Latest activity

neuroanatomist · Feb 19, 2026

Del Paso said:
...I wonder how long the debate optical vs. software can still go on...

Well over a decade ago, I wondered how long the DR debate would go on.

The Canon EOS R6 Mark III trails the Sony a7 V dynamic range by 2 stops but nobody can find the images - EOSHD.com - Filmmaking Gear and Camera Reviews

Aren’t you sick and tired of nerds? They have done so much damage to life on earth. Men and women used to make love, they used to raise families and build amazing industries, now all people can do is bicker about how many stops dynamic range a Canon and Sony has. Sony say it is

www.eoshd.com

Ekpil · Feb 19, 2026

Richard CR said:
OpticalLimits has recently gotten its hands on the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM, which was announced way back on June 29, 2021. That in itself probably isn't newsworthy. So instead of talking about the review itself, I focused on a specific part of the review that caught my eye. This part of the review […]

See full article...

The future is near! Over the years Hardware is getting les important and software is getting better and cheaper.
How do I get an uncorrupted picture? For canon it’s hard to migrate to more software without loosing your Core business.
AI is coming fast and change the game(s) The distance between an IPhone and the R1 is getting closer and shows the direction it all moves. Your pictures won’t developed in your camera. They go online (cloud)in big Data Centers to be converted. The next R1 has a Uni Lens that can converted by software in any lens….
We will see simple steps like Extender that will be replaced by software soon.
Nothing is impossible. And tks to Richard to share his thoughts.
And yes I am an old style and came from analog photography ;-))

neuroanatomist · Feb 19, 2026

mb66energy said:
I love e.g. the LAOWA 180 4.5 for very high correction & compactness & 1.5 max reprod. ratio & well implemented (while still limited) AF as a whole package.
If Canon would sell a 150 2.0 with medium need for correction at twice the price it would be similarly acceptable.

The types of corrections being discussed here result from the image circle being smaller than the sensor. Notice how we're talking about lenses like the RF 14/1.4, the RF 14-35/4, etc. With telephoto lenses, that typically does not happen so your proposals of 150-180mm lenses with a 'need for correction' is a red herring. They won't need it. Even a correction-requiring lens like the RF 24-105/2.8L Z covers the full image circle by 28mm, it's only at the very wide end that it needs digital correction to fill the corners.

Del Paso · Feb 19, 2026

justaCanonuser said:
Thank you Richard, for this very interesting analysis and conclusion. I am with you, I think when Canon went mirrorless, it was logical to implement a more heavy-handed digital correction with such extremely demanding lens designs like the RF 14mm or with lenses that should be lighter, more compact and more affordable for what they offer to a photographer. With the EF lenses, the limitation to digital correction was not only caused by the optical viewfinders, Canon engineers had also to keep in mind that there are still some film shooters out there who wanted high quality optical corrected lenses. That was a minority, of course.

But now, with the RF mount, that's over, and Canon can look into the future without the need to make such compromises. We all use smartphones which tiny cameras only are useable because of a massively algorithm driven processing of the images. So it is logical to take some of these advantages to bigger digital cameras. In future, a camera-lens combo will be much more consequently treated as a complete system than it was, I guess.

That's absolutely right. As you wrote, in film times, optical correction was a necessity, lens manufacturers didn't have a choice.
Yet, when I see how good the VCM lenses have become, "despite" software correction, I wonder how long the debate optical vs. software can still go on...

neuroanatomist · Feb 19, 2026

AlanF said:
I think he is genuinely comparing RF 100-400 with the EF 100-400 and got the pricing wrong.

Then he got the pricing wrong by over $2000, a mistake of >300%. Either way, he's genuinely confused...

mb66energy · Feb 19, 2026

I would prefer options.
1→ compact, high aperture with correction-dependency: PASS
2→ larger, medium wide aperture with corr.-dep.: NO PASS
3→ cheap with correction: PASS
4→ expensive (excl. 1) with correction: NO PASS

I love e.g. the LAOWA 180 4.5 for very high correction & compactness & 1.5 max reprod. ratio & well implemented (while still limited) AF as a whole package.
If Canon would sell a 150 2.0 with medium need for correction at twice the price it would be similarly acceptable.

