Canon officially announces the RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

[neuroanatomist]

The problem with excessive software correction (depending on the type) is that it's destructive at the pixel level, degrades image quality, introduces more noise, and limits the post processing that can be carried out afterwards.

That sounds like an us problem, not a Canon problem. At least insofar as people keep buying the lenses, which at the set prices seems quite likely.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon RF 14-35 f/4 L: rectilinear distortion 10%

In spite of all that pixel level destruction, I found that the RF 14-35 at 14mm delivers similar corner sharpness post-correction as the EF 11-24, which has effectively zero distortion at 14mm (based on tool you are linking).

I'm really loving all the fanboy doublethink on DPR trying to justify Canon's heavy reliance on software correction, making senseless illogical statements such as "these are designed to be used with software correction", which is marketing nonsense, made to sound like software corrections are a desirable thing, and these lenses were successfully designed to that purpose!

The purpose is compromise, and there is benefit to us as buyers. Canon would not have designed an optically corrected 16/2.8 at a $300 price point, because it wouldn’t be profitable. I doubt a 14-35/4 could be designed with <5% distortion and still take a 77mm front filter (that feature makes the 14-35/24-105/100-500 a great travel kit).

 

[Czardoom]

I can't understand distortion at a prime lens, Those lenses only have to be optimized for a single focal length. So all distortion could be corrected with the right optical formula. It just seems that Canon thinks that such a distortion does not have to be corrected optically, if it can be digitally inside the camera without the photographer even noticing that, as even the EVF already shows the corrected image. In times of DSLRs Canon would never have sold a lens with such a distortion, as that would easily have been visible in the viewfinder.

Yes, in times of DSLRs with optical viewfinders, you could not make a lens with in-camera or automatic post processing corrections. But with mirrorless, you can, and that is why most (if not all) brands are doing it or will be doing it.

Why? Cheaper and lighter lenses. If the end result is good, I don't care if the corrections are done by using more glass or by using software.

 

[Czardoom]

....

I'm really loving all the fanboy doublethink on DPR trying to justify Canon's heavy reliance on software correction, making senseless illogical statements such as "these are designed to be used with software correction", which is marketing nonsense, made to sound like software corrections are a desirable thing, and these lenses were successfully designed to that purpose! Properly phrased, it would be stated as "these lenses are intentionally optically under-designed, and this compromise requires software corrections to make the images usable". But people can twist reality to fit their worldview and rationalise anything, rather than have to change their worldview to fit reality...

Funny how people thing software correction is somehow a bad thing, and yet I would bet those same people are doing post processing with Lightroom or other programs, which, of course is software correction, or how about Topaz or DXO noise reduction (software correction) or various sharpening programs (software correction).

Designing lenses to have auto software correction, makes them smaller, lighter and less expensive. My guess is that the majority of lens buyers will take that deal. Anyone who ever purchased the Canon EF 17-40 L would probably wish that lens had auto correction as the corners are totally soft! Probably true of numerous other lenses as well.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Funny how people thing software correction is somehow a bad thing, and yet I would bet those same people are doing post processing with Lightroom or other programs, which, of course is software correction, or how about Topaz or DXO noise reduction (software correction) or various sharpening programs (software correction).

Designing lenses to have auto software correction, makes them smaller, lighter and less expensive. My guess is that the majority of lens buyers will take that deal. Anyone who ever purchased the Canon EF 17-40 L would probably wish that lens had auto correction as the corners are totally soft! Probably true of numerous other lenses as well.

Ultimately, it depends what you use the lenses for, and for non critical applications, it doesn't really matter. They're fine for the same reason that smartphones are - sufficiency.

For the majority of people, like most clueless smarphone users that take portraits and selfies at close distances with ultrawide lenses, distortion of people's faces obviously won't be a concern, and for social media use, image quality is rarely a concern, modern smartphones can take passable photos acceptable to the general public almost 100% of the time.

I believe you're mistakenly conflating automatic lens corrections applied by software according to a formula to correct minor lens defects with post-processing, which is a subjective human process that aims to bring the best out of an image, to approximate what you saw or how you imagine it to look. These are two different things, they're qualitatively different. Noise reduction is another thing yet again, it attempts to reduce the ratio of noise to signal, and that has to be done carefully, otherwise it's possible to lose fine details.

