L series and Canon 5D

[alberto greco]

Dear Friends

 

my line up is the following: Canon Eos 5D, 17-40 L, 28 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8.

 

I was about to add a 24-70 L or 24-105 L, but I came up with a question which I am not pretty sure to answer.

 

Why in the digital era we still think we need expensive and heavy lenses when we can achieve basically everything

we want on photoshop? all the files have anyway to be touched up on PS before any use (both web-posting or

prints). This includes exposure, saturation, sharpening, mask, burning, dodging, etc... So why bother spending a lot

of money for pro lenses...? Couldn't a 28-135 IS be able to deliver the same results than its more expensive

colleagues for a 20x30 prints from a 5D?

 

I'm probably missing something...

 

Cheers

 

Alberto

 

PS. I don't care about pixel-peeping and chart comparisons, I'm only interested in getting your "real world" feelings.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Why in the digital era we still think we need expensive and heavy lenses when we can achieve basically everything we want on photoshop? [...] I'm probably missing something...

 

 

 

What you are missing is a very simple fact: You are wrong. If your basic image is not of good quality, no PS will help. Sure, it will look better after PS but if you compare it to a similar image shot with a better lens you will see that you will be able to get a much better final pic after the same PS, or even with less PS.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[seragram]

I do not understand your question.

Couldn't a 28-135 IS be able to deliver the same results than its more expensive colleagues for a 20x30 prints from a 5D?

 

Then why? my line up is the following: Canon Eos 5D, 17-40 L, 28 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8

[j_smith6]

Images which are perfectly corrected won't look as good as ones taken with better lens. When you sharpen a picture you don't gain sharpness - it's just an illusion and it works only to some extent. Also, with better lens you get more information (their resolution is higher) so big prints will look better. You can't correct bokeh on computer nor make the placticity look better. Besides better lenses are usually faster and you can use them in low-light situations. You can't correct flare and if you correct chromatic aberrations effects may not always look well.

[hjoseph7]

"Why in the digital era we still think we need expensive and heavy lenses when we can achieve basically everything we want on photoshop? "

 

Some people are very adept at picking up Photoshop manipulations.Why do people buy a BMW instead of Nissan sentra, or why do people buy a 20,000 stereo system, or why do people buy their wives a mink coat ? That's a loaded question, but there are other benefits to the L series lenses than just sharpness. My walk around lens is a 28-105 3.5/4 lens that I paid less than $300 for. I had it for 8 years and took more pictures with it than any other lens I own in cluding the 'L' series lenses. However when it comes to getting paid, switch to L series lenses no questions asked.

[g dan mitchell]

The problem is that all the processes that you can (and should) apply in Photoshop to maximize the quality of your

image are applied to the image you start with. With a poor quality initial image Photoshop technique will not get you a

great image.

 

I'm not saying that you necessarily need "expensive" lenses, but you do need decent ones. You also need good

shooting technique in terms of exposure and focus, etc. I think that all of us could tell stories of images that seemed to

be compelling until we discovered some technical issue that made the photo ultimately unusable.

 

Please note that it is not my position that one always need to have the "best" technology, nor that technically perfect

photographs are necessarily the only good photographs. There are certainly many great photographs in which the

aesthetic or historic significant outweighs technical shortcomings.

 

Dan

[sarah_fox]

I own both the 28-135 and L lenses, including the 24-105 (the closest L equivalent I have to the 28-135). Both of these lenses are good copies. I'm proficient with photoediting. I can promise you as someone who has been doing this that the L lenses (including the 24-105) do much better than the 28-135 and that no amount of photoediting can compensate for the differences. I find this to be particularly true with regard to chromatic aberration. However, you might not notice the difference if you're not blowing up the pics to fairly large sizes. The differences you might notice at ANY enlargement might be bokeh and purple fringing (chromatic aberration). Anyway, that's my "real-world" assessment.

 

If you are considering the purchase of a 28-135, I'll add that the 28-135 is quite good for a consumer lens. Even so, it's not in the same league as the 24-105L. The 28-135 still puts you pretty far up on the curve of diminishing return. Lots of bang for the buck. If you can easily afford the 24-105 or 24-70 and/or intend to do 11x14 enlargements or larger, I'd recommend going with L, particularly if you shoot lots of contrasty scenes.

[pgranone]

It depends on your expectations. The consumer level lenses do a decent job. Some are even quite good. But consumer lenses tend to suffer from more lens errors such as distortion, chrormatic aberations, vigneting, less overall sharpness, less contrast, less vibratnt colors, and slower focusing.

