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

sportyaccordy wrote:

Tristimulus wrote:

Alastair Norcross 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.

This is a hyperbolic overreaction, even by the standards of hyperbole common to forum whiners.

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.

Digital correction is not about crutches. It is about giving opticians more degrees of freedom to design lenses.

If you are willing to pay Otus prices ($5000+ range) for lenses then pure optical correction is the way to go. Digital correction keep cost down. The end result is better lenses at reasonable cost.

I think there's a pretty broad spectrum between a $5000 Otus and this as far as how much to lean on digital corrections. I'd also argue that many people would not consider a lens whose corrections throw out and synthesize nearly 1/3 of the sensor's native resolution to be a "better" lens than one that doesn't. I'm not completely against digital corrections but IMO this is too extreme.

But, at least it is cheap by Canon standards.

The day Canon makes no profit on cameras and lenses you will no longer be able to buy Canon cameras or lenses...

Well you can definitely let Canon know by voting with your wallet.