Canon's software correction requires a Canon pipeline -- right? Unless I'm mistaken, you can't take the raw image straight to Photoshop or Affinity photo and get Canon's special sauce applied; either the HEIF or JPEG needs the in-camera adjustment, or Digital Photo is needed for a raw adjustment combined with export to, say, TIFF — only then can I edit the image with the adjustment somewhere else.
If you want to use Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer, then yes you need to take JPGs from the camera or use Canon's DPP for RAW conversions. But 3rd party RAW converters have profiles for RF lenses that require digital correction, and they work just fine. Personally, I view using Canon's DPP with the same affection that I view getting a Norovirus infection. I use DxO PhotoLab for RAW conversions, which is what I did for the
aforementioned RF 14-35/4 vs. EF 11-24/4 comparison, though I also included camera JPGs along with DPP and Adobe RAW conversions for completeness.
If my understanding remains current, then I'd have to say Canon's solution is still pretty janky and unique to them among a sea of camera and lens options. I'd say that the original lens performance still matters if other software pipelines are desired -- say, for custom agentic LLM architectures ingesting images for medical or other scientific purpose. And there are many teams out there who can easily grab a camera and do advanced imaging plus analytics vs those who can afford to spend all of their research money on a big, dedicated box with 240v mains supply.
It's not. I see no reason to use Canon's software to process Canon RAWs. DxO, Adobe, Affinity, CaptureOne, and a bunch of others seem to manage just fine (as they do with RAW files from Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc.). IMO, DxO handles noise reduction much better than Canon's DPP, for example. No reason a software pipeline couldn't run demosaicing and image corrections if properly coded, just as 3rd party RAW converters do.
I think that's actually quite different from film. For film, one develops and then scans and then carries on like normal. Digital built the "scan" in, but the convenience is entirely within the camera and the scan-equivalent (i.e., raw) is good to go on export from the camera. (Except Canon just broke that with some of its modern lenses.)
The film analogy was broader – it's about resistance to change. People (at the time, not now) argued that film was analog and pure while digital was 'fake' and 'computer trickery'. The only 'true' workflow was negative to print or slide film to projection. Your suggestion of scanning the developed film would not satisfy those folks, that's just more digital trickery. Interesting that you used that same word about digital corrections.
Also worth noting that RAW images from the camera are never 'good to go'. At a minimum, they require demosaicing / color interpolation.
But as an example the EF 50mm 1.2 makes some pretty usable shots with no special sauce on any camera you can mount it to, where as RF successors require a little extra push to get the result out the door. Pick any other L EF lens and we can have essentially the same discussion. That little extra push can be a big deal in many contexts.
The EF 50/1.2L has 1.5% barrel distortion (enough to be noticeable, almost as much as the 1.7% of the EF 14/2.8L II), strong axial CA and significant focus shift...it can produce lovely, dreamy images but as example of what can be achieved with pure performance based on physics it leaves much to be desired. OTOH, the RF 50/1.2L has a native 0.2% barrel distortion and requires no digital correction, it has very little axial CA (especially for an f/1.2 lens), no focus shift and is very sharp.
Leaving that aside, for your 'pick any other L EF lens challenge, I pick the EF 17-40mm f/4L. Convince me that the physics-based optical corrections are doing the job there. Unless you like the fisheye-esque look, that lens desperately needs 'a little push' to correct the ~4% barrel distortion, as does the EF 11-24/4L.
Sorry, I disagree with your conclusion that 'any other' L EF lenses is 'good to go' without some digital correction applied. Unless you're shooting in-camera JPGs or are happy with distorted images with visible chromatic aberration, most images benefit from digital correction even if they don't strictly require it.
So I'm not saying the current approach is unusable or doesn't make great final images. I'm just saying hedging to the physical probably yields more flexible, if not ultimately better, outcomes than hedging to the software. Glad it's working for you, though.
I'm definitely results oriented. I can promise you that the 0.6 kg RF 10-20/4L that I pack for a trip will deliver significantly better flexibility and outcomes than the 1.2 kg EF 11-24/4L that I would often leave at home.
