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

Alastair Norcross wrote:

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.

The returns of more resolution being "nonexistent" is not a fact; it's your opinion.

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.

Right, which I acknowledged when I said "I guess that's reasonable to expect for the price/size." I don't see why you are taking my opinion on this lens so personally. I was under the impression that you posted these photos for us to discuss these corrections? I guess I was mistaken so my apologies.

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.