Just a thought on Lens option

[conkeychua]

PP can only enhance...nv create...

If you try to fake the creamy bokeh for the background, it's usually tedious yet ugly:bsmilie:
Good and appropriate lens are needed to get the picture in the first place...if you use a 200mm f8, boost ISO to 1600 and shoot a dance event with stage light, can you ever PP the photo to a good photo? I doubt so...probably 200mmf8 underexposes, how about 200mm f5.6, the pic is soft or motion blur intro due to slow shutter...still no good pic...so fundamentally, good lens can create good photos...but good PP dun really create good photos...

but essentially, digital pg shd be efficient with both shooting and pp...like how film ppl was good at shooting and developing in their own style...;p

Adobe can nv replace any lens maker...they are of absolutely different expertise...

Hi Bro,

Thats something new to think about......

In your case, Nikkon or Canon produces 17-55f2.8 and all the other 3party lens like tamron, sigma and tokina creates something similar... If the PP like you mentioned able to enhance, can i say just pick one up and enhance any flaws since they are cheaper and still get the same results as the N or C one? ( Not to compare the IS, VR or the additional 5mm on the long end )

 

[sfoto100]

i wanna ask u guys out there...

when the term "expensive lens" is used, does it mean L for Canon and those good lens for nikon , Z for Sony etc?

or it mean those lens above 2k?

i thought as long as it is not kit lens, it is considered "expensive lens"... ;p

those 3rd party Tamron 17-50 , sigma, tokina 11-16 should give good IQ right?

:sweat::sweat::sweat:

 

[conkeychua]

some of expensive lens are those in long tele or ultra wide which a kit lens can never duplicate whatever type post processing technique you apply, for ultra wide a kit cannot ever get the same perspective, for tele you can try cropping your image but that's wasting lots and lots of megapixels and information, and will insanely consume lots of time to duplicate the bokeh or sharpness that a fast lens can get

also imagine trying to post process every single image you get, images that could have taken easily by those lenses, those time wasted could have been spent shooting different compositions, angles, lighting, some moments that you can never get back etc..

for me, it's actually time that you're buying from those expensive lens...as the saying goes TIME IS GOLD hehe

Great Imputs....:thumbsup:

BTW if you have a expensive lens, you mean you will not need to PP all the images? Or do not mean you do not have to PP that much cause most of the things are pretty " up to standard already "?

 

[conkeychua]

to answer your question, best is you rent a pro grade lens to test it out yourself, shooting same subject with two different type of lens, and see how you can PP all the way till you can get par with pro lenses without post processing.


btw, a snap shot is still a snap shot, make no difference whether is came out from a 500D, D5000 or 1D, D3.

HI Bro, I have all your suggestion in place except the PP part of it.... still learning still trying:sweat:

End of the day i want to know is a 24-70 from canon, nikkon and sigma yields the same result after PP or not. Any takes?

Also, i fully agree with you on the camera portion.

Thks

 

[conkeychua]

i wanna ask u guys out there...

when the term "expensive lens" is used, does it mean L for Canon and those good lens for nikon , Z for Sony etc?

or it mean those lens above 2k?

i thought as long as it is not kit lens, it is considered "expensive lens"... ;p

those 3rd party Tamron 17-50 , sigma, tokina 11-16 should give good IQ right?

:sweat::sweat::sweat:

Well for me, yes im referring to L lens category for individual brands. I read from CS that there are alot of people addicted to L and L is king and blah blah ( Same goes for the nikkon and other community ) haha

When seeking advise, when TS ask, which of the following lens to get, and there is a L lens in the list, you pretty much know the answer already....

Tamron 17-50 does give good IQ but if you where to start a thread on whether you should choose 17-50 or canon 17-55....., i think everyone will agree that 17-55 is sharper. but is anyone confident to state that they are able to PP the images taken by the 17-50 till its to the 17-55 standard?

If possible, then dun need to pay so much already hahahaha

 

[ovaltinemilo]

Hi Bro,

Thats something new to think about......

In your case, Nikkon or Canon produces 17-55f2.8 and all the other 3party lens like tamron, sigma and tokina creates something similar... If the PP like you mentioned able to enhance, can i say just pick one up and enhance any flaws since they are cheaper and still get the same results as the N or C one? ( Not to compare the IS, VR or the additional 5mm on the long end )

Hmm, I don't know why you would associate cheap with flaw...often when I choose lens, I would look at the spec like focal length, aperture and read up reviews on the distortion/corner sharpness/light fallout etc...I loove Nikon lens coz they are good, but I can't really afford the premium so I bought Sigma/Tamron which are supposed to provide similar spec but at a lower price..these are essentially why they are called third party lens...I would not dismiss third party brands like Tokina/Sigma/Tamron coz they are all good in certain areas and gave N/C a run for their money...when you mentioned "flaw" of these lens, I think you are referring to areas that they underperformed against the N/C brands...but they are juz so minor that I don't even consider them flaw... I don't own a 18-200mm VR, but I use a Tamron 28-300mm for the focal length because on a DX sensor it gives good IQ on corners and I use my hand for *VR*...haha...you really choose what is good for you..but PP is not going to solve any fundamental problem...so far, the most common "flaw" that I tend to PP is usually sensor dust...;p

 

[ovaltinemilo]

Well for me, yes im referring to L lens category for individual brands. I read from CS that there are alot of people addicted to L and L is king and blah blah ( Same goes for the nikkon and other community ) haha

i think everyone will agree that 17-55 is sharper. but is anyone confident to state that they are able to PP the images taken by the 17-50 till its to the 17-55 standard?

