The Canon EOS R3 will be officially announced in September

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,320
2,177
That may be an advantage of EF lenses. There Canon can't do such a cheating, because some people still own analogue cameras with an EF mount and those lenses have to work with those cameras too. I own an EOS 30 for example.
On the other hand, unless my recollection is faulty, Canon has no 24-240 EF lens.

The ability to correct in-camera made the lens possible at all. Now a lot of purists out there (including me when I'm feeling cranky) find that undesirable (because something is always lost when you process an image that way), but then again, it isn't an L lens either. It's acceptable consumer grade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H. Jones

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,223
5,279
On the other hand, unless my recollection is faulty, Canon has no 24-240 EF lens.

The ability to correct in-camera made the lens possible at all. Now a lot of purists out there (including me when I'm feeling cranky) find that undesirable (because something is always lost when you process an image that way), but then again, it isn't an L lens either. It's acceptable consumer grade.
They do have an EF 28-300 L, it’s a modest performing L series lens but way above consumer grade IQ and the results don’t need auto correct.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: H. Jones

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
841
669
The lens would have been designed differently in the film era, where what you see was all you had, which meant lenses had to be (relatively) more corrected on their own as they couldn't depend on correction in the same way.
I am not sure how many people do not realize this but there was a long period before digital cameras where the images from the film were digitized and edited digitally.
 

R1-7D

EOS RP
Jun 25, 2012
761
110
Canada
Just posted. The question is: how soon?
7C2CB142-E0A1-4000-AC53-D18E4B5F4BE1.png
 

Attachments

  • 12F0F6B2-CB60-432C-A6C1-1368BCC1426D.png
    12F0F6B2-CB60-432C-A6C1-1368BCC1426D.png
    2.9 MB · Views: 34

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
234
524
They do have an EF 24-300 L, it’s a modest performing L series lens but way above consumer grade IQ and the results don’t need auto correct.
It's actually 28-300mm and weighs 1670g (vs 750g for the RF 24-240) and is almost 3 inches longer. Plus costs over 2.5 times as much. For me personally, I would never buy the 28-300 due to its weight and cost. So, I'll gladly take the auto-correction for all the other advantages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee and Joules

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,320
2,177
They do have an EF 24-300 L, it’s a modest performing L series lens but way above consumer grade IQ and the results don’t need auto correct.
It's actually 28-300mm and weighs 1670g (vs 750g for the RF 24-240) and is almost 3 inches longer. Plus costs over 2.5 times as much. For me personally, I would never buy the 28-300 due to its weight and cost. So, I'll gladly take the auto-correction for all the other advantages.

I'll stand corrected then.

I do own some of the Tamron super zooms and as near as I can tell, they distort as much as the 24-240, the further you get away from the center of the field of view. BUT they are APSC lenses, which means that the zones with the worst distortion are simply cropped away.

And it goes without saying no in-camera correction is being done to the Tammy.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,223
5,279
It's actually 28-300mm and weighs 1670g (vs 750g for the RF 24-240) and is almost 3 inches longer. Plus costs over 2.5 times as much. For me personally, I would never buy the 28-300 due to its weight and cost. So, I'll gladly take the auto-correction for all the other advantages.
Yes sorry for the typo. I have seen them sub $1,000 on Craigslist in great condition with case and box etc. There's one for $850 at the moment on eBay.

Size and weight? You pay your money and choose your poison!
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,027
773
Davidson, NC
I find the discussion of lens corrections in and out of body interesting. I have the perspective of having shot thousands of pictures in late 2019 with the G5X II, and thousands more before that with the G7X II. Getting the quality of pictures that I get from their tiny lenses and sensors obviously depends upon software corrections. I don’t know how much is already baked in before I open pictures in ACR, but turning on and off profile lens corrections makes a huge difference. Sometimes I prefer manual corrections after I‘ve seen those options.

I haven’t used those cameras during my 18 months of staying close to home, since the DSLR is always close to hand. Even so, I am sometimes surprised by how much difference I see with and without profile corrections from EF lenses, most noticeably vignette correction or over-correction.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,678
1,552
I find the discussion of lens corrections in and out of body interesting. I have the perspective of having shot thousands of pictures in late 2019 with the G5X II, and thousands more before that with the G7X II. Getting the quality of pictures that I get from their tiny lenses and sensors obviously depends upon software corrections. I don’t know how much is already baked in before I open pictures in ACR, but turning on and off profile lens corrections makes a huge difference. Sometimes I prefer manual corrections after I‘ve seen those options.

I haven’t used those cameras during my 18 months of staying close to home, since the DSLR is always close to hand. Even so, I am sometimes surprised by how much difference I see with and without profile corrections from EF lenses, most noticeably vignette correction or over-correction.
For lenses where I noticed that Adobe is doing a bad job, I run them through DPP4 first. These include nearly all EF-M lenses (minus the EF-M32mm), the EF f/1.8 primes and the 17-40L. Especially on the EF-M 11-22mm DPP4 does a significantly better job at distortion correction.

A lot of those lenses benefit from DLO as well, which makes the extra effort worth it, for me. I import photos into my computer with a script that renames them to YYYY-MM-<original filename> and that script also sorts them into the LR and DPP4 folders automatically. In DPP4 I just click 'batch export' and a loooooong time later it has put all the TIFFs in the LR import folder.

I feel this is mostly to satisfy my OCD, since not many people will spot these improvements in web sized versions or 12-by-8" prints hanging on the wall.