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.
If you've left Canon why are you here posting false information about their lenses? Trolling, presumably. How novel and droll.
Upvote
0
