L series Revelation... Is this true!?!?

captures.in.time

captures.in.time

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,764
Edit My Images
Yes
This was said to me in another thread but I think it almost merits its own discussion...

"The optics on L series are superb but at the end the of the day, Photoshop can also help you in many ways to improve contrast/sharpness.

With current prices, its probably not worth the price going for a L series ( or any lens for that matter)"

This poster almost says why bother going for a more expensive lens when you can punch up the contrast and sharpness in photo shop... now I know you can do this in photoshop... but surely this is not actually completely true... or why does anyone waste there money on anything more than good marque lenses???
 
Not something I agree with

All images will benefit from some sharpening or contrast, but the difference between an entry level lens and a professional class lens such as a Canon L (other professional grade lenses are available) are incredible.
 
The first question is "your" camera able to resolve the image the L lens produces. If the answer is no then there is little point , from an optical point of view. If on the other hand you have a camera with a high pixel count, then yes may be the answer. No amount of Photoshoping will but information back into an image that just isn't there in the first place.

You've also got to consider build quality.Plus an L lens will retain it's value much more than a "consumer" lens.

To be honest if you don't do big enlargements, don't need to do heavy cropping then maybe a normal lens, which to be honest is probably very good anyway, maybe the best bet. And represent good value for money. It's the famous Last 10% in Image Quality that puts the price up by more than that amount

I have a few "consumer" lenses in my collection, and 4 L series. I can see the difference. To me the extra cost is worth it,to others it may be a waste of money.
 
What does this make you think.....HERE

Edited...
It's the famous Last 10% in Image Quality that puts the price up by more than that amount
Click to expand...
wheres this quoted?
 
andrewc said:
Not something I agree with

All images will benefit from some sharpening or contrast, but the difference between an entry level lens and a professional class lens such as a Canon L (other professional grade lenses are available) are incredible.
Click to expand...

i 100% agree not saying you cant take excellent pictures without but in my personal experience the differance is something else and worth the expense.

your just making life harder for youself if you take a shot and then spend a week PP, when with a decent glass it can take alot less time:suspect:
 
Not something i would agree with either.

Too many people these days go with the opinion 'Oh i can sort it out later in photoshop'. I have often found the same people to be lazy regarding composition etc...as again they think 'Oh i can just crop that bit out'.

Most togs do a bit of level adjusting etc..but im' sure that quality glass is purchased by many for a different reason altogether.
 
Reminds me of the story of the foolish man who built his house on sand.

Also, I once heard a very descriptive phrase for similar circs and it went a little something like this:

crap in = crap out :D
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Reminds me of the story of the foolish man who built his house on sand.

Also, I once heard a very descriptive phrase for similar circs and it went a little something like this:

crap in = crap out :D
Click to expand...

What happened to him then eh? :p

My uni tutor used to say "Garbage in, garbage out" which kinda backfired come deadline day....he puts garbage in, we give garbage out ;)
 
purpleclouds said:
What happened to him then eh? :p

My uni tutor used to say "Garbage in, garbage out" which kinda backfired come deadline day....he puts garbage in, we give garbage out ;)
Click to expand...

:lol: Now that's what I call illustration! :thumbs:
 
I completely disagree with statement

L glass is about more than contrast and sharpness. Period.
 
Well if theres anyone out there with an EF 600MM IS I'll do a straight swap for a copy of CS4
 
Veracocha said:
Well if theres anyone out there with an EF 600MM IS I'll do a straight swap for a copy of CS4
Click to expand...

yeah right me too...:lol:

i noticed the difference straight away.
 
Looks like I opened a can of worms and that wasn't at all what I mean in your other thread mark.

I have used many different lenses to see what the extra L series thing does but its only a small percentage more compared to the standard (decent ones) lenses but it makes all the difference. the extra resolution can't be faked in PP either
 
simeon said:
i 100% agree not saying you cant take excellent pictures without but in my personal experience the differance is something else and worth the expense.

your just making life harder for youself if you take a shot and then spend a week PP, when with a decent glass it can take alot less time:suspect:
Click to expand...
Not entirely true. A close to blown out sky, can a lens fix that? No.

Can PP?

A lens helps but IF you shoot RAW and then fanboy on about how great the L series lens is, your photos or work wont do your words justice.

PP is part of digital photography, L lens or no L lens.
 