The simple law of physics is that there is always a price, and whether you're talking about software correction or designing super-small RF lenses, you can't get something for nothing, you have to give up something in the process, the question is if the compromise is acceptable to you for your needs.

A simple way to think about it is like this, 1. Price - 2. image quality - 3. size/weight, you can only pick any two of three that you like!

Excessive software correction does reduce image quality, there's no two ways about it, that's why we don't want to over-process images, because they fall apart faster during editing, and that's why we don't like lenses with heavy vignetting, because software may be able to correct 5 stops of underexposure, but the corners become noisy and full of artifacts.

The article "About Lens Distortion" on TDP is worth a read, here's an excerpt:

"Ideally, a lens will render straight lines as straight. Reality is that many lenses are not perfect and straight lines are rendered with a curve. The amount of curve can be vastly different from lens to lens and from focal length to focal length within the same lens."

"Who Cares? Some types of photography can tolerate distortion better than others. Landscape photographers shooting an ocean scene will not be happy with a non-straight horizon. Architect photographers will not accept curved buildings in their photos - nor will their clients. Even framing a scene level is difficult with distortion in the viewfinder. Other types of photography are far more forgiving of a distorted view. If there are no straight lines in the frame, it may be difficult to see any effect of the distortion in your images. People have no straight lines - and may even appreciate a little thinning effect from pincushion distortion."

"Lens Distortion Can Be Corrected Using Software - Software can be used to straighten your lines - removing the distortion from the image (though wave distortion is harder to correct). But, this correction is a destructive process. You lose image quality during the process of remapping the pixels in the image. A distortion free lens delivers a better final image."

It doesn't make sense to say these lenses are bad or good without context - in which applications are we talking about?

Small light lenses with extreme optical distortion that need software correction to produce usable images are an excellent solution for travel or casual photography. The RF 16mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/1.8 make excellent vlogging or interview lenses, as the subjects don't move much in the field of view, so the heavy focus breathing is not an issue as it would be with regular video. They're satisfactory solution to these engineering problems, but keep in mind that means they're by necessity unsuitable as solutions for a range of other applications/problems.

This is the perennial argument on every gear/tool/gadget forum, understanding that optimisation for a specific application involves compromises which are a balancing act between preferred attributes/features.

The poor old EF 17-40mm L was a low cost L-lens exception, that was known to be soft from my understanding, but was purchased by many because it was an affordable option to the more expensive 16-35mm UW zooms. I've never oiwned or used the lens, so I can't offer an objective opinion about the nuances of its performance.

The issue for users of mid-range gear is that right now Canon has entry level lenses with their compromises on image quality to achieve size/weight/price goals, and a top tier pro range that's been pushed into a higher price bracket than before. There is no more mid-range, and the question is, will there be? Whatever is happening to third-party lenses on the RF platform, it looks like all non-Chinese brands are effectively locked out, reducing the choices available, and all the midrange options.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]
The poor old EF 17-40mm L was a low cost L-lens exception, that was known to be soft from my understanding, but was purchased by many because it was an affordable option to the more expensive 16-35mm UW zooms. I've never oiwned or used the lens, so I can't offer an objective opinion about the nuances of its performance.
[..]

After correction the RF16mm beats the EF17-40L in sharpness across the frame. On full frame, the 17-40 corners are *bad*. In the center the RF16 is a lot sharper at f/2.8 than the EF17-40 at f/5.6.

I've been using the RF16 as the main lens on this vacation and it's performing very well. The issues I'm running into are virtually due to my inexperience with UWA, I really shouldn't do close ups of my kids with the RF16

I really wanted the RF14-35L for this trip, but I couldn't justify the expense. So it's RF16, RF50, RF100L and RF100-500L for this trip.

 

[wolfgang_guelcker]

The optical bench test results are in for the RF 24mm f/1.8 macro IS STM lens on the Photons to Photos website, and the distortion figures don't look good, rectilinear distortion is 11%, which is a very high.

https://www.photonstophotos.net//Ge...ample03P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis

The Optical Bench of the great Bill Claff does not contain tests, but the processed data of patent applications. The realised lens may then be somewhat different.
But it is an excellent source of lens information.

