I’m wondering how that may be authorized.
What’s going to occur if you don’t use DPP, however Lightroom as a substitute? Will the distortion be seen or will Canon produce a faux RAW to cover the distortion?
1) As a result of they do not declare it’s corrected optically. If Canon wrote “this lens is corrected for distortion optically and doesn’t depend on software program correction” then sure, this is able to be unlawful; that is the very definition of false promoting. However they do not say that. All they are saying of their promoting is that it has “wonderful optical efficiency”. Since they do not specify distortion, simply optics generally, they’re technically above-board.
If somebody needed to construct a case with buying and selling requirements towards Canon’s promoting, they’d be higher off going after the 85mm f/2 IS (which Canon nonetheless claims is each “compact” and has “quiet” AF, which anybody who’s a lot as glanced at it is aware of are two utterly faulty claims). Even then, that is extra indiciative of a wider business drawback than something particular to Canon. Each producer must form up. (If you happen to suppose Canon’s promoting is deceptive, go take a look at Fujifilm, oh boy.)
2) Lightroom’s adherence to Canon’s opcodes is fairly random. With some lens and physique mixtures Lightroom will comply with Canon’s changes, and with different combos Lightroom does solely its personal factor. Seize Yet one more persistently follows Canon’s opcodes, although nonetheless not each time as Bryan has demonstrated together with his explicit lens. If you wish to have all of the corrections, utilizing a producer’s personal software program is all the time essentially the most correct answer, although it’s totally uncommon for Lightroom to not recieve a 99.9% correct profile inside a few weeks of a lens being on retailer cabinets. DxO’s Pure Uncooked can be excellent for correction distortion and significantly better than DPP for cleansing up noise on the similar time, although it does lead to recordsdata twice as massive and it is probably not price shopping for except you are dead-set on having essentially the most completely 100% perfectly-corrected recordsdata doable. Uncooked Therapee is the very best software program for completely bypassing any opcodes and seeing the uncooked file as ‘uncooked’ as doable.
By the way in which, each uncooked is a “faux uncooked”. The R5 has opcodes for noise discount and publicity boosting, hiding the actual fact its actual sensitivity is far decrease than it states. Sony raws have opcodes for sharpening and saturation boosts. Fuji raws have opcodes for rattling nicely every thing and something you’ll be able to identify, however most notably extraordinarily robust chromatic noise discount. Nikon raws have opcodes for distortion, noise and sharpening, although usually (varies by digicam mannequin) to a lesser extent than Sony’s sharpening or Fuji’s and Canon’s noise discount. I’ve not pulled aside uncooked recordsdata type Panasonic or Olympus in a great whereas however I am prepared to guess their recordsdata are stuffed with opcodes for every kind of hidden changes, too. There’s not truly any such factor as a truely “uncooked” file. Any uncooked file you take a look at has been by means of some type of processing, which on the naked minimal features a subjective analysis of color and distinction simply with a view to flip all of the 1s and 0s into an image you’ll be able to truly see. Uncooked Therapee can present you a file with out demosiacing and opcodes, however then you definately simply get a pixelated mess which you actually cannot use.
This does nonetheless take the piss fairly a bit contemplating how way more costly that is than the EF equal. They’re charging £1750 for this, whereas the EF f/4L IS is £999 (and naturally a lot much less used) and third-party equivalents are cheaper once more. Granted, this 14-35 is the (fractionally) smaller than the EF and offers you an additional 2mm, however I’ve by no means been in a scenario the place 16mm wasn’t already too broad and it isn’t just like the EF lens was ever prohibitively massive or heavy. (And there is the Tamron f/2.8-4 which is even smaller and lighter than the RF lens, granted with 3mm much less on the widest finish.)
For this lens to justify costing 80% extra it needed to actually ship, and this does not appear to, no matter whether or not it is counting on software program or not. I am not seeing any further resolving energy right here and Bryan’s testing demonstrates extra fringing than the EF lens even with all of the corrections, barely extra vignetting, extra flare wash-out, and extra distortion… nah, that is not a £1750 lens. I do not care that it is 100g lighter and 1cm shorter, nor do I care that it brings with it an additional 2mm. (Although these outcomes I am betting it isn’t a full 14mm, no less than not after such heavy correction.) These components I might pay, at most, £150-200 extra for, given the tip outcomes are about the identical high quality. £750 further is a nasty, dangerous joke.
Purchase the EF (or the Tamron), and spend the saved cash on a visit someplace you will truly get use out of the lens, or get some very nice ND filters, or simply pocket it and put it aside for the subsequent lens. No one must be paying £1750 for this and I really feel very sorry for the poor saps who blindly pre-ordered. Hopefully folks will be taught, cease pre-ordering lenses, and pressure producers to truly ship some actual worth. These are £999 leads to a £1750 shell… simply do not do it. Do not. That is foolish.
A lot for mirrorless offering higher optimisation for wide-angle lenses. It is weird and considerably ironic that its been telephoto which has benefitted most because the transfer to mirrorless, though telephoto formulation do not truly profit from the shorter flange distance.