RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Photography
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Photography Both digital and film. Discussions about cameras, gear, exposure, technique, and sharing your photography

Are lenses irrelevant?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 05-09-2015, 11:05 AM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Are lenses irrelevant?

So, with all the retouching that goes into the image, unless the image is really soft and lacks detail, or it's distorted due to the wrong focal length for the purpose, are lens choices more or less irrelevant these days?

I get all sorts of lens/camera brand and model combos and I got to tell you, there is not much difference there, especially after the retouching is done, and even less so when viewed in small size like in a magazine,catalogue or on the net.

What do you guys/gals think?
Reply With Quote top
  #2  
Old 05-09-2015, 11:20 AM
Doug Nelson's Avatar
Doug Nelson Doug Nelson is offline
Janitor
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,068
Blog Entries: 21
Re: Are lenses irrelevant?

Assuming you're dismissing focal length, I've pretty much always maintained they were irrelevant. Anti-shake and such is nice, but again I don't think that's what you mean.
Reply With Quote top
  #3  
Old 05-09-2015, 12:04 PM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Re: Are lenses irrelevant?

I mean things like "sharpness" or "brand" or "color accuracy" or "distortion". Pass the certain threshold (and all the pro lenses have reached this level decades ago) it's all the same in the final file. It's like on-off more than levels. It's either sharp enough or it isn't, it's either in focus, or it isn't, it's either good or it isn't, and any further distinction will disappear after retouching. Heck, we even make images have the same look, and they were shot on different locations, different days, different models, and different equipment.
Reply With Quote top
  #4  
Old 05-09-2015, 12:24 PM
Mike Mike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Grand Junction CO USA
Posts: 683
Re: Are lenses irrelevant?

Final image size is a factor to be considered but most images are never much bigger than your monitor screen. So I agree with your hypothesis. Not so true before the emergence of digital cameras and retouching.

As a photographer I have seen this subject come up before and if your the one bringing it up in the middle of a herd of photographers you should make sure you have your flack jacket and helmet on!
Reply With Quote top
  #5  
Old 05-09-2015, 12:33 PM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Re: Are lenses irrelevant?

Hahaha, I'm aware of that, but today things really are different. Not so much if you don't have your images retouched. Then you might notice the difference.

Yes, leaf shutter is really important for stoping action, larger sensor is great for shallow DOF, focal length is important for the subject appearance and a lot of other things, aperture is important for DOF and low light shooting... not to mention tilt shifts, macros etc.
Reply With Quote top
  #6  
Old 05-09-2015, 02:40 PM
klev klev is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,109
Re: Are lenses irrelevant?

If you're purchasing glass of reasonable quality, then it shouldn't make much of a difference. There are some large format lenses that have seen real improvements in the past decade, but other than that I wouldn't bother worrying about Canon vs Nikon types of debates unless a specific model is known for poor quality control.
Reply With Quote top
  #7  
Old 05-11-2015, 06:36 AM
insmac insmac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 190
Re: Are lenses irrelevant?

You're narrowing it down too much. Photography is not limited to fashion and beauty where it does not matter what you shoot with because the retouch process goes to a great extent.

Yes, the lens quality actually matters in certain fields. I've tested the current Canon and Zeiss Planar primes side by side and you can pull more detail (i.e. the model's face) from the latter. Yes you can sharpen the image but the sharper lens gave it a more natural, not overly-sharpened look.

Also, there is fine art. Medium format lenses (I do own a few) have their respectable quality and a very particular characteristics which differ from one another. If you retouch less, the differencies become more obvious.
Reply With Quote top
  #8  
Old 05-16-2015, 05:32 AM
3dG 3dG is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3
Re: Are lenses irrelevant?

I bought my first camera three years ago and became obsessed with image sharpness! I was convinced my kit lens was holding me back and I just HAD to buy some Canon L glass. Now, many shoots later, I'd quite happily shoot with a "budget" lens as my goals have changed (I'm now obsessing about light!).

I would agree that the obvious differences between manufacturers lenses are less noticeable (this has changed in the short time I've been taking photos). I firmly believe that third party lenses are a great choice and offer fantastic image quality. However... I own a Canon 85mm 1.2L. No other lens comes close to the image quality (shooting wide open) or the low light flexibility that this lens provides!!

Sorry guys, I'm not sure where I'm going with this but figured I'd like to chip in.
Reply With Quote top
  #9  
Old 05-16-2015, 03:21 PM
skoobey skoobey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,376
Re: Are lenses irrelevant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by insmac View Post
You're narrowing it down too much. Photography is not limited to fashion and beauty where it does not matter what you shoot with because the retouch process goes to a great extent.