 

[Nemorino]

I just want to quote the Canon white paper explaining the R mount:
Page 35

The DLO system can implement corrections for the following
1. Resolution loss due to cumulative aberrations
2. Resolution loss due to diffraction
3. Lateral chromatic aberration

The Digital Lens Optimizer is particularly useful when using lenses that are prone to optical distortion or blur, often providing substantial improvements in image quality. In photographic circles, many will stop down slightly from maximum aperture when taking photos with a shallow depth of field for a blurry effect, or for scenes requiring a fast shutter speed. This is done to prevent a degradation of resolution in the focal area. When Digital Lens Optimizer is used, high image sharpness with minimal aberrations can be achieved even with maximum aperture. Whether using a fast shutter speed to capture a special moment, or a shallow depth of field for a blurry effect, the desired aperture can be chosen freely. A wider aperture also allows lowering the ISO speed for even better image quality. Using a great depth of field for pan focus is one of the standard techniques of photography. But this involves a tradeoff, because small apertures could not be used if softening of the image caused by the diffraction effect was to be avoided. With the Digital Lens Optimizer, the entire range, from fully open to minimum aperture, can be used, giving free reign to creativity. Even at middle range F-stops, where image quality is generally good, aberrations and diffraction used to reduce image quality to a certain extent. Shutter speed can be at will, regardless of aperture stop.

I have no link to the paper but it has been linked on CR before

 

[Czardoom]

Ultimately, it depends what you use the lenses for, and for non critical applications, it doesn't really matter. They're fine for the same reason that smartphones are - sufficiency.

For the majority of people, like most clueless smarphone users that take portraits and selfies at close distances with ultrawide lenses, distortion of people's faces obviously won't be a concern, and for social media use, image quality is rarely a concern, modern smartphones can take passable photos acceptable to the general public almost 100% of the time.

....

You don't like lenses with software correction "built-in" to the design - we get it. You don't have to like them. But you don't have to compare them to smartphones and insinuate people who buy these types of lenses are clueless or that these lenses can't be used for critical situations. Your bias is so extreme (not your logic which is almost always lacking) that is colors every comment you make on the subject. You act as if all optically pure lenses are sharp in the corners and have no distortion. Really? Do you actually take photos or are you just another forum gear head warrior? The EF 17-40 was an exception? Right - the only lens that was poor in the corners!! LOL!

Just like every lens ever made, these software corrected lenses vary in their performance level. Some - from Canon and other brands - get the highest ratings and are used for professional shoots while others are cheaper and not as good. Yet, you lump them all together and harp upon the destruciveness of the pixels. The final image - well, I guess that is irrelevant. or maybe because most of these lenses are perfectly capable of producing salable images - you are right to ignore the final image quality and just worry about your pixel destruction.

Again, don't buy these lenses. But your crusade to convince others that all lenses with software correction are horrible is just bullcrap.

 

[LogicExtremist]

You don't like lenses with software correction "built-in" to the design - we get it. You don't have to like them. But you don't have to compare them to smartphones and insinuate people who buy these types of lenses are clueless or that these lenses can't be used for critical situations. Your bias is so extreme (not your logic which is almost always lacking) that is colors every comment you make on the subject. You act as if all optically pure lenses are sharp in the corners and have no distortion. Really? Do you actually take photos or are you just another forum gear head warrior? The EF 17-40 was an exception? Right - the only lens that was poor in the corners!! LOL!

Just like every lens ever made, these software corrected lenses vary in their performance level. Some - from Canon and other brands - get the highest ratings and are used for professional shoots while others are cheaper and not as good. Yet, you lump them all together and harp upon the destruciveness of the pixels. The final image - well, I guess that is irrelevant. or maybe because most of these lenses are perfectly capable of producing salable images - you are right to ignore the final image quality and just worry about your pixel destruction.

Again, don't buy these lenses. But your crusade to convince others that all lenses with software correction are horrible is just bullcrap.

Wow dude, ease up! You've really misquoted me here, or misunderstood my point.
I'll distill it down to the essence of what I was saying to clear up any misunderstanding.

1. Lens performance parameters can be objectively measured, like rectilinear distortion, which varies from lens to lens, which is why I gave a list of the different lenses as a comparison so people can see the difference.
2. Whether the lenses are good enough for a person's requirements is a more subjective matter, within the limits of practicality, the RF 16mm f/2.8 is not going to be the first choice for shooting real estate professionally for example!

