p.1 #1 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
Just as the subject states. I wanted to get a feel for members around these parts and their preferences with regard to whether they'd prefer an optically superior lens at the cost of added size and weight; or instead, prefer a smaller and lighter lens that requires a heavy-handed profile correction either in camera or in post.
Bonus points for expounding on perspective.
As a side note, if anyone can help me with cross-posting this to the other brand forums, I'd greatly appreciate it, as I'm interested to hear from all the shooters around these parts. Thanks in advance.
p.1 #2 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
Over time I have replaced all my lenses with smaller and lighter alternatives with slightly more SW corrections and have no regrets.
I enjoy photography more, it's easier, less distracting to other people, I can easily take the necessary gear with me (I used to think more about what was really needed).
p.1 #3 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
Sony seems to have taken the route of making even the best GM lenses reasonable small with the help of using software lens profiles to deal with distortion and vignetting. I think this is the clever route in the era of digital photography.
p.1 #4 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
It really depends, if a lens is "larger and heavier", to what extent is it larger and heavier, and to what extent is the lens optically better.
From the 35/2 dg dn to the 35GM its 150g more.
But on the other hand from the 100-400GM to the 400GM we are talking 1675g more.
High IQ also leads to images that stand up better when cropped. Maybe one would carry 2 higher IQ primes (24 + 50) and get similar results using apsc mode as compared to using 4 smaller primes (24, 35, 50, 85).
There are also other non-IQ factors, for example the usability of the lens. A lens which focuses faster and closer is more usable. This could be worth carrying more weight.
p.1 #5 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
I think there's a place for both - it takes a lot of lenses for things to feel "crowded". I think Sony might be getting there for instance with mid zooms, for instance. The 24-70 f/2.8 is no compromises, the 20-70 is smart compromises for travel and landscape, the 24-50 is for f/2.8 needs I guess (TBH I don't get this lens), and this leaves room for something innovative like an f/2 lens, expanded range f/2.8, etc.
It's also a question about what compromises are made. Vignetting of a stop or 1.5 stops is no big deal these days. The 20-70's distortion on the wide end is about as extreme as is acceptable, and only works because the rest of the lens is so good. Outright softness, bad CA, or an unmanageably slow aperture are total disqualifiers IMO.
p.1 #6 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
Are you sure these choices are the opposite of each other? Let's imagine a lens that can be designed to be super well corrected regarding LoCa and LaCa, like APO, if we just accept some distortion there and use software to correct that. But if we design that same lens optically distortion free, we cannot get the same super well corrected APO performance.
See, what I'm saying? It's no point to set the stage so that optical correction and software correction are in the opposite of each other. I know that the software correction feels a bit like 'cheating', but in the end isn't the same with the optical corrections; one is *correcting* the bad optical performance by stacking different glass elements there and hiding the flaws that were there before. You only get perfect transmission of light by not touching it all with either optical lenses or software.
So, I perfectly understand your desire trying to find out if people prefer either option a or b, but it might be that the 'stage of options' is setup incorrectly and therefore creates false data of people's preferences - it's kind of already coming clear from the replies you are getting; it's not so black and white. I concur that it would surely be interesting to know if there are distinct design choices which correlate with photographers preferences. I just think the design choices, what is good/bad, is very intertwined with so different kind of product concepts (target audience, purpose, price, etc.) that it's impossible to draw any major conclusions.
p.1 #7 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
I voted "optically inferior". I could as well have voted for the third option as I don't mind if there are heavier, more expensive and different lenses available.
The sharpest lens (= highest resolving power and highest contrast) I ever tried on a camera is a Philips thing made for industrial use. Extensive distortion though. One lens, best described as somewhat soft, I tried was very well corrected, big for its focal length and heavy.
There are pros and cons to the different design ideas. I like the new designs making for smaller lenses and nice images in combination with the correct processing.
p.1 #8 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
Kalainen wrote:
Are you sure these choices are the opposite of each other? Let's imagine a lens that can be designed to be super well corrected regarding LoCa and LaCa, like APO, if we just accept some distortion there and use software to correct that. But if we design that same lens optically distortion free, we cannot get the same super well corrected APO performance.
