More 16 F2.8 comparisons: corrected vs. uncorrected vs. JPG

davidwien wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Tristimulus wrote:

Just wondering.

Why would anyone skip digital correction when using a lens that is designed to be digitally corrected?

To understand what compromises the digital correction introduces. If I'm a landscape shooter, I'd def like to know that correcting the geometry on this lens will throw away 20-40% of my resolution for example. Will that matter to everybody? Maybe, maybe not, but having that info will enable more informed decisions.

The OP corrected that to 25%, which would reduce a 20MP camera (e.g. the R6) to 15MP.

I think this sideproduct is the major concern about this lens, and I imagine that as time goes by, more and more lenses will rely on on digital correction of this sort.

David

It's actually less than that, because stretching (warping) the image to get rid of barrel distortion elongates it.   If you lose 15% of the length cropping it back to 1.5:1 aspect ratio you don't lose any of the shorter dimension, so you only lose 15% of the pixels, not 25%.  I reckon that straightening out the distortion of this lens gives you an uncropped aspect ratio of about 1.65:1.  This is a lot closer to the Golden Ratio than 1.5:1 is, and cropping the whole corrected image to that ratio should give more pixels and a slightly wider field of view than an undistorted 15mm on FF cropped to the same aspect ratio.