I'm just pointing out the facts, whether I like them or not is immaterial. I obviously won't buy the ones that don't give me sufficient image quality for my work and leisure (no, I'm not a gear head lol!). Amongst my lenses I do have an RF 35mm f/1.8 and RF 50mm f/1.8, they're may not be my main go-to lenses, but work well for me for certain specifi tasks. Some people don't like, and that's because they don't work for them and their needs, that doesn't offend me at all, and I can accept that. By being aware of the shortcomings of those lenses, I can work around them more easily! If I can't, then they're not th right tool for the job, and I'll use something more suitable for the task, whether that's an L series lens or whatever.

What is 'bullcrap' as you call it, and what I'm calling out is the denial, the 'emperor has no clothes' phenomenon on DPR, only a little here, where the limitations of the lenses are not being acknowledged. It's a factual matter, that with extreme software correction, and the resultant image degradation, some of these lenses are not the same as their EF counterparts, and may not be suitable for the same purposes. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be a market for the seriously overpriced RF L series lenses!

These entry level RF lenses are very different lenses to those of the past, built using a different design philosophy, that will be better in some areas and worse in others. We need to assess them on their merits, and identify what they're best used for. Let's not kid ourselves that these are L series substitutes, or in some cases, not even EF substitutes. We need to assess each parameter and determine where they best fit in terms of use. Emotional attachment to material objects and brands is irrational. Objective analysis is what's needed.

If you don't define intended use, you can't assess performance against that criteria. The 'final image' does matter, but only in respect to the intended use of the final image. A lens that is sufficient for holiday snaps and travel may not be sufficient for commercial work. I can go through each genre of photography and list all the traits that we look for in the type of lenses used, but anyone who understands their genre will know what matters and what doesn't in a lens. If people know what they're buying, they can make informed decisions, and sharing information makes that possible. Downplaying unfavourable information doesn't help other than soothe the ego of gear heads. Remember, everything has its pros and cons, and how the gear that you've chosen performs under less than optimum conditions in respect to its design is neither a reflection of you or your self-worth! That's what gear head p***ing contests are all about, ego attachment to one's possessions, and if I've correctly gauged the forum demographic correctly, were all a bit too old for that sort of thing anyway.

We've seen too many YouTube influencer 'reviews' to use the word loosely, where they go over specs, praise the good features, and either ignore or downplay the shortcomings, otherwise Canon or whatever other company will get upset and won't send them toys to play with for a week to get those important early pre-release reviews out. For anyone who wants truly biased 'reviews', there is plenty online to satiate that need.

<start sarcasm rant> And no, there's no groupthink happening in online forums, lol! There never was any overheating issues on the R5, those were just trolls being negative, and the camera bodies just magically worked longer after a certain point in time, it had nothing to do with the firmware fix. Canon's marketing department is actually a philanthropic group that always tells the truth, and always has your best interests at heart, truly. The R5C didn't address any issue with video, it was just nice for Canon to release it as it made more rainbows appear in the sky... The lens hoods aren't included on non-L lenses for the reason most people think, Canon aren't mean-spirited cheapskates at all, they're just saving people from lens hood trauma. There exists a tiny percentage of budget lens buyers that can be irreversibly trautmatised by the sight of a lens hood, and when that happens, that can no longer care for their kids, so it's really done to save the children, they need to do it for the children! Oh yeah, and the replacement lens hood for the RF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM really is worth over $700, and well over $1000 outside the US. Unbeknown to most, it contains vibranium nanoparticles that have the capacity to absorb the kinetic energy, saving the lens from any frontal impact. That rare element is only available in Wakanda (documented in Marvel's Black Panther movie, so it's real), and to ensure secure delivery, the finished product is personally walked by the Dora Milaje from their homeland to Canon distribution centres! <close sarcasm rant> Ah, sweet conformity!

Ironically, there is so much online confusion about sufficiency. While just about any modern crop or full frame camera body is sufficient for professional work, many lenses aren't, but there seems to be an overly big fuss on gear forums over camera body specs!

 

[LogicExtremist]

After correction the RF16mm beats the EF17-40L in sharpness across the frame. On full frame, the 17-40 corners are *bad*. In the center the RF16 is a lot sharper at f/2.8 than the EF17-40 at f/5.6.

I've been using the RF16 as the main lens on this vacation and it's performing very well. The issues I'm running into are virtually due to my inexperience with UWA, I really shouldn't do close ups of my kids with the RF16

I really wanted the RF14-35L for this trip, but I couldn't justify the expense. So it's RF16, RF50, RF100L and RF100-500L for this trip.

