Posts: 7,708
Threads: 1,754
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
37
vignetting: 12.6 f-stops at f/4 and 12.4 f-stops at f/11
Or in other words - beyond anything that Imatest can still measure.
That's without distortion and vignetting correction.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Posts: 836
Threads: 151
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
6
Going on with this pace, you'll soon run into a lens whose corners are a black hole... :o)
stoppingdown.net
Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
Posts: 7,708
Threads: 1,754
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
37
Well, in all fairness - on the R6 (20mp) it's probably a good lens - if you follow the recipe.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Posts: 7,708
Threads: 1,754
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
37
You will get the juicy horror this week. ;-)
In all fairness - this lens was never meant to be used on an R5 and it is surely nice on an R6 (but then what isn't ...).
And it served a good purpose - we now know what peak vignetting is. ;-)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Posts: 2,963
Threads: 155
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
14
(06-28-2021, 02:13 PM)Klaus Wrote: You will get the juicy horror this week. ;-)
In all fairness - this lens was never meant to be used on an R5 and it is surely nice on an R6 (but then what isn't ...).
And it served a good purpose - we now know what peak vignetting is. ;-)
......... check to make sure the lens cap is off ..........
Dave's clichés
Posts: 6,716
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
25
Is it worse than with the Canon RF 24-240mm lens (which is actually a nice lens, but you have to use the lens correction for 24mm)?
https://www.photoreview.com.au/wp-conten...G_0095.jpg
Posts: 2,504
Threads: 563
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
14
The cheaper way is digital correction, those black corners will be cropped out in distortions correction anyway, but still better have it fine straight out of the beginning.
Posts: 7,708
Threads: 1,754
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
37
(06-28-2021, 05:41 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: Is it worse than with the Canon RF 24-240mm lens (which is actually a nice lens, but you have to use the lens correction for 24mm)?
https://www.photoreview.com.au/wp-conten...G_0095.jpg
wow, no, it's not THAT bad.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Posts: 2,855
Threads: 30
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
18
06-29-2021, 07:23 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2021, 07:24 AM by Rover.)
Fine in R6 how? The vignetting (and presumably upper single digits worth of distortion) would just magically go away?
Posts: 6,716
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
25
(06-29-2021, 07:23 AM)Rover Wrote: Fine in R6 how? The vignetting (and presumably upper single digits worth of distortion) would just magically go away? 
No, you are going at it at the wrong angle.
The vignetting is there because Canon decided to leave the wide angle part at least relatively uncorrected (iow: fishe eye alike). They are MEANT to be corrected in camera or in RAW conversion.
When Klaus measures the resolution of the corrected images, he sees that the corners/borders leave something to be desired on the R5 (loss of resolution due to correcting for distortion). The R5 has that 45MP sensor. The R6, with its 20mp sensor, would do better there with this lens, just because of its lower sampling rate.
|