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

sportyaccordy wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

This lens is a mixed bag for me

Good price, FL and spec.......... but corrections rob you of a good bit of resolution. Just guessing it looks like a 1.1-1.2x crop which is like 20-40% of your MPs.

As far as I can tell, applying the corrections I used is equivalent to about a 1.15 crop, which loses about 25% of your MP.

For a lens that I imagine will be used for landscapes a lot that's kind of a bummer

That would be more of a problem in the days of 8MP sensors. But even then it wouldn't have been terrible. I still have my 8MP 20D, which was an amazing camera in its day, and gave me lots of great landscape shots. This lens would have used 6 of those 8. My first DSLR was the 6MP 300D. I have several 30" X 20" poster prints of landscapes from the 300D on my walls. They look great. From a 6MP sensor. Now that we have megapixels oozing from every pore, it's even less of a problem. My R uses about 22.5 of its 30 megapixels to produce the corrected images from this lens. I can remember when everyone was waxing lyrical about the incredibly high resolution of the 1DsII, which had 17 MP. If you use an R5, you'll still be using about 33.5MP with this lens. I know that people (on these forums at least) keep insisting that they 'need' more and more megapixels. But they really don't. They're just trying to justify their lust for newer and newer gear. I prefer to not attempt to rationalize that lust. I just admit that I really like new toys (not that I can usually afford them). Need doesn't come into it. It's all about want.

But I guess that's reasonable to expect for the price/size. Kind of seems like a missed opportunity like the RF 50 1.8

Im not following your logic. If more MPs dont matter youd still be shooting a 6MP camera.

Plus I'm not even suggesting that people run out and buy super high MP bodies. But there are photography disciplines that leverage resolution. A lens that throws out 25% of the MPs it captures will be less desirable to a lens that doesnt, regardless of how many MPs are available.

other things being equal, which they never are. My point, which I didn’t think was that difficult to follow, was that using 75% of the pixels on a modern camera still gives great results. More pixels provide diminishing returns.

You dont get to decide this for everybody.

I don’t think you understand what ‘diminishing returns’ means. It doesn’t mean no returns. I’m not deciding anything, I’m stating a fact. Some people may well prefer the diminished (but not nonexistent) returns of yet more resolution over all the other advantages of these lenses. That’s fine. But criticizing Canon for making a lens that requires software correction is asinine. It’s not as if it’s possible to make a lens this small, light, and cheap that doesn’t require corrections. There is no free lunch. If you want to squeeze even more resolution out of your sensor, you are free to pay lots more money for a bigger, heavier lens.

For you it does. For some maximizing resolution is important. Neither approach is right or wrong, but having info like the amount of correction the lens needs is useful in making that decision.

For many people, a small, light, cheap lens that uses 75% of the massive number of pixels we have available is a far better proposition than a big, heavy, expensive lens that uses all of them.

Having that info allows people to choose the lens that makes the most of their sensors if that is a priority.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/