Just a thought on Lens option


conkeychua

New Member
Aug 19, 2009
549
0
0
39
#1
Hi

Apprently i would like to seek some understanding on Lens VS PP Skills :)

Seen alot of people shooting some great pictures using Kit Lens which lead me to start thinking on whether its the person behind the camera ( Although thats the basic in photography ) or the person behind the computer doing the Post processing?

Do you see or have experience any flaws from a lens that is not correctable from PP?

Say for example, the difference between a few hundred dollars kit lens vs a professional expensive lens.

Cheap lens has lower end glass which results in:
1) More flare = Can correct in PP
2) Variable Apperature and might not produce shallow DOF = Can shallow DOF be created in PS? Blur masking or something?
3) Colours not as vibrant = Can be altered as per your liking in PP right?
4) Light weight = Seen to many people complaining about plastic feel and such which i think im more focused on the Pictures then how light and cheap the lens feels!
5) Creates soft pictures wide open or at certain focal length. = But this happens in high end lens as well but given that fact, can softness be sharpen via PP?

With all these consideration, i came to a non proven conclusion that maybe a expensive lens cuts down half the flaws that a kit lens produces and that would mean that your time taken to PP would be cut down by half as well?

Of course this is not excluding the fact that we do know most of the more expensive lens has a constant aperture that would perform in Low light but unless someones tells me so, i wouldnt think that this is the main reason why those lens are selling.

PS: I am not saying one should or should purchase a certain type or lens. This is just for discussion sake :D

Thks alot
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#2
Nice bokeh is near-impossible to reproduce in PP.

As you said, a high-end lens is better-built and has high-end materials and fit n finish.
Ask yourself why a 2.0 litre Audi costs so much more than a 2.0 litre Nissan. They both might have about the same
horsepower, top speed and 0-100 performance. Why does one cost up to 50% more?
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#3
"pro" lenses are pretty sharp wide-open, whilst kit lenses probably need to be stopped down significantly.

That's not to say kit lenses should be scoffed at. I've seen as many wonderful photos from kit lenses as I have crappy ones from f/2.8 nikkors :D
 

conkeychua

New Member
Aug 19, 2009
549
0
0
39
#4
Nice bokeh is near-impossible to reproduce in PP.

As you said, a high-end lens is better-built and has high-end materials and fit n finish.
Ask yourself why a 2.0 litre Audi costs so much more than a 2.0 litre Nissan. They both might have about the same
horsepower, top speed and 0-100 performance. Why does one cost up to 50% more?
Bro, thanks alot for the example but i kinda have alot of reasons on why audi cost more then nissan from the engine block all the way down to the structure of the car...

But apprently i do not know as much in terms of lens vs PP.

I know why the higher end lens cost more ( Build, Consealed, glass etc ) but what im more interested in is to understand what the higher quality lens can do that a kit lens cant do even with PP :)
 

conkeychua

New Member
Aug 19, 2009
549
0
0
39
#5
"pro" lenses are pretty sharp wide-open, whilst kit lenses probably need to be stopped down significantly.

That's not to say kit lenses should be scoffed at. I've seen as many wonderful photos from kit lenses as I have crappy ones from f/2.8 nikkors :D
Bro, Thats the thing that gives me a headache hahaha. Which is why im more interested to know, like my last post to you, on what can the high end lens do that the kit cant.

And its becuase my knowledge on PS is still crappy, i wouldnt know what can be done and what cant in PS. According to you that i have learnt that bokeh cant be created in PS or in a sense that its not as good as the natural f1.2 kinda bokeh :bsmilie:
 

karnage

New Member
Feb 26, 2005
1,325
0
0
35
Ang Mo Kio
#6
My personal take on primes and fixed aperture zooms is that sometimes, there are situations where you wouldn't otherwise have been able to get a shot at all. And it is these times that you're paying a premium for... In adequate lighting, there really isn't much difference that I can distinguish between kit lens and their more expensive counterparts. Also, half the "flaws" does not equal half the time needed for correction. Some "flaws" can be quite difficult to correct, especially if the scene is quite busy. As such, getting it right in-camera (or as right as possible under whatever circumstances) will save alot of time... =)
 

conkeychua

New Member
Aug 19, 2009
549
0
0
39
#7
My personal take on primes and fixed aperture zooms is that sometimes, there are situations where you wouldn't otherwise have been able to get a shot at all. And it is these times that you're paying a premium for... In adequate lighting, there really isn't much difference that I can distinguish between kit lens and their more expensive counterparts. Also, half the "flaws" does not equal half the time needed for correction. Some "flaws" can be quite difficult to correct, especially if the scene is quite busy. As such, getting it right in-camera (or as right as possible under whatever circumstances) will save alot of time... =)
So people whom always shoot in low light environment without flash would have no choice but to spend top dollars for those 2.8 and below lens...:)

Regarding the " Getting it Right in Camera ", are you referring to the Composition, lighting and settings?

