This is the Canon RF lens roadmap

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,533
7,279
They literally show the black corners in an uncorrected photo from the 14mm. I can find more examples, but you just want to argue so I'm going to block you instead. Have a nice day!
Good job hitting the trifecta – posting false information, failing to read the correct information provided, and then ignoring any further information that contradicts your own misguided beliefs. You remind me of the Flat Earthers, they behave in the same way.

Apparently the explanation is beyond you, but just in case anyone else is deluded by your asinine claims, I'll try one more time.

As a first step, read again what I wrote (and @nunataks try to comprehend it, this time): "Correcting the distortion actually fills in the corners, no cropping is needed." Where do I dispute that the corners are black? I don't because they are. I have the RF 14-35, I have looked at uncorrected RAW images from it. So, thanks for providing a link that doesn't contradict what I stated.

You stated that both cropping and distortion correction are required because of the black corners. As I said, that is false because cropping is not needed, the distortion correction is sufficient to completely fill in the black corners resulting from the image circle being too small to cover the full frame sensor.

Canon designed the RF 14-35/4 and 16/2.8 that way – strong barrel distortion left in the design, in lieu of optical elements to correct the distortion which would make the lenses substantially larger, heavier, and more expensive (and in the case of the 14-35/4, preclude the use of 77mm front filters). They did so knowing that after distortion correction, the lenses would deliver the full 14mm or 16mm FoV, respectively.

If that bothers you so much, don't buy the lenses. Actually, I don't know why you even care.

Don't know if I'll ever go back to Canon now.
If you've left Canon why are you here posting false information about their lenses? Trolling, presumably. How novel and droll. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
648
670
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

SwissFrank

1N 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
35
15
They literally show the black corners in an uncorrected photo from the 14mm. I can find more examples, but you just want to argue so I'm going to block you instead. Have a nice day!
Why would anyone care what the uncorrected photo looks like? I really don't understand. Could you show us a corrected 14-35 photo thats worse than a photo by any other lens, especially one for the same price or less? Just show us side by side and everyone will have no choice but to admit you have a point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

SwissFrank

1N 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
35
15
Also note that the 16 is 25.6mm equiv. on an R7. That makes a pretty cool combo on the cheap.
What's cheaper than getting an R7 is just using my R5 and cropping :-D In my backpack I always have a 50/1.8 on the R5 and a 16/2.8 floating around. I can crop to 35mm frame and still get 10MP which actually is publishable, though I'm not working professionally any more. Actually I can crop anything up to as small as 50mm frame and still have 4.6MP. In fact I can then crop the 50mm up to 150mm and have 5MP.

In the later 90s I always had a Contax G2 with 28 45 90 in the backpack.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
648
670
What's cheaper than getting an R7 is just using my R5 and cropping :-D In my backpack I always have a 50/1.8 on the R5 and a 16/2.8 floating around. I can crop to 35mm frame and still get 10MP which actually is publishable, though I'm not working professionally any more. Actually I can crop anything up to as small as 50mm frame and still have 4.6MP. In fact I can then crop the 50mm up to 150mm and have 5MP.

In the later 90s I always had a Contax G2 with 28 45 90 in the backpack.
Yes, I have the same luxury of having the 16 and an R5 (as well as an EF 24 f/2.8 IS), but I was speaking for those on a tighter budget. The R7 offers most of the features of the R5, albeit cropped, at a much more budget friendly price and the cropped area of the 16 makes a creditable near 24mm equivalent. BTW, even having an R5 (and an M6 II), I may well pick up an R7 for the added portability with the 800mm f/11 relative to the same lens on an R5 with a 1.4 TC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,905
4,956
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Why would anyone care what the uncorrected photo looks like? I really don't understand. Could you show us a corrected 14-35 photo thats worse than a photo by any other lens, especially one for the same price or less? Just show us side by side and everyone will have no choice but to admit you have a point.
Totally off-topic, but I actually like to look at the uncorrected versions. Sometimes they are more interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

SwissFrank

1N 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
35
15
may well pick up an R7 for the added portability with the 800mm f/11 relative to the same lens on an R5 with a 1.4 TC
I can understand having a back-up body, or a lighter-weight/cheaper-to-lose body, so I'm not against the general idea.
But if I had an R5 and 800/11 and wanted a longer shot, I'd just be cropping. 45MP is a LOT of MP. You can crop 80% away and still have 4k resolution. Cropping is hampered far more by the len's ultimate resolving power than the sensor.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,574
2,472
Totally off-topic, but I actually like to look at the uncorrected versions. Sometimes they are more interesting.

I haven't done anything serious with this yet, but Tamron EF-S lenses do not trigger the automatic crop mode on my RP and R5. Although they don't distort like the 16mm, the tunnel vision effect might be useful someday.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
648
670
I can understand having a back-up body, or a lighter-weight/cheaper-to-lose body, so I'm not against the general idea.
But if I had an R5 and 800/11 and wanted a longer shot, I'd just be cropping. 45MP is a LOT of MP. You can crop 80% away and still have 4k resolution. Cropping is hampered far more by the len's ultimate resolving power than the sensor.
If you do the math, the "pixels on the bird" with the R5 and the 1.4 extender is very close to the same as the R7 without the extender. That makes for a smaller, lighter package with very similar IQ at the pixel level (smaller pixels, but a stop brighter). And yes, cropping works well with the R5, but shooting hummingbirds, I find the TC to often be necessary. The attached example is at about 70 ft distance. Any less pixels would be detrimental to the result.
 

Attachments

  • 2W4A6320_DxO-Edit.jpg
    2W4A6320_DxO-Edit.jpg
    333.7 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

SwissFrank

1N 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
35
15
If you do the math, the "pixels on the bird" with the R5 and the 1.4 extender is very close to the same as the R7 without the extender.
Right, you explained what I meant to be saying, thanks!
And absolutely gorgeous little bird! Agreed the pixels (or lens resolution) feels like it's about at its limits,