 

The Canon DPP program has added the tune option to correct many lens errors. That helps improve lesser lenses, but I think the L lenses are worth the cost.

 

The more expensive L lenses produce a better RAW file that requires less post processing to produce the quality of image I seek.

[sbp]

All above are on point. Photoshop can only manipulate or enhance an image. It cannot create a great image from an average image.

 

I used to own the 28-135, which produced average IQ on my 40D. Then i bought the 24-70, and the jump in IQ was dramatic. The

difference became even more noticeable when i traded 40D for 1D3. The The 28-135 has since been traded for L glass.

[nhut-nguyen]

You can enhance colors taken with a consumer lens to match a pro lens in PS. To me what important is detail, you and I can easily increase the sharpness in photoshop, but you and I cannot add more detail to the image.. you can't enhance something that isn't there right? L lenses have the amazing capability to capture details.

 

BTW spending money on pro lenses isn't because of the image quality only. You pay for the built quality, wider constant aperture and dust/moisture resistant.

[john_bellenis]

Why use a 5D when you can interpolate up from a 10D?

 

The main point here is the same as with film imaging - any process is only as good as it's weakest link. I knew a few people who

were spending a fortune on great camera lenses and then making prints with a cheap, poor quality enlarging lens.

 

If you keep the quality as high as possible at every stage - camera, lens, filters, post process technique, software, color

calibration, printer, paper and inks then you will be sure that you are not letting everything else down by one weak link in the

chain. Compensating for lens defects during post processing is not a way to restore high quality - it is merely a work around to try

and make things not as bad as they were!

[sbp]

<<any process is only as good as it's weakest link>>

 

Good point, John. Shooting with a 5D and L glass, the weakest link is behind the viewfinder...8-)

[martin-s]

<p><i>“Why in the digital era we still think we need expensive and heavy lenses when we can achieve basically everything we want on photoshop?”</i></p>

 

<p>Selective focus and shallow DOF is something you really can only achieve with fast, non-zoom lenses. No amount of fumbling in Photoshop can replicate that.</p>

[martin-s]

<p><i>“Good point, John. Shooting with a 5D and L glass, the weakest link is behind the viewfinder...8-)”</i></p>

 

<p>That statement might hold true, if you trust technology more than your own skills.</p>

[john_bellenis]

“Good point, John. Shooting with a 5D and L glass, the weakest link is behind the viewfinder...8-)”

 

I would assume that was merely a bit of self deprecating humor (some refreshing modesty in this arena of self

aggrandizement and posturing) and not an invitation for a sneering comment.

[peter_rowe]

Ah, I don't think we should be so quickly to point to Alberto being totally wrong here from an image quality point of view. As an analogy our eyes (which equate to a single lens camera/lens combination) take a poor, highly distorted image. The software (our brain) corrects these distortions to product an amazingly beautiful picture for us to see. There is nothing preventing digital software doing a lot more than it does today along these lines. Today, we have software compensation that address lens limitation like CA and typical wide-open barrel distortion. These are corrected to a level that is difficult to perceive at any magnification level and therefore makes these lens aberrations less of a problem than in the past. Probably the biggest difference between a standard Canon lens and an L lens is the build followed by more consistent IQ across larger apertures (not necessarily better IQ). At F8 there is just not that much between them and I think this is very much behind of lot of the "My new L lens is not sharp" and the "I'm on my 3rd copy" message we see so often. For the landscape photographer only interested in image quality vs cost then an L lens will not bring the advantage many think they will see.

 

Just my 2c

[alberto greco]

ok...

Probably I could have put it in another way...and maybe only Peter got it.

The question can be reformulated in that way:

With my 5D and a 24-105 L\24-70 L will I get much better 20x30 cm prints than with a 28-135 IS or will it be pretty much the same..? ...Including photoshop of course..

THX

Alberto

[john_bellenis]

That's a good answer Peter and I agree that under optimal situations (shooting at f8, etc.) there is probably very little, if

any, noticeable difference between a decent standard Canon lens and an "L" lens - in fact there are many prime Canon

non L lenses that outperform many L zooms. My 100mm f2.8 macro lens in one of the sharpest lenses I own. I am not

an L-coholic by any means.

