grain_frame wrote:Shooters on My Squad wrote:unhappymeal wrote:black wrote:unhappymeal wrote:black wrote:If it isn't sharp then it is total rubbish......sharp ! sharpSHARP cried the BIFIt's not about sharpness, it's about whether the total package justifies the weight and size. From what I've seen comparing it to the 14-140, that answer is 'No'.Your first comment is about sharp.....so it must be importantSharpness is a part of the package. You expect a 1.2k lens to be sharp, no?Besides some cheap Chinese lenses when used wide open I would consider most of the lenses these days as sharp, most of them just by stopping slightly down.I seriously don't understand how people can obsess over sharpness (or lack thereof) or various other characteristics of modern mainstream lenses. And people always talk about getting good copies and bad copies - I honestly can't think of a single time that I've been disappointed with an image and blamed the lens. I have owned some very well regarded lenses (Leica, Zeiss, etc.) and I'm honestly just as happy with my f/1.8 Zuikos.Maybe it's like with audiophiles. They spend thousands of dollars on hi-fi gear to get a level of fidelity that most people can't even appreciate. I'm not saying there's not a difference - but if I can't see or hear it, maybe I'm not missing anything? And frankly, I don't see the point in developing such sophisticated sensory perception that you end up disappointed with everything.Some lenses really DO make a difference and have a SIGNATUREI agree, it’s rarely ZOOMS with complex optics and nearly always PRIMES with BEAUTIFUL GLASSGaul