JustUs7
•
Senior Member
•
Posts: 4,327
Re: Slower and slower lenses.
Sittatunga wrote:
sportyaccordy wrote:
Sittatunga wrote:
......
An awful lot of modern lenses have very similar distortion levels to that £300 ultrawide, if not similar prices. For two quick examples, there's the Sony FE 20-70mm that's £1300, or the £500 E 11mm, effectively the exact APS-C equivalent to 16mm f/2.8 on full-frame. Or my RX100 II for that matter. But we're getting a long way from that 24-50mm lens.
Dont know about the RX but neither of those E mount lenses are anywhere near as bad as the RF 16 distortion wise. It's basically a fisheye lens corrected to rectilinear. The overall trend of more and more software correction is annoying to me but Canon has taken it to an extreme with RF glass, often for no good reason IMO. The 16/2.8 would be just as great with an extra 100g or w/e of corrective elements to have a more naturally rectilinear image. What good are high res sensors when so much of the image is synthesized and "corrected" by software?
There's not a lot of difference though, is there.
Sony 11mm from Optical Limits' review
Canon 16mm from Optical Limits' review
That’s the interesting thing about Sony and their open protocol. It prevents people from ever seeing the uncorrected lenses, so people are convinced they don’t rely on corrections as much as Canon. Yet the Sony 24-240’s corrections worked just fine on the RF 24-240 in Affinity photo prior to corrections for that lens coming available.