# Canon officially announces the RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 12, 2022)

> MELVILLE, NY, July 12, 2022 – Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, announced today the launch of two new RF-Mount lenses, the RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM and RF15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM. The lenses are both high-value, compact and lightweight wide-angle additions to the RF-Mount family and pair perfectly with the complete lineup of EOS R cameras, including the newly announced Canon EOS R10 and EOS R7 cameras.
> The Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM lens is a large-diameter...



Continue reading...


----------



## Nemorino (Jul 12, 2022)

Nice close up feature:


> Minimum focus distance of approx. 11 in./0.28m (5.1 In./0.13m in manual focus at 15mm zoom position.)


----------



## bbasiaga (Jul 12, 2022)

Gotta go to Youtube and find the pre-release reviews.


----------



## Traveler (Jul 12, 2022)

I hope they make a fish eye sized like the RF 16mm or 50mm one


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 12, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> Gotta go to Youtube and find the pre-release reviews.


Surprisingly there are none(other than European retailers posting hands on), it seems like these are just announcements with no fixed shipping dates(US shops aren't listing ship dates while taking preorders). So I guess we will have to wait a little longer for full reviews from usual sources on interweb.


----------



## zonoskar (Jul 12, 2022)

The 15-30 is wayy off the expected price of $800. I like it. It will probably vignette like crazy, like the 14-35 F4L


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 12, 2022)

599 for the 24 STM seem a bit expensive, compared to the 35/1.8.
Let's see how the € price will be...

_Edit: German Prices (incl. VAT):_
749 € RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM (est. av. Aug 8th)
699 € RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM (est. av. Sep 1st)


----------



## Berowne (Jul 12, 2022)

My trusted Dealer in Frankfurt am Main / West-Germany offers the RF24mm, starting at 04th August for 750€.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2022)

zonoskar said:


> The 15-30 is wayy off the expected price of $800. I like it. It will probably vignette like crazy, like the 14-35 F4L


Haven’t checked the pre-reviews, but I wonder if distortion correction is forced in-camera for the 15-30mm?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Haven’t checked the pre-reviews, but I wonder if distortion correction is forced in-camera for the 15-30mm?


It seems likely. Its a way to keep prices down while still giving reasonable images. With inflation, lower priced lenses are a way to keep sales up. I like the size, I'm no longer comfortable packing my big L lenses around. I've already sold one, I may part with the others and go to lighter lenses. My cell phone camera does a good job, but its still worlds away from my R5 images.


----------



## lnz (Jul 12, 2022)

11-24 F4 WHEN CANON WHEN???!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2022)

lnz said:


> 11-24 F4 WHEN CANON WHEN???!











Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens


Buy Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens featuring EF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Aperture Range: f/4 to f/22, One Super UD and One UD Element, Four Aspherical Elements, SWC, Air Sphere, and Fluorine Coatings, Ring-Type Ultrasonic Motor AF System, Weather-Sealed Construction, Rounded 9-Blade...




www.bhphotovideo.com





Unless the RF version allows use of a drop-in filter, the adapted EF version is more useful, and will almost certainly be cheaper, too.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 12, 2022)

24mm looks good for mushroom and amphibian/reptile photography! Just wish it had weather sealing, or at least a rubber gasket, I mean how much can a rubber ring add to the cost of the final product really.. $5? 

I will probably buy it though!


----------



## adrian_bacon (Jul 12, 2022)

Looking forward to the reviews of the 24 to start coming in. Looks like a good addition to the lineup, but for $599 it better be an excellent performer. Even the 35mm 1.8 is less expensive.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 12, 2022)

Traveler said:


> I hope they make a fish eye sized like the RF 16mm or 50mm one


I mean, if you don’t correct the distortion on the RF 16mm you have a fisheye lens!! LOL


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 12, 2022)

There is a large practical value to the new 15-30mm. I personally won’t be buying it because I already have the 14-35 and the 15-35 that everyday I question my sanity for owning both. The price and weight make this lens make it a really compelling option for amateur and vacation photography. I remember the days of aspiring to own L-Series lenses one day. Starting off with APS-C and the 10-22mm. Let’s not forget that was an APS-C lens that cost MORE than this! It was $650 new and this is $550.

Reading into the bigger picture here with these lenses…we’re not going to see anything autofocus from third party lens manufactures for a loooooong time. Sigma/Tamron could drop a wide angle zoom for around this price and offer weather sealing and faster apertures and it would take a lot of market share.


----------



## HealthyNoodles (Jul 12, 2022)

Did Canon just somehow mess up the embargo lifting time? Seems like the only reviews and first-looks on Youtube are from european camerastores.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> 24mm looks good for mushroom and amphibian/reptile photography! Just wish it had weather sealing, or at least a rubber gasket, I mean how much can a rubber ring add to the cost of the final product really.. $5?


It was tried, AFAIK it never took off.









Dust Donut™ Add a weather seal to the mount of any DSLR Lens


Give your Camera protection against Dust and Moisture by adding a weather seal that integrates with all of your lenses!




www.kickstarter.com


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It was tried, AFAIK it never took off.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I remember that thing! Never really liked the look of it to be honest. Looked like it’d bind up upon joining the lens to body.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 12, 2022)

lnz said:


> 11-24 F4 WHEN CANON WHEN???!



I don't see that being announced anytime soon. The EF version is not that old and still a stellar lens. I would just buy that with the drop in filter RF adapter.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 12, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> 24mm looks good for mushroom and amphibian/reptile photography! Just wish it had weather sealing, or at least a rubber gasket, I mean how much can a rubber ring add to the cost of the final product really.. $5?
> 
> I will probably buy it though!



I don't think it's about the cost. More like the artificial segmentation Canon wants to keep. A rubber seal on the mount would cost probably 10-15 cents extra. Same situation with the lens hoods or lens cases. A hood won't cost more than $5 to manufacture.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 12, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I don't think it's about the cost. More like the artificial segmentation Canon wants to keep. A rubber seal on the mount would cost probably 10-15 cents extra. Same situation with the lens hoods or lens cases. A hood won't cost more than $5 to manufacture.


Yeah, the lack of lens hoods with Canons non L gear does annoy me!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I don't think it's about the cost. More like the artificial segmentation Canon wants to keep. A rubber seal on the mount would cost probably 10-15 cents extra.


It's not just about the cost of a rubber gasket for the mount. There are seals under the zoom/focus/control rings, under the switches, and around moving inner barrels (zoom, or focus as on the 50/1.2L). That certainly adds to the manufacturing cost, a lot more than 10-15 cents.




Regardless, it's very clear that for Canon, weather sealing is found only on L-series lenses. No L, no seaL.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 12, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Surprisingly there are none(other than European retailers posting hands on), it seems like these are just announcements with no fixed shipping dates(*US* shops aren't listing* ship dates* while taking preorders). So I guess we will have to wait a little longer for full reviews from usual sources on interweb.


The Canon USA Press release states:

"The Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM, and Canon RF15-30 F4.5-6.3 IS STM lenses are scheduled to be available in late August 2022 for an estimated retail price of $599.99 and $549.99, respectively**.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's not just about the cost of a rubber gasket for the mount. There are seals under the zoom/focus/control rings, under the switches, and around moving inner barrels (zoom, or focus as on the 50/1.2L). That certainly adds to the manufacturing cost, a lot more than 10-15 cents.
> 
> View attachment 204609
> 
> ...


Atleast with RF all L are weather sealed, for EF Canon was even more stingy with weather resistance and there were grades of resistance.


