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

JE River wrote:

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.

Maybe enthusiast astro-scapers weren’t really what Canon had in mind when they came up with this lens.  You’re right, if you’re spending for FF bodies for this type of photography you probably want to put a higher-end lens on it than this one.

I see this lens as the wide-angle equivalent of the RF 50mm f/1.8.  It’s something that a beginner can get to test the waters or something a more advanced user might get for more casual uses.

I’m not really a wide-angle shooter very often but when I had the 16-35mm f/4L I pretty much exclusively used it at 16mm.  For someone like me who isn’t super demanding about the ultimate quality from my wide angle lens this new prime seems pretty ideal.  I don’t have to spend on the L quality zoom and I don’t have to carry the bulk and weight  either and the results still look fine on social media where I’d be using the photos anyway.

I do certainly hope they adopt all the “computational trickery” that is available.  It’s nice, in my opinion, to at least see them getting their foot in the door like this.

If we are really going to start seeing FF “rebels” lenses like this one make total sense.