I hope so. Canon's recent track record of shipping lenses has not been stellar....will be joining my camera bag by the end fo the month.
Upvote
0
I hope so. Canon's recent track record of shipping lenses has not been stellar....will be joining my camera bag by the end fo the month.
And prior to that the image consisted of a bunch of hideous photons!It’s just hard for me to get over the ugly reality that before it was the impeccably sharp and distortion free image I can view and enjoy, it used to be a bunch of ugly electrons!
Haha indeed. Hence why I ordered one for B&H and Adorama just a couple minutes after each other. Whoever gets it to me first wins my money.I hope so. Canon's recent track record of shipping lenses has not been stellar.
I think it is always a compromise between all lens errors: sharpness/res/contrast (including CA, LOCA, coma) is IMO the main design criterion. The next two are distortion + vignetting, then comes bokeh + sunstars.I wonder if the lens could be corrected optically if it was larger and heavier. Maybe a large curved front element would help. Why do some 14mm or 15mm lenses have a such an etreme front element that does not allow regular filters, but others have not? Is one optical formula better than the other?
So is the RF 14-35 even wider than 14mm uncorrected?
That sounds that the manufacturers do not have to bother about errors so much anymore, because post processing can correct that later. That is a very bad developement, because if the lens was great in the first place, it could still be improved by post processing. So a good lens would still be better after post processing.I think there is a movement in technology to optimize hardware AND post processing in conjunction.
Yes, its easy to post process nowadays, and lens design is a compromise.I think it is always a compromise between all lens errors: sharpness/res/contrast (including CA, LOCA, coma) is IMO the main design criterion. The next two are distortion + vignetting, then comes bokeh + sunstars.
I decided to order a copy of the 14-35, while I wait for the preferred Rf 10-24.Yes, its easy to post process nowadays, and lens design is a compromise.
For 50% extra price, I'd expect a different balance of weight, size, and IQ. I might change my mind when price drops, but the more time passes the less interested I am in upgrading. The Galaxy S21 Ultra has 12MP raw which is good enough for me to often prefer to let my back rest.
IMHO, cheap, well performing 10-24mm + 16-35mm makes more sense than expensive less well performing 14-35mm
This is a psychology problem. And Canon presumably has the data about the percentage of their potential customers who lose sleep (and sales) over how the lens performs when you turn off the intended features of the system the lens was designed to work with.That sounds that the manufacturers do not have to bother about errors so much anymore, because post processing can correct that later. That is a very bad developement, because if the lens was great in the first place, it could still be improved by post processing. So a good lens would still be better after post processing.
Similarly, I’m holding the RF 15-35 f2.8 while awaiting the 10-24. Except that I’m finding that 35 awfully useful for normal shots while the ultra wide capability is on the lens.I decided to order a copy of the 14-35, while I wait for the preferred Rf 10-24.
It’s not just post processing, it’s real-time processing.Yes, its easy to post process nowadays, and lens design is a compromise.
Yep. Lovin all the new big boy R and RF toys, as we wait for our more relevant ones to be released.Similarly, I’m holding the RF 15-35 f2.8 while awaiting the 10-24. Except that I’m finding that 35 awfully useful for normal shots while the ultra wide capability is on the lens.
It’s not just post processing, it’s real-time processing.
If this lens was mounted on a DSLR, someone looking through the OVF at 14mm would see the view looking more like a fisheye than a rectilinear lens, mutter a few choice expletives, and return the lens.
Since this is for MILCs, you’ll never actually see through the lens, and the geometric corrections are applied to what you see in the EVF. Canon can make it better in terms of features (wider, smaller filter, smaller/lighter lens), and charge more for those features. Relying on software instead of glass to correct aberrations means the smaller/lighter lens is cheaper to produce.
Higher price + cheaper to produce = more profit. Compromise? Maybe for us. For Canon, it’s a solid win.