 

However, in the situations that a less expensive does produce a lower IQ - soft edges at wider apertures, chromatic

aberrations, more flare prone, vignetting, pin cushion or barrel distortion, etc. - I do not agree that Photoshop can make

up the difference perfectly to the level of a lens that does not exhibit those faults. You cannot reintroduce resolution and

detail by sharpening, and all distortion or aberration corrections have some consequences. You can, of course, improve

the situation - often quite dramatically - but there is still no substitute for getting it right first time and maintaining the

highest quality at every stage of the process.

 

To answer Alberto's question - I'd have to say "maybe". Under optimal shooting conditions I think you would be hard

pressed to tell the difference. If the light is dropping and you need to shoot wide open, or if you are shooting a situation

that may include buildings or a lot of straight lines that exaggerate distortions or in a potential flare situation, I think I

would prefer to have the best lens available, and then, yes, you probably would see a difference.

[philip_wilson]

I think everyone is rather focused on distortion and soft edges. I find that Canon L series lenses produce better colours and contrast than the non-L series lenses (although I mainly shoot film). When I process velvia 50 I can see the benefits of better glass - even when scanned with a Nikon 5000 ED. I am sure that it is technically possible to get the same colours in photoshop but it is probably difficult and time consuming. It comes down to a price performance trade off. I would suggest that the differences are subtle between a good non-L zoom and an L zoom so do you really need to spend the extra. I always spend the money for good glass and wait until I can afford it rather than buy more cheap glass. many years ago when I was a student I purchased several poorer Canon FD lenses which I probably haven't used for 15 years (I should sell them). In contrast I regularly use 25 year old FD 85mm F1.2, 135mm F2, 35mm TS, 300mm F2.8 24mm F2 and similar high quality glass so value for money it can pay off to spend more. I don't shoot much digital but 20-30 is a big size for a full frame sensor so you may want to try both options (many shops have good rental offers if you plan to buy). When I get my 5D markII I will let you know how well it works for 20x30.

[steve_crist]

I remember a few years ago being in the local camera repair facility in my area that was factory authorized for most brands. A customer brought in a third party lens that was under a year old and out of warranty. The repairman said it wasn't worth fixing and explained several reasons for his statement. Additionally why buy a 5D and put cheap glass on it?

[sbp]

<< That statement might hold true, if you trust technology more than your own skills. >>

 

<<I would assume that was merely a bit of self deprecating humor (some refreshing modesty in this arena of self aggrandizement

and posturing) and not an invitation for a sneering comment. >>

 

Well, i have been shooting for 25 years, first on film and now digital. I am the first to admit that if i cannot produce high quality

images with 1Ds3 and L glass, it is probably my fault, and not the equipment. 8-)

[sarah_fox]

Alberto wrote: "ok... Probably I could have put it in another way...and maybe only Peter got it. The question can be reformulated in that way: With my 5D and a 24-105 L\24-70 L will I get much better 20x30 cm prints than with a 28-135 IS or will it be pretty much the same..? ...Including photoshop of course."

 

I thought I gave you a rather direct answer to exactly that question, but apparently I was just wasting bandwidth. Putting my answer another way:

 

No, you absolutely will not get the same print quality at 20x30, no matter what software you use and how well you use it. The 24-105L's image will greatly surpass the 28-135's image in quality, when used on a 5D, and anyone with normal vision will be able to see it very clearly. I say this as someone who owns both of these lenses and the 5D, who is good at photoediting, and who frequently prints very largely.

 

Having said that, the 28-135 is a very good value if you're on a tight budget. But you get what you pay for.

[martin-s]

<p><i>“I would assume that was merely a bit of self deprecating humor (some refreshing modesty in this arena of self aggrandizement and posturing) and not an invitation for a sneering comment.”</i></p>

 

<p>In that case my apologies. :-)</p>

[douglas_king2]

My suggestion is to try both lenses and see what fits your photography. A good camera store will either have

the lenses for rent or let try their demo lenses for the half an hour you need to get some sample images. Compare

those samples to your existing lenses.

 

Full format quality sensors like the 5D has are able to full advantage of L lens. What do you photograph? Do

you need a fast lens , or like the bokah of the 24-70 wide open? Or if you mainly photograph outdoors and want

one lens to carry the 24-105 IS L may be a good fit.

 

Speed comes at a cost though. The 24 - 70 is a relatively heavy lens so I don't always carry mine. But if I am

doing portraits, an event, or still lifes and its in my kit. I haven't used the 24 -105 but I have thought of

getting it to travel light.

 

Douglas King

[bradfernihough]

24 - 105 could be sharper, but is very versatile, i love mine.