John Wilde said:


> The Canon USA Press release states:
> 
> "The Canon RF24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM, and Canon RF15-30 F4.5-6.3 IS STM lenses are scheduled to be available in late August 2022 for an estimated retail price of $599.99 and $549.99, respectively**.


So that is why Canon India hasn't still listed these lenses in India and why no units were seeded to press/reviewers.


----------



## Jethro (Jul 13, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> So that is why Canon India hasn't still listed these lenses in India and why no units were seeded to press/reviewers.


They generally have pre-production units out with reviewers - not sure why that hasn't happened yet, and hopefully they will well before official shipping in late August.


----------



## HMC11 (Jul 13, 2022)

With only the available previews to go on, my guess is that the 24mm 1.8 would be as good as, if not better than, the 35mm 1.8 in terms of optical performance. If so, it could work very well as a landscape lens, particularly for those long hikes. My preference would be for a 20mm though as that would be just about wide enough to have fairly dramatic foreground. As for the 15-30mm, if the trend of RF design holds, I would expect it to have heavy distortion and vignetting with noticeably soft edges at 15-16mm, much like the 24-105 4-7.1 at the wide end. So psychologically, it would be more like a 16/17-30mm lens for landscape. It also seems to be designed more for vlogging, with the control ring having no audible clicking sound. Might be a good walkabout lens though.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 13, 2022)

Jethro said:


> They generally have pre-production units out with reviewers - not sure why that hasn't happened yet, and hopefully they will well before official shipping in late August.


Given how little leaks happened with this launch, its most likely was a launch pulled ahead of planned schedule or there were serious delays in shipping units to reviewers. Whatever the reason other than handful of retailers in Europe no one seems to have gotten any hands on time with new lenses. I will wait for reviews from usual group before deciding to purchase either of these 2 lenses.


----------



## dirtyvu (Jul 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens
> 
> 
> Buy Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens featuring EF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Aperture Range: f/4 to f/22, One Super UD and One UD Element, Four Aspherical Elements, SWC, Air Sphere, and Fluorine Coatings, Ring-Type Ultrasonic Motor AF System, Weather-Sealed Construction, Rounded 9-Blade...
> ...


I use kolari's filters with my r5 and rp cameras. They're awesome! They go inside the camera, just outside the sensor. So it doesn't matter what lens I use and it doesn't matter what the thread filter size is. Rf lenses, ef lenses, they all work. I usually put in the 6 stop nd filter and then swap lenses during the shoot.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's not just about the cost of a rubber gasket for the mount. There are seals under the zoom/focus/control rings, under the switches, and around moving inner barrels (zoom, or focus as on the 50/1.2L). That certainly adds to the manufacturing cost, a lot more than 10-15 cents.
> 
> View attachment 204609
> 
> ...


Very true, but I’d still rather slap $50 on the price of every non-L lens and have them all weather sealed.


----------



## SteveOLV (Jul 13, 2022)

Berowne said:


> My trusted Dealer in Frankfurt am Main / West-Germany offers the RF24mm, starting at 04th August for 750€.


Would that be G&M camera?


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 13, 2022)

Hopefully these new inexpensive lenses will deliver decent image quality. 

On a separate note, Bryan from the-digital-picture.com just posted the image quality for the RF-S 18-150 lens using the R7 body. What a disappointment! It is probably the worst lens Canon has made in many years. 









Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Review


Is the Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> On a separate note, Bryan from the-digital-picture.com just posted the image quality for the RF-S 18-150 lens using the R7 body. What a disappointment! It is probably the worst lens Canon has made in many years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The RF-S 18-150mm is the same lens as the EF-M 18-150mm – optically identical, same glass in a different barrel with the RF mount. The EF-M version of the lens had significant copy variation. When I was writing the review of the M18-150 for TDP, the performance of my lens was better than suggested by the ISO12233-type charts. Bryan tested a second copy of the M18-150 and it yielded better chart results (the second copy are the ones on the site). 

The EF-M version chart results appear better than the RF-S version, but the comparison isn’t ideal since the former is on the 18 MP original M, the latter on the 32 MP R7.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...
> 
> The EF-M version chart results appear better than the RF-S version, but the comparison isn’t ideal since the former is on the 18 MP original M, the latter on the 32 MP R7.


Pixel peepers beware! That R7, with its 32 MPs is going to cause you much consternation! But look at your images full size and everything will be all right!


----------



## Hobby (Jul 14, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> Hopefully these new inexpensive lenses will deliver decent image quality.
> 
> On a separate note, Bryan from the-digital-picture.com just posted the image quality for the RF-S 18-150 lens using the R7 body. What a disappointment! It is probably the worst lens Canon has made in many years.
> 
> ...


I did a test-chart comparison with the RF24-240 (on R5) and it seems to me that the RF-S lens is much worse. Disappointing for the RF-S lens indeed. I thought it would be better. Perhaps bad copy, and perhaps images look good once they are printed. We'll wait and see.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 14, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> Hopefully these new inexpensive lenses will deliver decent image quality.
> 
> On a separate note, Bryan from the-digital-picture.com just posted the image quality for the RF-S 18-150 lens using the R7 body. What a disappointment! It is probably the worst lens Canon has made in many years.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link, thought I'd do a comparison with the EF-S equivalent, and to be honest, I'm not seeing much of a difference between the
Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM (Canon Store: $499.99) and Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens (Canon Store: $599.99). The RF-S lens looks a hair sharper in the centre at 18mm, is $100 cheaper, but the EF-S lens looks a bit sharper at all the longer focal lengths in the centre and edges, and is 1/3 stop brighter at the long end f/5.6 vs f/6.3). Also wondering whether the RF-S lens is being massively software corrected at the wide end???









Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## Hobby (Jul 14, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Thanks for the link, thought I'd do a comparison with the EF-S equivalent, and to be honest, I'm not seeing much of a difference between the
> Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM (Canon Store: $499.99) and Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens (Canon Store: $599.99). The RF-S lens looks a hair sharper in the centre at 18mm, is $100 cheaper, but the EF-S lens looks a bit sharper at all the longer focal lengths in the centre and edges, and is 1/3 stop brighter at the long end f/5.6 vs f/6.3). Also wondering whether the RF-S lens is being massively software corrected at the wide end???


EF-s looks a bit sharper to me, but not much. I have this lens on the 90D and am very pleased with the pictures it delivers. The RF 24 is twice the price: should be twice as good......


----------



## AlanF (Jul 14, 2022)

You are wasting your time drawing conclusions from those charts from TDP. First, you are comparing images from a 32.5 Mpx sensor with those from a 20 Mpx, and then the comparisons are not that reliable. I have found many examples when comparing my own lenses side by side with radically different results from conparing the TDP charts.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 14, 2022)

ps, Canon's own generated MTF charts, corrected for diffraction, are about as good as any guide. But, all that counts is how good is your copy on your camera, which will depend on copy variation of the lens and the conditions you use. The charts show the RF-S 18-150 is sharper at 18mm and it's the lens itself, not software correction. The RF-S 18-150 is very good value as part of a kit with the R7 and R10.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 14, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Very true, but I’d still rather slap $50 on the price of every non-L lens and have them all weather sealed.


But 90 or 99% might not prefer that. Which Canon knows and is why they make these decisions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Very true, but I’d still rather slap $50 on the price of every non-L lens and have them all weather sealed.





InchMetric said:


> But 90 or 99% might not prefer that. Which Canon knows and is why they make these decisions.


