p.1 #1 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Posting this on both Canon and Sony subforums, as I own cameras and lenses in both systems (R6II, A7c, A7iv).
Serious, non-troll baiting question; why bother shooting in RAW if you are using low end, consumer oriented, Non "L" or "GM" lenses? I currently have the following lenses for the above-mentioned cameras I own:
- Tamron 17-28mm f2.8
- Tamron 20-40mm f2.8
- Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6
(I used to own several other lenses for Sony FE mount but sold them all the first time I sold off all my Sony-related equipment. Several months later I repurchased an A7c and decided to buy just the lenses I used the most which are the Tamrons I listed above).
Lower end lenses like the ones that I own, rely heavily on in-camera computational corrections. When shooting RAW, you see the "true" image recorded with these lenses. The distortion, vignetting, and lack of contrast is extremely visible in the RAW images with these lensed. After spending a bunch of time on PS "correcting" the RAW images, I end up with what the camera JPEG looked like had I shot in JPEG to begin with. Serious question: why waste time shooting in RAW when I'm going to spend hours in PS correcting lens flaws? The only lens I get decent RAW images that hardly need any corrections on my part is with the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8.
Before I get the usual troll (we all know who he is) saying "you need to shoot with better lenses" or "you need to learn how to take pictures", "you're always complaining", etc., understand two things:
1. This post was meant for folks who can contribute opinions on why shooting RAW is still a good idea even though manually correcting lens issues is time consuming and yields results similar to sooc jpegs.
2. If you are that troll, move along, don't participate in this thread. No one likes you anyway.
p.1 #2 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
That’s why lens profile corrections exist. In LR as well as various other processing software, these are often applied automatically.
With regard to your question, there’s absolutely every reason to still shoot raw, as this allows maximum latitude for general image adjustment. Generally speaking, lens profile corrections are fixing vignette and distortion. This doesn’t take away from the need for more data to manipulate for the purposes of grading, curve manipulation, etc.
Feb 04, 2026 at 11:51 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #3 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Seriously? Wow.
Are you seeing a big difference between for instance 50/1.8 stopped down and more expensive lenses? Do you think it would be sharper if it cost more? Inexpensive design not poor performance
A couple reasons include the ability to use DLO (lens corrections) in DPP, wwhich, honestly, even expensive lenses require corrections, and the fact that pretty much every body I've ever tested is sharper in raw. Of course you can edit much more in raw besides just sharpness
p.1 #4 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
What John said: automatic corrections in Lightroom, so no extra time at all. Plus, more data for color and brightness adjustments. Price of the lens doesn't matter.
p.1 #5 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
That’s why lens profile corrections exist. In LR as well as various other processing software, these are often applied automatically.
With regard to your question, there’s absolutely every reason to still shoot raw, as this allows maximum latitude for general image adjustment. Generally speaking, lens profile corrections are fixing vignette and distortion. This doesn’t take away from the need for more data to manipulate for the purposes of grading, curve manipulation, etc.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any lens peofiles in ACR for my Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM. Not sure if it's because it's a relatively newer lens, but overall it's the lens that needs the most corrections.
p.1 #6 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
I always assumed LR applied the corrections whether the file is JPG or RAW. Am I wrong?
As the other John said, there are a ton of other stuff you can change in a RAW file that you can't in a JPG file. Then again, I always come from the other side: why would you ever shoot only JPG?
Feb 04, 2026 at 12:07 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #7 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any lens peofiles in ACR for my Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM. Not sure if it's because it's a relatively newer lens, but overall it's the lens that needs the most corrections.
Youre going to need it much of the time on on 20-70 Sony having 9% distortion, too. 14-35 Canon has odd distortion over at least the wide end
DPR used 85/1.8 , stopped down, for its image comparison tool. So I'd assume its a very sharp lens. Of course 1.8 costs less than 1.2, doesn't make it poor quality
From what I have seen, 300/4 non IS right there, as far as performance vs 300 2.8. Raw performs the same function on both lenses. Common misconception on here equating price to performance.
p.1 #8 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
AmbientMike wrote:
Seriously? Wow.
