• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forums > Back > From da lab ...
Klaus
Super Moderator
******
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,089

Reputation: 49
#1
06-12-2021, 07:42 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2021, 07:43 AM by Klaus.)
A $1000 (USD) lens ...

Possibly a new record?

The corners are black without image auto-correction, BTW.


Attached Files
.png   16mm_raw_distortion.png (Size: 118.42 KB / Downloads: 24)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
  Reply
toni-a
All-Star
*****
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,745

Reputation: 15
#2
06-12-2021, 09:55 AM
SONY 16-50F2.8 Smile
They heavily rely on digital correction
  Reply
Rover
All-Star
*****
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,188

Reputation: 22
#3
06-12-2021, 10:07 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2021, 10:08 AM by Rover.)
I think the Tamron 20/2.8 FE had even more but maybe it depends on how to measure it. EPZ measured 8.13% there and called it a record among non-(designated)fisheyes.

How well does the auto-correction clean that up?
  Reply
Brightcolours
All-Star
*****
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,715

Reputation: 22
#4
06-12-2021, 12:56 PM
The Canon RF 24-240mm lens has similar black corners when uncorrected.
  Reply
Rover
All-Star
*****
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,188

Reputation: 22
#5
06-12-2021, 05:39 PM
I'm still not sure why. After all, there was a good Canon 17-55/2.8 IS lens - admittedly it was bigger and didn't go down to 16mm, but it didn't suffer from that kind of distortion/vignetting either.
  Reply
Brightcolours
All-Star
*****
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,715

Reputation: 22
#6
06-12-2021, 06:28 PM
To keep the element count down I guess. And perhaps the resulting price.
  Reply
Rover
All-Star
*****
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,188

Reputation: 22
#7
06-12-2021, 09:00 PM
Well, it wouldn't matter in practice for someone like me, I guess, since I only ever shoot JPEG but it's not pleasant to know that so much is being patched up under the hood.
  Reply
Klaus
Super Moderator
******
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,089

Reputation: 49
#8
06-14-2021, 01:09 AM
It's fully corrected even at 16mm.

The form factor of the lens is really nice. Not sure about the MTFs yet.

However, one thing IS for sure. The price is NUTS.

Remember that there's the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 VC.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
  Reply
Klaus
Super Moderator
******
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,089

Reputation: 49
#9
06-14-2021, 08:21 AM
FWIW, the RAW MTFs at 16mm are outstanding ... the corrected ones ... not so much.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
  Reply
Brightcolours
All-Star
*****
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,715

Reputation: 22
#10
06-14-2021, 08:46 AM
(06-14-2021, 08:21 AM)Klaus Wrote: FWIW, the RAW MTFs at 16mm are outstanding ... the corrected ones ... not so much.

That makes a lot of sense.
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)