Exactly. Non-L lenses are frequently paired with non-pro bodies with reduced or no weather sealing. L lenses are frequently paired with pro-level bodies with more effective weather sealing.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 14, 2022)

Just seen the price if that 24mm! £720 seems way overpriced!


----------



## Memdroid (Jul 14, 2022)

I was really excited for this lens until I watched this guys review : 



I don't speak/understand french but from what I could understand, this lens also has heavy corrections applied to it. That barrel distorten and heavy vignetting and the smearing near the borders are kind of off putting.
It looks like it is not as stellar IQ wise as the magnificent 35mm 1.8 (price vs performance). Bummer.


----------



## SHAMwow (Jul 14, 2022)

Any movement on a RF 35mm L lens? Probably going to wait and buy that. Just put the money from the 24mm towards that.


----------



## Punio (Jul 14, 2022)

the RF 24MM STM is £719... What's the L version I'm waiting for going to be? £10K?!


----------



## David_E (Jul 15, 2022)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> _I like the size, I'm no longer comfortable packing my big L lenses around._


Tell me about it! 78 yrs old. Gave away my 5D4 (but kept my 6DII) when I got my R5. About to give away my EF 100-400 zoom. I do mainly macro work at home and in the field with the RF 100mm and the EF 180mm, I'm always looking for a good light macro lens. No more gigantic, expensive lenses for me. I have pre-ordered the 24mm macro from Adorama.

Butterfly: RF 100mm macro. Flicker: RF 800mm ƒ11 _hand-held_.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 15, 2022)

Memdroid said:


> I was really excited for this lens until I watched this guys review :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, I just switched on auto-translate to English subtitles.

From what I could understand:

lens has vignetting which disappears when stopped down to f/4,
centre sharpness good at f/1.8 and marginally better at f/4,
the edges are not acceptable in sharpness until aperture of f/2.8, and sharp at f/5.6
bokeh is very good, without outlining, and rather clean but not round, with chromatic abberation around the edges
auto focus is not as fast as a USM motor lens and misses focus on very fast moving subjects, otherwise focus is very good for photos and video, though lens has visible focus breathing
lens flare is reasonable
lens displays some chromatic abberation, but not as bad as seen on the RF 16mm f/2.8
The lens does have barrel distortion that is corrected (not sure of the extent of the correction, it wasn't explained)
Sunstars can be produced at f/8 and look excelelnt at f/16
Not good for astrophotography, lots of CA at f/1.8 in the centre and strong/extreme coma at the edges of the frame along with lack of sharpness/optical defects
The barrel distortion of the lens is shown in the screen shot below.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> ps, Canon's own generated MTF charts, corrected for diffraction, are about as good as any guide. But, all that counts is how good is your copy on your camera, which will depend on copy variation of the lens and the conditions you use. The charts show the RF-S 18-150 is sharper at 18mm and it's the lens itself, not software correction. The RF-S 18-150 is very good value as part of a kit with the R7 and R10.
> 
> View attachment 204626
> View attachment 204627


The charts on TDP taken with the 32MB RF body should be resolving more detail than the 20MP EF body though, is that correct?
It look like the and the MTF charts show the same thing I stated, the 18-150 is sharper at 18mm, though I saw the charts sharper alt longer focal lengths.
Without side by side testing on an R7 body using an adapted EF 18-135, it's hard to tell if there is a net loss or net gain here, and what Canon has given up so to be able to sell the lens at $100 less than its predecessor. This is just a matter of curiosity for me , as I have neither of these lenses or an R7 body.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 15, 2022)

David_E said:


> Tell me about it! 78 yrs old. Gave away my 5D4 (but kept my 6DII) when I got my R5. About to give away my EF 100-400 zoom. I do mainly macro work at home and in the field with the RF 100mm and the EF 180mm, I'm always looking for a good light macro lens. No more gigantic, expensive lenses for me. I have pre-ordered the 24mm macro from Adorama.
> 
> Butterfly: RF 100mm macro. Flicker: RF 800mm ƒ11 _hand-held_.


You’re giving it away!? Hey, if you don’t want it anymore I’ll happily take it off your hands! Haha

Beautiful shots by the way!


----------



## AlanF (Jul 15, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> The charts on TDP taken with the 32MB RF body should be resolving more detail than the 20MP EF body though, is that correct?
> It look like the and the MTF charts show the same thing I stated, the 18-150 is sharper at 18mm, though I saw the charts sharper alt longer focal lengths.
> Without side by side testing on an R7 body using an adapted EF 18-135, it's hard to tell if there is a net loss or net gain here, and what Canon has given up so to be able to sell the lens at $100 less than its predecessor. This is just a matter of curiosity for me , as I have neither of these lenses or an R7 body.


All things being equal, yes.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 15, 2022)

I can't understand distortion at a prime lens, Those lenses only have to be optimized for a single focal length. So all distortion could be corrected with the right optical formula. It just seems that Canon thinks that such a distortion does not have to be corrected optically, if it can be digitally inside the camera without the photographer even noticing that, as even the EVF already shows the corrected image. In times of DSLRs Canon would never have sold a lens with such a distortion, as that would easily have been visible in the viewfinder.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It just seems that Canon thinks that such a distortion does not have to be corrected optically, if it can be digitally inside the camera without the photographer even noticing that, as even the EVF already shows the corrected image. In times of DSLRs Canon would never have sold a lens with such a distortion, as that would easily have been visible in the viewfinder.


It doesn't just seem that way, it *IS* that way. Canon even said so, explicitly. Check the press release for the RF 16/2.8, where they state, “Long gone are the days of optical corrections…”


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens
> 
> 
> Buy Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens featuring EF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Aperture Range: f/4 to f/22, One Super UD and One UD Element, Four Aspherical Elements, SWC, Air Sphere, and Fluorine Coatings, Ring-Type Ultrasonic Motor AF System, Weather-Sealed Construction, Rounded 9-Blade...
> ...


I'd agree. Alternative filter options a ridiculous in size. It's a lens that can take pretty interesting images but its heavy, chunky size wise with a scary bulbous front. I end up not using it very often. I wouldn't personally recommend it unless you have everything and wanted something different.


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Jul 15, 2022)

Here in Canada the new 15-30 is almost 3x the price of the RF 14-35L so it will be interesting to see how much of a difference there is in terms of optical performance. A key characteristic for me will be at what focal length the maximum aperture begins to decrease.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2022)

PiezoSwitch said:


> Here in Canada the new 15-30 is almost 3x the price of the RF 14-35L


Strike that, reverse it.


----------



## Nemorino (Jul 15, 2022)

PiezoSwitch said:


> Here in Canada the new 15-30 is almost 3x the price of the RF 14-35L


You probably mean a 1/3 of the price. 15-30 = 700€, 14-35 = 1800€ in Germany.


----------



## David Raboin (Jul 15, 2022)

I've developed some blind faith in Canon's RF line of lenses. I love the 35 f1.8 and the 85 f2. Both of those lenses produce beautiful, punchy photos. I pre-ordered the 24mm. 

To correct for barrel distortion optically some other aspect of lens performance must be compromised. Maybe the digital solution results in superior images? Maybe if they leave the barrel distortion, they can focus on sharpness, bokeh, contrast, and other optical qualities? I'll be happy if this new 24mm produces images on par with the RF 35mm and 85mm, and I'm fairly confident that it will.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 16, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I can't understand distortion at a prime lens, Those lenses only have to be optimized for a single focal length. So all distortion could be corrected with the right optical formula. It just seems that Canon thinks that such a distortion does not have to be corrected optically, if it can be digitally inside the camera without the photographer even noticing that, as even the EVF already shows the corrected image. In times of DSLRs Canon would never have sold a lens with such a distortion, as that would easily have been visible in the viewfinder.


