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

mermaidkiller wrote:

I am almost schocked that some expensive L lenses require software correction in postprocessing to make decent RAW images. Only for JPEGs it is corrected in-camera, so why not for RAW ?

Because RAW is RAW. You don't have an image until RAW is converted into an image. It's just data before that. For these lenses, geometry corrections are part of that processing, which is why DPP does it implicitly

I thought Canon does nice work in optical design which allows doing most correction optically which all older lenses do.

They do, but all lens design is a compromise, and currently software corrections is a good one for certain lenses (lighter, smaller, wide)

Software is just an extra tool to correct minor / leftover optical errors, but now it appears that modern RF lenses depend heavily on software, and, worse, that software (lens profiles) is not available yet completely.

It is another tool. minor / leftover is more of a design decision. Comparing with old is unfair because computational abilities were less evolved in the past. What I care about is end result, whether it's achieved by carrying 500g of glass or 1g of software is less of an issue as long as quality for that price point exists. Comparing end results with a similar lens from past is a fair comparison, and I don't see software corrected lenses any worse when using the right software. The speed of 3rd party software updates is irrelevant, since that happens with every evolution in tech