Background: I use ~24 MPix - with 50+ MPix correction would be more acceptable for me

AlanF · Feb 19, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
You’re apparently confusing the RF 100-400 with the RF 100-500L. The former is considered a great value and it’s far cheaper the EF 100-400L (even used, low quality copies of the MkI sell for more than the $500 that I paid for my RF 100-400). The EF L lens is sharper, sure. It’s also 4-5x the cost and a stop faster.

The rational comparison is EF 100-400L II vs RF 100-500L. Image quality is the same, the RF lens is lighter and 100mm longer, and it’s $200 more expensive ($2700 vs $2900, a 7.5% difference).

You might want to go back to the drawing board on your line of reasoning here.

I think he is genuinely comparing RF 100-400 with the EF 100-400 and got the pricing wrong. He describes the RF 100-400mm as being considered as one of the best value lenses for money, which it is, and as much as I love the RF 100-500 no way would I describe it as that!

scyrene · Feb 19, 2026

justaCanonuser said:
I wouldn't regard the RF 600 and 800mm f/11 as any sort of RF mount successor to the EF 400mm F/4.0 DO L lenses. [...] But looking at the faster RF tele lens selection available today, I miss such a lens.

I agree they aren't successors to the EF 400 DO but undoubtedly when the RF lineup was being planned, sales of various older lenses were analysed and some were sacrificed - there's been no RF 500 and apparently there won't be. And of course mirrorless has given them more options - reliable autofocus at f/11 couldn't have been dreamt of in the DSLR days. The 400 DO was always a niche within a niche. When the prototype 600 DO was shown, it generated some excitement but was never turned into a commercial product - we can speculate why.

justaCanonuser said:
Maybe Nikon forces Canon to come up with something competitive

Given the relative positions of the two companies now, I very much doubt that will happen. And as you say, it would take a long time. As Neuro has suggested before, perhaps Nikon has targeted those niches that Canon doesn't provide for not because they want to usurp the leader, but because they can't compete in the other areas? I'm sure all the manufacturers pay close attention to what the others are doing, but there is a persistent belief on here that they should all replicate the same lineup, and I don't think that is logical.

Billybob · Feb 19, 2026

What some are missing is that the 14-35L is an absolutely phenomenal lens. It is the best UW zoom I've ever owned/tried (I'm not including UUW lenses like the 11-24/10-24, which I have never used), and it's better than the 15-35L, which I also owned. As others have mentioned, the uncorrected lens is wider than 14mm (it may be closer to 13mm than to the 13.5mm already mentioned), so I struggle to find problems with the corners that are "cutoff" with correction (I'm also not a landscape purist and rarely shoot landscapes faster than f8). When I look at the OL results, I see amazing sharpness that doesn't fall off much until the far corners. By contrast my 15-35L falls off much quicker. To me, I easily prefer images from my 14-35 to my 15-35. The only reason I still own the faster lens is procrastination. When I do get in the mood to sale unused gear, the 15-35L will be the first to go.

kraush · Feb 19, 2026

Regarding EF lenses from the film era with strong distortion: I once had the EF 24-85mm/3.5-4.5 USM, with really strong barrel distortion at 24mm.
A guy on the usenet called it a 'moderate fisheye'.

justaCanonuser · Feb 19, 2026

scyrene said:
Canon did in fact create supertele DO lenses for RF - the 600 and 800 f/11.

We can only speculate why they have thus far ignored the "mid-range" long lenses, and/or why Nikon created them. It could be that they will eventually. Or perhaps they see the market differently, especially being so much bigger than Nikon now, and will never make eg a 600 f/6.3. I wouldn't expect to find out any time soon, either way.

You're right, scyrene, but I wouldn't regard the RF 600 and 800mm f/11 as any sort of RF mount successor to the EF 400mm F/4.0 DO L lenses. They are a great offering for those who want reach with a light and very affordable lens, so that was a smart move by Canon, since they are quite popular (I meet users frequently when I go birding). But looking at the faster RF tele lens selection available today, I miss such a lens.