It's Canon penny-pinching again, save a few dollars on production but don't lower the price equals more profits. Same idea with no lens hoods on non-L lenses, even if they sell for $1000 (like they do in some parts of the world), they won't give you that $5 piece of plastic. Over millions of units sold the pennies quickly add up, that's the reasoning. The problem with excessive software correction (depending on the type) is that it's destructive at the pixel level, degrades image quality, introduces more noise, and limits the post processing that can be carried out afterwards.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 16, 2022)

David Raboin said:


> I've developed some blind faith in Canon's RF line of lenses. I love the 35 f1.8 and the 85 f2. Both of those lenses produce beautiful, punchy photos. I pre-ordered the 24mm.
> 
> To correct for barrel distortion optically some other aspect of lens performance must be compromised. Maybe the digital solution results in superior images? Maybe if they leave the barrel distortion, they can focus on sharpness, bokeh, contrast, and other optical qualities? I'll be happy if this new 24mm produces images on par with the RF 35mm and 85mm, and I'm fairly confident that it will.


Hi David, we were having a chat on another thread about these lenses, I too find the RF 35mm f/1.8 sharp and versatile, and from discussions bokeh is good as long as focus point is 3m or less, otherwise the backround gets gets busy. 

I've been conflicted about getting an RF 85mm f/2, it's a very sharp lens with great contrast according to reviews, but backgrounds tend to get busy and bokeh is sub-par apparently. I thought it may make a great product photography lens, but I'm not sure if I would gain much over the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses (L and regular, have both). May I ask, what have you been using yours for, and how have you been finding it? Hearing about first hand experience is really valuable! Thanks


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 16, 2022)

The optical bench test results are in for the* RF 24mm f/1.8 macro IS STM lens* on the Photons to Photos website, and the distortion figures don't look good, *rectilinear distortion is 11%*, which is a very high.



https://www.photonstophotos.net//GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/US20220019061_Example03P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis



A note for the posters who didn't get my point about rounded off values for marketing, yes, it measures as a 25mm f/1.85 on the test bench. 


By comparison, the *RF 16mm f/2.8 rectilinear distortion *is a whopping *17%*


https://www.photonstophotos.net//GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/JP2022-085382_Example03P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis,Distortion



By comparison the *RF 35mm f/1.8 macro rectilinear distortion* is a only *3%*


https://www.photonstophotos.net//GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/US20190113711_Example01P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis,Distortion



The nifty-fifty* RF 50mm f/1.8 rectilinear distortion* is the lowest at a mere *1%*


https://www.photonstophotos.net//GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/US20210263286_Example01P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis,Distortion



Comparing witht some other EF and RF wide lenses:

Canon EF 24mm f/2.8: rectilinear distortion *3%*

Canon EF 16-35mm F/2.8 L III: rectilinear distortion *4%*
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L: rectilinear distortion *4%*
Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8 L: rectilinear distortion *4%*

Canon RF 14-35 f/4 L: rectilinear distortion *10%*
Canon RF 24-240 F/4-6.3: rectilinear distortion *13%*

I'm really loving all the fanboy doublethink on DPR trying to justify Canon's heavy reliance on software correction, making senseless illogical statements such as "these are designed to be used with software correction", which is marketing nonsense, made to sound like software corrections are a desirable thing, and these lenses were successfully designed to that purpose! Properly phrased, it would be stated as "these lenses are intentionally optically under-designed, and this compromise requires software corrections to make the images usable". But people can twist reality to fit their worldview and rationalise anything, rather than have to change their worldview to fit reality...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> The problem with excessive software correction (depending on the type) is that it's destructive at the pixel level, degrades image quality, introduces more noise, and limits the post processing that can be carried out afterwards.


That sounds like an us problem, not a Canon problem. At least insofar as people keep buying the lenses, which at the set prices seems quite likely.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Canon RF 14-35 f/4 L: rectilinear distortion *10%*


In spite of all that pixel level destruction, I found that the RF 14-35 at 14mm delivers similar corner sharpness post-correction as the EF 11-24, which has effectively zero distortion at 14mm (based on tool you are linking). 



LogicExtremist said:


> I'm really loving all the fanboy doublethink on DPR trying to justify Canon's heavy reliance on software correction, making senseless illogical statements such as "these are designed to be used with software correction", which is marketing nonsense, made to sound like software corrections are a desirable thing, and these lenses were successfully designed to that purpose!


The purpose is compromise, and there is benefit to us as buyers. Canon would not have designed an optically corrected 16/2.8 at a $300 price point, because it wouldn’t be profitable. I doubt a 14-35/4 could be designed with <5% distortion and still take a 77mm front filter (that feature makes the 14-35/24-105/100-500 a great travel kit).


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 16, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I can't understand distortion at a prime lens, Those lenses only have to be optimized for a single focal length. So all distortion could be corrected with the right optical formula. It just seems that Canon thinks that such a distortion does not have to be corrected optically, if it can be digitally inside the camera without the photographer even noticing that, as even the EVF already shows the corrected image. In times of DSLRs Canon would never have sold a lens with such a distortion, as that would easily have been visible in the viewfinder.


Yes, in times of DSLRs with optical viewfinders, you could not make a lens with in-camera or automatic post processing corrections. But with mirrorless, you can, and that is why most (if not all) brands are doing it or will be doing it.

Why? Cheaper and lighter lenses. If the end result is good, I don't care if the corrections are done by using more glass or by using software.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 16, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> ....
> 
> I'm really loving all the fanboy doublethink on DPR trying to justify Canon's heavy reliance on software correction, making senseless illogical statements such as "these are designed to be used with software correction", which is marketing nonsense, made to sound like software corrections are a desirable thing, and these lenses were successfully designed to that purpose! Properly phrased, it would be stated as "these lenses are intentionally optically under-designed, and this compromise requires software corrections to make the images usable". But people can twist reality to fit their worldview and rationalise anything, rather than have to change their worldview to fit reality...


Funny how people thing software correction is somehow a bad thing, and yet I would bet those same people are doing post processing with Lightroom or other programs, which, of course is software correction, or how about Topaz or DXO noise reduction (software correction) or various sharpening programs (software correction). 

Designing lenses to have auto software correction, makes them smaller, lighter and less expensive. My guess is that the majority of lens buyers will take that deal. Anyone who ever purchased the Canon EF 17-40 L would probably wish that lens had auto correction as the corners are totally soft! Probably true of numerous other lenses as well.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 16, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Funny how people thing software correction is somehow a bad thing, and yet I would bet those same people are doing post processing with Lightroom or other programs, which, of course is software correction, or how about Topaz or DXO noise reduction (software correction) or various sharpening programs (software correction).
> 
> Designing lenses to have auto software correction, makes them smaller, lighter and less expensive. My guess is that the majority of lens buyers will take that deal. Anyone who ever purchased the Canon EF 17-40 L would probably wish that lens had auto correction as the corners are totally soft! Probably true of numerous other lenses as well.


Ultimately, it depends what you use the lenses for, and for non critical applications,_ it doesn't really matter_. They're fine for the same reason that smartphones are - sufficiency.

