View Poll Results: Does the sharpness of Lenses still a factor???

Voters
108. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yupz ! Sharpness from lenses still important ...

    106 98.15%
  • Nahz ... there's always sharpening tools in softwares ...

    2 1.85%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    1.45N 103.83E
    Posts
    3,202

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    I just hate non-original images. I prefer to have a sharp image right from the camera.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    i'm too lazy to sharpen my images...therefore...my answer is yes...

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    sharpness from lens is definitely important. some lost details could not be regenerated back by sharpening algorithms and even if it could, it'll be a time consuming exercise. anyway, i think the more important question is how much sharpness is enough.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    Quote Originally Posted by DeSwitch
    I just hate non-original images. I prefer to have a sharp image right from the camera.
    No images are original... neither on film nor on digital.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    wow but did you guys see the example in the dpreivew thread. I was impressed with the results. but his sharpening method seems to be rather complicated.... takes too much time.

  6. #26

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    Quote Originally Posted by Limsgp
    Hi!

    Would like to post a link for your consideration

    http://ck37.image.pbase.com/image/55778014/original.jpg

    The original post

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=17060014

    It mentioned that the picture was taken with a very inexpensive 75-300mm canon lens

    Given the wonders that post-possessing can do to a picture.. it is still necessary to invest in an expensive lens..? Of course.. an off-focus shot cannot be compared to a well focus one.. but maybe a shot that is taken with a cheap lens can be "transformed" to one that is no different from that taken with an L lens? In that case, is it really necessary for an expensive lens? (other then the maybe larger max aperture, and better built etc....) if just considering the final possible picture quality after PP.



    Regards
    Don't look at the subject only. Look at the background. After sharpening, the background which is supposed to be blur becomes very artificial. Plus, you will notice that the PP image is a whole lot noisier.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    While sharpness is important, some ppl are is too obsess with it to a point where they actually scrutinize every inch of their photo.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    Quote Originally Posted by Zack
    While sharpness is important, some ppl are is too obsess with it to a point where they actually scrutinize every inch of their photo.
    You won't be able to help it if you are used to doing larger prints. Some images are only passable over the CRT or LCD screen. When you print it out, defects will be obvious.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    Hmm.. my $0.02 is that the sharpness of the lens is really down to how much detail it's able to resolve, not so much how perceptually "sharp" the image looks.

    Human vision distinguishes "sharpness" by contrast btw edges. What post-processing/in-cam sharpening actually does is to make the edge contrasts in the image more defined, giving the impression that the image looks "sharper". That is why if you over do it, see start to see those white or black halos surrounding these edges.

    Why a "sharp" lens also makes an image looker "sharper" is because with more resolution, it is also better able to capture the edge detail.

    How to test this? Take the same picture with the same settings, one on a sharp lens and one on a crappy lens. In post processing you can apply different levels of sharpening till the well-defined edges in both images look equally sharp. However, you'll find that the amount details in each image will be different (ie. the image from the crappy lens will look "muddy") because post processing can't recover data that wasn't there in the first place.

    Disclaimer: This is only my conjecture based on what I've read and what i've tried/experience myself. Any counter-argument is welcomed.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??
    So long the lens is not extremely soft, it would be ok for me. I am more concerned about Vignetting and CA.

  11. #31

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    modern, reputable brands all have nearly similar sharpness of lens.
    the sensor plays a big role instead, IMHO, especially for digital format, where the pixel gaps should be put into consideration.

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Catchment Area
    Posts
    2,441

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    In the old days of film, most of us would only go for 3R, and then 4R and a few 8R now and then. So, an ordinary amateur class of lens would do as the difference between the sharper lens and the pro lens is not that obvious.

    In digital, we check for sharpness by viewing 100% on the monitor - this is not realistic becos we never print that big. That is why even at 6Mp, many amateurs find that their kit lens like 18-70 ain't sharp enough.

    IMO, if you need to print big, real big like poster size, then go for 645 or larger.

