gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
alundeb wrote:
Or perhaps not.
From opticallimits, formerly known as photozone:
"At 16mm it produces a strong degree of barrel distortion (3.4%)"
Take a look at the IMAGE of the actual barrel distortion on this lens (at the link I shared in my earlier post) and compare it to what you get from similar lenses. I've seen a lot of barrel/pincushion charts for wide lenses, and that one looks quite good by comparison. If you are looking for a low-distortion wide-angle zoom, you are going to have a hard time finding one that exceeds the performance of the 16-35mm f/4L IS lens at 16mm.
If your statement had been "wide angle zoom lenses tend to have more distortion than well-designed primes at 16mm" I would have gone along. But your statement was that this lens performs poorly for such a zoom at 16mm. That's clearly not the case.
alundeb wrote:
I don't understand what the problem with my post is, should anyone pick the 16-35 F4 L IS over any other wide angle zoom because it has lower distortion at 16 mm? I don't think so.
You are arguing with phantoms here. No one said you should pick the 16-35 f/4 over any other wide angle zoom for its low distortion at 16mm. You just made that one up.
The response here has been to what you actually wrote, not to something made up.
You wrote: There are reasons to pick the EF 16-35 F4 L IS, but low distortion at 16 mm is not one of them, as it is actually quite high.
The distortion of this lens is not "quite high." It is on the low end for such lenses. It is generally not even an issue. In most uses you won't even notice it all. In those situations where you might notice it — photographs with linear components close to and parallel to the frame edges — the built-in profiles in your post-processing software resolve it. (If you are primarily, say, an architectural photographer, you might prefer primes or even tilt/shift lenses, but that's a rather different issue — and not all such photographers would agree alway.)
In any case, photographers considering the EF 16-35mm f/4L Is can be assured that it is among the very best lenses of this type. There are plenty of reviews and user testimonials (including my own) that will confirm this.
- - -
Not responding to the above, and on a different topic: I'm not using an R camera at this point, but I'm following the reports on the system cameras and lenses since I may go that route at some point.
One post above brings up something I've pondered about the 14-35mm lens. Many point out accurately that it produces a lot of image distortion at 14mm. But others also suggest that its performance at 16mm is similar to that of the 16-35mm EF zooms. If so, I wonder if users would rather have Canon offer the extra 2mm (significant at these focal lengths) with the qualifier that they'll need a lot of post-processing correction... or offer a lens no wider than 16mm? I'm inclined to think that a lens that offers excellent performance in the 16-35mm range with usable but lower performance in the 14-15mm range is more useful that a lens that offers nothing wider than 16mm.
Dan
|
