10D and Good Glass Myth

[jorge_ituarte3]

I think I am starting to see a pattern here. I think this amounts to; if you own good lass and bad glass and you massacre all of your images in Photoshop they will all look about the same.

[david_kieltyka]

But I don't "massacre" anything. Very little USM is required for an 11x14" print. A little micro-contrast tweaking (USM settings in Photoshop: 10�20, 50, 0) is often all that's necessary. The lens must have enough contrast to give the USM algorithms something to work with of course. With a crap lens you'll never get enough snap for a crisp-looking photo, no matter how much USM you apply. But you can certainly improve the contrast characteristics of a good photo from a good lens. The Canon 70�210mm I refer to above is a good lens.

 

-Dave-

[ajpn]

Pfft!

[bobatkins]

<em>give a higher degree of 3 dimensionality to a printed image. I want to make the surface disappear. This is essential for me compositionally. I want to establish relationships between foreground and background object via the illusion of 3 dimensions on a 2 dimensional plane. I don't see this being pulled off very effectively with most consumer glass</eM>

 

<p>

But isn't that simply because it's faster? It doesn't have much to do with "good glass" other than in a totally obvious way, i.e. that you get less DOF at f2 than you do at f5.6. Nobody is going to argure with you on that one. Or are you talking about some mystical, hard to define, "Leica like" quality of "good glass"? If not, the you're just saying you prefer shooting at wide apertures, not that you need "good glass" for good images except via the incidental relationship that most "good glass" tends to be faster than "consumer glass".

<p>

<em>David the difference for me is night and day from across the room</em><p>

 

Then I have to compliment you on your extraordinary visual ability or comiserate with you on your cramped living quarters! For me most 11x14 prints look pretty much the same from a distance of 20ft.

<p>

BTW Contrast is contrast. So called "microcontrast" is just the MTF at high spatial frequencies. So called "overall contrast" is simply the MTF at low spatial frequencies. This is the measured MTF including flare, not theoretical calculated MTF of course.

[jorge_ituarte3]

Bob again with all due respect it's not a DOF issue. I see this mostly in my wide angle landscape work at smaller apertures. Let's just say that I and 80% of everyone else see it and you don't. I hate to sound snooty but no I don't have cramped living quarters both my homes are rather large and paid for by the sale of my prints. You know I guess it is that mystical, hard to define, "Leica like" quality of "good glass". I love it and I will spend the money to get it. The last thing I need to worry about as a photographer while capturing images is my optics. I know pretty much what my output will look like before I push the trigger. That is everything for me.

[jorge_ituarte3]

By the way you don't have to really spend the money to get it. Screw mount SMC Takumars with an EOS adapter are superb and build quality is a work of art.

[jorge_ituarte3]

Here's and interesting article by Michael Reichmann about microcontrast;

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml

[chip l.]

One point that I saw else where (will try to find the reference) about the sharpness of L lens. Yes, they are very sharp, but but there is another reason beyond the optical design that causes people to wax poetically about them. And that is that they are generally the fastest lenses from Canon. Fast lenses have less depth of field, and the AF sensors work better with fast lenses. Combined, this provides for what appears to be a sharper print.

 

The focusing accuracy of AF (or lack of) was born out in an article in Pop Photo awhile back. This may also explain why us Leica shooters will go on and on about how sharp our lenses are (though micro-contrast is another strong component of Leica glass).

[jorge_ituarte3]

That's very true Chip as well as lens contrast playing an enormous role in AF accuracy as well.

[oliver_s.]