Maybe Nikon forces Canon to come up with something competitive, but looking back in history that could take a lot of time. Here's an example: quite a number of wildlife photographers changed from Canon to Nikon when Nikon released their 2nd version of their 200-400mm f/4.0 in 2003 that sported an AF drive + VR (IS in Canon naming) - the first fully manual ED version from the 80s didn't sell too well, I read elsewhere. Canon needed ten years to come up with their EF 200-400 f/4.0, but with the smart solution of an integrated TC, of course. That's typical for Canon: they wait, observe the market and then take a leap if the result turns out to be economically attractive.

So, let's see what happens on the DO tele front in future...

Malm · Feb 19, 2026

David - Sydney said:
I believe that a Chinese brand is more likely to bring out such a lens as they don’t currently seem concerned about keeping canon happy for potential authorised lenses in the future….

But you are correct that sigma/tamron could port their existing lenses to EF or RF (EF protocols) but they choose not to. I would like to think that any r&d cost would be relatively low vs potential sales but I don’t have the data to support that viewpoint

Behind of 'keeping Canon happy' and economic thinking:
The EF mount is appropriate for 3rd party lenses when the AF is important. That might be the case for most (wide-angle) zooms and telephoto lenses.
A manual RF mount can be used for 'exotic' prime lenses like TS or the classical astro-lenses as such lenses are usually used with a tripod and manual focus.
And a Canon RF 14/1.4 for 2500 EUR leaves enough space for a cheaper 3rd party manual 14/1.4 RF lens.

Most 3rd party lenses are recently going the 'cheap' way with a low price tag as the main feature (and with a good image quality). OK, that is probably the main consumer group, but Laowa is already looking into the 'more-expensive' segment.

Richard-CN · Feb 19, 2026

justaCanonuser said:
Thank you Richard, for this very interesting analysis and conclusion. I am with you, I think when Canon went mirrorless, it was logical to implement a more heavy-handed digital correction with such extremely demanding lens designs like the RF 14mm or with lenses that should be lighter, more compact and more affordable for what they offer to a photographer. With the EF lenses, the limitation to digital correction was not only caused by the optical viewfinders, Canon engineers had also to keep in mind that there are still some film shooters out there who wanted high quality optical corrected lenses. That was a minority, of course.

But now, with the RF mount, that's over, and Canon can look into the future without the need to make such compromises. We all use smartphones which tiny cameras only are useable because of a massively algorithm driven processing of the images. So it is logical to take some of these advantages to bigger digital cameras. In future, a camera-lens combo will be much more consequently treated as a complete system than it was, I guess.

good point on film! and thank you.

justaCanonuser · Feb 19, 2026

Thank you Richard, for this very interesting analysis and conclusion. I am with you, I think when Canon went mirrorless, it was logical to implement a more heavy-handed digital correction with such extremely demanding lens designs like the RF 14mm or with lenses that should be lighter, more compact and more affordable for what they offer to a photographer. With the EF lenses, the limitation to digital correction was not only caused by the optical viewfinders, Canon engineers had also to keep in mind that there are still some film shooters out there who wanted high quality optical corrected lenses. That was a minority, of course.

But now, with the RF mount, that's over, and Canon can look into the future without the need to make such compromises. We all use smartphones which tiny cameras only are useable because of a massively algorithm driven processing of the images. So it is logical to take some of these advantages to bigger digital cameras. In future, a camera-lens combo will be much more consequently treated as a complete system than it was, I guess.

blackcoffee17 · Feb 19, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
I have no idea where these suggestions that the digitally corrected corners are filled with AI-generated image data come from.

I'm not saying it's happening now but im not excluding it to happen in the future as AI image generation gets better and better.

blackcoffee17 · Feb 19, 2026

EthenJ said:
"Or look at the EF 100-400L vs the RF 100-400. The RF is much lighter"

Once again, the RF 100-400 is not a replacement for the EF 100-400. Only the focal length is the same, nothing else. It's in fact a 70-300 replacement with extra 100mm. You should compare the EF 100-400 with the RF 100-500.

EthenJ · Feb 19, 2026

Okay, so I've been thinking about what this array might look like. One thought is:

Reading that as an array of 3x3 pixels would be normal: RGGB.

