No worries! As an example of my actual beliefs and experience, I tested the RF 14-35/4 at 14mm against the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm. The RF lens forces distortion correction in-camera (and requires it because at the wide end the corners are black and need the geometric correction to fill them). The EF lens at 14mm is at the transition from barrel to pincushion distortion and essentially needs no distortion correction at that focal length. What I found was that the RF lens after distortion correction was just as sharp in the corners as the EF lens, despite the latter needing no algorithmic correction and costing over 2x as much. As a bonus, the corrected RF lens delivers a FoV at 14mm that's equivalent to ~13.5mm on the EF lens.
So...those who bash a lens on the basis of it requiring distortion correction are making incorrect assumptions about the consequences of that correction, in large part because they're forgetting that all wide angle rectilinear lenses require distortion correction, and the corrections achievable optically with lens elements aren't inherently better than the corrections possible digitally. As you correctly state, the digital corrections offer the additional benefit of enabling the lens to be smaller and lighter (though not cheaper, because why would the manufacturer give up profit).
The RF 10-20/4 compared to the EF 11-24/4 is an excellent example of the size/weight reduction possible with the shorter flange distance combined with digital correction, and optical quality is not sacrificed to achieve those improvements (and for once, Canon actually charges less!!).
Upvote
0