Looks like the RF 16mm f/2.8 is an upgrade on the EF 17-40mm L and a downgrade on the EF 16-34mm zooms.

That's sound rationale for choosing the 16mm lens, most of us need to work within our budgets, and we get what we can justify, and if it works, then it's all good!

 

[LogicExtremist]

The Optical Bench of the great Bill Claff does not contain tests, but the processed data of patent applications. The realised lens may then be somewhat different.
But it is an excellent source of lens information.

Thanks for that, I wasn't aware of the optical bench section of his website, I've only seen the DR charts which are great!

 

[Frodo]

Looks like the RF 16mm f/2.8 is an upgrade on the EF 17-40mm L and a downgrade on the EF 16-34mm zooms.

That's sound rationale for choosing the 16mm lens, most of us need to work within our budgets, and we get what we can justify, and if it works, then it's all good!

My RF 16/2.8 performs better than expected, and at f/4 was close enough to be equal to my Samyang 14/2.8. And the DXO Pure Raw 2 profile improves it further. One proviso: I tested 2 of these lenses in the shop, and the one I bought was noticeably sharper. I have sold A2 astrophotography prints for good prices, so I guess that is a critical use. But most of my landscape and astrophotography photos are not taken at home, but when I travel. The RF 16/2.8 always travels with me, whereas the much larger Samyang rarely did, so I sold it.
If the RF 24/1.8 has acceptable coma performance 1 stop down, it could be a useful astro lens.
At the end of the day lens performance must meet the use case; price and (for me) size will clinch the sale.

 

[dirtyvu]

Wow dude, ease up! You've really misquoted me here, or misunderstood my point.
I'll distill it down to the essence of what I was saying to clear up any misunderstanding.

1. Lens performance parameters can be objectively measured, like rectilinear distortion, which varies from lens to lens, which is why I gave a list of the different lenses as a comparison so people can see the difference.
2. Whether the lenses are good enough for a person's requirements is a more subjective matter, within the limits of practicality, the RF 16mm f/2.8 is not going to be the first choice for shooting real estate professionally for example!

I'm just pointing out the facts, whether I like them or not is immaterial. I obviously won't buy the ones that don't give me sufficient image quality for my work and leisure (no, I'm not a gear head lol!). Amongst my lenses I do have an RF 35mm f/1.8 and RF 50mm f/1.8, they're may not be my main go-to lenses, but work well for me for certain specifi tasks. Some people don't like, and that's because they don't work for them and their needs, that doesn't offend me at all, and I can accept that. By being aware of the shortcomings of those lenses, I can work around them more easily! If I can't, then they're not th right tool for the job, and I'll use something more suitable for the task, whether that's an L series lens or whatever.

What is 'bullcrap' as you call it, and what I'm calling out is the denial, the 'emperor has no clothes' phenomenon on DPR, only a little here, where the limitations of the lenses are not being acknowledged. It's a factual matter, that with extreme software correction, and the resultant image degradation, some of these lenses are not the same as their EF counterparts, and may not be suitable for the same purposes. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be a market for the seriously overpriced RF L series lenses!

These entry level RF lenses are very different lenses to those of the past, built using a different design philosophy, that will be better in some areas and worse in others. We need to assess them on their merits, and identify what they're best used for. Let's not kid ourselves that these are L series substitutes, or in some cases, not even EF substitutes. We need to assess each parameter and determine where they best fit in terms of use. Emotional attachment to material objects and brands is irrational. Objective analysis is what's needed.

If you don't define intended use, you can't assess performance against that criteria. The 'final image' does matter, but only in respect to the intended use of the final image. A lens that is sufficient for holiday snaps and travel may not be sufficient for commercial work. I can go through each genre of photography and list all the traits that we look for in the type of lenses used, but anyone who understands their genre will know what matters and what doesn't in a lens. If people know what they're buying, they can make informed decisions, and sharing information makes that possible. Downplaying unfavourable information doesn't help other than soothe the ego of gear heads. Remember, everything has its pros and cons, and how the gear that you've chosen performs under less than optimum conditions in respect to its design is neither a reflection of you or your self-worth! That's what gear head p***ing contests are all about, ego attachment to one's possessions, and if I've correctly gauged the forum demographic correctly, were all a bit too old for that sort of thing anyway.

