- Sep 26, 2021
Which extract from the review did you miss which you would have read in the original review?I’m honestly not sure what you’re arguing about. Nor am I sure why you feel the need to copy/paste large swaths of text from sources that were previously linked. It reminds me of people who try to win an argument with verbal diarrhea, not letting others get a word in edgewise. Except that tactic doesn’t work well online (unless your goal is just to have people ignore your bloated posts).
As to what I’m arguing about, as I’ve said very clearly and several times now, it is your statement, “Fact is, the RF 16/2.8 is not a good lens.” That’s not a fact, it’s your personal value judgement on the lens as a whole. There is nothing objective or factual about it.
“Testing has shown the RF 16/2.8 has poor corner sharpness.” Objective statement, fact.
“The RF 16/2.8 has high levels of barrel distortion, and the required correction of that distortion has a deleterious effect on image quality.” Objective statement, fact.
“The RF 16/2.8 is a bad lens.” Value judgement, not fact.
Every time I have quoted your statement of the third example, you’ve responded with (excessively lengthy) arguments similar to the first two examples.
Perhaps if I frame the discussion in a different, completely hypothetical context. I've looked over LEroy's portfolio of images, and I have the following comments:
"The colors in his image of Ayers Rock are oversaturated.""The shutter speeds he used for the surfers at Lennox Point are too slow to freeze their motion.""Fact is, LEroy is not a good photographer."I can repeat the first two points with multiple posts and thousands of words of text, but my statement about LEroy's photography remains a value judgement, not an objective fact.
You have repeatedly ignored the point I raised. You can continue to pretend that my point does not exist, or you can finally acknowledge that your statement was your personal value judgment, not a fact as you originally labeled it. Either way, I see no point in discussing this issue further.
Seems you're getting caught up in semantics over what a 'bad lens' is, that's a question you need to ask yourself, as you have a stack of gear and have probably encountered a few in your experience of photography over the years. Obviously, none of them have the words "BAD LENS" embossed on the side, so you're using some criteria to evaluate that, making a comparison against a specific benchmark. Perhaps people have different criteria that they measure against, depending on what they use the lenses for. Technology play toys or work tools? Big difference!
You can ask yourself, what more technical shortcomings would this lens need for me to consider it bad? High distortion- check, high vignetting check, chromatic aberration in corners - check, soft image corners - check, image circle that doesn't cover full frame sensor - check, lens coma - check, focus breathing - check, audible focus action - check, slow STM motors unable to maintain video focus on moving subjects - check. There's not much left.
If you want to believe that there are no bad lenses in Canon's budget RF series, that's your prerogative. Since most things follow standard distributions statistically (and yes there are exceptions such as poisson distributions), odds on there would be a 50-50 split on the matter when it comes to opinions. I'd say that the reviews sum it up as a 'fun', cheap, lightweight and 'good for the price' UW that's easy to carry, those are the attributes they praise.
This discussion kind of reminds me of the CNN reporter with a blazing US city behind him burning sky high telling the audience "...the protests are mostly peaceful here tonight" There's no point flogging a dead horse, and as Dr McCoy would say "It's worse than that: he's dead, Jim", and this one's going nowhere fast!
We're obviously looking at the same data and drawing two very different conclusions lol! If you can't see it, no point continuing this discussion, I'll let it be, agree to disagree, and put it down to a case of very different perspectives.
This is old news anyway, there's a rumoured Canon EOS R1 on the latest thread that we're all meant to get excited about now! Everyone is required to speculate about its 100+MP sensor and make wish lists about its specifications!