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

BirdShooter7 wrote:

JE River wrote:

This makes me sad, honestly. So, now that sweet juicy FF sensor is no longer a FF sensor after corrections. And, oh boy, does it have to lob off quite a thick chunk of light gathering surface area. That f2.8 aperture just got kicked in the teeth for those hoping to do astro work with the lens.

I fear camera companies will keep using digital corrections as a crutch in cases where doing it optically isn't too much more effort or cost.

But, at least it is cheap by Canon standards.

Maybe I’m totally off here, Astro’s not exactly my thing. From talking to people who are really into Astro, it sounds like that application really demands the best quality lenses, I don’t believe it was ever reasonable to expect a lens like this to be great for Astro photography. I imagine it’s an ok beginner lens for that sort of thing and can probably produce some nice looking results for social media and such but if you’re the type of user that’s going to be looking closely at the edges and corners this was never likely to be the lens for you.

I do astro landscapes. It's nice to have lightweight lenses that "can" shoot astro for when I need to carry a lot of other weight or walk a long distance. This lens will shoot astro work, probably fine enough for many people, BUT the design is still going to dog down the results. 16mm f2.8 on FF is just on the edge of gathering enough light for the more enthusiast astro shooters, so anything that strips away sensor surface area is just cutting into a non-existent buffer.

Not too big a deal with this lens, but it does beg the question as to why we pay big money for FF bodies only to be given lenses that effectively crop off the big juicy FF sensor?

At least if Canon is going to start doing smartphone trickery, they might as well start adopting all the other computational stuff phones are doing way beyond any ILC.