For the majority of people, like most clueless smarphone users that take portraits and selfies at close distances with ultrawide lenses, distortion of people's faces obviously won't be a concern, and for social media use, image quality is rarely a concern, modern smartphones can take passable photos acceptable to the general public almost 100% of the time.

I believe you're mistakenly conflating automatic lens corrections applied by software according to a formula to correct _minor _lens defects with post-processing, which is a subjective human process that aims to bring the best out of an image, to approximate what you saw or how you imagine it to look. These are two different things, they're qualitatively different. Noise reduction is another thing yet again, it attempts to reduce the ratio of noise to signal, and that has to be done carefully, otherwise it's possible to lose fine details. 

The simple law of physics is that there is always a price, and whether you're talking about software correction or designing super-small RF lenses, you can't get something for nothing, you have to give up something in the process, the question is if the compromise is acceptable to you for your needs. 

A simple way to think about it is like this, 1. Price - 2. image quality - 3. size/weight, you can only pick any two of three that you like! 

Excessive software correction does reduce image quality, there's no two ways about it, that's why we don't want to over-process images, because they fall apart faster during editing, and that's why we don't like lenses with heavy vignetting, because software may be able to correct 5 stops of underexposure, but the corners become noisy and full of artifacts.

The article "About Lens Distortion" on TDP is worth a read, here's an excerpt:

"_Ideally, a lens will render straight lines as straight. Reality is that many lenses are not perfect and straight lines are rendered with a curve. The amount of curve can be vastly different from lens to lens and from focal length to focal length within the same lens._"

"*Who Cares? *_Some types of photography can tolerate distortion better than others. Landscape photographers shooting an ocean scene will not be happy with a non-straight horizon. Architect photographers will not accept curved buildings in their photos - nor will their clients. Even framing a scene level is difficult with distortion in the viewfinder. Other types of photography are far more forgiving of a distorted view. If there are no straight lines in the frame, it may be difficult to see any effect of the distortion in your images. People have no straight lines - and may even appreciate a little thinning effect from pincushion distortion_."

*"Lens Distortion Can Be Corrected Using Software - *_Software can be used to straighten your lines - removing the distortion from the image (though wave distortion is harder to correct). But, *this correction is a destructive process. You lose image quality during the process of remapping the pixels in the image*. *A distortion free lens delivers a better final image*_."

It doesn't make sense to say these lenses are bad or good _without context_ - in which applications are we talking about? 

Small light lenses with extreme optical distortion that need software correction to produce usable images are an excellent solution for travel or casual photography. The RF 16mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/1.8 make excellent vlogging or interview lenses, as the subjects don't move much in the field of view, so the heavy focus breathing is not an issue as it would be with regular video. They're satisfactory solution to these engineering problems, but keep in mind that means they're by necessity unsuitable as solutions for a range of other applications/problems.

This is the perennial argument on every gear/tool/gadget forum, understanding that optimisation for a specific application involves compromises which are a balancing act between preferred attributes/features.

The poor old EF 17-40mm L was a low cost L-lens _exception_, that was known to be soft from my understanding, but was purchased by many because it was an affordable option to the more expensive 16-35mm UW zooms. I've never oiwned or used the lens, so I can't offer an objective opinion about the nuances of its performance.

The issue for users of mid-range gear is that right now Canon has entry level lenses with their compromises on image quality to achieve size/weight/price goals, and a top tier pro range that's been pushed into a higher price bracket than before. There is no more mid-range, and the question is, will there be? Whatever is happening to third-party lenses on the RF platform, it looks like all non-Chinese brands are effectively locked out, reducing the choices available, and all the midrange options.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 16, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> [..]
> The poor old EF 17-40mm L was a low cost L-lens _exception_, that was known to be soft from my understanding, but was purchased by many because it was an affordable option to the more expensive 16-35mm UW zooms. I've never oiwned or used the lens, so I can't offer an objective opinion about the nuances of its performance.
> [..]


After correction the RF16mm beats the EF17-40L in sharpness across the frame. On full frame, the 17-40 corners are *bad*. In the center the RF16 is a lot sharper at f/2.8 than the EF17-40 at f/5.6.

I've been using the RF16 as the main lens on this vacation and it's performing very well. The issues I'm running into are virtually due to my inexperience with UWA, I really shouldn't do close ups of my kids with the RF16 

I really wanted the RF14-35L for this trip, but I couldn't justify the expense. So it's RF16, RF50, RF100L and RF100-500L for this trip.


----------



## wolfgang_guelcker (Jul 16, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> The optical bench test results are in for the* RF 24mm f/1.8 macro IS STM lens* on the Photons to Photos website, and the distortion figures don't look good, *rectilinear distortion is 11%*, which is a very high.
> 
> https://www.photonstophotos.net//Ge...ample03P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis


The Optical Bench of the great Bill Claff does not contain tests, but the processed data of patent applications. The realised lens may then be somewhat different.
But it is an excellent source of lens information.


----------



## Nemorino (Jul 16, 2022)

I just want to quote the Canon white paper explaining the R mount:
Page 35


> The DLO system can implement corrections for the following
> 1. Resolution loss due to cumulative aberrations
> 2. Resolution loss due to diffraction
> 3. Lateral chromatic aberration
> ...


I have no link to the paper but it has been linked on CR before


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 17, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Ultimately, it depends what you use the lenses for, and for non critical applications,_ it doesn't really matter_. They're fine for the same reason that smartphones are - sufficiency.
> 
> For the majority of people, like most clueless smarphone users that take portraits and selfies at close distances with ultrawide lenses, distortion of people's faces obviously won't be a concern, and for social media use, image quality is rarely a concern, modern smartphones can take passable photos acceptable to the general public almost 100% of the time.
> 
> ....



You don't like lenses with software correction "built-in" to the design - we get it. You don't have to like them. But you don't have to compare them to smartphones and insinuate people who buy these types of lenses are clueless or that these lenses can't be used for critical situations. Your bias is so extreme (not your logic which is almost always lacking) that is colors every comment you make on the subject. You act as if all optically pure lenses are sharp in the corners and have no distortion. Really? Do you actually take photos or are you just another forum gear head warrior? The EF 17-40 was an exception? Right - the only lens that was poor in the corners!! LOL!

Just like every lens ever made, these software corrected lenses vary in their performance level. Some - from Canon and other brands - get the highest ratings and are used for professional shoots while others are cheaper and not as good. Yet, you lump them all together and harp upon the destruciveness of the pixels. The final image - well, I guess that is irrelevant. or maybe because most of these lenses are perfectly capable of producing salable images - you are right to ignore the final image quality and just worry about your pixel destruction. 

Again, don't buy these lenses. But your crusade to convince others that all lenses with software correction are horrible is just bullcrap.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 17, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> You don't like lenses with software correction "built-in" to the design - we get it. You don't have to like them. But you don't have to compare them to smartphones and insinuate people who buy these types of lenses are clueless or that these lenses can't be used for critical situations. Your bias is so extreme (not your logic which is almost always lacking) that is colors every comment you make on the subject. You act as if all optically pure lenses are sharp in the corners and have no distortion. Really? Do you actually take photos or are you just another forum gear head warrior? The EF 17-40 was an exception? Right - the only lens that was poor in the corners!! LOL!
> 
> Just like every lens ever made, these software corrected lenses vary in their performance level. Some - from Canon and other brands - get the highest ratings and are used for professional shoots while others are cheaper and not as good. Yet, you lump them all together and harp upon the destruciveness of the pixels. The final image - well, I guess that is irrelevant. or maybe because most of these lenses are perfectly capable of producing salable images - you are right to ignore the final image quality and just worry about your pixel destruction.
> 
> Again, don't buy these lenses. But your crusade to convince others that all lenses with software correction are horrible is just bullcrap.