Are you seeing a big difference between for instance 50/1.8 stopped down and more expensive lenses? Do you think it would be sharper if it cost more? Inexpensive design not poor performance
A couple reasons include the ability to use DLO (lens corrections) in DPP, wwhich, honestly, even expensive lenses require corrections, and the fact that pretty much every body I've ever tested is sharper in raw. Of course you can edit much more in raw besides just sharpness
I've had the exact opposite experiences. In my personal experience, if the lens has good glass to begin with, it will need less correcting in post processing. Price has nothing to do with "cheap" in my vocabulary. For example, a couple of years ago I purchased an inexpensive Viltrox AF 16mm f1.8 for my Sony A7c. RAW images were decent needing hardly any corrections. My guess is that they used good glass on that particular lens. Unfortunately (nothing to do with this thread at all) I returned that lens because it wasn't communicating well with my A7c at the time (it actually locked up/froze my A7c a few times).
Also, notice how I currently only own 3 "L" series lenses. The majority of my current lenses are consumer-grade lenses. I also pointed out how my Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 displays near excellent images (very little distortion or vignetting) in RAW.
I have run side by side tests with my equipment in both RAW and JPEG. The RAW images I get need a ton of correcting in both systems.
p.s. I wish I could provide a link to my RAW files, but I've tried that in the past and they don't work.
p.1 #9 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
AmbientMike wrote:
Youre going to need it much of the time on on 20-70 Sony having 9% distortion, too. 14-35 Canon has odd distortion over at least the wide end
DPR used 85/1.8 , stopped down, for its image comparison tool. So I'd assume its a very sharp lens. Of course 1.8 costs less than 1.2, doesn't make it poor quality
From what I have seen, 300/4 non IS right there, as far as performance vs 300 2.8. Raw performs the same function on both lenses. Common misconception on here equating price to performance.
Agreed, the wide end on my Canon RF lenses is where I'm seeing the most distortion. Probably the basis to my reason for posting this thread! It is really frustrating, especially coming back from a vacation having shot 95% of my 2000+ images with the RF 16-28mm f2.8, and now having to deal with heavily distorted images. Not that I'm giving up on Canon, but I am giving up on that RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM though.
p.1 #10 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
If you are happy with the same old jpeg look image after image…then shoot jpeg. But if you want to develop your own style and view and break away from the jpeg herd, then get proficient with post processing. Really has little to do with lens correction as that could be instant with both jpeg and raw files.
p.1 #11 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any lens peofiles in ACR for my Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM. Not sure if it's because it's a relatively newer lens, but overall it's the lens that needs the most corrections.
How old is your software? I use Lightroom Classic (subscription) and automatically apply profile corrections on import. I don't have the RF 16-28, but do have an RF 24-105 STM and 24-240, and never see uncorrected images unless I want to.
Feb 04, 2026 at 12:37 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #12 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
Agreed, the wide end on my Canon RF lenses is where I'm seeing the most distortion. Probably the basis to my reason for posting this thread! It is really frustrating, especially coming back from a vacation having shot 95% of my 2000+ images with the RF 16-28mm f2.8, and now having to deal with heavily distorted images. Not that I'm giving up on Canon, but I am giving up on that RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM though.
That's what everyone is doing these days. Sony 20-70 & 16-35/4 about 9% at the wide end. I complained about inexpensive Canon 24-105 RF, a lot , 6% distortion isnt so bad anymore. Even my DSLR 18-55 can be used no corrections, moreso.
