Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8 USM L IS - Review / Test Report
Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8 USM L IS - Review / Test Report
www.opticallimits.com
Thanks for sharing yup, the vignetting is ridiculous for lens at this price point, no two ways about it...
I have tried it and it wasn’t as crazy as I expected, but I shot in a well lit store and at low iso so the files turned out okay. But any higher than 200 iso and this is a dealbreaker for me. Such a shame really...
And the cameras are going to cook the 'RAW' files so you can't ever not see the lens aberrations, Canon already do it with the P&S's and Nikon do it with the Z's, I'm sure they aren't alone.We are likely going to see more and more lenses that rely on the EVF to mask optical imperfections, since the camera will do the same thing. This is something new to an all-electronic (no optical viewfinder) camera; it could not have been done before.
And the cameras are going to cook the 'RAW' files so you can't ever not see the lens aberrations, Canon already do it with the P&S's and Nikon do it with the Z's, I'm sure they aren't alone.
Well RAW cooking is going to come more and more prevalent, unfortunately. A sure benefit of MILC's, and progress.....And you know, I can live with that for lower-tier cameras. Part of the price you pay for economy is lower intrinsic quality.
But now there's the RF 24-240 that couldn't be released without a firmware upgrade first...because it has horrific vignetting and barrel distortion at the shorter end, and so the camera had to be trained to hide it. If that were the alternative I had (and no, it isn't; plenty of others) I'd keep my 18-200 Tamron for the EF-M, which I'm pretty confident doesn't resort to such monkeyshines (why would Canon help Tamron sell lenses?). Yes, its crop frame which makes the job easier (barrel distortion gets worse as the projected image gets wider), but I doubt such distortion could be hidden even in a crop size. (And it's even an 11+:1 zoom versus 10:1.)
Well RAW cooking is going to come more and more prevalent, unfortunately. A sure benefit of MILC's, and progress.....
If the end file looks good, I don't think I am going to mind. And as long as the end result is still real, multiple exposures to make a cleaner picture are a-ok with me(like a phone), but I draw the line when it is trying to digitally make the out of focus area smoother than the lens can produce so that it looks like a better lens.
ME TOO !I'd still like the RAW to be, well, RAW and have DPP/LR/C1/etc do the cooking.
ME TOO !
And the cameras are going to cook the 'RAW' files so you can't ever not see the lens aberrations, Canon already do it with the P&S's and Nikon do it with the Z's, I'm sure they aren't alone.
Yes it can, it can do it to any camera in playback mode but if your camera has an EVF it can do it in the 'viewfinder' live feed too. Now many might say 'so what?' and most of the time I could agree, but if you are chasing the highest IQ you can then having the corners of your image already lifted 4 stops to 'correct' for the lens really starts to limit the artistic choices you have with that file. Personally one of the things I have liked about Canon has been their comparatively unfettered RAW files, I believe MILC's and the keen competition in the sector are going to force this kind of jiggery pokery onto all the manufacturers.A camera can cook back the 4.5 stops of light fall off in the corners so one can't ever see it?
Yes it can, it can do it to any camera in playback mode but if your camera has an EVF it can do it in the 'viewfinder' live feed too.
if you are chasing the highest IQ you can then having the corners of your image already lifted 4 stops to 'correct' for the lens really starts to limit the artistic choices you have with that file.
I was referring to how it would look on a computer screen or printed, rather than EVF or the camera's screen.
It will look on a computer screen as it would look in the EVF or back screen on review, it is baked into the RAW file so you can't undo it even third party programs like Lightroom etc won't be able to 'undo' the bake.
And you know, I can live with that for lower-tier cameras. Part of the price you pay for economy is lower intrinsic quality.
But now there's the RF 24-240 that couldn't be released without a firmware upgrade first...because it has horrific vignetting and barrel distortion at the shorter end, and so the camera had to be trained to hide it. If that were the alternative I had (and no, it isn't; plenty of others) I'd keep my 18-200 Tamron for the EF-M, which I'm pretty confident doesn't resort to such monkeyshines (why would Canon help Tamron sell lenses?). Yes, its crop frame which makes the job easier (barrel distortion gets worse as the projected image gets wider), but I doubt such distortion could be hidden even in a crop size. (And it's even an 11+:1 zoom versus 10:1.)