SOOC Lenses

Hi,

What lenses do you used and the picture of the SOOC(Straight Out Of Camera) are so superb(colours, sharpness etc) that you do not need to do much of pp sharpening and bumping up colours?

After I tried the 70-200II on my 5D2 -> I find it my SOOC lenses. What's yours?

Cheers,
Scott

I'm not sure of your point here. Obviously lenses have different characteristics, but if you are using images without any post you are shorting yourself. Are you just asking which are the best lenses?

getting good lighting and knowing shutter speed, aperture.
mostly lighting.

Look at my gear list. I only show my students unprocessed images and only send unprocessed images to publishers. If your skills are up to it, many lenses will do what you ask.

Most lenses will produce excellent images straight out of the camera.. It's up to the photographer to ensure he/she gets the best out of the lens by using all the skills he/she can muster..

gasrocks wrote in post #11968631
Look at my gear list. I only show my students unprocessed images and only send unprocessed images to publishers. If your skills are up to it, many lenses will do what you ask.

Even when shooting raw ?

MFG wrote in post #11968408
Hi,

What lenses do you used and the picture of the SOOC(Straight Out Of Camera) are so superb(colours, sharpness etc) that you do not need to do much of pp sharpening and bumping up colours?

After I tried the 70-200II on my 5D2 -> I find it my SOOC lenses. What's yours?

Cheers,
Scott

I find I have to PP all of my images, regardless of which lens I use. Are they great SOOC? yes... Can they all use an extra bump of work? yes... but I guess that's just me.

hi, i guess the more i use the 70-200II, the more i find it v gd. perhaps, my post here is to express my feeling on how good the 70-200II is.. cheers.Scott

MFG wrote in post #11969503
hi, i guess the more i use the 70-200II, the more i find it v gd. perhaps, my post here is to express my feeling on how good the 70-200II is.. cheers.Scott

I agree. The 70-200 is a fabulous lens. It doubles as a nice workout dumbbell.

ilumo wrote in post #11969517
I agree. The 70-200 is a fabulous lens. It doubles as a nice workout dumbbell.

+1, i am surprise that it is heavier than the 100-400L.

I only like to do slight PP on my photos, otherwise you spend all your time processing them and you end up not even touching most of your images in the end. So I often crop a little, unsharp-mask if it's a heavy crop or it's an important photo that I can't reshoot and needs some sharpening, and may tweak the curves slightly.

Sigma 30 is giving me awesome photos straight out of the camera. Sigma 150 is too. Canon 400 F/5.6 regularly delivers, but due to the nature of what I use it for (birding) they generally get some heavy cropping so get a little more work. Now that I think about it my Tamron 11-18 and Tamron 28-75 both give nice results straight out of the camera. Ultimately I've chosen my lenses in that way.

One thing that bothers me is when people ignore poor CA performance of a lens because "it can be fixed in PP easily". Personally I don't find it all that easy in most cases, and just cannot be bothered.

Pretty much all of my lenses if I do a good job of manually setting white balance and nail my exposure right. I find that my primes seem to have a look that exemplifies my style best without much adjusting needed. I don't do to much pp for sharpness, just a little for noise reduction.

Politics, semantics and preferences aside, I find my 70-200/4 L does an amazing job.


Jason C

I just started using a TS-E 24mm 3.5L and if I import with General Zero, plus Auto Tone in Lightroom 3, I can use almost all of the images with no additional post processing. The lens is ridiculously sharp edge-to-edge and CA-free.

None of my pictures are ready SOOC. I shoot in RAW and RAW always needs processing.