Reading it as a 2x2, would only be slightly uneven: 2R 5G 2B, 3R 4G 2B, 3B 2R 4G, and 2R 5G 2B. Still more green in every pixel, as it should be. This would be similar:

Those big blocks of 2 green, in particular, could be binned as one more sensitive pixel each.

Alternatively, it's possible that Canon is doing something funky like sampling adjacent pixels or using the autofocus individually diodes in "low resolution" mode, to hit that massive ISO gain figure.

...I don't really know about this stuff, I'm just spitballing. But it's an interesting idea.

neuroanatomist · Feb 19, 2026

Richard CR said:
I'm confused by this.

You're not the one who's confused. I had a similar exchange with @GMCPhotographics, where I posted a graphic making the same point as yours.

He's still clearly confused about some things, even though the way I read his post he has seemingly (reluctantly) accepted that Canon is not using AI to create the corners (but it sounds like he's saying that would be better?). Either way, he's wrong about many things.

neuroanatomist · Feb 19, 2026

EthenJ said:
"Less expensive" is the key.

It sure doesn't feel like RF is less expensive than EF glass, expecially in the budget range.

Not in the budget range, but compare the EF 11-24/4 to the RF 10-20/4.

EthenJ said:
Or look at the EF 100-400L vs the RF 100-400. The RF is much lighter, yes, but the EF is sharper and cheaper. And that's considered one of the best value RF lenses around.

You’re apparently confusing the RF 100-400 with the RF 100-500L. The former is considered a great value and it’s far cheaper the EF 100-400L (even used, low quality copies of the MkI sell for more than the $500 that I paid for my RF 100-400). The EF L lens is sharper, sure. It’s also 4-5x the cost and a stop faster.

The rational comparison is EF 100-400L II vs RF 100-500L. Image quality is the same, the RF lens is lighter and 100mm longer, and it’s $200 more expensive ($2700 vs $2900, a 7.5% difference).

You might want to go back to the drawing board on your line of reasoning here.

Richard-CN · Feb 19, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
The Digital corner profiling discussion is as complex as the use multitude of case scenarios from the users who shoot with these lenses.
If the corners are software re-generated using AI then there is no loss of detail or Dynamic range. You should be able to push the exposures and oggle the fine detail in the corners and be happy with the results. HOWEVER.....Canon doesn't employ AI software based corner regeneration, what they do is stretch the corners and use the raw file's DR to bump the corner exposure to that of a perfect lens. This is fine if you don't mind loosing a little bit of resolution, maybe even a bit of focal length and a lot of corner DR.

I'm confused by this.

usually what happens is that the image is straightened which by nature of the process would push the corners "out" to cover the full image circle.

To correct this distortion, the corners are pulled out until the distortion equals effectively 0, which would then fill the frame.
If it were pincushion distortion, I think you'd have more of a point, but usually, then it's just effectively cropped.

there's no AI and no additional information, but when the image is stretched you take for instance say, 3500 lines that are over, say, 22mm, and stretch those 3500 lines to 24mm.

thus you lose lp/mm or resolution by spreading it out.

Vignetting is another topic. That's not entirely dependant on the lens.

or am I missing your point?

As far as AI - DLO isn't AI, it doesn't invent image data - but what is does do is mathematically take the lens profile and the sensor / camera profile and deconvolute aberrations. No AI is required though.

neuroanatomist · Feb 19, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
But a simple mathmatical corner stretch and then applying 4.5 stop white circle overlay over the far corners is only going to add 4.5 stops of noise in the corners to your raw file.

No, it doesn’t do anything to the RAW file. Do you not understand the point of a RAW file? The RAW file is uncorrected. You can choose how much correction you apply it it.

GMCPhotographics said:
Shoot your Raw landscape at say 400 iso, your corners are already profiled at 6400+ iso before you even start your post prod on the image. There's no magic bullet with camera generated lens profiles.

Do you shoot your landscapes wide open? Stopping down significantly reduces vignetting.

