In the last couple of years, I have been using my equipment more frequently, taking more photographs. Yesterday, I was reviewing some of my 4"x6" prints. With the prices of better quality medium and large format film gear being so low, I decided to examine my prints in terms of shaprness. I constantly hear of the inferiority of the "small" 35mm negative, and am tempted by the promise of absolute or "edge-to-edge" sharpness. After having taken a fair selection of photographs in 35mm, I am surprised by my findings. Most of the numerous shots I examined showed very good to excellent overall sharpness. There were a number, that to me at least, were amazingly sharp--edge-to-edge. For example, some shots I had taken of trains are simply "reach-out-and-touch-it" sharp. These shots were taken hand-held, and my subject was moving. I believe I used a Nikkor NPK 50/2 at 1/250 or 1/500 at either F/8 or f/11. I used Kodak Ektar 100 film. In any case, most lenses (35mm or otherwise) will perform better when stopped down (as mine was), but the fact that the shots were hand-held and of an object in motion increased my surprise. I was also fairly close to the subject. I welcome any comments or opinions, especially if you have observed similar (or dissimilar?) results.