Its a known fact that a Pro lens produces better colours then kit lens but then again these are all re-correctable in PS right?

Thanks alot :)
 

karnage

New Member
Feb 26, 2005
1,325
0
0
35
Ang Mo Kio
#8
So people whom always shoot in low light environment without flash would have no choice but to spend top dollars for those 2.8 and below lens...:)

Regarding the " Getting it Right in Camera ", are you referring to the Composition, lighting and settings?

Its a known fact that a Pro lens produces better colours then kit lens but then again these are all re-correctable in PS right?

Thanks alot :)
It also depends. Things aren't always so straightforward. =)

If you always shoot in low light and don't like to, or are not allowed to use flash, and it's your profession to take photos, then in a way, yes, you don't have much of a choice except to bump up your ISO, in which case that means to buy a newer, better high-ISO performance body.

If you're however, a rich hobbyist, you have a choice whether you wanna get those. If you're a poor or average income person, many times it's quite unaffordable, especially when you have other priorities and commitments. =)

As for getting it right, yeah, I mean everything... Sometimes you're able to salvage compositional errors in post, but oftentimes, if you miss out an element, you can't edit it in just like that.

And as for colors, well, you CAN boost saturation in post, but you can also boost them in-camera. Which one is faster? Having said that, though, it is still your money to spend and it's up to you whether you want to spend money on lenses or spend time on PP. Haha!
 

Last edited:

sfoto100

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2009
2,092
0
36
#9
hi TS,

i am glad u asked this question... i have this question in my mind and i still don't have the answer bcos i don't own any good lens to earn such experience.

but , to me, and it may not apply to all, what makes a pic good is the composition. So , in most cases, maybe 95% of the time, what camera, what lenses does not matter much.

so in short, these r the most important factors that makes a picture good, in order of importance:

1. composition (arrangement of elements in the frame) and exposure,
2. Post production
3. Lens
4. camera


but if u r a reporter, then having a good camera is important... recently i used a 50D and it is only then i realise what is shutter lag.. by the time your camera open its shutter for the scene, the peak of the moment may have gone... why .. bcos u r using a low end camera... haha...


anyway till now i still do not know if pp can help to match a kit lens pic to that of a good lens....

but , nvm lah, buy 3rd party lor... they are better than kit lens and don't cost too much.. haha..
 

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#10
it really depends on the outcome you desire.

Having the right tools make the job much more easier.
 

Last edited:

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#11
Bro, thanks alot for the example but i kinda have alot of reasons on why audi cost more then nissan from the engine block all the way down to the structure of the car...

But apprently i do not know as much in terms of lens vs PP.

I know why the higher end lens cost more ( Build, Consealed, glass etc ) but what im more interested in is to understand what the higher quality lens can do that a kit lens cant do even with PP :)
If you've seen some really good portraits taken with high-end lenses, the sharpness and contrast of the subject, as well as the "creaminess" of the bokeh.
Well, it's not just difficult to accomplish in PP, I think it's darn near-impossible :)

sports photography is another genre that benefits from having a fast telephoto lens. How else to isolate Stevie Gerrard from the kop behind?? :)
 

gimumancer

New Member
Sep 15, 2009
237
0
0
#12
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
 

conkeychua

New Member
Aug 19, 2009
549
0
0
39
#13
It also depends. Things aren't always so straightforward. =)

If you always shoot in low light and don't like to, or are not allowed to use flash, and it's your profession to take photos, then in a way, yes, you don't have much of a choice except to bump up your ISO, in which case that means to buy a newer, better high-ISO performance body.

If you're however, a rich hobbyist, you have a choice whether you wanna get those. If you're a poor or average income person, many times it's quite unaffordable, especially when you have other priorities and commitments. =)

As for getting it right, yeah, I mean everything... Sometimes you're able to salvage compositional errors in post, but oftentimes, if you miss out an element, you can't edit it in just like that.

And as for colors, well, you CAN boost saturation in post, but you can also boost them in-camera. Which one is faster? Having said that, though, it is still your money to spend and it's up to you whether you want to spend money on lenses or spend time on PP. Haha!


Bro, Thanks alot for sharing your thoughts.