DSLR lenses have less distortion in general, I'll correct 3-4% at times but I mean it's better than 9%. Of course I use DPP it has DLO so its not really extra work
p.1 #13 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Things like dynamic range, color correction, sharpness and noise correction can be handled much better with raw, regardless if the lens is "cheap" or "inferior." Try correcting tungsten lighting, ISO 6400 NR applied in camera, or hot highlights on a JPG.
p.1 #14 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any lens peofiles in ACR for my Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM. Not sure if it's because it's a relatively newer lens, but overall it's the lens that needs the most corrections.
A Google search indicates that Adobe Lightroom and Camera Raw added support for the Canon RF 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM lens in the February 2025 update.
p.1 #15 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Mike_5D wrote:
How old is your software? I use Lightroom Classic (subscription) and automatically apply profile corrections on import. I don't have the RF 16-28, but do have an RF 24-105 STM and 24-240, and never see uncorrected images unless I want to.
I'm currently using Adobe Photoshop (subscription), so I don't think it's a software issue. I really haven't seen any profiles for the RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM when I open my images in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). I'm guessing Adobe forgot to add profile for this lens.
p.1 #16 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Raw lets you do much more aggressive color adjustment and sharpening. So you may be able to overcome some optical shortcomings of less sophisticated lenses with post-processing. Distortion and white balance correction are more destructive to jpeg than raw.
Raw is your digital negative. Future IP issues can be quickly settled by your possession of a raw file. If you only have a jpeg and shared that, you've effectively given away your original. Of course it is more legally complicated. But if you're the only one with the raw, you're in a much stronger position fighting someone who misappropriates your image.
p.1 #17 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Supposedly ACR 17.2 and later does support the 16-28/2.8 STM. IMO, Adobe has been very good about adding support for lenses, though it does take a bit sometimes, especially for 3rd-party glass.
FWIW, I quit shooting JPEG in 2003... I ran a test, shooting RAW for a month or so, and swore I would never go back. There is absolutely no comparison between the 8-bit depth of JPEG and the 14-bit depth of most RAW images. Even if you are doing minimal processing, the differences can be dramatic. I'm having bad flashbacks to dealing with banding in blue skies, .
p.1 #18 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
jeffbuzz wrote:
Raw lets you do much more aggressive color adjustment and sharpening. So you may be able to overcome some optical shortcomings of less sophisticated lenses with post-processing. Distortion and white balance correction are more destructive to jpeg than raw.
Software improves over time so older images can be reprocessed, but often only if you have the raw image. Things like AI denoise in Lightroom only works on raw files.
p.1 #19 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
kirbic wrote:
Supposedly ACR 17.2 and later does support the 16-28/2.8 STM. IMO, Adobe has been very good about adding support for lenses, though it does take a bit sometimes, especially for 3rd-party glass.
FWIW, I quit shooting JPEG in 2003... I ran a test, shooting RAW for a month or so, and swore I would never go back. There is absolutely no comparison between the 8-bit depth of JPEG and the 14-bit depth of most RAW images. Even if you are doing minimal processing, the differences can be dramatic. I'm having bad flashbacks to dealing with banding in blue skies, .
When I got into photography in about 2008, I went over the raw vs jpg debate. The big advantage of jpg was that the images are ready to go SOOC. But I quickly found that I wanted to run everything through Lightroom for both organization and adjustment purposed. Few images came SOOC exactly as I wanted them. Even something as simple as adding 1/3 stop exposure and leveling the horizon by 0.5 degrees meant using LR. So I figured if everything was going through LR anyway, I may as well shoot RAW, have the maximum data, and as much future-proofing as possible.
Feb 04, 2026 at 01:36 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #20 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
Agreed, the wide end on my Canon RF lenses is where I'm seeing the most distortion. Probably the basis to my reason for posting this thread! It is really frustrating, especially coming back from a vacation having shot 95% of my 2000+ images with the RF 16-28mm f2.8, and now having to deal with heavily distorted images. Not that I'm giving up on Canon, but I am giving up on that RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM though.
One thing you can do is use in camera corrections. Your camera should have distortion correction and DPP sees in camera settings on raw images. Much better starting point imo and a major reason I use it.
.