The need for superior Leica lenses ?

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To embellish my rather short posting previously the problem is that you cannot restore information by post processing if it is not there to be restored.

 

If a lens has chromatic abberation or barrel distortion that can mostly be eliminated in software, but as you do not have 3D info on the location of the objects you can not correct nasty bokeh in postprocessing, you cannot turn a curved focal plane into a flat one.

 

You cannot increase dynamic range as there is no available dynamics to increase. You can remove veiling flare but you always lose DR as you are implicitly ramping up the contrast. You cannot really correct softness of focus very well as it also adds artefacts, unless used very sparingly.

 

So you can remove some of the errors but certainly not all of them i.e. there is no substitute for a good lens. If you used holographic imaging (i.e. including phase information) things might be different.

[Bjarke]

Im still confused, but i know that my Leica lens is "vir optimus".

[SJP]

If you want't to sell your 50 lux ASPH at a reasonable price let me know:D

[Luke_Miller]

I went through a similar discussion on a Nikon forum some time back. One poster was adamant that with proper post processing the difference between lenses could be eliminated and that if I disagreed it was because I lacked proper Photoshop skills. I replied that must be true because no matter how hard I tried in Photoshop I could not produce images (taken at 200mm) with my 80-200 zoom that matched those taken with my 200 f2 VR lens. His response - "well of course not."

 

I think these types of discussion make sense only in the abstract. Once you ask the question "What postprocessing do I have to do to make this image taken with lens X look like it was taken with lens Y?" it kinds of falls apart.

[Bjarke]

Luke, if its true, that software can compensate for high quality lenses, my question is much more relevant in connexion with the highly expensive Leica than in connexion with cheap Nikon lenses. I know that the Nikkor 200 f: 2 is a very good lens, but VR helps a lot.

[Luke_Miller]

my question is much more relevant in connexion with the highly expensive Leica than in connexion with cheap Nikon lenses.

 

I must admit that this is the first time I have heard the Nikon 200mm F2 described as "cheap." But I think I understand your point.

 

I guess my point is that when I look at images I took with my M8.2 and 28mm Summicron I see things I don't see in images I take with my Nikons and my best Nikon glass. I not referring to optical flaws (like CA) but to the way the image looks. They just look different. Both can be properly focused, have equal sharpness, and have equal depth of field. But they are different.

 

Some call this the way the lens "draws." I don't have any words to describe the difference. Some of the difference is in the out of focus rendering (bokeh) and some of it is the in focus rendering and some in the transition between the two. Whatever it is, there is no Photoshop adjustment I can apply to my Nikon image that will recreate what is in the Leica image. I am not talking dramatic differences, but subtle ones that appeal to me very much.

 

Modern post processing software can do much to correct both flaws in optical performance (CA, pincushion, barrel, moustache distortions, etc.) as well as user mistakes like perspective distortion, but can do almost nothing with problems of soft focus. You can use the Focus Magic plugin. and various other techniques like enhanced local contrast and selective sharpening, to mask it, but you can't correct it. Likewise, many of what we refer to as the characteristics of "superior" lenses are beyond the ability of software to alter or create.

 

What has changed in the digital world is the ISO performance of our digital bodies and the ISO noise processing in our postprocessing software. Where once low light photography was the purview of the Noctilux and Summilux lenses we can now often do nicely with Summicrons. It will only get better. Now these three lens types represent very different price points. Which is "superior?" If we go by price the answer is clear. If other factors come into play the answer may be different. I think most would agree that they all represent superior optics. But no software now or (I believe) in the reasonable future will allow you to take an image shot with a Summicron at f2 and have it look as though it were taken with a Noctilux at f0.95. Or vice versa.

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The better Nikon lenses are very good, consumer kit lenses from canon and Nikon much lower.

 

On film you get comperable resolution at 5.6. The key with digital is not having a AA filter over the sensor. This giver a superior file right to the computer. If you were to take similar pics same time, same place, you would see the Nikon file require 50% more sharpening to match the Leica because Nikon uses a AA filter. The lens are not that much different at 5.6. At 1.4 it is a different story and you can not get a match no matter what you do.