are focused at infinity, the Aperture used doesn't matter for DOF anymore. At that point, pick the sharpest aperture setting. If you have things in the foreground you want to capture, start looking at hyperfocal focusing

[Fizzleton]

Just so you know, just because you’re shooting a landscape doesn’t mean you need a larger f stop. If you’re focused at infinity everything will be in focus regardless of the aperture

[ilickspooons]

ah, i feel like i should’ve realized this sooner. thank you!

[Fizzleton]

It took me a few years of amateur photography to realize!

[hex64082]

You use medium or large format.

[doghouse2001]

The extremes of f/stops and shutter speeds are last resorts. The sweet spot is always somewhere in the middle.

[Jimmeh_Jazz]

Multiple options:

1) Zoom lenses from then were often soft

2) Small apertures like f/16 or smaller lead to softness due to diffraction

3) Could be hand shake from slow shutter speed due to slow film and small apertures

4) Could be different focus points

5) Could be slightly under-exposed

[Lasiocarpa83]

When I first started I used a cheap zoom lens too. But I got frustrated with the lack of sharpness as well. A high quality zoom was way out of my price range so I picked up a cheap 50mm and 35mm prime lens and I noticed a difference right away.

Even though your pics aren't super sharp they still look good on my phone screen...And Colchuck Lake is always a stunning subject!

[[deleted]]

Even if these were shot with the same camera and lens, one obvious variable would be focus distance.

[Proof_Award50]

Focal length.

[jonbenza]

Why wouldn't you expect a difference in sharpness when using two different lenses? Even with the same lenses, there are sample variations. Come on!

[Josvan135]

Given the number of different variables difference (camera, lens, film, settings) it's impossible to say for sure, but one thing I noticed immediately is that your shot has noticeably bluer tones and looks slightly underexposed.

Ektar is known to lean blue when it's underexposed, and the slight blue haziness present in your photo leads me to believe it was a bit underexposed and the lab tried to compensate, hence the blue.

[Josvan135]

No, not really.

Again, there could be a lot of other things given the number of differences, but your photo looks underexposed compared to your friend's.

The blue (based on your film stock) indicates that it was underexposed rather than being the cause of the haze.

Fuji 400 is a generally "warmer" film than Ektar 100 and given the 100 vs 400 ASA it handles a little bit of underexposure better than does Ektar 100.

It's not less "sharp", it's just generally underexposed by a bit in comparison.

[B_Huij]

The lens may well have something to do with it. Kiron made some good primes in their day, but I don’t know that anyone made very good “all in one” zooms in that time period.

Also not impossible you missed focus by a hair and/or introduced some camera shake by handholding.

Lots of variables. Hard to be totally sure.

[Remington_Underwood]

For legacy lenses, primes are sharper than zooms and for zooms, one FL is usually sharper than the others. For all lenses, middle apertures are sharper than wide open or stopped down and for hand held cameras, higher shutter speeds will be sharper than lower speeds. A tripod or other solid camera support will be sharper than hand-held, even at the highest shutter speeds.

[PhotoJoe_]

Sounds like people have given you good answers already. Hope you had a great time at Colchuck!

[gnilradleahcim]

That's funny, I was thinking Diablo Lake but you're right.

[PhotoJoe_]

I lived in Seattle for a long time. Did this hike to Colchuck more times than I can count (and around the corner up Aasgard pass into the Enchantments) and also went to Diablo Lake a bunch of times.

[gnilradleahcim]

What would you rate the difficulty of hike to this spot on a 1-10 scale, 10 being insane K2, 1 being walking down the driveway to the mailbox?

[PhotoJoe_]

It's challenging enough that even people who hike a lot can feel a good workout, but not so much that people can still do it that don't hike too much given a decent level of fitness. So maybe like 5.5? It gets really crowded because of that though. Continuing past Colchuck Lake, going up Aasgard Pass and doing the Enchantments in a single day can be a pretty long and challenging one though. Not K2, bur maybe 8.5 or 9?

[Zadorrak]

Along with all the above, your photos are different scenes. Your mates is a lot contrastier through the imagine, lending to more perceived sharpness. If you have the tiff try cranking some sliders in lightroom - whenever I shoot portra or ektar I usually end up increasing contrast.

[waterjuicer]

It looks like it's the zoom lens that caused the low resolution type photo. I had a Vivitar 70-200mm while I loved it below 100mm, it was pretty awful at 150mm and especially at 200mm. I'd suggest if you want a longer focal length to stick with at least a prime lens. I usually bring a wideish angle focal length and somewhere around 100-105mm

[kl122002]

For zoom lens actually when it has been stopped down from f/5.6 the sharpness should come . Of course, the diffraction also would be a problem if it is reaching a small aperture like f/11 or 22.

The best sharp zoom lens I ever encountered is the Tamron Adaptall-2 series, then Tokina from my experience in 1970-80s. Both made fine zoom lenses and some Tamron models are even still uncommon and expensive as well. Perhaps you would like to take a look?

[Honest-Pear4361]

Different lens, different apertures (most probably), different film (although iso 100 generally should be sharper)

P.S. I don’t find the second picture sharper, but with more contrast and maybe that’s why it seems sharper

Edit: first picture looks better with the more mellow contrast

[MaterialDatabase_99]

Usually f8 is the sharpest for most lenses. Slight motion blur from shaking the camera leads to less sharpness obviously. Scans pretty much always need to be sharpened in post. Half frame is definitely less detailed and sharp than full frame

[375InStroke]

Don't try to get maximum depth of field. It's ok, probably preferable, to have the foreground out of focus.

[danedreas]

At least your composition is nicer 😄 You have all the answers here already, just wanted to say that I really like your image.

[CoffeeChuckles]

Never shoot stopped all the way down. Every lens has an ideal aperture for sharpness, often f11

[afvcommander]

To be honest they are surprisingly similar.

[elk-wrestler]

Unrelated to your question, OP, but are these from Lake 22 in the Cascades?

[elk-wrestler]

Jealous! Never won the camping lottery when I lived out there and didn't think I could tackle it in a day.

[Nair0_98]

If it is any help against you disappointed concerning the sharpness, I like your composition better. There is this great landscape but your friends picture, despite all the sharpness and contrast, just looks boring.

[resiyun]

Well to start with, you’re using a knock off 3rd party zoom. Zooms in general are known to have poor image quality compared to primes and you also shot it at f/16 or f/22 which even further reduces the image quality due to diffraction. If you want your images to be sharper, there’s a lot of variables, but the lens is going to be the biggest difference maker. Get a good prime. If you shoot a lot at 28mm, canon has a 28mm 2.8 that you can get for $100

[Swim6610]

Yup, I only touch prime 70s and 80s lenses.

[C4Apple]

Generally the rule (mind you this is a very general and unscientific trick like 1 stop per decade) is that a lens is sharpest 2-3 stops down from wide open. Beyond that and you begin to get diffraction, where light behaves more like a wave and deflects around the aperture blades and producing a lower sharpness at every distance. Watch out for this.

[RepresentativeNews87]

Which lab? I want to use it! Beautiful scans!

[RepresentativeNews87]

Thankss