Quote Originally Posted by timeUnit
No offence, but if you need a microscope to see the sharpness of your lenses I figure the sharpness is a waste. I seldom look at photographs with a microscope as it's difficult to see the whole picture, and they're darn heavy to lug around...

Honestly, though, I believe there's a myth about the sharpness of Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses. Of course they're good, but not outstanding compared to top lenses from Mamiya, Bronica, Rollei, etc, IMO. Most of the time it's the photographer that makes or breaks the shot. Bad shots don't getter better because they're sharp enough to cut your retina. Good shots are good even though sometimes a but unsharp. And as Soeren said, the photographer needs to take several important actions to get maximum sharpness: a very good tripod and MLU are two of them. If you've taken all the precautions to get that sharpness and still don't I think the next step is LF. Unless you shoot with a holga and Lucky film...

Regards,
*henning
No offence taken, but really I have photos that I can look at with a standard loupe and can tell no difference in sharpness, but I can tell a difference when I drum scan them.

All I was saying really is to judge lens sharpness you need something more than an Epson flatbed.

I dont look at negatives with a microscope either, although at times I would like to have more mag power than my loupe.