L lens worth it?
- Thread starter trucatus
- Start date
- Status
generik said:
all digital images are soft if no amount of sharpening is applied. it's the nature. DSLR images generally "sharpen" up very well in software as they contain the details.
perhaps, you could take a look at: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Sharpening_01.htm
when you looked at processed images, you get an "optical illusion" of sharpness. digicams process more, so you get a higher level of "optical illusion" for digicam images vs DSLR images. The optical sharpness of the lens and the sensor for DSLR with a consumer lens might instead be higher than that of a digicam.
generik said:
Your query is not very clear. Suffice to say, if you take a direct download from a Bayer sensor and view it unprocessed, it will be a horrible image, regardless of the lens you use. What mpenza is saying is that ALL digital captures need to undergo some processing before it can be viewed. You can do aggressive processing in the camera, as occurs for most P&S, so that you don't have to do post-processing later, downside being loss of detail which cannot be recovered later. Or, you can do less aggressive in-camera processing, resulting in less sharp and saturated pictures straight out of the camera, but with greater potential for good post-processing results later. This issue has been discussed to death on this and other forums, do read around a little.
trucatus said:
As you have guessed from all the replies, nobody can answer that question for you! It really comes down to what you like to shoot, what's your tolerance for image quality, and what you can afford. Honestly, IMO, no hobbyist can rationally justify spending more than 3K total for a camera system. The rest is irrational spending (of which I am guilty as well). I love a couple of my 'L' lenses, I also love a couple of on my non-'L' lenses, and a few 'L's I have been disappointed with. Image quality is only one part of the equation.....
trucatus
Senior Member
I don't want to end up having image that soft like the Sigma http://www.sd9.org/hardware/lens/70-200img.htm
Though having the f2.8 it will always disappoint you.
Though having the f2.8 it will always disappoint you.
The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a rather highly regarded lens too and one of the popular alterntives for Nikon/Canon users. Quoting from the source At 200mm it is soft but more than usable at f2.8 and f32. The auther said it's more than usable at f2.8. Is it unusable for you? If I'm not wrong, the samples are 100% crops from the original image and you seldom print so big. It's only you who could make the judgement call for yourself.
Also, I presume that the tests were done under controlled environment with the camera/lens mounted on a tripod. In actual practical use, other factors (handshake, wind, movement of the subjects, tiredness, etc) could affect the sharpness of the captured images.
btw, seems like you're considering a lens in the range of 70-200mm. It's one of my most frequently used focal lengths too but I didn't get any f2.8 zoom. I'm using the relatively cheaper F4L version which most importantly is significantly lighter than any of the f2.8 zoom ;p
Also, I presume that the tests were done under controlled environment with the camera/lens mounted on a tripod. In actual practical use, other factors (handshake, wind, movement of the subjects, tiredness, etc) could affect the sharpness of the captured images.
btw, seems like you're considering a lens in the range of 70-200mm. It's one of my most frequently used focal lengths too but I didn't get any f2.8 zoom. I'm using the relatively cheaper F4L version which most importantly is significantly lighter than any of the f2.8 zoom ;p
generik said:
Actually, technically speaking not all L lenses have USM (e.g. the older 100-300 F5.6L and of course the tilt & shift 24/3.5L), and there are quite a number of non-L lenses with large aperture (mainly primes) and USM (primes and zooms). Also, not all USM are equal. If I remember correctly, the 85/1.2L actually focusses quite slowly compared to its non-L equivalent 85/1.8.
Just for more info, several other lens manufacturers also have something similar to Canon's L designation, e.g. Sigma's EX series, Tamron's SP series and Tokina's ATX-Pro series. Nikon is one that conspicuously didn't have such a "branding" for their top range lenses. Guess it boils down to how the companies want to market their products.
Depends on whether or not you get a lemon, which sometimes happens (Sigma QC ain't that good). But if you have a good copy yes, it is surprisingly pretty good wide open. I do have a copy of this lens and it is fairly sharp wide open at f2.8 when viewed at 100%. Stopped down to abt 3.5 or more it should be pretty sharp. Comparable to Canon 70-200mm f2.8L zooms, and cheaper too, hence it is a popular alternative to those who can't fork out the dough for the L.trucatus said:
it's you who control.that's a nickname by the users ;p users also have some nicknames for canon lenses like gold finger, magic drainpipe, xiao bai, xiao xiao bai, etc. There're also names like big ma for sigma 50-500.
Here's a product listing from Nikon USA's website:
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5
No "trinity" was mentioned.
Here's a product listing from Nikon USA's website:
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5
No "trinity" was mentioned.
- Status
