Canon Eyes a Canon RF 50-150mm F2.8

[HMC11]

The problem is the lack of evidence or more importantly, Canon's internal testing where they decided that 19.96 was acceptable. I mean it's great that you did something that you consider to be worthwhile evidence but your test bed isn't Canon's test bed and your image analysis isn't Canon's image analysis.

I once had a colleague who, when confronted with scientific evidence from a wide range of disciplines about human's impact on global warming, simply stated that he wouldn't believe any of these results until he had personally conducted the experiments. All around the table simply disengaged from the debate.

 

[David_B]

I once had a colleague who, when confronted with scientific evidence from a wide range of disciplines about human's impact on global warming, simply stated that he wouldn't believe any of these results until he had personally conducted the experiments. All around the table simply disengaged from the debate.

I hear you. The evidence of one person that's demonstratably biased towards Canon is not good scientific evidence. It might be good evidence for him, but nobody else, it would be good if we had scientific evidence, but we don't. Even the description of the test does not fill me with joy over its rigour. I'd wager that Canon does have that evidence. (and possibly Adobe, et al.) Consider Canon witholding that evidence akin to oil companies witholding evidence from decades ago about their predictions of global warming.

 

[JensR]

The evidence of one person that's demonstratably biased towards Canon is not good scientific evidence.

Did you ever in your life see scientific evidence that was coming from an unbiased person?

 

[neuroanatomist]

The problem is the lack of evidence or more importantly, Canon's internal testing where they decided that 19.96 was acceptable. I mean it's great that you did something that you consider to be worthwhile evidence but your test bed isn't Canon's test bed and your image analysis isn't Canon's image analysis.

Worth noting that Canon was certainly not the first manufacturer to 'cut corners' (literally) from the image circle. The fact remains, the ultimate arbiter is the consumer. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Their choice to rely on distortion correction to fill the frame does not seem to be impacting their market share. The RF 16/2.8 appears to sell very well, for example. If you prefer 'optically corrected' lenses, stick with EF for your wide angles.