Lens sharpness/softness question

[PacAce]

Here's a question for the "experts" out there:

If the digital cameras, such as the 10D, inherently produce soft images which have to be post-processed, then does that mean that the sharpness (and maybe even the contrastiness) of the Canon "L" lens is "wasted" on these cameras since the images would have to be sharpened using Photoshop or some other editor? Or, put another way, what's the difference between using an "L" lens and a consumer grade lens if the images from both of these lenses have to be sharpened during post-processing anyway???

[justme_dc]

The better the source material is the better the end result will be. The sharper the lens is, (L series in this case) the more detail it will reveal in the finished product. I own non L as well as L lenses. The L lenses always produce sharper, clearer and IMHO better images.

As always G-I-G-O, Garbage in, Garbage out.

[rdenney]

PacAce wrote:
Here's a question for the "experts" out there:

If the digital cameras, such as the 10D, inherently produce soft images which have to be post-processed, then does that mean that the sharpness (and maybe even the contrastiness) of the Canon "L" lens is "wasted" on these cameras since the images would have to be sharpened using Photoshop or some other editor? Or, put another way, what's the difference between using an "L" lens and a consumer grade lens if the images from both of these lenses have to be sharpened during post-processing anyway???

The sharpening you do is not really adding resolution (which is what a sharp lens does), but rather adding acutance, or edge contrast. Sharpening will not make a soft lens look sharp. It works at the pixel level, while a soft lens will smear the image over several pixels. If you set the sharpening parameters to work at that scale, you'll ugly up the image in a hurry unless your prints are going to be very small, in which case it doesn't matter anyway.

Most studies I've seen have shown that, if anything, lens performance is even more critical with digital imaging. Part of the reason for that is that you will be seeing your images at much higher magnifications, and partly it is because of the interference patterns between fuzzy details and pixels.

Rick "whose cheap lenses became truly unacceptable only AFTER buying a 10D" Denney

[PaulB]

This is what I have been trying to get lots of people to accept - digital does demand higher lens standards if it is to give the best results.
A freelance photographer I know always went on about his lenses and how they were every bit as good as the prime 300/2.8 (he had a 100-400) and how his non-Canons were etc. etc.
A few months ago ago he bowed to the inevitable and bought a 1D, just before my 10D arrived.
Since then he has been part-exchanging his non-Canon lenses for a set of Canon L glass - and now he thinks the 100-400 isn't up to the job and is after a 300/2.8L instead.
When we asked him Why? his answer was very candid, "Digital showed up too many flaws in the lenses I was happy with on the film body".

One in the eye for those on some other forums who reckon that L lenses are a manifestation of failed manhood in a photographer and that professionals only use white lenses to boast about their status..............

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Take a look at http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/25_analogvs.htm

On DSLRs good glass pays off.

Regards,