Not good

KariP wrote:

And-roid wrote:

Mr F48 wrote:

KariP wrote:

KariP wrote:

Peter Kwok wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

I wish I could find the posts where I predicted this, ten years ago or more. On the whole I think it's a good thing if it means smaller, lighter lenses*. The only problem it creates is the absolute necessity to have a lens profile compatible with the software you want to use.

We thought alike. Years ago, I wrote somewhere here that things that can be done in software, like distortion & CA, should be offloaded from the optics. Resolution, large aperture, close focus, etc. are inherent in the optics. The only problem of doing this in DSLR is seeing them in the optical VF.

Panasonic started doing it on their m4/3 bodies and nobody complained. I bet all the cell phone cameras do it. CPUs are fast enough to do real-time correction. The 14-35 is the first Canon L lens doing it.

Perhaps I should change the title of this post to "Welcome to the 2010's."

I knew it could be a shock to see the first RAW files taken with this lens. It was, but after seeing the results it is just great. And yesterday i tried my shoulder bag with three lenses: 14-35 + 24-105 + 70-200f4. All RF lenses . And it was still portable. 2kg more glass could make me carry everything in a backpack. Great quality and light weight is just something!

After some years also the camera bodies will produce same image processing Services as my iPhone. Not sure if that makes me this happy.

Old Tali Manor - now a restaurant and also a golf club (i do not play golf)

Also edges look sharp

Corners ...

Sunstar from a low angle sun

Old larch

Dark corners are there - at 14mm and no correction - with DPP or whatever it is very easy , but i just wanted to show the special vignetting. In real life it is not a real problem, possible to remove with basic software if needed. Resolution , sharpness, contrast, everything OK.

Barrel distortion can be disturbing in architecture photography - i did not do it very much on this walk.

Usable and portable lens !

Looking at your examples it would appear that your lens has a slight centering issue. The left side of the picture at 18mm or less is softer then the right side. Noticeable in the first three pictures when viewing at 100%. Also when comparing the 3rd and last one since it's the same scene.

Are these images sufficient resolution to draw that conclusion?

They probably are. There could be also some other factors (f-value, IS or IBIS ???) Some images do not have much visible differences, but yes - there is some more softness in the extreme left edges. Not so clearly in every image.

Anyway after cleaning chromatic aberrations and other things, that add some softness-look , the results are quite acceptable. I will not send the lens back.

Now i used a simple way to process images - DDP digital lens optimiser  etc

What has happened here ?  What distortion ?

The eternal brick wall test ...

Sharp enough and distortions corrected - good images IMO

I do not need more tests. Who can explain the first image dilemma ?

Hmm this is interesting because I have used this lens from release and have never seen what Lars is talking about.

I wonder what body Lars did this testing with, he does not show ANY Canon equipment in his gear list, hmm.