The lens was designed to be used with software correction. I don’t understand why people find this so objectionable. You take the lens as it is, it’s not like the correction is to fix a bad lens. The software correction should be considered in the same way as adding an element or two, or an aspherical element, or as part of the lens’ configuration from the get go.
Robin Smith wrote:
The lens was designed to be used with software correction. I don’t understand why people find this so objectionable. You take the lens as it is, it’s not like the correction is to fix a bad lens. The software correction should be considered in the same way as adding an element or two, or an aspherical element, or as part of the lens’ configuration from the get go.
Agree fully. My 10-20, 14-35 and 24-240 are also heavily software corrected and they outperform their EF equivalent regardless. Along the same lines, love my RF16, it fits in your pocket when you're walking around with a 24-70 and may need the occasional wide. My daughter loves it along with her 24-240.
The RF16 was the 2nd lens I got for my RP after the RF50/1.8.
I think it’s great, however I’m way more excited about using it on a R10 which would be FF equivalent to 25mm …. I love 24mm
My reasoning is the the small R10 coupled with the small light RF 16 plus a few other small RF lenses (28, 50 and 85) will make an amazing everyday light use set up.
I'm not negative on the rf 16 as much lately, higher priced Sony zooms have 8-9% distortion compared to ~10% on the 16/2.8. Everyone is doing computational imaging anymore although I'm not a fan of it
I'd be curious about the FL on aps, if it's 13mm cropped to aps, 21mm ff equivalent, might be interesting.
