rf 16mm 2.8 - Raw Images (Normal Distance + Closeup)

PicPocket wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

davidwien wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

Eddie Rizk wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

SergioMPS wrote:

Seems like people dont understand that this lens, RF 24-240 and RF 14-35 do require lens correction due to design that projects larger FOV than adverted

you need to use DPP4 to get rid of black corners

I think Canon could do a better job of marketing this fact. They sort of pretend like everyone is going to shoot corrected JPEGs.

Everyone who shoots the 16, the 14-35, the 24-240, or the cheaper 24-105 is, or they're going to correct the shot after shooting RAW.

Anyone who doesn't know that, hasn't read much about those lenses.

So what if they haven’t? Some people shop by seeing the lens on the shop or just by casually browsing marketing materials. Should be an asterisk on the box about RAW with these lenses.

What?

It is pretty much impossible to view a raw image without having specific software (e.g. DPP, Photolab4, etc) to do so, and the default mode of that software is to make the necessary corrections automatically. In any case, a casual purchaser, such as you describe, would most likely only save jpeg files in the camera, and thus would never encounter any problem.

I have seen nothing about anyone having this hypothetical problem in connection with the rf24-240 or other rf lenses that rely on correction in software.

No software has profiles for the 16mm except DPP. Same with 14-35. If you use industry standard software and shoot RAW, you may be unpleasantly surprised.

Then the software should probably have an asterisk / show a pop up warning people they haven’t caught up with the lens being used. Being so called industry standard doesn’t make something infallible

IMO, people who shoot RAW without understanding the implications of PP requirements should be OK to learn it with surprise. LR also has crappy default profiles for new canon cameras, so unless they have done something about it, they are getting poor colours from their industry standard software anyways

Come on, guys!  If you don't know that many lenses need software correction, you're probably not shooting RAW anyway, so you don't know that it's being corrected, and it looks fine.