L lenses or non-L with extra sharpening?

[john meehan]

After 25 years experience with film SLRs, I recently succumbed to

the pull of the pixel in the form of a 10D and 16-35 f2.8 L and 70-

200 f4 L (my conscience (wife) entered the shop as the salesman

asked "F2.8 IS or f4").

 

My experience with the VERY conservative in-camera sharpening of the

10D has led me to wonder if the L lenses were worth the cash and

whether some of the better EF 'consumer' lenses with some extra

sharpening in PS might not have yielded equally impressive results

before the intrusion of artifacts.

 

The saving grace is that the lenses are a joy to use and deliver

lovely results on film (especially the 70-200).

 

Thoughts?

[jim_larson1]

Well, if it makes you feel any better I have the 75-300 and I felt the need to get the 70-200/4L because of the softness of 75-300.

 

Instead of getting a 1.4TC for the 70-200, I bought a new 1.6 FOV crop camera (10D) to go with the lens. . . .

 

Results at the 200 end are definately superior to what I was used to achieving.

 

I am a bit leary of oversharpening images . . better glass seems to make more sense. If you want to second guess yourself, the 17-40/4L is cheaper than the 16-35/2.8L (just slower). . . .

 

Are you still using film? I find that my film SLR is getting "under utilized" since I went digital.

[john meehan]

Jim

 

I am really happy with the kit I bought (from 3 different suppliers). I spent 3 days trying to source a 17-40 and bought the 16-35 as I had the body with no lenses - such is Canon supply in the UK. It took another 3 days to find a 70-200!

 

I am still using film through an EOS 30E/Elan 7e.

 

I agree with your point about over-shapening.

 

John

[jon_austin]

I would think there are additional factors to consider in deciding between L-series zooms and consumer lenses, besides sharpness alone. Reduced linear distortion and higher resistance to flare come to mind. And these are just the optical factors; there are mechanical considerations (better build quality, superior weatherproofing, fixed barrel length) as well.

[david_adams7]

John: Using L lenses professionally on a 1D and a 10D, I would not rely on the in camera sharpening as an indicator of what your 10D is capable of. The in camera sharpening can not be compared to sharpening using USM in Photoshop7, or, the Fred Miranda PS Actions, or, my personal favorite the sharpening routines in QImage. Feel free to email me with any questions, but, by using software sharpening rather than in camera your L lenses will show their capabilities far better.

 

good luck!

 

dave

[steve_barnett2]

You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. 'Extra sharpening' is a hideous idea for people who, lets face it, just don't care. If your aspirations are low it will easily meet them however.

[howard_grill]

'Extra sharpening' does not make images sharper than they truly are...sharpening is only meant to 1) restore some of the sharpness that is lost as part and parcel of making an image digital, be it with a scanner or a digital camera and to 2)create the ILLUSION of increased sharpness by darkening the pixels on one side of an 'edge' and lightening them on the other....it can never create true sharpness that was not there to begin with. Your images will always look better the sharper they are before 'sharpening' is applied, be it in-camera or with an image editing program. As has been suggested, for best results, I would not apply in-camera sharpening, but would do it in the image editing program where you can have complete control over it and also change your mind and still have an unsharpened image to resharpen (be it by removing a layer or by saving an unsharpened version of the image first).

[david_kieltyka]

"Sharpening" is maybe a poor word to describe what unsharp masking does. It increases edge contrast (AKA acutance), which makes the detail already there in the photo more visible. This gives photos a snappier appearance. USM cannot increase a lens' ability to resolve detail. But IMO resolution is overrated anyway. A high acutance photo with mediocre resolution will almost always look "sharper" than a high resolution photo with mediocre acutance. One of the best things about image-processing software is the degree of control over acutance it offers.

 

The value of the L lenses lies not necessarily in their resolution stats but in their build quality and speed. My inexpensive Canon 70�210mm f/3.5�4.5 zoom can resolve more detail wide open than I can see in 11x14" prints made from photos taken with it. It has decent contrast too, giving USM algorithms a good amount of data to work with. It's also light and fairly compact so it gets a lot of use. Now my 200mm f/2.8 L kicks the zoom up & down the street at 200mm--it's sharper at f/2.8 than the zoom is at f/8--but more important to me it's 1 1/3 stops faster than the zoom at the same focal length. And the L lens is built to last whereas the zoom is a typical Canon consumer-level plastic fantastic affair. Either lens will give me a photo that looks sharp when printed. I break out the L when I need the speed or want to minimize depth-of-field.

 

-Dave-

[john meehan]

Thanks for all the constructive responses so far (can't understand why Steve think's you would spend the extra for L lenses if you didn't care about quality).

 

You have pretty much echoed my decision factors in buying L series, i.e. build quality, weatherproofing, flare control and longevity.

 

My current MO is to use default in-camera image settings, 'expose-to-the-right' while holding highlights and post-process in PS7 (largely according to Michael Reichman's workflow at www.luninous-landscape.com).

 

My early comparison tests of RAW vs JPEG show imperceptible differences in the processed 8 x10 prints even using a good 8x lupe (I expect to see RAW pull ahead at larger sizes?).

 

It's early days and the learning curve steep but the experience of shooting with instant gratification (review) is a blast.

 

Regards.

 

John

[jay_.]

Inasmuch as the "photo quality" of digital images is dependent on software sharpenening no matter what lens is used, I wouldn't waste my money on top-grade glass for a digital camera. I've shot my L glass side-by side with borrowed consumer kit lenses from friends, and on my D60 there is no discernible difference whereas on film it's obvious.

[jon_austin]

To Dave Adams: Thanks for your post. When I read it, I asked myself, "What's QImage?" I found their web site, and this program looks really interesting to me. I'm going to download it and check it out. Any tips on its use? (Maybe this should be a new thread.)

 

To Jay: Whenever I see your signature on a post, I always anticipate that you will bash digital, and I'm rarely disappointed! I knew when I purchased my Canon L lenses that they were/are overkill for my 10D. I know I paid for quality beyond the 10D's image area and for sharpness that exceeds the resolution of the sensor. But I subscribe to the theory that camera bodies are transitional while lenses are "forever." So I choose to buy the good stuff up front, and maximize my use and enjoyment of them, rather than buying cheaper lenses now and upgrading later. I think that in the long run, this approach is less expensive (and more satisfying).

[steve_barnett2]

"(can't understand why Steve think's you would spend the extra for L lenses if you didn't care about quality)."

 

The price people pay for equipment can be irrelevent to the quality of work they, or the equipment, can generate.

[jim_larson1]

Actually, Bob Atkin's recent test of consumer zooms (and a 50/1.8) also implies that "L" quality glass may not be warrented on the current 1.6 FOV dSLR's.

[howard_grill]

For some excellent sharpening software try this:

 

http://www.pixelgenius.com/photokit/index.html

 

produced by some of the 'greats' in digital manipulation.

 

Also, they are coming out with a new sharpening product within days:

 

http://www.pixelgenius.com/photokit/index.html

[jorge_ituarte3]

"GIGO", Garbage in Garbage Out