Nikon&Canon vs third part lense AFTER post processing

[Compaq]

When reading reviews and checking online comparisons between Nikon and Canon vs third party lenses, all images compared before post processing... which is logical that they do. But, I won't use my photographs straight out of the camera, as I shoot RAW, and so I post process, adjusting curves, perhaps saturating and sharpening. How big is the difference between these lenses after post processing? Is it very obvious, or much more subtle?

-Compaq

 

[Overread]

A fair few of these reviews post fullsized images straight out of the camera (or close to that) so you can tinker with the post in your own style so you can compare the after-editing result.

 

[Dao]

Certain properties of a lens can be adjusted in post processing. i.e. Contrast, saturation. However, some properties are not able adjust in post processing.

- If an image is really soft, even you sharpen it in post processing, it will most likely be soft.
- Some lenses create a better looking creamy background, or the out of focus is a good looking rounded circle instead of a hexagon or a donut, and that is hard to fix in post processing.
- Some lenses are sharp in the center, but soft at the corner. And as stated above, it maybe hard to sharpen the soft corner. However, if it is used in an environment where corner softness is no big deal, it will be a perfectly fine lens. (i.e. Portraiture where the corners are usually blur or just a part of the backdrop)

 

[Compaq]

I see, thanks. Never thought of editing the sample pictures before!

 

[mwcfarms]

I too have been toying with these ideas Compaq. I would love to be able to buy the 70 - 200 3.8 VR Nikon but the difference in price between in and the Sigma is huge. Granted I haven't tried the Sigma yet so have no idea on comparative difference.

 

[KmH]

What Matters Most when choosing a lens.

 

[mwcfarms]

I think on that list should be can you discern the difference between the two as well. Like I said I haven't tried out the two to compare to see if the Sigma would be acceptable to me since I have just rented the 70-200 first and kept on renting when I need it. Most people tell me that there is a huge difference most notably with soft corners when wide open and lack of sharpness and color accuracy. I guess it depends on your bottom line and what is most important to you. Thanks for the read Keith.

 

[djacobox372]

This is like comparing a model's beauty with or without makeup. A good makeup artist can hide a lot of flaws, but that's useful info when hiring a makeup artist, not a model.

 

[analog.universe]

What Matters Most when choosing a lens.

That dude has the best articles.

 

[jaymitch]

I think on that list should be can you discern the difference between the two as well. Like I said I haven't tried out the two to compare to see if the Sigma would be acceptable to me since I have just rented the 70-200 first and kept on renting when I need it. Most people tell me that there is a huge difference most notably with soft corners when wide open and lack of sharpness and color accuracy. I guess it depends on your bottom line and what is most important to you. Thanks for the read Keith.

Honestly Sigma makes some nice glass. The problem with sigma is the quality control, it can be hit or miss with what you get. I actually have a Sigma 70-200 non OS version and it is amazing, especially because I spent $700 for the lens. Compared to my Nikon 70-200 VRII, there are some image quality differences but you have to take into account that the nikon version is 3 times that cost. If you are on a budget the Sigma is a great choice and will do a really nice job.