rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
jcolwell wrote:
Also, if one lens is corrected for distortion before it is evaluated as, say 16mm, then it could be apparently much wider than a 17mm lens that's evaluated as 17mm, before its distortion is corrected. IOW, if you want an image of this example 17mm with little distortion, the 'fix' will cost some effective focal length.
snegron7 wrote:
Very valid point! I'm thinking both lenses would probably rely heavily on software distortion corrections, so they probably wouldn't be either a true 16mm or 17mm. Lenses that need little to no software correction are usually super expensive because of their optical construction.
One benefit of this is if you have scenarios where the uncorrected distortion is not obvious, can be minimized through composition, etc, you will have an even wider field of view, with likely better sharpness, than when distortion corrected. This is kind of the situation with the RF 16/2.8, which relies a lot on software distortion correction. It's definitely noticeably wider without software correction, but I haven't yet had a close look comparing peripheral image sharpness with/without correction.
|
For me at least, UWA has become increasingly a niche focal length that is nice to have but not used all that often, therefore I wouldn't want to lug around a lens that might only be used for <5% of images. But a much more compact, slower lens that maybe stacks under another lens in a slot in the bag will see that use because I'll bring it more often. For example I bring the Canon RF 16/2.8 much more often than I do my EF 16-35/4 even though the 16/2.8 is not as strong optically in the image periphery.