Watching this thread, I see that people seem to be presenting their arguments about the merits of lenses from a different starting point.

Lens contrast is more akin to sharpness in PP and, unless much effort is expended at this stage, cannot be compensated without the software guessing what was there. This becomes clear if too much sharpening is applied and the image loses the gradients that truly existed in the scene.

Forgetting other attributes like build quality and weather sealing then it comes down to the ability to project a true representation of the scene onto the sensor. MtF charts are available for most lenses and studying them will give a reasonable guess as to how accurate the scene will be.
The first consideration is the height of the line....higher is better.
Secondly we should be looking at the profile of the line....flatter is better.
Thirdly compare performance at the apertures represented and relate them to apertures you're likely to be using.....close to wide open for indoor or night time shots or stopped down for shots where an extended depth of field is needed (landscapes?)

Many mid-range, non-L lenses compare very favourably with their more expensive cousins across the initial 10-15mm from the optical axis and then the line decays....sometimes quickly, sometimes gradually. The point where the line starts falling and it's rate of fall should be all important to the OP. Using a full frame sensor demands a lens with a long, flat line with little or gradual fall off at the right side. This will generate images with the best corner-corner quality. A crop sensor doesn't demand the same performance as far away from the optical axis and corner-corner sharpness is possible with a lens that has soft edges (12mm and greater from the centre). Comparing L primes with a non-L of the same focal length almost always shows the L to have a flatter line projecting further from the optical axis.

In conclusion, and ignoring all other aspects (build quality, weather sealing, bokeh etc) of the lens and concentrating on its ability to give the image to the sensor, we can see that users of FF bodies will get far better value for the premium paid than users of crop sensor bodies. When discussing the merits of mid-range versus L lenses, the sensor size will acentuate or nullify some of the benefits.
 
Teshi said:
Not entirely true. A close to blown out sky, can a lens fix that? No.

Can PP?

A lens helps but IF you shoot RAW and then fanboy on about how great the L series lens is, your photos or work wont do your words justice.

PP is part of digital photography, L lens or no L lens.
Click to expand...

Your totally missing the point here. The OP pondered the question:

'Can the difference in quality between a standard EF lens and an L series lens be compensated for in photoshop?'

This discussion has nothing to do with how viable or valuable photoshop is.
 
markelliot said:
This poster almost says why bother going for a more expensive lens when you can punch up the contrast and sharpness in photo shop... now I know you can do this in photoshop... but surely this is not actually completely true... or why does anyone waste there money on anything more than good marque lenses???
Click to expand...


Yes, I think it is true to a limited extent, shooting at the lens sweetspot, in the middle of the zoom range, and then tweaking slightly in PS, I think you would be hard pushed to tell the difference between a similar image taken with an L lens at the same aperture,, zoom length.

It's when you move out this comfort zone that the real differences are apparent, and start shooting at F4 or F22.

And as Bob mentioned, it's not only the quality of the glass that influence buying decisions when it comes to L lenses.

So if you only shoot at say f5.6/8 in the middle range of a zoom, don't go out in the rain, and don't bounce your lens around, then I can't see any point in a purchasing a L lens.
 
What do you mean by sharpness?

The appearance of sharpness does not equate to more detail. You cannot add detail that wasn't captured. Sharpening is simply edge enhancement.

What do you mean by contrast? Do you really mean micro-contrast (a much more interesting quality of a lens) - the later is also heavily influenced by the camera's AA filter.

And you don't talk about bokeh which is also an important characteristic.

Often the process that makes people go "Wow! Thats sharp!" has actually destroyed detail via Photoshop's sharpening edge enhancement process ;)

Do not mistake the appearance of sharpness with real detail. Photoshop can add the appearance of sharpness, but you cannot add detail that was never captured.

IMHO detail, micro-contrast and bokeh are much more important qualities - you have not discusssed these but they are fundamental lens qualities that can't be replicated in Pp.

The answer to your question is fundamentally - no, its not true.
 
Hi all

Thanks for your coments... and to the original poster of the coment on my previous thread... It apears I took you out of context... for that im sorry... but the actual question of can you gain sharpness and contrast in photoshop was one I was unclear about... I know know the answer...

As I have a full frame SLR in the EOS5d it seems I will benefit more than those who dont have full frame...

Im off to read that lens test article now....

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top