The myth does exist. If we look at the P&S digital area, why would so many people look on the pixel count only when they decide for a camera? A friend of mine went for the, let's call it "Supermarketname 4 XXL", against my advice to get a Canon Powershot A70 because the Chinese thingy had a 4 megapixel sensor; he was completely deaf to my explanations on reliability and lens quality.<p>Now these people upgrade to an SLR. A digital one, of course, which means they have to shell out $$$. Enter shock: they have to spend more $$$ for a lens. (To quote my friend: "What do you mean with 'you have to buy a lens to an SLR'?" He stuck to his toy because of that.) As a camera has dozens of buttons and wheels and a lens hasn't and as we've been told for years about the great features of each new camera and as you don't have to buy an accessory to make a TV/video recorder/video camera/toaster/GPS/car radio/microwave oven/cell phone really work, photo periodicals regularly downplay the importance of good glass: you can't make a, say, Mamiya user give up an entire system just because the <a href="http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/EN_TPP_PDF/$File/Tpp_e_neu.pdf">Zeiss Superachromat T* 2.8/300mm</a> is so good that your reviewers invent a few new adjectives. But you may make a Minolta Maxxum 3 user give up his camera for a Nikon N55 if the latter has more features while a Nikon N60 user may fall for the Maxxum 5; because it's easy to "understand" why 3 buttons are better than 2, but understanding why a 28-70mm/f:2.8 is better than a 28-80mm/f:3.5-5.6 requires you to think. If your reader has to do that, he may put your paper away instead and will not see the ad on the next page. Your real customers, i.e. the manufacturers and advertisers, wouldn't like that.

[jorge_ituarte3]

A very good point O. S. I think this is the basic reason that the image quality of consumer optics has steady declined over the last 15 years and continues to do so. One basic example would be Canons 28-80 3.5/5.6 II USM vs. the newer and even worse Canon 28-80 3.5/5.6 IV USM.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In MTF testing; one measures the contrast/response of the lens versus the cycles/mm; which is the resolution. There is no BS emotional feelings; but the real performance of the lens; at one aperture; and magnification is measured. Each lens has its own set of curves; there are no myths; only actual test data. Two different lenses then can be compared on a rational basis; with no emotion. The emotional croc is a smoke screen by marketers; who must woo the general lay public; with colorfull nonscientific adjectives. <BR><BR>The masses are mostly "printing 4x6 print at Walmart"; and not giant enlargements; killer detailed prints; etc. With their modest enlargements; the effects of good/bad glass are harder to see. <BR><BR>

[jorge_ituarte3]

What's the point of these masses shooting with or lugging around an SLR system then Kelly? You can buy a Leica C1 AF Point and Shoot with a F/4 38-105mm lens that is tack sharp wide open at all apertures for $339.00 at B&H and it fits in your pocket.

[jorge_ituarte3]

Typo; Tack sharp wide open at all focal lengths

[david_kieltyka]

Yawn. Ya know, I'm not saying my consumer-level zoom is as good a lens as my 200mm f/2.8L. The L lens is faster (I like shallow DOF), built better and much more flare-resistant. It's tack sharp wide-open. Even so the consumer lens is not junk. It performs well enough that it gets lots of use, and in prints up to 11x14"--in low-flare situations with minimal or no cropping--its images are virtually indistinguishable from images shot with the L lens at the same aperture. Like it or not. It's a shame Canon no longer makes the zoom since their current consumer offering in the same focal length range *is* junk.

 

Now I'm quite familiar with the mythical properties of Leica glass, having used Leica rangefinder systems for the past 30 years. The lenses are hi-res and snappy. They give great results. I also use 1950s-era Contax RF cameras & Zeiss lenses. These lenses also give great results. But in 11x14" prints their images are again virtually indistinguishable from images taken with the Canon gear. Sorry if this offends anyone's doctrinal stance but, hey, too bad. I don't care about doctrine.

 

-Dave-

[kelly_flanigan1]

Jorge ; many probably would be better off with P&S cameras!<BR><BR>I happen to like the Olympus Stylus line of cameras.<BR><BR>In making trial posters for court cases; we usually get prints. The quality of 4x6" printing varies alot between printers. On rare occasions; we get actual negatives. When they are from the premium disposable 35mm cameras; they negatives are many times tack sharp in the central regions; and poor at the edges. The first time we scanned some with our 4000 ppi film scanners; I wondered what the hell camera took these images! With pure digital inputs for trial posters; blown highlights are more of a problem; than resolution. At least with film; the non linear shoulder region tends to prevent blown highlights. Sadly many times the disposble 35mm posters look better that the high end wazzoo digital input posters; when the highlights are all blown out. When entire areas read 255/ white in photoshop; there is no adjustment possible.