Wow dude, ease up! You've really misquoted me here, or misunderstood my point.
I'll distill it down to the essence of what I was saying to clear up any misunderstanding.

Lens performance parameters can be _objectively _measured, like rectilinear distortion, which varies from lens to lens, which is why I gave a list of the different lenses as a comparison so people can see the difference.
Whether the lenses are good enough for a person's requirements is a more _subjective _matter, within the limits of practicality, the RF 16mm f/2.8 is not going to be the first choice for shooting real estate professionally for example!
I'm just pointing out the facts, whether I like them or not is immaterial. I obviously won't buy the ones that don't give me sufficient image quality for my work and leisure (no, I'm not a gear head lol!). Amongst my lenses I do have an RF 35mm f/1.8 and RF 50mm f/1.8, they're may not be my main go-to lenses, but work well for me for certain specifi tasks. Some people don't like, and that's because they don't work for them and their needs, that doesn't offend me at all, and I can accept that. By being aware of the shortcomings of those lenses, I can work around them more easily! If I can't, then they're not th right tool for the job, and I'll use something more suitable for the task, whether that's an L series lens or whatever. 

What is 'bullcrap' as you call it, and what I'm calling out is the denial, the 'emperor has no clothes' phenomenon on DPR, only a little here, where the limitations of the lenses are not being acknowledged. It's a factual matter, that with extreme software correction, and the resultant image degradation, some of these lenses are not the same as their EF counterparts, and may not be suitable for the same purposes. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be a market for the seriously overpriced RF L series lenses!

These entry level RF lenses are very different lenses to those of the past, built using a different design philosophy, that will be better in some areas and worse in others. We need to assess them on their merits, and identify what they're best used for. Let's not kid ourselves that these are L series substitutes, or in some cases, not even EF substitutes. We need to assess each parameter and determine where they best fit in terms of use. Emotional attachment to material objects and brands is irrational. Objective analysis is what's needed.

If you don't define intended use, you can't assess performance against that criteria. The 'final image' does matter, but only in respect to the intended use of the final image. A lens that is _sufficient _for holiday snaps and travel may not be _sufficient _for commercial work. I can go through each genre of photography and list all the traits that we look for in the type of lenses used, but anyone who understands their genre will know what matters and what doesn't in a lens. If people know what they're buying, they can make informed decisions, and sharing information makes that possible. Downplaying unfavourable information doesn't help other than soothe the ego of gear heads. Remember, everything has its pros and cons, and how the gear that you've chosen performs under less than optimum conditions in respect to its design is neither a reflection of you or your self-worth! That's what gear head p***ing contests are all about, ego attachment to one's possessions, and if I've correctly gauged the forum demographic correctly, were all a bit too old for that sort of thing anyway.

We've seen too many YouTube influencer 'reviews' to use the word loosely, where they go over specs, praise the good features, and either ignore or downplay the shortcomings, otherwise Canon or whatever other company will get upset and won't send them toys to play with for a week to get those important early pre-release reviews out. For anyone who wants truly biased 'reviews', there is plenty online to satiate that need.

<start sarcasm rant> _And no, there's no groupthink happening in online forums, lol! There never was any overheating issues on the R5, those were just trolls being negative, and the camera bodies just magically worked longer after a certain point in time, it had nothing to do with the firmware fix. Canon's marketing department is actually a philanthropic group that always tells the truth, and always has your best interests at heart, truly. The R5C didn't address any issue with video, it was just nice for Canon to release it as it made more rainbows appear in the sky... The lens hoods aren't included on non-L lenses for the reason most people think, Canon aren't mean-spirited cheapskates at all, they're just saving people from lens hood trauma. There exists a tiny percentage of budget lens buyers that can be irreversibly trautmatised by the sight of a lens hood, and when that happens, that can no longer care for their kids, so it's really done to save the children, they need to do it for the children! Oh yeah, and the replacement lens hood for the RF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM really is worth over $700, and well over $1000 outside the US. Unbeknown to most, it contains vibranium nanoparticles that have the capacity to absorb the kinetic energy, saving the lens from any frontal impact. That rare element is only available in Wakanda (documented in Marvel's Black Panther movie, so it's real), and to ensure secure delivery, the finished product is personally walked by the Dora Milaje from their homeland to Canon distribution centres! _ <close sarcasm rant> Ah, sweet conformity! 

Ironically, there is so much online confusion about _sufficiency_. While just about any modern crop or full frame camera body is _sufficient _for professional work, many lenses aren't, but there seems to be an overly big fuss on gear forums over camera body specs!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 17, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> After correction the RF16mm beats the EF17-40L in sharpness across the frame. On full frame, the 17-40 corners are *bad*. In the center the RF16 is a lot sharper at f/2.8 than the EF17-40 at f/5.6.
> 
> I've been using the RF16 as the main lens on this vacation and it's performing very well. The issues I'm running into are virtually due to my inexperience with UWA, I really shouldn't do close ups of my kids with the RF16
> 
> I really wanted the RF14-35L for this trip, but I couldn't justify the expense. So it's RF16, RF50, RF100L and RF100-500L for this trip.


Looks like the RF 16mm f/2.8 is an upgrade on the EF 17-40mm L and a downgrade on the EF 16-34mm zooms.

That's sound rationale for choosing the 16mm lens, most of us need to work within our budgets, and we get what we can justify, and if it works, then it's all good!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 17, 2022)

wolfgang_guelcker said:


> The Optical Bench of the great Bill Claff does not contain tests, but the processed data of patent applications. The realised lens may then be somewhat different.
> But it is an excellent source of lens information.


Thanks for that, I wasn't aware of the optical bench section of his website, I've only seen the DR charts which are great!


----------



## Frodo (Jul 18, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Looks like the RF 16mm f/2.8 is an upgrade on the EF 17-40mm L and a downgrade on the EF 16-34mm zooms.
> 
> That's sound rationale for choosing the 16mm lens, most of us need to work within our budgets, and we get what we can justify, and if it works, then it's all good!


My RF 16/2.8 performs better than expected, and at f/4 was close enough to be equal to my Samyang 14/2.8. And the DXO Pure Raw 2 profile improves it further. One proviso: I tested 2 of these lenses in the shop, and the one I bought was noticeably sharper. I have sold A2 astrophotography prints for good prices, so I guess that is a critical use. But most of my landscape and astrophotography photos are not taken at home, but when I travel. The RF 16/2.8 always travels with me, whereas the much larger Samyang rarely did, so I sold it.
If the RF 24/1.8 has acceptable coma performance 1 stop down, it could be a useful astro lens.
At the end of the day lens performance must meet the use case; price and (for me) size will clinch the sale.


----------



## dirtyvu (Jul 18, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Wow dude, ease up! You've really misquoted me here, or misunderstood my point.
> I'll distill it down to the essence of what I was saying to clear up any misunderstanding.
> 
> Lens performance parameters can be _objectively _measured, like rectilinear distortion, which varies from lens to lens, which is why I gave a list of the different lenses as a comparison so people can see the difference.
> ...


Tldr. What wide angle doesn't have distortion. By its very nature the wider, the more distortion...


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 18, 2022)

dirtyvu said:


> Tldr. What wide angle doesn't have distortion. By its very nature the wider, the more distortion...