See, what I'm saying? It's no point to set the stage so that optical correction and software correction are in the opposite of each other. I know that the software correction feels a bit like 'cheating', but in the end isn't the same with the optical corrections; one is *correcting* the bad optical performance by stacking different glass elements there and hiding the flaws that were there before. You only get perfect transmission of light by not touching it all with either optical lenses or software.
So, I perfectly understand your desire trying to find out if people prefer either option a or b, but it might be that the 'stage of options' is setup incorrectly and therefore creates false data of people's preferences - it's kind of already coming clear from the replies you are getting; it's not so black and white. I concur that it would surely be interesting to know if there are distinct design choices which correlate with photographers preferences. I just think the design choices, what is good/bad, is very intertwined with so different kind of product concepts (target audience, purpose, price, etc.) that it's impossible to draw any major conclusions. ...Show more →
Extending this excellent point further, a well-corrected lens may not be able to perform as well optically as a less-corrected lens in terms of MTF either, which means net of correction the less-corrected lens may outperform the well-corrected version.
p.1 #11 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
I would have voted for "optically superior lenses incorporating software corrections as part of their design" since that's predominantly what I use now.
Aug 19, 2024 at 11:47 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
I think designing a lens without software based corrections would always be ideal as software based corrections always have some cost even when it isn't obvious or often even noticeable. That said some corrections are relatively simple--like corrections for distortion and lateral CA--and the costs are so minor that given that all lens design for real lenses (as opposed to an ideal) involve trading off compromises it makes sense to plan some software correction into the design. That is especially true when you consider size as an important factor as software corrections do let lenses be smaller.
Personally, I have some lenses with almost no software correction baked in like the Zeiss ZE 25 f/2 and the Zeiss ZE 100 f/2 and I love those lenses, but I also have some with quite a bit of software correction and I am glad to have both options available. Sometimes I don't care about size and I am willing to have a bigger lens that aren't corrected by software much if at all. Other times I am happy to have a smaller lens that has been corrected by software quite a bit.
p.1 #13 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
I said both, because I believe there is a market for both. Had there not been a "both" option (I would have picked corrections optically.)
Realistically though, I think both.
Neither is perfect. There are always tradeoffs. It all comes down to assessing the tradeoffs taken on a specific lens, and deciding whether those tradeoffs work well for you. They may well work well for you, but not someone else....or vice versa.
tsdevine wrote:
I think there should be both, as there is a lot of hypotheticality (yes, I made up this word) to this discussion.
p.1 #14 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
I think it’s the results that matter most, not how you get there. Yes, there are trade-offs with digital corrections, but there are also trade-offs (in IQ) with optical corrections. The difference is we can turn the digital corrections off and on, allowing us to see exactly what the difference is. You can’t switch a lens formula around to see it. Talking about us, consumers, of course. The designers can test it both ways. In general, lenses keep getting better. I think that’s because the designers are making good choices.
p.1 #15 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
I think one should pick the lens, not the technology. Software & computational photography are powerful design tools, just as are exotic glasses and manufacturing techniques. Both combined can probably do the most for image-making. But there is no a priori, just the actual lens and its qualities. Pick what you want to use.
p.1 #16 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
Software correction is inherently limited, because it needs to change with focal distance. Particularly at close distances, most software fails to yield a natural looking image. For that matter, non-macro lenses are seldom optimized for shooting at or close to MFD.
p.1 #17 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
I prefer both being available to the market. Some lenses I buy for IQ some lenses I buy for practicality.
Technically lenses that use software corrections as part of the design don't necessarily have to have worse IQ. The argument can be made that by using software correction as part of the design, lens designers can optimize lenses to reduce aberrations in lens that are harder to correct in software. For example, allow a lens to have more vignetting, but less LoCA.
A real world issue I have ran into tough is wide fast lenses that have too much vignetting for astrophotography, at least for my liking. As good as modern sensors have gotten, If you have a lens that has 3+ stops of vignetting wide open in the corners, that only leaves you about 1-2 stops for adjusting your overall image.
p.1 #19 · Optical superiority vs Lens Profile Corrections
chiron wrote:
I think one should pick the lens, not the technology. Software & computational photography are powerful design tools, just as are exotic glasses and manufacturing techniques. Both combined can probably do the most for image-making. But there is no a priori, just the actual lens and its qualities. Pick what you want to use.
100% agree. Way too many people buy lenses based on their reputation rather than need. How many dove into the 135GM hysteria only to figure out the focal length is challenging.