[bobatkins]

Jorge

 

I'm well aware of the Pentax Takumar lens myth. In fact I have a 50/1.4 Super Takumar in a screw mount as well as a 55/2.0 Super Takumar in a screw mount.

 

I've used them both on my EOS 10D and I've actually tested them against the nasty, cheap consumer Canon EF50/1.8. I'd heard of their glowing retutation, superb bokeh, "3 dimensional imaging:" etc. so I though "wow, an inexpenive route to amazingly good optics".

 

Guess what. No better the the Canon cheapie and sometimes not as good.

So either I'm the world's most unlucky photographer who gets the worst examples of all these otherwise magnificent lenses, or my eyesight is so bad it's a wonder I can walk across a room without banging ito the walls, or there are indeed a lot of lens myths floating around out there!

[chip l.]

Jorge, the reason why they buy the SLR system instead of the Leica C1 is the same reason that so many here tell people that the only Canon SLR worth buying is the Elan 7 or EOS 3. Bigger is supposed to be better. Oh, and don't forget that you'll never know when you'll need the Command Dial, or the FEL with your 550EX. Or that consumer grade lens will not give results that are worth the effort...

[jorge_ituarte3]

"So either I'm the world's most unlucky photographer who gets the worst examples of all these otherwise magnificent lenses, or my eyesight is so bad it's a wonder I can walk across a room without banging ito the walls"

 

What can I say Bob?. My heart goes out to you buddy.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

On your last point bob i agree.I have tested many older primes and zooms,comparing them to modern glass of many types.The old zooms (the better brands) tended to have allmost as good resolution as modern ones but MUCH less overall contrast.<br>The older primes were quite good but the newer ones are better still.

<br>One example that continually sticks in my mind is the EF100macro [non usm].Many of the images i get from that lens are as good as ANY lens is ever going to get.None of the older lenses i've used have even come close to that "total realism" look.

[jorge_ituarte3]

Ron what brand name of old lenses are you referring to. One of the hallmarks of SMC coated glass is very high contrast. I don't consider most old glass very good. The SMC Takumars were produced in the late 60s and 70s. I have made no suggestion of "old glass" in general in any of my comments. Most old pre-multicoated glass is pretty lousy.

[rob de la selva]

bob wrote: "I've used them both on my EOS 10D and I've actually tested them against the nasty, cheap consumer Canon EF50/1.8."

 

Bob, this implies that the lenses you tested weren't much good because you're suggesting the 50/1.8 is crap. It's actually a great lens on the 10D in terms of optical performance (my subjective opinion) and I don't consider it to be inferior to my L glass in terms of image quality. So I don't think it's fair to use it as an example of 'cheap' glass in the context of this spirited arguement! Put your screw mount lenses up against the 28-80 zoom or some other similar piece of consumer shite and see how they fair.

 

The 50mm/1.8 and other canon primes are, IMHO, "good glass" when it comes to the 10D. Cheap glass doen't always mean "bad glass".

[jorge_ituarte3]

Roberto I think we are getting off the subject here. This discussion deals with the ridiculous assumption that good quality zooms vs. cheap ones like the 28-80 do not have a substantial and obvious affect on image quality with the 10D. Canon makes some superb non-L primes.

[jim_larson1]

I don't think anyone has discussed the article that started this whole thing: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28zooms/

 

Prior to this article, the conventional wisdom (in my mind) was that the Canon Consumer primes had equal quality to the "L" zooms, both of which are superior to the cheaper zooms. The "L" primes were faster, but not sharper, than the consumer primes.

 

By quality, we are talking image quality, and not considering metal mounts, FTM and USM.

 

I believe another poster (was it Roberto? Can't remember) posted some comparisons of zooms vs primes with surprising results.