But fine, call them starscapes and so you are shooting wide open. If you’re using the ‘optically corrected’ EF 11-24/4L or EF 24/1.4L II to shoot them, then you’ve still got >4 stops of corner vignetting to correct (or not, because…RAW). The point is that this issue is neither new nor unique to lenses with image circles smaller than the sensor.

davidespinosa · Feb 19, 2026

EthenJ said:
A thing to remember is that the R10 is almost 4 years old now.

That's old! It's longer than any of the M-series lasted without a refresh, or most DSLRs, or pretty much any of the R-series except for the Rp. Its looking increasingly questionable at its price point, hence it really is overdue for a refresh like the R7.

I asked honestly, how many entry-level cameras does Canon need ?
I didn't suggest that they should have more or less.
And I didn't suggest that they shouldn't refresh the R10.

Richard-CN · Feb 19, 2026

EthenJ said:
Lens corrections are great! It's a transparent tool that just makes lenses lighter and less distorted, but:

"Less expensive" is the key.

It sure doesn't feel like RF is less expensive than EF glass, expecially in the budget range. For example, Canon sells the 24-50 kit lens for $350. I got it for $89 used... and even at that price I'm feeling some buyers remorse :/

Or look at the EF 100-400L vs the RF 100-400. The RF is much lighter, yes, but the EF is sharper and cheaper. And that's considered one of the best value RF lenses around.

Or, heaven forbid, look at uncorrected third party RF, like the Yongnuo 23/35/56 1.4. $220 each, and very sharp. Or the 85mm 1.8 for $320, or the Venus Optics ultrawides, or the Argus 0.95s, all of which have to get by without in-body corrections because Canon won't open their mount like almost almost every other manufacturer.

Note I'm not blaming the engineers here; they can't do anything about Canon's margin requirements.

with 100-400 - that's just engineering, there's no digital correction happening there or shouldn't be. The projection of the image circle is large enough that you'd never have to worry - I'd say anything over 50mm we shouldn't see it, but Canon may surprise me.

the lenses are more expensive, but in alot of cases, they are putting in more esoteric elements, coatings, auto focus motors, etc than we had with EF. Also the entire lens has to run much faster than the EF lenses had to, from auto focus operations to even the physical apertures.

then there's inflation, and then there's the T word.

I'm confused about the RF 100-400 being more expensive than the EF 100-400. are we talking the same lens here? because the RF 100-400 went way down in price as it was re-hashed into a consumer lens. or do you mean the RF 100-500?

The chinese manufacturers are a whole other conversation. I think i've talked about that before. Though with what DJI and Xiamoi and Insta360 (who for some reason I always thought was an american brand) are doing, maybe another post about it all is due.

m4ndr4ke · Feb 19, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
The Digital corner profiling discussion is as complex as the use multitude of case scenarios from the users who shoot with these lenses.
If the corners are software re-generated using AI then there is no loss of detail or Dynamic range. You should be able to push the exposures and oggle the fine detail in the corners and be happy with the results. HOWEVER.....Canon doesn't employ AI software based corner regeneration, what they do is stretch the corners and use the raw file's DR to bump the corner exposure to that of a perfect lens. This is fine if you don't mind loosing a little bit of resolution, maybe even a bit of focal length and a lot of corner DR.
Most Canon UWA lenses already give us a slightly wider angle of view to their acclaimed wide focal length marking. So a RF 14-35 F4L lens is closer to 13.5mm when uncorrected, the focal value of the lens corresponds to the corrected focal length. Another example of this is the sublime RF10-20mm f4L, it's notably wider when uncorrected. So if you take the uncorrected RAW image and run it though software that can AI regenerate the corners, you get an even wider angle of view than the stock lens with Canon correction applied.

Sounds like you skipped half of Richard’s piece.

Also, there can never be AI generated corners in a camera, as there’s people shooting facts. Manufacturers are adding C2PA to their cameras to ensure the photographs are authentic.

Also, people really seem to forget how much EF lenses vignette. This thread is not about vignetting, it’s about distortion.

EOS 4 Life · Feb 19, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
"...brand-new RF 14mm f/2.8L IS USM..."

I'm still in EF lens land - was there a non VCM version 2 stops slower recently released?

With IS as well.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics