New RF 16mm has quite some vignetting at F2.8 - (with no Lightroom lens profile yet)

Thanks for sharing. I knew with the size and weight it had to be a veritable fisheye lens. Looks like I was correct.

Did you try any with JPEGs to get the in camera corrections? Or maybe DPP has a profile ready?  Wondering how much corner softness is introduced to fix the distortion.

In-cam correction helps for JPG: in Lightroom JPG looks better and CR3 still looks bad.

But the JPG is a crop from the CR3, so it cuts off the vignetted corners and is straightened.
I'm pretty new to this, it this a normal way of correcting the vignetting, just cutting it off?
(perhaps the CR3 in LR shows more then I already saw in my EVF, so I get actually the same as I saw in my EVF?

In DPP it shows both the corrected JPG and CR3, so yes, it looks like DPP already has the correct profile for this lens? I'm not experienced with DPP, so don't know where to look?

Ojee99 wrote:

In-cam correction helps for JPG: in Lightroom JPG looks better and CR3 still looks bad.

Would you be willing to share some JPEGs at large size so we can see what the corrected corners look like?  Thanks in advance if you can.

But the JPG is a crop from the CR3, so it cuts off the vignetted corners and is straightened.
I'm pretty new to this, it this a normal way of correcting the vignetting, just cutting it off?
(perhaps the CR3 in LR shows more then I already saw in my EVF, so I get actually the same as I saw in my EVF?

If it is like the 24-240mm and 14-35mm,  the lens is actually wider than advertised, and then they fix distortion, crop out the extreme vignette and the end results is the advertised FOV.   So it should still be 16mm after correction.

In DPP it shows both the corrected JPG and CR3, so yes, it looks like DPP already has the correct profile for this lens? I'm not experienced with DPP, so don't know where to look?

If you are on the edit image window, click on the tab that looks like a lens.  And then a little ways down there is a thing that says "Lens Data" and then either Yes or No.   If it says No, then click the little circle arrow button next to it and it will bring up the list of profiles you can download.  I just tried it and 16mm is there.   Once you get it downloaded, then you can enable the Lens Optimizer, Peripheral illumination and distortion corrections.

JustUs7 wrote:

Thanks for sharing. I’m used to wide angle corrections with the 24-240 and don’t have a problem with them.

More curious about the coma and if this will be of any use for Astro, or even Christmas lights. Looking forward to more reviews.

Yes, that's what I'm also curious about. Is there a way to test this, without having a clear sky these days?

tkbslc wrote:

Ojee99 wrote:

In-cam correction helps for JPG: in Lightroom JPG looks better and CR3 still looks bad.

Would you be willing to share some JPEGs at large size so we can see what the corrected corners look like? Thanks in advance if you can.

But the JPG is a crop from the CR3, so it cuts off the vignetted corners and is straightened.
I'm pretty new to this, it this a normal way of correcting the vignetting, just cutting it off?
(perhaps the CR3 in LR shows more then I already saw in my EVF, so I get actually the same as I saw in my EVF?

If it is like the 24-240mm and 14-35mm, the lens is actually wider than advertised, and then they fix distortion, crop out the extreme vignette and the end results is the advertised FOV. So it should still be 16mm after correction.

In DPP it shows both the corrected JPG and CR3, so yes, it looks like DPP already has the correct profile for this lens? I'm not experienced with DPP, so don't know where to look?

If you are on the edit image window, click on the tab that looks like a lens. And then a little ways down there is a thing that says "Lens Data" and then either Yes or No. If it says No, then click the little circle arrow button next to it and it will bring up the list of profiles you can download. I just tried it and 16mm is there. Once you get it downloaded, then you can enable the Lens Optimizer, Peripheral illumination and distortion corrections.

Indeed I can download the lensprofile.

Wil retest again tomorrow, and share large size images with jou.

Adobe is expected to release a major update to Lightroom at the Adobe Max conference later this month. I wouldn't be surprised if the lens profiles for this and other new Canon RF lenses are included in the update.

If you take a raw sample like this https://d2x313g9lpht1q.cloudfront.net/original/3X/9/9/9950e596846a6f27c6e39139f56b1966c495f7b0.jpeg

8 meters away and at f/8 I can try to get distortion correction support for RawTherapee, ART, darktable, DigiKam, Topaz Studio, Photomatix, ON1, ACDSee, easyHDR, SILKYPIX and Affinity Photo.

A straight line at the top and a straight line 1/3 down is what I need.

Brick walls are not good enough.

GrunRad wrote:

CameraCarl wrote:

Adobe is expected to release a major update to Lightroom at the Adobe Max conference later this month. I wouldn't be surprised if the lens profiles for this and other new Canon RF lenses are included in the update.

In addition to the RF 16mm/2.8 and RF 100-400mm/5.6-8.0, Adobe has not managed to provide lens profiles for the RF 14-35mm/4.0, the RF 50mm/1.8 and RF 70-200mm/4.0 lenses yet (the two latter having been released almost a year ago!).

It would be a pleasant suprise indeed if Adobe had finally got their act together in regards to Canon RF lens profiles (and camera profiles, too)...

This is especially frustrating given they want us to pay monthly and part of their justification was for ongoing updates and support.   What are people paying them for!?

Ojee99 wrote:

Brand new, picked up from the shop today.

Small, light weigt, compact, the ideal lens to take for walk into nature...

Lightroom (CC) has no lens profile for it, yet. So pretty much vignetting to be seen in the corners at F2.8...

First quick set of photo's at F2.8 & F5.6 & F11 and F22

Just for fun, I had a go at straightening it out in PhotoLab. Too much barrel distortion for PhotoLab to correct completely, so I tried 10% fisheye correction and a bit of vignetting adjustment;

The barrel distortion lessens a bit at the corners which is why there's pincushion distortion in the corners but not in the middle with simple warping. The stretching has changed the aspect ratio from 1.5 to 1.63:1, but that's to be expected.

For a cheeky comparison, here's my RX100 II at 10.4mm f/1.8 (28mm f/4.7 FFE), with the ARW file saved as jpeg by Windows 10 Photos, no adjustments at all;

And with 13% fisheye correction, because the overall barrel distortion is slightly greater. The uncropped aspect ratio is now 1.64:1;

And as exported by PhotoLab from the ARW with camera corrections, standard noise reduction but no other tarting up. PhotoLab crops to the original aspect ratio after correcting the distortion unless you tell it not to;

Both cameras are 20 megapixels, but the R6 + 16mm seems to be about twice as sharp in the middle and even more than that in the corners.

Swerky wrote:

That’s basically fine. Sure for a prime lens distortion should be better, but it’s an affordable fast ultra wide angle lens. By f5.6 vignetting is gone. Good show.

Gotta remember it's a Full frame f2.8 ultrawide and it's the size of a nifty fifty and costs $299. We all knew there would be compromises.