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

sportyaccordy wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Tristimulus wrote:

Just wondering.

Why would anyone skip digital correction when using a lens that is designed to be digitally corrected?

To understand what compromises the digital correction introduces. If I'm a landscape shooter, I'd def like to know that correcting the geometry on this lens will throw away 20-40% of my resolution for example. Will that matter to everybody? Maybe, maybe not, but having that info will enable more informed decisions.

I think it’s worth keeping in mind that this is a budget lens targeted at an audience that probably isn’t the type to spend a lot of time scrutinizing the corners of their images. For the serious landscape shooters I’d hope Canon will continue making well corrected lenses that are bigger, heavier and more expensive that will satisfy those more demanding folks.

I feel like less demanding folks have moved on to smartphones. I mean, OP bought the lens, and has scrutinized the hell out of this lens. I don't think he is alone. But it does seem that some demanding folks are OK with this level of correction + upsampling. In any case, my only point is that it is good to know what the lens is doing to make a decision. I probably would not buy this lens knowing this, but I expected as much given the price and size. Knowledge is power.

Sure, nothing wrong with knowing and also worth keeping things in perspective.  It’s a budget lens and you can be sure that if the intended audience had moved on to smart phones Canon wouldn’t have come out with it.