SIGMA 16mm f/1.4 and 23mm f/1.4 DC DN Shipping January 23rd

[koenkooi]

Slightly off-topic conjecture: Canon abandoned the EF-M system because they wanted to stop actively supporting the EOS software architecture and to standardize on the RF architecture.

Use an M50 and R side by side, the software and behaviour is pretty much identical I suspect Canon made a decision to only have a single mirrorless platform a long time ago and then used the M line to fine tune the experience for the RF line. Which is in line with your point, but slightly more cynical.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I don't want to disparage Mr. Frost, but in general I am always suspicious of selected reviewers who have access BEFORE delivery release.

He generally does not.
Gordon Laing generally does but he usually has a follow-up review.
They should call pre-release "reviews" previews.
They still are not real-life reviews though.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Correct. But if you want to sell your lens to owners of cameras that do not support in-camera correction

They all generally do.
Well, not cinema cameras.
The safest thing to do is buy SLR lenses.

 

[Oren Grad]

But if you want to sell your lens to owners of cameras that do not support in-camera correction then you need to provide a good image without the software correction happening - or at least I'd argue that it would be necessary.

Can you identify any mirrorless camera in a currently-offered lens mount that does not support in-camera correction? Pentax aside, can you identify any camera manufacturer or major independent lens manufacturer that has any plans to introduce newly-designed lenses for SLR lens mounts?

 

[David_B]

Can you identify any mirrorless camera in a currently-offered lens mount that does not support in-camera correction?

This made me dig a bit deeper. I've seen at least two approaches rfor raw fikes:
1) apply the lens correction information from the lens to the raw image before it is saved onto media (Canon RF)
2) include lens correction information in the raw file and leave it to software to apply (Sony, Nikon Z)

I haven't checked to see what Fuji and the others do. For JPEG images, I'd always assume correction happens as part of the cooking.

Does that answer your question?

 

[David_B]

That's a false dilemma, since we've have the ability to correct issues in post for ages, be it with enlarger lenses in the dark room or lens profiles in Lightroom. Also, in your false dilemma you're using loaded language, 'crimp', so I strongly suspect you're not after a good faith discussion on this topic.

To go back to darkroom techniques, the negative is uncorrected and contains all of the faults in the original capture - lens manufacturers had nowhere to hide their shortcuts. With in-camera corrections happening to raw files we're left without the means to empirically test the lens ourselves. The camera is now lying to us when it says "here, I saved a raw image for you.".

 

[Oren Grad]

This made me dig a bit deeper. I've seen at least two approaches rfor raw fikes:
1) apply the lens correction information from the lens to the raw image before it is saved onto media (Canon RF)
2) include lens correction information in the raw file and leave it to software to apply (Sony, Nikon Z)

I haven't checked to see what Fuji and the others do. For JPEG images, I'd always assume correction happens as part of the cooking.

Does that answer your question?

I have nothing more to add. Cheers!

 

[koenkooi]

This made me dig a bit deeper. I've seen at least two approaches rfor raw fikes:
1) apply the lens correction information from the lens to the raw image before it is saved onto media (Canon RF)[…]

But that’s not the case, the CR3 files have uncorrected image data, which you can easily see in e.g. Lightroom or DxO PL/PR when toggling the corrections button.

If you want a more scientific view, use something like RAWdigger, that also lets you view the calibration areas that other programs tend to hide.

Anyway, for lenses like the Canon RF16 and 14-35L, both LR and DxO allow a wider corrected view than Canon does for SooC JPEGs or DPP4 exported TIFFs. How is that possible if the RAWs are pre-corrected?

 

[neuroanatomist]

This made me dig a bit deeper. I've seen at least two approaches rfor raw fikes:
1) apply the lens correction information from the lens to the raw image before it is saved onto media (Canon RF)

With in-camera corrections happening to raw files we're left without the means to empirically test the lens ourselves. The camera is now lying to us when it says "here, I saved a raw image for you.".

You didn’t dig deep enough, obviously, if you think Canon applies the corrections to the RAW images before writing them.

Or maybe Canon does apply the corrections to the RAW files from RF lenses, except that they're as effective at doing so as you are at explaining things and that's why the corners of RAW images from the RF 24-105/2.8L Z are black:


No, you're just wrong. Again. Gee, that didn't take long. As I said, if you choose to keep saying foolish things, you're going to keep looking like a fool. Well…at least you’re good at something!

 

[Maximilian]

It would take a lot of effort by Sigma (or any other manufacturer) to deliver a better than average quality piece of equipment to a reviewer. That's not the problem.

I have a different opinion here.
I come from the industry, although not from optical production.
And when you have a production start-up and build pre-series models, the quantity is not yet so high. But you often have 100% quality control to check the ramp-up of the production line(s).
So, in my opinion, selecting particularly good optics is not rocket science and wouldn't take a lot of effort for Sigma.

The problem for the public is do manufacturers want to go to the effort of supplying parts in advance if there's no commercial benefit in doing so.

I don't get your argument here.
It's obvious that good reviews will increase sales. So the commercial benefit is plain to see.

 

[AJ]

if you want to sell your lens to owners of cameras that do not support in-camera correction then you need to provide a good image without the software correction happening

Who does not support the in-camera corrections? Is it the owners or their cameras?

If it's the cameras, then the answer is to upgrade to the RF system, or else stick with EF gear.

If it's the owners then they should give their heads a shake. RF is a digital system. The days of looking directly through your lens are gone.