We've seen too many YouTube influencer 'reviews' to use the word loosely, where they go over specs, praise the good features, and either ignore or downplay the shortcomings, otherwise Canon or whatever other company will get upset and won't send them toys to play with for a week to get those important early pre-release reviews out. For anyone who wants truly biased 'reviews', there is plenty online to satiate that need.

<start sarcasm rant> And no, there's no groupthink happening in online forums, lol! There never was any overheating issues on the R5, those were just trolls being negative, and the camera bodies just magically worked longer after a certain point in time, it had nothing to do with the firmware fix. Canon's marketing department is actually a philanthropic group that always tells the truth, and always has your best interests at heart, truly. The R5C didn't address any issue with video, it was just nice for Canon to release it as it made more rainbows appear in the sky... The lens hoods aren't included on non-L lenses for the reason most people think, Canon aren't mean-spirited cheapskates at all, they're just saving people from lens hood trauma. There exists a tiny percentage of budget lens buyers that can be irreversibly trautmatised by the sight of a lens hood, and when that happens, that can no longer care for their kids, so it's really done to save the children, they need to do it for the children! Oh yeah, and the replacement lens hood for the RF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM really is worth over $700, and well over $1000 outside the US. Unbeknown to most, it contains vibranium nanoparticles that have the capacity to absorb the kinetic energy, saving the lens from any frontal impact. That rare element is only available in Wakanda (documented in Marvel's Black Panther movie, so it's real), and to ensure secure delivery, the finished product is personally walked by the Dora Milaje from their homeland to Canon distribution centres! <close sarcasm rant> Ah, sweet conformity!

Ironically, there is so much online confusion about sufficiency. While just about any modern crop or full frame camera body is sufficient for professional work, many lenses aren't, but there seems to be an overly big fuss on gear forums over camera body specs!

Tldr. What wide angle doesn't have distortion. By its very nature the wider, the more distortion...

 

[koenkooi]

Tldr. What wide angle doesn't have distortion. By its very nature the wider, the more distortion...

Laowa claims it for this one: https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-12mm-f2-8-zero-d/

 

[lnz]

Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens

Buy Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens featuring EF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Aperture Range: f/4 to f/22, One Super UD and One UD Element, Four Aspherical Elements, SWC, Air Sphere, and Fluorine Coatings, Ring-Type Ultrasonic Motor AF System, Weather-Sealed Construction, Rounded 9-Blade...

www.bhphotovideo.com

Unless the RF version allows use of a drop-in filter, the adapted EF version is more useful, and will almost certainly be cheaper, too.

I know that option but i'm still waiting for the release of the RF version to choose

 

[dirtyvu]

Laowa claims it for this one: https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-12mm-f2-8-zero-d/

They also say at infinity focus. But what they're saying is still good. But with that lens if you take a closeup of a group of people the people at the edge of the frame will still be stretched.

 

[neuroanatomist]

They also say at infinity focus. But what they're saying is still good. But with that lens if you take a closeup of a group of people the people at the edge of the frame will still be stretched.

Yes, but that's not geometric distortion, it's anamorphosis. The latter results from the correction of geometric distortion (either optically or digitally). Here's an example (from the DPR review of DxO's ViewPoint, specifically it's correction for volume anamorphosis):



Note how in the left 'before' image the people are distorted but the vertical lines of the architecture are straight. In the corrected image, normal proportions are restored for the subjects, with the trade-off that the architectural verticals are now curved.

 

[dirtyvu]

Yes, but that's not geometric distortion, it's anamorphosis. The latter results from the correction of geometric distortion (either optically or digitally). Here's an example (from the DPR review of DxO's ViewPoint, specifically it's correction for volume anamorphosis):

View attachment 204728

Note how in the left 'before' image the people are distorted but the vertical lines of the architecture are straight. In the corrected image, normal proportions are restored for the subjects, with the trade-off that the architectural verticals are now curved.

Yes I always correct for the people. Background is secondary. In lightroom you just move the distortion slider a bit to fix it. Not a big issue.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes I always correct for the people. Background is secondary

So do I, and although I've never used a Laowa Zero-D lens, it would be ironic to introduce geometric distortion to correct an optically barrel-free UWA lens, to correct the anamorphosis.