Laowa claims it for this one: https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-12mm-f2-8-zero-d/


----------



## lnz (Jul 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens
> 
> 
> Buy Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens featuring EF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Aperture Range: f/4 to f/22, One Super UD and One UD Element, Four Aspherical Elements, SWC, Air Sphere, and Fluorine Coatings, Ring-Type Ultrasonic Motor AF System, Weather-Sealed Construction, Rounded 9-Blade...
> ...


I know that option but i'm still waiting for the release of the RF version to choose


----------



## dirtyvu (Jul 18, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Laowa claims it for this one: https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-12mm-f2-8-zero-d/


They also say at infinity focus. But what they're saying is still good. But with that lens if you take a closeup of a group of people the people at the edge of the frame will still be stretched.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2022)

dirtyvu said:


> They also say at infinity focus. But what they're saying is still good. But with that lens if you take a closeup of a group of people the people at the edge of the frame will still be stretched.


Yes, but that's not geometric distortion, it's anamorphosis. The latter results from the _correction_ of geometric distortion (either optically or digitally). Here's an example (from the DPR review of DxO's ViewPoint, specifically it's correction for volume anamorphosis):





Note how in the left 'before' image the people are distorted but the vertical lines of the architecture are straight. In the corrected image, normal proportions are restored for the subjects, with the trade-off that the architectural verticals are now curved.


----------



## dirtyvu (Jul 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, but that's not geometric distortion, it's anamorphosis. The latter results from the _correction_ of geometric distortion (either optically or digitally). Here's an example (from the DPR review of DxO's ViewPoint, specifically it's correction for volume anamorphosis):
> 
> 
> View attachment 204728
> ...


Yes I always correct for the people. Background is secondary. In lightroom you just move the distortion slider a bit to fix it. Not a big issue.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2022)

dirtyvu said:


> Yes I always correct for the people. Background is secondary


So do I, and although I've never used a Laowa Zero-D lens, it would be ironic to introduce geometric distortion to correct an optically barrel-free UWA lens, to correct the anamorphosis.


----------



## dirtyvu (Jul 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> So do I, and although I've never used a Laowa Zero-D lens, it would be ironic to introduce geometric distortion to correct an optically barrel-free UWA lens, to correct the anamorphosis.


i went back to that review and it doesn't seem to be describing what you're saying. and then I went and looked up anamorphosis and it doesn't seem to have to do with the lens.

Here's what it says:

Based on DxO Labs' exclusive geometric correction technology, DxO ViewPoint allows photographers to easily and efficiently restore the natural proportions of the subjects in their images as an integral part of their workflow.

The deformation of subjects located on the edges of photos is due to the use of wide-angle lenses, and affects numerous situations, particularly social photography (e.g., events, marriages) and photo reportage. Thanks to its dedicated tool, DxO ViewPoint easily fixes this flaw, automatically restoring the natural proportions to distorted faces and bodies to make them look as normal as those in the center of the image.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2022)

dirtyvu said:


> i went back to that review and it doesn't seem to be describing what you're saying. and then I went and looked up anamorphosis and it doesn't seem to have to do with the lens.
> 
> Here's what it says:
> 
> ...


The point I’m making is that correcting for volume anamorphosis introduces barrel-type distortion. 

Anamorphosis is a distortion that occurs at the periphery of wide angle shots. It is distinct from the barrel distortion common in UWA lenses. Correction of barrel distortion accentuates anamorphosis (whether that correction is performed by the lens’ optics or with software is irrelevant). The algorithm to correct anamorphosis counteracts the correction of barrel distortion (but it’s not a direct reversal), in fact it 'overcompensates'. In the example posted, the ‘before’ image on the left is before anamorphosis correction, but _after_ correction of barrel distortion. The 'before' image (which is a crop from the left side of an image) has distorted people and straight architectural verticals. The 'after' (with correction for volume anamorphosis applied) has normal looking people but the architectural verticals are curved (as seen with barrel distortion).

If you have DxO with ViewPoint, you can play with the geometric distortion slider and the volume anamorphosis control (diagonal for people) and see the effects.

Here's an example from a family trip to Paris several years ago, before the Notre Dame cathedral burned. Shot is with the EF-M 11-22mm @ 11mm. You can see the barrel-type distortion introduced by the volume anamorphosis correction (especially the columns on the left side). In the crops from the bottom left corner, you can see how the distortion correction makes the anamorphosis worse (subject's face even wider than without distortion correction), and you can see how correcting the volume anamorphosis restores his face to normal, but at the cost of adding barrel distortion across the image.


----------



## dirtyvu (Jul 19, 2022)

I see what you're trying to say. But it seems this "volume anamorphosis" term is an invention by DxO.

I do like what that software is doing. While it doesn't seem to quite solve the "distortion" versus "anamorphosis" problem, it's a good compromise. But I'm so entrenched in Lightroom and Topaz Labs especially after the new AI masks that are just godly. But thanks for teaching me a new thing.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 20, 2022)

dirtyvu said:


> Tldr. What wide angle doesn't have distortion. By its very nature the wider, the more distortion...


The logical fallacy there is that the matter of distortion is a binary state, a qualitative thing, but that's false.
The matter is quantitative,what matters is* how much distortion* the UWA lens have, not whether it's present in any quantity.

I've already provided comparison figures, the really good UWA lenses I listed have 4% or less rectilinear distortion, which is manageable. Nobody is complaining about the distortion on the RF 15-35 f/2.8 L. 

By comparison, the RF 24mm f/2.8 is pushing 11% and the 16mm has 17%, rectilinear distortion, the latter is probably half-way to a fisheye, and *both of these lenses aren't able to completely cover a full-frame sensor*, so apart from al of the extreme stretching and bending to make the image flat, with software filling in pixels that were never there, there's also a crop required in the software correction to cut off the black corners that the lens couldn't project an image onto, and then an interpolation (software generation) of pixels, much like a digital zoom, to stretch the cropped image back to the camera sensor's full image size which was never captured.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The point I’m making is that correcting for volume anamorphosis introduces barrel-type distortion.
> 
> Anamorphosis is a distortion that occurs at the periphery of wide angle shots. It is distinct from the barrel distortion common in UWA lenses. Correction of barrel distortion accentuates anamorphosis (whether that correction is performed by the lens’ optics or with software is irrelevant). The algorithm to correct anamorphosis counteracts the correction of barrel distortion (but it’s not a direct reversal), in fact it 'overcompensates'. In the example posted, the ‘before’ image on the left is before anamorphosis correction, but _after_ correction of barrel distortion. The 'before' image (which is a crop from the left side of an image) has distorted people and straight architectural verticals. The 'after' (with correction for volume anamorphosis applied) has normal looking people but the architectural verticals are curved (as seen with barrel distortion).
> 
> ...


Using DxO Viewpoint I have found this too, confirming what you've stated. 
Thanks for the explanation of how it works, that's really helpful!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> …there's also a crop required in the software correction to cut off the black corners that the lens couldn't project an image onto, and then an interpolation (software generation) of pixels, much like a digital zoom, to stretch the cropped image back to the camera sensor's full image size which was never captured.


I don’t believe that’s true (although I initially thought that might be the case). Correcting the barrel distortion stretches the corners to fill in the mechanical vignetting. Consider the extreme case of a rectangular projection from a circular fisheye image:




There’s no upscaling needed after correcting the distortion, the distortion correction itself is doing the upscaling.

