The need for superior Leica lenses ?

[Bjarke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Could it be true, that applications like Aperture and Photoshop shut out the need for high quality lenses ?

[mhoersch]

It could, but it isn't.

[xjr]

The less you mess with your picture the better

[zlatkob]

Photoshop and similar tools can improve photos in many ways. One effective technique is using local contrast enhancement, which imitates the effect of a better lens. Of course, superior lenses offer a better starting point, at least from a technical perspective. And some great photographs have been made with less-than-superlative lenses; technical quality is only part of what we value in a photograph.

[SJP]

No

[erl]

In the past, clients of mine have taken their own pictures, using inferior equipment (and techniques) and then had to pay me or others to 'fix' them. They eventually discovered that it is both better and cheaper to start from the best possible point so that nothing needs 'fixing'.

[Gentleman Villain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Could it be true, that applications like Aperture and Photoshop shut out the need for high quality lenses ?

 

Software options have made purchasing high quality lenses a total waste of money for anybody but collectors. Digital cameras will soon be shooting at ISO 100,000 and above making fast lenses a relic of the past. Post processing software like Alien Skin allows photographers to go far beyond tradition and even creates stars & hearts in bokeh: Alien Skin Software: Bokeh Highlights Examples If there is anybody reading this thread that still owns a .95 noctilux, I highly suggest you sell it before it becomes obsolete. I'm in a generous mood and might be willing to make an offer of a few hundred dollars. PM if interested

[adli]

High quality lenses does not necessarily mean super fast lenses, even though fast lenses still have a role to play when it comes to get good quality in poor light (A sensor does still perform best at its native ISO). Fast lenses also gives you short DOF straight out of the box, if that is desired.

 

High quality means that you get less aberrations and other distortions. This results in pictures with higher resolution, no color fringing and strait edges .Not like my Nikon zoom kit lens where the earth looks unnatural round when I point it at the horizon. I've also tried Alien Skin to blow pictures from my Nikon up to A2, the result is that I get enlarged blur. With my M9 there is no problem printing A2.

 

You are right that a few of the mentioned attributes of high quality lenses can be imitated in software, but still, who on earth wants to spend hours to fix each and every picture in post for something they can get straight out of the box? Not to mention the things you still can not get from cheap lenses.

 

And remember, the Summarit range of lenses is a range where you get high quality lenses, without having to pay the premium for the extra stops of the nocti and lux lenses

[earleygallery]

Convenience over quality, wins with the masses every time.

[Bjarke]

So seven out of eight members dispute, that software can compensate for high quality lenses. Of course the need for speed is depended of your own choice (M9 or a film Leica).

 

I made a home cooked test using 5 different Leica lenses on my M9, 1) 50 mm lux asph, 2) Summitar 50 mm f:2 from 1940 SM with M-adapter 3) Elmar 90 f:4 C, 4) Tele Elmarit 90: f.2,8 and 5) Hector 135 f:4,5. The price for the last mentioned 4 lenses was under 100 US dollars each at eBay. All 5 pictures was "treated" in Aperture 3.

 

I think the best is the screw mounted Summitar from 1940, and the second best is the Hector or perhaps the Elmar, hard to say, but those leica lenses was all together cheaper than a new Sigma lens. (My album "Spring"). Of course one can dispute the fairness of such a test. My point is, that it seems like one can shoot pictures with the bottom of a beer bottle and get pretty nice results after "a little help from my" Photoshop. Im sure nobody would buy the 4 mentioned lenses for 400 US dollars; feel free to buy them ! But the 50 mm. lux asph. This lens will run like a new Ipad :-) Dont get me wrong. I have some amazing sharp A3 picts shot with the 50 mm Lux asph. But sometimes Leica owners has to face reality or take a look in a mirror and laugh a little bit. A fly fisher spending 2000 Euro on a Hardy rod is infected with the same madness :-)

[Gentleman Villain]

my post was just a bad attempt at a joke, sorry about that

[johnwolf]

Could it be true, that applications like Aperture and Photoshop shut out the need for high quality lenses ?

 

Not sure I'd say "shut out," but it's a reasonable question. The qualities reviewers usually cite in good lenses are sharpness, saturation, and contrast -- all very sophisticated tools in today's software. Personally, I think the clarity function has been a huge step forward.

 

I recently rented a Canon 50mm 1.2 L for a day to compare with my 50 1.4. Of course, the L build and focusing was better. The pictures out of the camera were also superior. But after modest adjustments in Lightroom, I could not tell the difference. I guess that's your point.

 

John

[digger1914]

There is an old expression that, I believe, sums this up.

 

"You can't polish a turd"

 

How can post processing rectify issues (especially image quality) with a photograph?

[Bjarke]

John, yes that is my point. The post proces of rawfiles eliminates the differences between expensive and cheap glass, which means that buyers of new Leica lenses should come up with other reasons than quality of the output. I like the touch and the feel of the lenses, the Leica rangefinder, the Leica history, and the way the plain Leica gear force mee to think before i shoot. But next time quality of the output improves, is when one gets a new OLED-monitor, not because of a second asph glass in a future Leica lens. And the output will even be better if the monitor is polished :-)

[adan]

As it happens, I've been trying out a whole range of lenses on my Canon 5D body - and there is no question that a "better" lens will always produce better results, since any digital compensation that can be applied to mediocre lens shots to improve them can also be applied to a better lens, improving it as well.