Suppose you are a lens designer for Canon. In the modelling software you can optimize for sharpness (can't be corrected digitally), aberrations (can be corrected to some extent) or distortion (easily corrected). You can optimize for all, but that (a) means you get a big, heavy, expensive lens that nobody will buy, or (b) won't allow innovative lenses like 14-35/4 with a flat front element, or 24-105/2.8.

Think of distortion correction like this: you check a box in your processing software, and the right data gets mapped to the right place. There is no sharpness penalty. The corners of my 14-35/4 are exceedingly sharp. I just don't get why people object to this. Did people have similar objections to demosaicing when digital cameras first came out?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I just don't get why people object to this.

Me, neither.

Did people have similar objections to demosaicing when digital cameras first came out?

Oh yes, I remember when film was ‘pure’ and all that new digital stuff was just electronic trickery.

 

[David_B]

Suppose you are a lens designer for Canon. In the modelling software you can optimize for sharpness (can't be corrected digitally), aberrations (can be corrected to some extent) or distortion (easily corrected). You can optimize for all, but that (a) means you get a big, heavy, expensive lens that nobody will buy, or (b) won't allow innovative lenses like 14-35/4 with a flat front element, or 24-105/2.8.

The only lens designer for Canon is Canon. Lens designers such as Tamron, Sigma, etc, aren't a lens designer for Canon in the same way that (for example) Tamron has been for Nikon. The 3rd party lens manufacturers have to generalise their optical solutions.

 

[David_B]

I have a different opinion here.
I come from the industry, although not from optical production.
And when you have a production start-up and build pre-series models, the quantity is not yet so high. But you often have 100% quality control to check the ramp-up of the production line(s).

I've seen the argument I presented used, interesting to read your perspective.

Summary is that to be on the safe side, reviews using products that aren't sourced from retail shouldn't be trusted.

 

[David_B]

You didn’t dig deep enough, obviously, if you think Canon applies the corrections to the RAW images before writing them.

Well Canon says that they do in-camera lens corrections, fool me for believing what Canon put on their website.

Or maybe Canon does apply the corrections to the RAW files from RF lenses, except that they're as effective at doing so as you are at explaining things and that's why the corners of RAW images from the RF 24-105/2.8L Z are black:

Wow, that's just horrible. And I mean that in the worst possible way. How much is Canon charging for that lens?

No, you're just wrong. Again.

I'm wrong for believing Canon's marketing? Ok.

 

[David_B]

But that’s not the case, the CR3 files have uncorrected image data, which you can easily see in e.g. Lightroom or DxO PL/PR when toggling the corrections button.

Canon's marketing:

In-camera Lens Correction

Learn about in-camera lens corrections. Discover how they adjust the images that you shoot and maximise lens performance.

www.canon-europe.com

the increased processing power of cameras has made it possible to carry out corrections in-camera as the images are captured if you're shooting JPEGs or during RAW processing in-camera if you're shooting RAW. You simply switch each correction on in the camera's Lens aberration correction menu.

Ah the lovely fine print. Thus the camera can do it if you enable, which I suppose can mean that we're both right - if Canon is being honest.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well Canon says that they do in-camera lens corrections, fool me for believing what Canon put on their website.
I'm wrong for believing Canon's marketing? Ok.

No, you're wrong because you're wrong. I don't know if that's because you lack the ability to comprehend what you read or for some other intellectual deficit.

Please provide a link to where Canon states that they apply lens corrections to the RAW files before they are saved. Not to JPG files. Not to RAW files converted in-camera and saved as JPG or HEIF, but to the RAW files. Until then, you will continue to look like an idiot.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon's marketing:

Ah the lovely fine print. Thus the camera can do it if you enable, which I suppose can mean that we're both right - if Canon is being honest.

No, you are still just wrong. Evidently, you can't comprehend what you read, thanks for confirming that. RAW processing is not the same as saving a RAW file. RAW processing is converting the image to JPG or HEIF, which can be done in-camera. It is not:

...in-camera corrections happening to raw files

So you are still just plain wrong. In spite of your pathetic attempts to excuse your incorrect statements.

 

[koenkooi]

Canon's marketing:

In-camera Lens Correction

Learn about in-camera lens corrections. Discover how they adjust the images that you shoot and maximise lens performance.

www.canon-europe.com

the increased processing power of cameras has made it possible to carry out corrections in-camera as the images are captured if you're shooting JPEGs or during RAW processing in-camera if you're shooting RAW. You simply switch each correction on in the camera's Lens aberration correction menu.

Ah the lovely fine print. Thus the camera can do it if you enable, which I suppose can mean that we're both right - if Canon is being honest.

That is about this: https://cam.start.canon/en/C017/manual/html/UG-05_Playback_0170.html

It is not about any processing before saving RAW files, it is for processing already saved RAW files. Since the previous sentence is still ambiguous, Canon directly states:

RAW images are not affected

So RAW files get uncorrected data and the ‘RAW processing’ doesn’t alter the files.

 

[David_B]

That is about this: https://cam.start.canon/en/C017/manual/html/UG-05_Playback_0170.html

It is not about any processing before saving RAW files, it is for processing already saved RAW files. Since the previous sentence is still ambiguous, Canon directly states:

So RAW files get uncorrected data and the ‘RAW processing’ doesn’t alter the files.

That's really disingeous because various other web pages and marketing blurb (including the one I linked to) give the impression they do. Other Canon marketing material I've come across doesn't even include any qualification. Part of it includes how do you define "raw processing", since all images need some amount of processing before being saved.