    But of course, very often, we are not that rational at times. On the monitor, we all have the habit of peeking at a pic at 100% to see how sharp it is and how much detail captured. So, just got to pay big bucks for it la.
    I love big car, big house, big lenses, but small apertures.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    Quote Originally Posted by Denosha
    Hmm.. my $0.02 is that the sharpness of the lens is really down to how much detail it's able to resolve, not so much how perceptually "sharp" the image looks.

    Human vision distinguishes "sharpness" by contrast btw edges. What post-processing/in-cam sharpening actually does is to make the edge contrasts in the image more defined, giving the impression that the image looks "sharper". That is why if you over do it, see start to see those white or black halos surrounding these edges.

    Why a "sharp" lens also makes an image looker "sharper" is because with more resolution, it is also better able to capture the edge detail.

    How to test this? Take the same picture with the same settings, one on a sharp lens and one on a crappy lens. In post processing you can apply different levels of sharpening till the well-defined edges in both images look equally sharp. However, you'll find that the amount details in each image will be different (ie. the image from the crappy lens will look "muddy") because post processing can't recover data that wasn't there in the first place.

    Disclaimer: This is only my conjecture based on what I've read and what i've tried/experience myself. Any counter-argument is welcomed.
    Excellent. I couldn't have explained it better myself.

  14. #34
    Member Andy Ho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    389

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    Quote Originally Posted by Limsgp
    Hi!

    Would like to post a link for your consideration

    http://ck37.image.pbase.com/image/55778014/original.jpg

    The original post

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=17060014

    It mentioned that the picture was taken with a very inexpensive 75-300mm canon lens

    Given the wonders that post-possessing can do to a picture.. it is still necessary to invest in an expensive lens..? Of course.. an off-focus shot cannot be compared to a well focus one.. but maybe a shot that is taken with a cheap lens can be "transformed" to one that is no different from that taken with an L lens? In that case, is it really necessary for an expensive lens? (other then the maybe larger max aperture, and better built etc....) if just considering the final possible picture quality after PP.



    Regards
    The picture posted is in the first place not an actual size reproduction of the image and everyone knows that a low resolution image always appear sharp on screen as your screen is only capable of only 72 dpi to 120 dpi resolution. Using that picture to prove a point is IMHO an exhibition to the level of your technical knowledge. If you want to show, then show us a full size image of one taken with a good lens and one taken with a lesser lens after PP.

    But then also, although I do agree a good lens is necessary for good quality image, a so so lens that is capable of producing decent enough results is ok for me in some situation when a lighter weight is more crucial than a whole lot of heavy optics.

    I have been in situation, and have also seen people in that situation, where we are so tired out lugging a heavy sack of optics and cameras that we totally loose our mood to shoot. I would rather go light and shoot freely. This is why I at times leave even my f/2.8 tele zoom at home. It is better to have a not so sharp image than no image at all because you are too tired to shoot.

    I am not agreeing entirely on the PP thing you mentioned but just that I can sacrifice some level of detail reproduction if it means I might be tired out after days of lugging the equipment around. Like I say, I would rather have a less sharp picture than no picture.

  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,129

    Default Re: Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

    Apparently the sharpness of a lens is very important.. perhaps the question should be, which is more significant, the sharpness of the lens or the hole in the pocket that could have been saved by using a cheaper lens and doing some PP.

    In my earlier post, it is just to show that maybe a cheaper lens can be used and by doing some PP can still produce "acceptable" results. And maybe save some effort from carrying a heavier lens.

    Maybe the sharpness of a 3kg len may not be so significant, when compared to using a cheap and light lens and then doing some PP in an air-conditioned room. Of course it will depend on the individual. Personally I might opt to carry a 3kg lens.. if I can afford it in the first place.. But now, I would say the hole in the pocket is more significant and so doing some PP to produce a reasonable picture is acceptable to me.

    Just some comment.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •