Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
From da lab ...
#1
A $1000 (USD) lens ...

Possibly a new record?

The corners are black without image auto-correction, BTW.


Attached Files
.png   16mm_raw_distortion.png (Size: 118.42 KB / Downloads: 20)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#2
SONY 16-50F2.8 Smile
They heavily rely on digital correction
#3
I think the Tamron 20/2.8 FE had even more but maybe it depends on how to measure it. EPZ measured 8.13% there and called it a record among non-(designated)fisheyes.

How well does the auto-correction clean that up?
#4
The Canon RF 24-240mm lens has similar black corners when uncorrected.
#5
I'm still not sure why. After all, there was a good Canon 17-55/2.8 IS lens - admittedly it was bigger and didn't go down to 16mm, but it didn't suffer from that kind of distortion/vignetting either.
#6
To keep the element count down I guess. And perhaps the resulting price.
#7
Well, it wouldn't matter in practice for someone like me, I guess, since I only ever shoot JPEG but it's not pleasant to know that so much is being patched up under the hood.
#8
It's fully corrected even at 16mm.

The form factor of the lens is really nice. Not sure about the MTFs yet.

However, one thing IS for sure. The price is NUTS.

Remember that there's the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 VC.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#9
FWIW, the RAW MTFs at 16mm are outstanding ... the corrected ones ... not so much.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#10
(06-14-2021, 08:21 AM)Klaus Wrote: FWIW, the RAW MTFs at 16mm are outstanding ... the corrected ones ... not so much.

That makes a lot of sense.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)