…and, potentially, peak sharpness.
Personally, I don’t have a definitive preference but, this method has been giving us some very useful and innovative lenses designs.
Yeah, I think so.
I found this by Nando Harmsen, which seems relevant to the software-as-a-lens-component discussion:
I see a growing number of new lenses hitting the market that rely on lens correction. These lenses have some benefits, but are lens manufacturers taking shortcuts with these lens designs? Will we be seeing more and more lenses with this reliance on lens correction in the near future? I remember...
fstoppers.com
I think that in the context of the “best of 2025” theme, neuroanatomist’s point about the expense of optically ideal lenses is a very valid measure.
I also think that your point stands in the same context. I don’t think they’re taking an OG innovative approach, but the effort to help people buy into the game is good for the rest of the community.
I also don’t think an emphasis on software over physical design is a thing to be celebrated as a trend, but I do think that bringing a competent overall solution at a tolerable price point merits a best of the year consideration.
In fact, really I have kept much of my EF L stable (and 20mm USM) because physically they are good (not the best, but corner to corner full of data and identifiable detail that can be made sharp/er with f-stop use) and the DLO application by camera or computer makes the camera-exiting image great — and in some cases stunning. More than acceptable enough (to me) to save $1k per lens by not upgrading the glass for hobby work (ignoring other issues like lack of full-time override).
Canon is simply now milking this approach to the nth-degree with their modern VCM, 10-24mm, etc. work. So I recognize that I’m accepting / doing conceptually the same practice —but with what I feel is better overall raw source data for the software part of the chain. No black corners or need for imputed data given the image that hits the sensor with my lenses; I could use the raw photo imprint pre-DLO in all cases.
I think it would be nice to see some of those EF L designs be re-introduced for the mid-tier lens market with the same modern RF computational assist via DLO or like mechanism. This would help keep cost down, wow factor up for typical image review use cases, and not leave people with multi-thousand dollar corners with inflated noise or imputed data. The 75-300 RF edition surely deserves its worst of laugh. But I think the idea of classic L designs being used in this recycling of glass manner is the right way to go for many cases.
Failing that, and coming back to the reality of today, I think the awarded lens is a valid proposal.
But in the context of EF on an RF mount using DLO to save some serious bucks for a solid final output before artistic editing takes place kind of way. Put another way, it might as well have been an EF lens with a splash of DLO.
www.the-digital-picture.com
petapixel.com
