Does the sharpness of lenses still significant??

Does the sharpness of Lenses still a factor???


Results are only viewable after voting.

Status
Not open for further replies.

West_ray

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2003
1,864
0
36
Yishun
galleries.photonx.org.
#1
Just curious, does the sharpness of your lenses still an important factor, even with the help of sharpness tools in photo editing softwares (GIMP, PS and etc) ... ?
 

Deadpoet

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2004
4,619
0
0
#2
If the original image is not sharp, there is only so much you can do in post processing!
 

slaam

New Member
Aug 29, 2004
1,548
0
0
West
naturespies.blogspot.com
#3
post processing sharpness looks different from lens sharpness. its less noticeable when the print is viewed from a distance though
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#5
West_ray said:
Just curious, does the sharpness of your lenses still an important factor, even with the help of sharpness tools in photo editing softwares (GIMP, PS and etc) ... ?
Depends on what you are sharpening. If it's just a 640x480 or smaller image I don't think it is that crucial. But when you reach 12mp resolution, any inferior lens will show clearly on the 100% crop of the image which sharpening tools and unsharp mask can only help so much.
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
35
Melbourne, Australia
#6
Personally, sharpness is important, and maybe even more so than other things such as contrast and saturation. Sharpness, or the amount of 'pop' in an image is the easiest criteria I use to see if the lens I have is a dud. My eyes aren't good enough for too much else.
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
35
Melbourne, Australia
#8
West_ray said:
hmm...ok tks for the input guys ... the result is too skewed ... ha ..
It does look skewed, but your question is indeed something to think about. Sometimes I think that a circular polarizer placed over a cheap lens to deepen colours will add so much appeal that I'd look less at sharpness. Unfortunately for us, most cheap lenses have a rotating front element that makes polarizers a pain to use, otherwise I'd certainly consider that for my kit lens.
 

gernie

New Member
Aug 20, 2004
233
0
0
#12
a lot of factors other than sharpness... well... if u see tamron 90 and nikkor 105... both almost same sharpness. but the build, etc-etc... :)
 

xxxger

Deregistered
Feb 10, 2005
610
0
0
Wild wild west
#13
JediForce4ever said:
If sharpness do not matter..then wont the trinity lenses and L-lenses depriciate?
why call trinity lens ? really so good meh??? :kiss:
if now i use 2 different lens to take a pic at 35mm, both at same setting
17-35mm F2.8 @ 35mm
28-70mm F2.8 @ 35mm
which image will be sharper? :bheart:
 

Limsgp

New Member
Dec 16, 2005
1,128
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#14
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/read.asp?forum=1031&message=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



West_ray said:
Just curious, does the sharpness of your lenses still an important factor, even with the help of sharpness tools in photo editing softwares (GIMP, PS and etc) ... ?
 

~Arcanic~

Senior Member
Feb 27, 2005
2,671
0
0
Westy
#15
what u said makes some sense, but wouldn u rather get the quality of the pic the moment you click the shutter than to spend hours sitting in front of a pc and doing major post processing to boost up the pic? ;p
 

Deadpoet

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2004
4,619
0
0
#16
Limsgp said:
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/read.asp?forum=1031&message=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
Using the dpreview example to say sharp lens is no longer important because of the advance of post processing software is completely absurd. Why? The comparison in dpreview is to demnstrate the power of the software. It was not to compare the sharpnes of a lens.

The example quoted, yes there is definately an improvement after the image was post processed, however, we have no idea if the example, taken with a cheap EF75-300 will be able to stand up to a similar picture taken wth a say EF70-200L.

Anyway, if the original is not sharp, it can be sharpen in post processing, but each and every action is degrading the original image. I stick with a sharp lens anytime.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#18
Limsgp said:
Hi!

Would like to post a link for your consideration
.........................................
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
Imaging have to post process a few hundred pixs after each wedding..... atlest 50~60 weddings each year, not forget don't know how many portraits sessions also, if I still using a cheaper lens.
OMG, I would rather spend a few thousands $ more on better lenses.
 

jbma

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2003
3,287
0
0
Tampines
#19
I'm not one of those who likes to spend hours on the PC doing PP. I would rather have a sharp lens anytime. In other words good out of the cam pics (shaprness, saturation, contrast etc). I grew up on film and to me there is no substitute for a sharp lens.
 

obewan

New Member
Feb 11, 2005
1,877
0
0
obe.homedns.org
#20
For most consumer grade lens they are sharp in general, at least
good enough for a 4R print.

But for larger print, I think the sharpness of lens is significant.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom