24-90 DNG sharpening in Lightroom – how much for you?

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't need to add sharpening to typical landscape shots with the 24-90. As I mentioned in the original post, these are close-range shots at around 1.5'. The images have a lot of detail that react differently to sharpening than does a shot taken at infinity focus. Do any of your comments about your preferred sharpness still hold up at this distance? If you're only leaving the default or even pulling back, then I have a bad copy of this lens.

I see no difference in my sharpening techniques regardless of how near or far the subject is focused on. I see differences based on the nature of the subject matter.

 

Remember that when you're shooting at close range, critical focus becomes even more critical due to magnification, camera motion become even more critical due to magnification, and DoF becomes more critical too. Exposures made at 1.5 foot distances with a 90mm lens should be made with the camera and lens solidly locked down on a stand or tripod for best sharpness.

[hdmesa]

I see no difference in my sharpening techniques regardless of how near or far the subject is focused on. I see differences based on the nature of the subject matter.

 

Remember that when you're shooting at close range, critical focus becomes even more critical due to magnification, camera motion become even more critical due to magnification, and DoF becomes more critical too. Exposures made at 1.5 foot distances with a 90mm lens should be made with the camera and lens solidly locked down on a stand or tripod for best sharpness.

Shouldn't the 24-90 OIS be able to compensate well enough for minor camera shake in the 24-90 range? Handheld at close range I see no difference between OIS on or off. The Fuji GFX with the 120mm (close to a 90mm equivalent) and OIS gives razor sharp, shake-free shots even at macro range.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[LocalHero1953]

I don't need to add sharpening to typical landscape shots with the 24-90. As I mentioned in the original post, these are close-range shots at around 1.5'. The images have a lot of detail that react differently to sharpening than does a shot taken at infinity focus. Do any of your comments about your preferred sharpness still hold up at this distance? If you're only leaving the default or even pulling back, then I have a bad copy of this lens.

I don't know. Aside from my default settings, I treat every image differently, and I haven't noticed a particular issue at a particular range.

[hdmesa]

I don't know. Aside from my default settings, I treat every image differently, and I haven't noticed a particular issue at a particular range.

 

 

I went back today and took some more shots of the same subject. I'm pretty sure my first batch of results were hurt by slight movement of the camera and minor focusing errors. I set the autofocus to single point and am getting much sharper results. However, I still find some subject matter on the 24-90 can take quite a bit of sharpening before looking over sharpened. And I suppose everyone is right, it's less a matter of near/far as it is subject matter.

[ramarren]

Shouldn't the 24-90 OIS be able to compensate well enough for minor camera shake in the 24-90 range? Handheld at close range I see no difference between OIS on or off. The Fuji GFX with the 120mm (close to a 90mm equivalent) and OIS gives razor sharp, shake-free shots even at macro range.

 

 

I can't say what you're seeing as "razor sharp, shake-free shots even at macro range" with the GFX because I don't have one, nor can I say how they compare to what I get from the SL with the SL24-90. Never mind that you're comparing two very different cameras—that differ in format, lenses, pixel resolution, zoom vs prime—et cetera. But that said, I can see a quite noticeable difference in detail resolution with ANY camera locked down on a sturdy tripod vs the same camera and lens hand-held, regardless of image stabilization being on, off, or nonexistent.

 

You're not only hand-holding the camera but relying upon autofocus to nail critical focus... at close range with a longish focal length, too. It's so easy to be off by a tiny amount that way between when focus locked and the exposure was made: I wouldn't judge anything about a lens's performance that way.

 

"My sharpest lens is a sturdy tripod."

Edited September 8, 2017 by ramarren

[hdmesa]

I can't say what you're seeing as "razor sharp, shake-free shots even at macro range" with the GFX because I don't have one, nor can I say how they compare to what I get from the SL with the SL24-90. Never mind that you're comparing two very different cameras—that differ in format, lenses, pixel resolution, zoom vs prime—et cetera. But that said, I can see a quite noticeable difference in detail resolution with ANY camera locked down on a sturdy tripod vs the same camera and lens hand-held, regardless of image stabilization being on, off, or nonexistent.

 

You're not only hand-holding the camera but relying upon autofocus to nail critical focus... at close range with a longish focal length, too. It's so easy to be off by a tiny amount that way between when focus locked and the exposure was made: I wouldn't judge anything about a lens's performance that way.

 

"My sharpest lens is a sturdy tripod."

 

 

I totally understand what you're saying. Also the GF 120 is a prime, so there's that. It's also likely that my recent experience with using a 5DsR, 5D MkIV, and the GFX has left me with some resolution envy at 1:1 and 2:1 zoom in Lightroom.

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All the shots regardless of the above looked great at about 80/85 sharpening in Lightroom.

Capture sharpening amount 80 .. 85? Are you nuts?

 

This huge amount may be appropriate in a few special cases but it's waay too much in general.

 

For a low-ISO daylight picture with a lot of detail (landscape, cityscape, trees, bushes, or similar kinds of shrubbery), I'd suggest Amount 20 - 30, Radius 0.6 - 0.9, Detail 30 - 60, and Masking 25 - 60. Higher masking values can take higher amount values.

 

I guess people who use amount values beyond 30 or 40 are confusing capture sharpening for output sharpening.

[hdmesa]

Capture sharpening amount 80 .. 85? Are you nuts?

 

This huge amount may be appropriate in a few special cases but it's waay too much in general.

 

For a low-ISO daylight picture with a lot of detail (landscape, cityscape, trees, bushes, or similar kinds of shrubbery), I'd suggest Amount 20 - 30, Radius 0.6 - 0.9, Detail 30 - 60, and Masking 25 - 60. Higher masking values can take higher amount values.

 

I guess people who use amount values beyond 30 or 40 are confusing capture sharpening for output sharpening.

 

 

It probably got lost, but I referenced at some point not using any additional sharpening on landscape shots at infinity.

[thighslapper]

Capture sharpening amount 80 .. 85? Are you nuts?

 

This huge amount may be appropriate in a few special cases but it's waay too much in general.

 

 

 Why ? 

 

I'm interested in knowing the logic behind this.  (I'm not being argumentative ..... just curious  )

[Jon Warwick]

But that said, I can see a quite noticeable difference in detail resolution with ANY camera locked down on a sturdy tripod vs the same camera and lens hand-held, regardless of image stabilization being on, off, or nonexistent.

 

 

"My sharpest lens is a sturdy tripod."

+1. I notice it too, very clearly, especially as I print large .... the biggest "upgrade" to my image quality from my Leica has been an RRS plate and Gitzo 1 Series Mountaineer (highly stable for lighter cameras but still lightweight). Well, that and my 50 APO of course .....

 

After spending all the money on Leica and its highest resolution M lens, there is something gratifying -- for some situations -- about using a tripod to know for sure that I've extracted all I can in image quality from the capture chain .....