Yes, the lens quality actually matters in certain fields. I've tested the current Canon and Zeiss Planar primes side by side and you can pull more detail (i.e. the model's face) from the latter. Yes you can sharpen the image but the sharper lens gave it a more natural, not overly-sharpened look.

Also, there is fine art. Medium format lenses (I do own a few) have their respectable quality and a very particular characteristics which differ from one another. If you retouch less, the differencies become more obvious.
Hm... yes, but I am not referring to things like OMG the DOF you can achieve on MF vs 35mm... I'm thinking more like Zeiss vs. Leaf or Leica. You really won't know it if they were processed the similar way... even just after the RAW conversions.

Of course you buy the best when money is no object, and lenses do last "for ever", but there is such a huge dispute going on between people that are not quite pros, but know a lot(don't shoot for a living). One direction is that anything can be done on a budget(maybe, but it's not very efficient, and it'll cost you more in the long run, maybe even right away). Other direction being that there is such a massive difference between Zeiss and Canon, for example.

What I'm saying is that you get to see Zeiss vs. Canon printed in a mag side by side(or on an iPad, whatever, same resolution-300dpi, THANK YOU APPLE ) and you have no idea they were not shot with the same lens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dG View Post
I bought my first camera three years ago and became obsessed with image sharpness! I was convinced my kit lens was holding me back and I just HAD to buy some Canon L glass. Now, many shoots later, I'd quite happily shoot with a "budget" lens as my goals have changed (I'm now obsessing about light!).

I would agree that the obvious differences between manufacturers lenses are less noticeable (this has changed in the short time I've been taking photos). I firmly believe that third party lenses are a great choice and offer fantastic image quality. However... I own a Canon 85mm 1.2L. No other lens comes close to the image quality (shooting wide open) or the low light flexibility that this lens provides!!

Sorry guys, I'm not sure where I'm going with this but figured I'd like to chip in.
Exactly! You like the open aperture and beautiful flare, but for example, that lens is not as sharp as Zeiss, yet zeiss is third of a stop slower. But at the end, if you shoot both at 1.4 you are not going to care.

My point being(and this is aretouching forum), that those discussions are pointless, and that people really need to shoot well with what they can afford, and get a grip on reality of how important the retouching is, as good retouching will make a massive difference, and minute sharpness or whatever benefits of a more expensive lens won't even be noticed if you compare retouched and unretouched images.

Last edited by skoobey; 05-16-2015 at 03:26 PM.
Reply With Quote top
  #10  
Old 05-25-2015, 12:50 PM
holgaman's Avatar
holgaman holgaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 135
Re: Are lenses irrelevant?

I think lenses can make a difference, particularly when it comes to rendering. There are certain aspects of how a particular lens draws the subject that just can't be reproduced in software. Bokeh is probably the most obvious example. True, there is software that can sort of emulate a particular lens, but it's usually obvious and not convincing, at least to me. You still have to guess how much blurring to apply at any given focal distance and focal length to be realistic. I haven't seen anyone that has been able to recreate the bokeh from a Leica wide angle lens that produces the overlapping balls of light. Whether you love or hate that look is another discussion, the look is unique to the lens. Zeiss, Leica, Canon, Nikon - they all have a different feel to their rendering. I have 5 Nikon 50mm lenses from different eras, each has it's own subtle signature as to how it draws, and I choose one or the other to fit what I'm trying to achieve. I have certain lenses that produce a distinct glow to highlights that others don't have at all. Whenever I get a lens, I test the heck out of it in wide variety of situations to determine what are, to me, it's strengths and weaknesses and 'look' so I'll know what tools to bring to a shoot for what I'm trying to achieve.

The further you stop a lens down, the more subtle the differences between lenses become, so, in that respect- if you're always shooting at small apertures, the choice of lens brand wouldn't matter as much. I tend to shoot more with wide apertures where the differences between lenses are more apparent. I guess it all comes down to personal preference and just knowing how you want to approach the subject - what feeling you are looking for. From there you can use software to enhance or correct, or refine. To me, it just feels more organic and authentic to get it in the camera first (in all respects, not just lens choice) and just makes one's life in the software side of things that much easier.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Photography


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cameras: How many lenses do you own? Doug Nelson Photography 12 03-31-2017 01:57 PM
Wal-Mart has really awesome camera lenses! anothermethod Photography 4 05-04-2008 10:07 AM
Is Color Temperature Irrelevant? Doug Nelson Photography 11 12-10-2007 03:39 PM
Wide Angle Lenses available DMCdigitalmedia Hardware 3 03-25-2006 04:56 AM
Lenses (a revisit).. yuppicide Hardware 5 05-10-2005 08:06 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved