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

Alastair Norcross wrote:

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

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.

Actually, if we look at the profiles of older wide angle EF lens from DXO or Adobe, software distortion corrections are applied to all of them also - not just to these newer RF lens. The adjustment may be less, but it is there.

I have a 17-40 f4. It needs less distortion adjustment at 17mm than my RF 14-35. However, the output image is obviously not as sharp as my 14-35 f4 even more distortion adjustment was applied on my 14-35.

The fact is distortion and vignette are now can be relatively easy to correct by software. However, image sharpness and details of a lens is much harder to improve - Canon's design philosophy seem to be: let's make the sharpest lens possible within budget - and use software to correct the distortion and vignette.

super resolution can enhance details already record in RAW a bit but a soft image cannot be enhanced as much as a more detailed sharp image (in some cases artifacts may occur).