alfarmer wrote:
FWIW, you can sharpen higher than 2 in DPP with high ISO -- if you have Noise Ninja or one of the other sharpening tools.
I prefer to sharpen after I noise reduce. And I prefer to sharpen at the target resolution, since the pixlel-for-pixel image will essentially never be used. I generally avoid sharpening entire images because it can cause more problems than it solves - so I stick to the maxim of "Sharpen what is already sharp".
>> I prefer to sharpen after I noise reduce. And I prefer to sharpen at the target resolution,
>> since the pixlel-for-pixel image will essentially never be used. I generally avoid sharpening
>> entire images because it can cause more problems than it solves - so I stick to the maxim
>> of "Sharpen what is already sharp".
Unfortunately that's not an option for me. I sharpen in DPP and tweak in Photoshop. No going back after that.
Also, I've never seen a sharp picture (at 100% crop) from a Canon camera at "zero" sharpening. Could someone post a link to one?
Seriously, though, I'd be interested to hear how your AF is working. My copy doesn't seem to be as accurate/consistent as that on either my 85L or 35L. And I really do wind up tossing a lot of images in the f/1.8 to f/2.8 range, even though f/1.2 seems to work well.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Needless to say, a large reason the "sharp" shots that have been posted earlier seem very sharp is because they've been sharpened. I personally will not go over "Sharpness 2" in DPP or between about Sharpness 12-25 in Lightroom because I'm so often shooting high ISO work and sharpening at full rez (vs. print or web rez) amplifies noise. This is another frustrating aspect of "testing" these lenses - since we all have different sharpening approaches, we're all used to a different level of sharpness at the pixel-level.
True. But you can't sharpen what's not already there in the photo.
alfarmer wrote:
>> I prefer to sharpen after I noise reduce. And I prefer to sharpen at the target resolution,
>> since the pixlel-for-pixel image will essentially never be used. I generally avoid sharpening
>> entire images because it can cause more problems than it solves - so I stick to the maxim
>> of "Sharpen what is already sharp".
Unfortunately that's not an option for me. I sharpen in DPP and tweak in Photoshop. No going back after that.
Also, I've never seen a sharp picture (at 100% crop) from a Canon camera at "zero" sharpening. Could someone post a link to one?
Thanks,
ALF
I think you're really missing the point. If you're printing at 4x6, the sharpness at 100% doesn't mean a whole lot since a lot of that sharpness will be thrown away during resizing, and you'll always have to restore sharpness after such an operation - such is the nature of digital photography and printing. Comparing 100% crops is for the pixel peepers. That's not to say that it doesn't have value - it does, in terms of establishing the relative sharpness to other lenses. But as I said earlier, it makes sharing comparisons very difficult. If you're used to assessing the sharpness of a lens by comparing ISO 100 photos prepped with Sharpness 7 on DPP, you're never going to think my ISO 1600 images prepped with Sharpness 1 (the vast majority of my shots) are sharp - even though to me, comparing to other images prepped the same way the image is "sharp".
This is why, ultimately, I only trust my own assessment when it comes to lenses. I know my workflow, I know my shooting style, I know my subjects, I know how my current lenses operate under the same conditions. People seem to be fairly uniformly unimpressed with the 100% crops I've shown even in cases where I'm happy with them and I think this has largely to do with the vast differences in our approaches to post processing.
In the end, for me, 100% crops don't mean anything. It's the final product that matters. You can try to extrapolate one from the other but the proof is in the pudding.
cactusclay wrote:
Thanks Wade, I missed that before. Little improvement, if any, on barrel distortion, too bad. Everything else is good about this lens though, right?
Sofar I really like it, it has that same unique color, contrast as the other L primes. Has the rock solid build and weather sealing (BTW I shot those previous pics with a B+W UV filter). My 35L is giving me the eye because it knows it might be on the chopping block
Sharpening, is somewhat subjective as many people prefer to sharpen their images differently and to different levels. Sharpening an image doesn't negate the quality of the glass or optics, as you still need pixel data to begin with and it must be captured through that glass.
In the meantime, here is yet another sample of my daughter at 1.2. I am really liking this lens so far and have no regrets getting it.
I keep wondering though, is that really a $1600 lens? I just can't seem to convince myself that this lens is worth $1300 more than the f/1.4 right now.
Just processed a few more shots taken with the 50L on a 5D and noticed some serious vignetting. Most were at f/1.8-f/2, iso 400. Anyone else getting this? I didn't think 50mm was wide enough to cause this much vignetting (similar to 16-35L)...
James: Is it worth $1600? If they're selling out of 'em then yeah, it must be.
...
