RF 16mm 2.8 Adobe lens profile

Nov 3, 2012
512
212
Hi Felix
Here three images from the same raw file.
The second is the file processed to taste in Lightroom. 1/60 @ f/8, ISO 1000 on an R. Normally I'd add just a touch of vignette, but left this off for the comparison
The first is the same file with the lens profile turned off. Settings identical to the second image - notice how much extra exposure the Lightroom profile gives most of the image. Note the dark corners and the curved horizon.
The third photo is converted to a tiff in DPP, imported into Lightroom with the same settings (apart from profile) as in the second photo. I placed these together to simplify a comparison.
Note that the LR image is significantly wider than the DPP file and yet corner image quality is quite good.
I have started some comparisons of LR vs DPP with some astrophotography images (BTW I shoot at f/4 as the reduction in coma is worth the slight loss in light gathering - probably less than a stop). Those photos are typically at ISO 3200, where DPP has aggressive noise reduction, noticeably softening the images. I could play around with NR in DPP, but I can't be bothered as I am used to my workflow in LR/PS.
Another BTW, the IQ of the RF 16mm @f/4 is not far off my Samyang 14mm f/2.8.BZR_1714-3.jpgBZR_1714-2.jpgBZR_1714-4.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Felix

Greetings from Germany
Nov 9, 2021
40
18
Hi Felix
Here three images from the same raw file.
The second is the file processed to taste in Lightroom. 1/60 @ f/8, ISO 1000 on an R. Normally I'd add just a touch of vignette, but left this off for the comparison
The first is the same file with the lens profile turned off. Settings identical to the second image - notice how much extra exposure the Lightroom profile gives most of the image. Note the dark corners and the curved horizon.
The third photo is converted to a tiff in DPP, imported into Lightroom with the same settings (apart from profile) as in the second photo. I placed these together to simplify a comparison.
Note that the LR image is significantly wider than the DPP file and yet corner image quality is quite good.
I have started some comparisons of LR vs DPP with some astrophotography images (BTW I shoot at f/4 as the reduction in coma is worth the slight loss in light gathering - probably less than a stop). Those photos are typically at ISO 3200, where DPP has aggressive noise reduction, noticeably softening the images. I could play around with NR in DPP, but I can't be bothered as I am used to my workflow in LR/PS.
Another BTW, the IQ of the RF 16mm @f/4 is not far off my Samyang 14mm f/2.8.
wow thank you very much - I'm now considering whether to sell my old EF17-40 F4 L for an RF16

The correction now makes the lens usable for me
 
Upvote 0
Nov 3, 2012
512
212
Here is a quick astro photo from a recent trip around NZ's South Island. Its our summer so the core of the Milky Way is not visible. This is a stack of four photos (10s @ f/4 ISO 3200) stacked in Sequator merged with a single shot of the foreground, with limited processing in Lightroom - added some clarity to the Milky Way - skies down here are very dark. Photo taken at 4:15 am with the sun starting to rise in the east. I had to apply a little extra CA reduction beyond the profile, but you can see that coma is reasonably well controlled at f/4.

BZR_0977-Edit-2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Hi Felix
Here three images from the same raw file.
The second is the file processed to taste in Lightroom. 1/60 @ f/8, ISO 1000 on an R. Normally I'd add just a touch of vignette, but left this off for the comparison
The first is the same file with the lens profile turned off. Settings identical to the second image - notice how much extra exposure the Lightroom profile gives most of the image. Note the dark corners and the curved horizon.
The third photo is converted to a tiff in DPP, imported into Lightroom with the same settings (apart from profile) as in the second photo. I placed these together to simplify a comparison.
Note that the LR image is significantly wider than the DPP file and yet corner image quality is quite good.
I have started some comparisons of LR vs DPP with some astrophotography images (BTW I shoot at f/4 as the reduction in coma is worth the slight loss in light gathering - probably less than a stop). Those photos are typically at ISO 3200, where DPP has aggressive noise reduction, noticeably softening the images. I could play around with NR in DPP, but I can't be bothered as I am used to my workflow in LR/PS.
Another BTW, the IQ of the RF 16mm @f/4 is not far off my Samyang 14mm f/2.8.View attachment 202214View attachment 202215View attachment 202216
Ahhhh good old kapiti Island :)
 
Upvote 0