I have a consideration here where by i think the N & C brands has a good 17-552.8 and a not too bad 18-55 kit lens. Bokeh aside, do i buy a 17-55 and get a sharper picture with better colors by default or save the money, buy a CS5 ( Or some other good PP software ) and go for classes and ended up in the 18-55 with good PP skills software....

Results??? will i be able to hide any flaws that the 18-55 produces compared to 17-55 and PP it in such a was till no one can tell the difference which picture was shot with which lens? ( Still with bokeh excluded in this example )

Cheers! and thanks again
 

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#14
It really depends if you need features like the subject isolation that f/2.8 or faster lens can give.
 

ovaltinemilo

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,819
0
0
Sin jia Po lah
#15
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...
 

conkeychua

New Member
Aug 19, 2009
549
0
0
39
#16
hi TS,

i am glad u asked this question... i have this question in my mind and i still don't have the answer bcos i don't own any good lens to earn such experience.

but , to me, and it may not apply to all, what makes a pic good is the composition. So , in most cases, maybe 95% of the time, what camera, what lenses does not matter much.

so in short, these r the most important factors that makes a picture good, in order of importance:

1. composition (arrangement of elements in the frame) and exposure,
2. Post production
3. Lens
4. camera


but if u r a reporter, then having a good camera is important... recently i used a 50D and it is only then i realise what is shutter lag.. by the time your camera open its shutter for the scene, the peak of the moment may have gone... why .. bcos u r using a low end camera... haha...


anyway till now i still do not know if pp can help to match a kit lens pic to that of a good lens....

but , nvm lah, buy 3rd party lor... they are better than kit lens and don't cost too much.. haha..
I agree with you on the points and in the same order of importance which also means that without point 1 and 2, how good 3 and 4 is also no use, but with a good knowledge of point 1 and 2, point 3 and 4 do not matter as much anymore right?

For you, you have 1 and 2 so 3rd party lens is very good for you.

People whom do not have 1 and 2 will bang on 3 and 4 and hope for the better

I think i better quit and forget the idea of 1 2 3 and 4 :think:

Hehehe

Cheers!
 

ovaltinemilo

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,819
0
0
Sin jia Po lah
#17
Bro, Thanks alot for sharing your thoughts.

I have a consideration here where by i think the N & C brands has a good 17-552.8 and a not too bad 18-55 kit lens. Bokeh aside, do i buy a 17-55 and get a sharper picture with better colors by default or save the money, buy a CS5 ( Or some other good PP software ) and go for classes and ended up in the 18-55 with good PP skills software....

Results??? will i be able to hide any flaws that the 18-55 produces compared to 17-55 and PP it in such a was till no one can tell the difference which picture was shot with which lens? ( Still with bokeh excluded in this example )

Cheers! and thanks again
N or C can give you f2.8. But Adobe can nv give you f2.8. Buy the lens, then download freeware photoscape to pp..you will still wow ppl...
really, you can nv fake the amount of light that can go through your aperture by software...
 

catchlights

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

conkeychua

New Member
Aug 19, 2009
549
0
0
39
#19
it really depends on the outcome you desire.

Having the right tools make the job much more easier.
HI Bro,

I guess the desire is to get those nice looking pictures like some of those i see in CS gallery... I also know that they have came a long way to get to where they are currently in terms of both shooting and editing skills.

Do not know if you noticed under the critics folders, those straight out from the card pictures has the right composition sometimes but still looks dull.... Lens that they use are those of certain standard ( Some primes, some 24-70 )

There are also newbies in critic corner, 1 time posting, 1st time use DSLR, composition suck like a vacume cleaner but guess what, they learn photoshop in school ( Dont know what nature of course they took ) and althought the composition is not there, the images still stands out in terms of colors and stuff.... And they use kit lens.

This is based on a newbie with good lens vs a newbie with good PP Skills. Have not gotten to the part of the maximium potiential each lens can produce hahaha

So i guess as what you have mentioned about having the right tool would be the PP and the lens but with the PP being more important?;)

Thanks
 

conkeychua

New Member
Aug 19, 2009
549
0
0
39
#20
If you've seen some really good portraits taken with high-end lenses, the sharpness and contrast of the subject, as well as the "creaminess" of the bokeh.
Well, it's not just difficult to accomplish in PP, I think it's darn near-impossible :)

sports photography is another genre that benefits from having a fast telephoto lens. How else to isolate Stevie Gerrard from the kop behind?? :)
Bro,

After you mentioned previously that the creamy bokeh is not achieveable in PP, i would think the pro lens has more value now hahaha....
 

Top Bottom