If possible, then dun need to pay so much already hahahaha

The question is sharper when used during what condition? if it's broad day light,my kit lens at f/8 is very sharp too...;p

 

[conkeychua]

The question is sharper when used during what condition? if it's broad day light,my kit lens at f/8 is very sharp too...;p

Say at 2.8. Some lens are softer then the others in such cases, would pp help?

Thks

 

[ovaltinemilo]

ok, here's an example that I manage to shoot to illustrate. Taken with 50mm@f1.4. Focus to infinity

Here's a random shot at f1.4.

Then I PP to help:
PP=sharpen only

I think it's obvious tt pp helps, but the result might not be great. Look at the white container...the white seems to "smudge" when it was soft...even when after pp, the smudge is still present though concealed slightly by pp..

The point is, a soft picture usually result in low contrast between the subject and background..so even PP, the results won't be very good...

Hope this helps to illustrate

 

[johnmateosong]

cheap lenses are ok when lighting is good... but an expensive nice lens will deliver in many areas where cheap lenses wont.

 

[johnmateosong]

And... it depends who is looking.

 

[conkeychua]

ok, here's an example that I manage to shoot to illustrate. Taken with 50mm@f1.4. Focus to infinity

Here's a random shot at f1.4.

Then I PP to help:
PP=sharpen only

I think it's obvious tt pp helps, but the result might not be great. Look at the white container...the white seems to "smudge" when it was soft...even when after pp, the smudge is still present though concealed slightly by pp..

The point is, a soft picture usually result in low contrast between the subject and background..so even PP, the results won't be very good...

Hope this helps to illustrate

Bro, thanks alot for the examples. it really clarified alot of things.

Cheers!

 

[conkeychua]

cheap lenses are ok when lighting is good... but an expensive nice lens will deliver in many areas where cheap lenses wont.

Thats what i thought but was trying to find out in which area that cheap lens wont that i have not thought about....

Learnt alot from the bros here though hehe.

Thanks alot

 

[Learnphotography]

kit lens are really good if you dont do 100% crop. its hard to see the different btw a kit lens n an expensive lens when u dont do 100% crop. but the lens speed does make a difference as it can expand your possibility under low light and produce bokeh. as for colour, contrast, distortion, it can be easily adjust with software. but not so with sharpness.

 

[karnage]

Actually, TS, you have the 18-55mm and the 50mm f1.8. You could do a simple test yourself. Set your 18-55 to 50mm and go around taking pictures. Interchange with your 50/1.8 to take the same pictures, and you can see for yourself what differences there are. I guess color is a minor difference, and quality of pictures at the same aperture would be minor too. The biggest difference you should be able to see is the difference in a picture when you're using a large aperture to isolate a subject, but if the lighting conditions are favourable, perhaps your 55-200 can isolate even better? Another significant difference is in low light, say a restaurant lit mainly by artificial lights and not largely lit by window light.

Perhaps another major difference in the experience of using prime lenses is the brighter view in the viewfinder. =)

 

[Shahrie]

Talking abt PP and good lens (be it L or 3rd party), the exhilaration you get from producing nice images from PP will be different from the exhilaration you get from producing nice images on your camera.

I always "wow" at the photos I took using a rented 'L' lens and I cannot get the same "wow" on my edited kit lens photos on PS.

And I think 'time' is also a factor when talking about these two. I believe most professionals (I am not one though) are expected to produce high quality images at any given time. Thats why they own expensive lens. But if you have all the time in the world, you can tweak that one photo in many ways to get a 'high' quality image. And that is only one photo for so much time.

Yes certain photos you CAN PS it to a near quality to that of an expensive lens. But not all. And it also boil down to what youre doing with the photos. If for yourself, then PP it. But if its for other ppl/clients, don't waste too much time editing it. Getting an expensive lens is a better investment.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[daredevil123]

TS, cheap lens are not flawed. They are just unable to produce results to what more expensivce 'pro' lenses can produce.

And please do not separate PP from photography. PP should rightfully be a part of photography. Your camera does PP for you, like it or not. You can buy software and do even more extensive PP.

Back in the old film days, people do PP too, just that they do it in the darkroom and not infront of a computer. It was sure a lot more complex and troublesome back in those days compared to today.

 

[frankchn]

Agree with everything the senior members said about expensive lenses vs cheap lenses. Just to add on, sometimes expensive specialist lenses have effects that cannot be reproduced no matter how hard you PP.

For instance, http://www.stanford.edu/~frankchn/photo/stadium/fake-ts.jpg (generated via Lens Blur filter in PS) vs http://www.stanford.edu/~frankchn/photo/stadium/miniature-nightfall.jpg (done with a real T/S lens) - note the specular highlights in the out of focus areas cannot be reproduced with PS.

And of course, cheap lenses/kit lenses are in no ways flawed - you can use those to take spectacular photos as well Happy shooting

 

[conkeychua]

Thanks to all the bros for the contribution and advise. I think i get some idea of what you guys mean so im going to get a copy of Photoshop CS and see how much can be created... then coming from a person that has no artistic talent, i think the CS5 would be a over kill for me but who knows.... Hahahah.

Cheers!

 

[night86mare]

1) ability to shoot in low light, kit lens are not fast

2) ability to produce shallow dof easily

3) focal length limitation of kit lens, usually 18-55 or something longer, you can't get a 10mm perspective, for example

4) build quality, you want to coat your kit lens with metallic coating?

5) sharpness, you can only sharpen an image so much

that said, if none of these apply to you, it is perfectly fine using kit lens all your life.