Can post processing make up for less than stellar lens quality

Software can now reduce vignetting, distortion, chromatic aberation and probably others I don't know about.

Can these capabilities make it possible to narrow the performance gap between third party lenses, Tokina, Sigma and high priced Canon L lenses?

In other words can I use software to get my images to look very close to red ring quality?

If it was possible wouldn't everyone do it? Maybe I answered my own question

Nope. If it did Canon would go broke.

Ha, maybe you did answer your own question !

Good question though... IMO the equipment is probably the least important, most important being the skill and experience of the photographer, second being the PP, and third the equipment. That being said, having great (as opposed to only good or very good) equipment can and probably often does make that incremental, but crucial, difference.

What software are you referring to...do you have the wherewithal to be an expert in it's usage?
An old computer abbreviation, GIGO, garbage in/garbage out, applies to photography as well...junk is junk.

some third party lenses are already really close to canon L's without any PP...

Some third party lenses are better than Canon L, Canon L series lenses are not necessarily always the "best". Saying that yes good PP can help make up for the shortcomings of lenses. The thing being that you can still apply those great PP techniques to shots taken with great quality lenses.

I will say that the first time you move away from a cheap low level/consumer grade lens, especially in the longer focal lengths, can be amazing. When I saw the difference in quality between using a Canon 75-300 USM III, or even my Sigma 28-300, which is a lot better than the 75-300 was, and using a Canon 100-400 L (the MK I version) even on my 300D, I really couldn't believe the difference, it was almost unbelievable how much better the results from the better quality lens were. I use a Sigma 150-600 C now, and that is as good or better image quality wise than any of the 100-400's that I rented. I would love to try a 600 f/4 though, preferably on a 5DS.

Alan

The answer is probably yes and no. You answered the yes part. There is a lot you can correct and improve (CA, vingetting, ...) that cost a lot of money to get that fixed in a lens.
On the other hand, you can not improve on stuff that isn't there. If the lens is not sharp enough or you don't have enough light because of a slow lens then this is not something you can correct (easily) in post. There a good lens is still king.

As pretty much anything can now be done in PS, you can certainly make a poor quality photo look like a cover of the Nat Geo shot.... but.... How much time are you willing to invest? In PS you have pixel level control so if you have the patience you could go though every single pixel and tweak it until the image is perfect. You can carefully sharpen each edge, fix all the bad bokeh areas, improve micro contrast so the resolution looks like a 10k lens. Might take a year or two but it is possible.

I think you're really asking, is it possible to use some of the automated PS tools to easily make a poor photo look great in a reasonable amount of time, yes?

To add a bit more information to the discussion

I have a 50D and the following lenses

Sigma Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD could I PP my images to get close to Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM quality

Tokina 11-16MM F/2.8 ATX 116 could I get close to Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

I have not chosen software yet I use DPP for now but would probably get Photoshop/Lightroom.

I have opened this discussion because I am starting to feel that hard work towardds improving my photo taking and PP skills may be the way to good images not chasing new equipment.

Adding a $1700 lens or two to my camera bag my not help me much.

I am curious about the experiences of others.

gjl711 wrote in post #18078263
As pretty much anything can now be done in PS, you can certainly make a poor quality photo look like a cover of the Nat Geo shot.... but.... How much time are you willing to invest? In PS you have pixel level control so if you have the patience you could go though every single pixel and tweak it until the image is perfect. You can carefully sharpen each edge, fix all the bad bokeh areas, improve micro contrast so the resolution looks like a 10k lens. Might take a year or two but it is possible.

I think you're really asking, is it possible to use some of the automated PS tools to easily make a poor photo look great in a reasonable amount of time, yes?

No, I realize you cannot PP your way from crappy snapshot to Nat Geo cover. I was curious if it is possible to mitigate the short comings of some of the lower cost lenses with PP

tekin112000 wrote in post #18078268
To add a bit more information to the discussion

I have a 50D and the following lenses

Sigma Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD could I PP my images to get close to Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM quality

Tokina 11-16MM F/2.8 ATX 116 could I get close to Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

I have not chosen software yet I use DPP for now but would probably get Photoshop/Lightroom.

I have opened this discussion because I am starting to feel that hard work towardds improving my photo taking and PP skills may be the way to good images not chasing new equipment.

Adding a $1700 lens or two to my camera bag my not help me much.

I am curious about the experiences of others.

Spending all that money won't improve your photography one bit, on it's own. However spending the money may provide the necessary motivation for you to up your game in the important part, taking the photo!
I, and I suspect many others, do find that a new piece of equipment can provide the get up and go required when one is in the photographic doldrums. YMMV

It depends, as mentioned Chromatic Aberration, and lens distortion can be corrected in software, but there are some aspects that can not in any way be improved in software. You can't create detail that the lens missed,.

The sigma 17-50os is already close to the 17-55...some even think it might be better...the 11-16 vs 16-35 is two different focal lengths really

I wouldn't worry too much about your lenses not measuring up

We seem to have a fair number of folks saying that "close is good enough".

From my perspective, the lens is a very small factor in a great photo. The composition, quality of light, exposure, impact etc... all have a much greater impact on a great photo. Until you can produce these impact photos with your current gear and figure out what part of your gear is holding you back...I would just not worry about throwing any money at high priced glass.

That red ring is a very seductive marketing tools developed by Canon that draws many photographers into throwing money at their photography...thinking the great red ring will improve their photos. Don't get sucked down that drain...today's lenses from 3rd party manufactures produce outstanding results at a fraction the price of the L lenses.