Since you have DxO, you can see this effect in less extreme lenses. Because the image is rectangular, barrel distortion correction requires more stretching across the width of the image than for the height. Expand the Distortion control in DxO, there’s a tick box to keep aspect ratio. If that is ticked, you’ll get output cropped to the native sensor size. Untick that box and you’ll get an image that’s the native height but is wider due to the extra stretching needed in that dimension. For example, the Notre Dame image above output without the box ticked is 5275x3456, 91 pixels (~1.8%) wider than the usual 18 MP output of 5184x3456. 

That effect is proportional to the amount of distortion in the lens, because more distortion requires more stretching. The EF-M 11-22mm has about 3% distortion at 11mm and is ~1.8% wider after correction. The RF 14-35mm has about 10% distortion at 14mm, and is ~4.5% wider after correction.

So there’s no crop/upscale needed to output native resolution after distortion correction. Rather, the sides of the corrected image actually need to be cropped off to get that native output size.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t believe that’s true (although I initially thought that might be the case). Correcting the barrel distortion stretches the corners to fill in the mechanical vignetting. Consider the extreme case of a rectangular projection from a circular fisheye image:
> 
> View attachment 204758
> 
> ...


Thanks, you summed up the critical piece of information when you explained "_the distortion correction itself is doing the upscaling_".

Got it, so the software correction is taking an image with extreme barrel distortion that doesn't cover the entire sensor, it stretches out the whole image first to a size that would cover the whole sensor (through interpolation), past the position of the mechanical vignetting corners, while compressing the barelled portions of the image flat (presumably by averaging and binning pixels). Due to the barrel distortion, parts of the image (such as the black corners with no image date) get stretched beyond the standard image size, and are cropped away to create an interpolated and corrected image that's the same size as the sensor's standard image. Hope I understood the process correctly!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Thanks, you summed up the critical piece of information when you explained "_the distortion correction itself is doing the upscaling_".
> 
> Got it, so the software correction is taking an image with extreme barrel distortion that doesn't cover the entire sensor, it stretches out the whole image first to a size that would cover the whole sensor (through interpolation), past the position of the mechanical vignetting corners, while compressing the barelled portions of the image flat (presumably by averaging and binning pixels). Due to the barrel distortion, parts of the image (such as the black corners with no image date) get stretched beyond the standard image size, and are cropped away to create an interpolated and corrected image that's the same size as the sensor's standard image. Hope I understood the process correctly!


Correct. It's important to note that the 'stretching' applies to all distortion correction, not just with lenses having extreme distortion and mechanical vignetting. But for lenses that do, the distortion correction is sufficient to eliminate the mechanical vignetting from the image. 

Not that it matters all that much, but in general lens testing is performed without corrections applied. So, for a lens like the RF 15-35/2.8 the test for vignetting shows ~4.5 stops of light lost in the extreme corners. However, after correction of the ~4% barrel distortion those extreme corners are actually cut off, so the real-world vignetting is probably only ~3.5 stops in the corners of the final image.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It doesn't just seem that way, it *IS* that way. Canon even said so, explicitly. Check the press release for the RF 16/2.8, where they state, “Long gone are the days of optical corrections…”





Czardoom said:


> Yes, in times of DSLRs with optical viewfinders, you could not make a lens with in-camera or automatic post processing corrections. But with mirrorless, you can, and that is why most (if not all) brands are doing it or will be doing it.
> 
> Why? Cheaper and lighter lenses. If the end result is good, I don't care if the corrections are done by using more glass or by using software.


Even for DSLRs corrections were possible in post processing, but there are many good reason to buy a lens that gets rid of all those optical problem with physics instead of processing. Of course I also use lens profile corrections in Lightroom, but they come with a lot of problems. To compensate vignetting for example the corners of an image might have to be amplified a few stops and that includes the noise. It might not be possible to recover shadows in the corner, if the corners were already amplified. The same is true for blurry corners that are corrected by software. You will run into problems if you want to sharpen the whole photo more. While photographers often used Photoshop to "lie" to the viewers, now the cameras use algorithms to lie to the photographer. If you can't even turn off those lens corrections in the viewfinder, that is a major problem. 

It shocks me that Canon even seems to be proud that their future lenses let their flaws get corrected by the camera. That pretty much reminds me of the autotune software in the music industry. Your voice can be horrible and you miss most of the tones, but autotune does the job for you. I am sure that with today's computer power that even works in real time. So your concert visitors will never notice that you are a horrible singer, because real time autotune hides that fact.

Those new lenses are not even cheaper than the old ones. The heavy distorted 14-35 is really expensive, but for that price Canon does not even deliver a lens that produces photos with low distortion without the help of software. If Canon continues that route, I might buy a mirrorless camera one day, but only with old EF lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Even for DSLRs corrections were possible in post processing, but there are many good reason to buy a lens that gets rid of all those optical problem with physics instead of processing.


There are also good reasons not to – more correction generally requires more complex designs with more elements, meaning greater weight and higher cost.



Skyscraperfan said:


> While photographers often used Photoshop to "lie" to the viewers, now the cameras use algorithms to lie to the photographer. If you can't even turn off those lens corrections in the viewfinder, that is a major problem.


There are also advantages to seeing the corrected version in the viewfinder. Even lenses 'corrected with physics' aren't perfect. Notably, expensive L-series EF UWA zooms have plenty of barrel distortion and vignetting. Say you frame an image with the EF 11-24/4L at 11mm carefully in a DSLR viewfinder, or in a MILC EVF with the corrections disabled. When you later correct the ~7% barrel distortion in post-processing, you find that the edges of your carefully framed shot have been eliminated, and elements that were visible in the VF are not present in the corrected image. Seeing the corrected version when composing the image can be advantageous.



Skyscraperfan said:


> It shocks me that Canon even seems to be proud that their future lenses let their flaws get corrected by the camera. ... Those new lenses are not even cheaper than the old ones.


If they can offer a lens that costs less to produce but otherwise delivers similar final images, that means more profit for them – I'm sure they are proud of that, although it doesn't benefit the consumer. However, if you factor in inflation between the release of the EF version and the RF replacement, there's not much difference and some RF lenses are actually cheaper. The additional cost is generally getting you more features – wider ultra wide lenses, longer telephoto zooms, smaller/lighter lenses, greater maximum magnification, etc. The one obvious case where the lenses are basically identical is the 24-105/4L, and for that lens the EF MkII and RF versions launched at the same price (and the RF is cheaper with inflation factored in). 

In other cases, some lenses are released at prices that are really a bargain. There's no way a 'corrected with physics' 16mm f/2.8 lens would be sold for $300.



Skyscraperfan said:


> The heavy distorted 14-35 is really expensive, but for that price Canon does not even deliver a lens that produces photos with low distortion without the help of software.


I highly doubt a 14-35mm f/4 zoom having low distortion could be designed that would weigh 540 g (the EF *16*-35/4 is ~14% _heavier_ than the RF despite being 2mm narrower), and using a 77mm front filter. It's also with noting that by 16mm, the RF 14-35 has ~5% distortion, and at the wide end the EF 16-35/4 has ~4% distortion. So you can sort of view the RF lens as giving you similar performance across the overlapping zoom range, but also giving you an extra 2mm of focal length at the wide end that needs additional corrections, but doesn't cost you anything in terms of weight or size (but does cost you more money).



Skyscraperfan said:


> If Canon continues that route, I might buy a mirrorless camera one day, but only with old EF lenses.


That's your prerogative. IMO, some of the RF lenses have significant advantages over their EF counterparts. Others, like the RF 28-70/2, have no equivalent.


----------