 

A rising tide lifts all boats - but taller boats are still taller even at high tide.

 

Examples: I've tried a variety of medium teles (all Leica, btw) on the 5D, and the APO-Telyt 180 f/3.4 still clearly shows its superiority over - 135 /2.8 Elmarit, 180 f/4 Elmar, 80-200 Vario-Elmar, 250 Telyt f/4 (v.2). Those last lenses all show chromatic aberrations (especially longitudinal), purple fringing, and soft corners (or softness everywhere) that simply can't be fully removed with software. The 180 f/3.4 does not.

 

Conversely, the 180 f/3.4 has nasty bokeh at certain subject/background distances (generally longer range shots) and there is not much that can be done to fix that in software.

 

I woud also say, in comparing the 5D to the M8/9, that sharpening can't really compensate effectively for an anti-alias filter (which has the effect of turning any lens into a "non-high-quality" lens). Digital sharpening will always make noise more visible, so I have yet to find any ISO where the M9 does not blow away the 5D - even allowing for the difference in pixel counts. At ISO 100, with enough sharpening to get close to equal, the 5D images are as noisy as the M9 at ISO 400.

 

I'd say you are also making the mistake of confusing price with "quality." Or rather, low price with low quality. The 90s you mention are all "high quality" lenses, IMHO. Just cheap, due to limited aperture or other factors (lack of coding compatibility or just age).

 

I also have several "cheap" M lenses (all bought for under $1000 - average price about $650) - 21 f/2.8, 35 f/2 v.4, 90 Tele-Elmarit, 135 Tele-Elmar. I would not trade any of them for the current $2,800-$4,500 equivalents. That has nothing to do with Photoshop or Aperture, though. They are simply for the most part just as high-quality as the current lenses.

[johnwolf]

....I woud also say, in comparing the 5D to the M8/9, that sharpening can't really compensate effectively for an anti-alias filter (which has the effect of turning any lens into a "non-high-quality" lens).....

 

I used to feel that I preferred my M8 files over my 5DII files. But through the course of a web site makeover lately, I've been reprocessing many of both side by side. While I believe the M8 files are sharper and cleaner (I would call them more "clinical"), I must say that the softer, smoother tonality of the 5DII files is growing on me. I'm realizing how much they suit my work. But sharpness has never been a high priority for me. I think the lesson is, there is really no universal objective measure of image quality.

 

John

[Bjarke]

Andy

 

"I'd say you are also making the mistake of confusing price with "quality." Or rather, low price with low quality. The 90s you mention are all "high quality" lenses, IMHO. Just cheap, due to limited aperture or other factors (lack of coding compatibility or just age)."

 

I agree about your statement mentioned above about confusing price with "quality".

 

Regards

 

Bjarke

[ezc203]

I honestly think it's as simple as:

 

Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperature: maximizes the DNGs (RAWs, etc etc) you have recorded on your SD to their full potential.

 

Superior lenses give optimizes the DNGs that are recorded.

 

So...

[wstotler]

There is an old expression that, I believe, sums this up. "You can't polish a turd" How can post processing rectify issues (especially image quality) with a photograph?

 

Because the post-processing is, arguably, becoming the valued product, not the photograph itself.

 

This is at the core of the original poster's question, in my opinion.

 

An enormous number of amateur shooters *aspire* to heavily post-process their shots because it is expected. The public responds well to bright, crackling colors, and significant amounts of post-processing and effects. Loaded on with a shovel. Technically difficult and true-to-life shots with careful lighting? Boring. Uninspired. Documentary. Boring.

 

De gustibus non est disputandum

 

But "good enough" from the optics is a cheaper and cheaper place, year after year. Especially for on-screen viewing. This would be the Ken Rockwell position (largely), and accurately captures public sentiment.

 

That's where 99% of people are. It's normal.

 

Pondering how my 1953 Leitz 5cm f/3.5 "draws" compared to my Summicron 50mm, or debating bokeh differences between the CV35 Nokton f/1.2 and Summicron 35mm ASPH, is not *really* a specialized or professional activity--it's fetishistic, at best, neurotic, at worst. (I do love it, though. YUM!)

 

SELF TEST! (Because everyone loves these.)

 

If you know what at least three of the following terms mean, you are a specialist. . .

If you think any of the following things actually *matter* a whole lot, you are a fetishist:

 

* Bokeh

* MTF

* White Balance

* RAW Converter

* EV

* Vignetting

 

Thanks,

Will

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adli]

SELF TEST! (Because everyone loves these.)

 

If you think any of the following things actually *matter* a whole lot, you are a fetishist:

 

* Bokeh

* MTF

* White Balance

* RAW Converter

* EV

* Vignetting

 

And if not, buy a Holga and be happy?