p.3 #3 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
If you are happy with the JPEGs there is nothing wrong with that. I usually do Raw + JPEG. I have the JPEG files for quick use and the Raw files for editing. I couldn't picture setting my camera to jpeg only, though. I find white balance adjustment alone is a good enough reason to have Raw files. Then if you do more than basic edeting JPEG files start to fall apart quickly due to the compression artifacts and limited bit depth. For example, having banding apear in the sky. It really doesn't matter what lens you use for white balance and banding to be an issue. If anything, I find my self pusing the files from "cheaper" lenses more to try and make up for the optics a bit.
Also, LR usually has profiles for lenses that get you most of the way there, so I definitely don't find my self spening hours trying to correct for lens flaws such as distortion and vignetting.
BTW I put cheaper in quotes because the flaws that are often in cheaper mainstream lenses from companies like Sony, Canon, and Tamron, are not purely to save cost, but to make trade offs such as lens size and weight. It just so happens to work out that by making a lens smaller and relying more on software for things like vignetting correction usually leads to cheaper lenses.
p.3 #5 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Apologies if someone else has already stated this. But the other point to note is that if anything, it could be argued that shooting in raw is even more important when you are shooting with lesser lenses as you’ll want that extra latitude in post to put more lipstick on the pig.
In all seriousness though, lens corrections for lenses requiring hefty amounts puts you behind the starting line right out of the gates, as vignette requires lifting blacks/shadows already, and distortion corrections can result in a bit (but sometimes slightly more amounts) of resolution loss (a la RF 35L). As such, having the raws gives you the best fighting chance.
p.3 #6 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Actually this is a math / software engineering question.
Has nothing to do with the lens
Even in the old days with kit lens and 6MP camera we still shot raw
The problem is that image processing functions are not bijective
For example Increasing contrast is applying a s-curve. If you start with 256 red levels and apply a s-curve you end up with maybe 160 red levels after the curve is applied.
This is because multiple input (0-265) are mapped to the same output level. This causes banding
Increasing or decreasing exposure can be thought off as a bit shift and truncation. Shift just one bit and you drop to 128 red levels from 256
If you started with 14 bit file (maybe 13 bit real data) you can bit shift 5 bits and still end up with a good 8 bit export
You can try changing the white balance off raw vs JPEG, the difference is massive
p.3 #7 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Apologies if someone else has already stated this. But the other point to note is that if anything, it could be argued that shooting in raw is even more important when you are shooting with lesser lenses as you’ll want that extra latitude in post to put more lipstick on the pig.
In all seriousness though, lens corrections for lenses requiring hefty amounts puts you behind the starting line right out of the gates, as vignette requires lifting blacks/shadows already, and distortion corrections can result in a bit (but sometimes slightly more amounts) of resolution loss (a la RF 35L). As such, having the raws gives you the best fighting chance. ...Show more →
p.3 #8 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
DWOfPaul wrote:
If you are happy with the JPEGs there is nothing wrong with that. I usually do Raw + JPEG. I have the JPEG files for quick use and the Raw files for editing. I couldn't picture setting my camera to jpeg only, though. I find white balance adjustment alone is a good enough reason to have Raw files. Then if you do more than basic edeting JPEG files start to fall apart quickly due to the compression artifacts and limited bit depth. For example, having banding apear in the sky. It really doesn't matter what lens you use for white balance and banding to be an issue. If anything, I find my self pusing the files from "cheaper" lenses more to try and make up for the optics a bit.
Also, LR usually has profiles for lenses that get you most of the way there, so I definitely don't find my self spening hours trying to correct for lens flaws such as distortion and vignetting.
BTW I put cheaper in quotes because the flaws that are often in cheaper mainstream lenses from companies like Sony, Canon, and Tamron, are not purely to save cost, but to make trade offs such as lens size and weight. It just so happens to work out that by making a lens smaller and relying more on software for things like vignetting correction usually leads to cheaper lenses....Show more →
Thanks! I currently shoot RAW + JPEG, but I find myself liking the JPEG image much more than the RAW image (especially with my R6II).
I totally get the marketing behind smaller lens designs available a more affordable prices. However, there have been several older non-L or GM lenses I've used that are optically better than most of my current lenses. Most of my current lenses rely heavily on software and that is very apparent in the RAW files. I've also had lenses in the past that even with software showed heavy vignetting (Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 which I was never happy with).
Feb 04, 2026 at 09:49 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #9 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
EB-1 wrote:
Why bother shooting with cheap lenses? Full stop.
EBH
50/1.8 is much lighter. I suppose the 50/1.2's are sharper, but i can't really justify carrying a 2lb 50mm
Its not a high percentage use fl on landscape, though a very important fl. And a bag of 2 lb lenses is too heavy.
p.3 #10 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Mike_5D wrote:
It's already been established that the latest update to ACR corrects for your 16-28. If you shot and edited raw files before this update, that's on you, the early adopter. I personally wouldn't try to process raw files from a lens before I had a profile. It just seems like a colossal waste of effort. If I couldn't hold off buying the lens until then, I'd settle for shooting jpgs until the profile arrived.
No, you still shoot RAW. All modern Canon cameras embed a full resolution, high compression, preview jpeg in the RAW file that can be extracted with the right software. IMO this makes RAW files truly 2 in 1 in that you can easily get the benefits of both file types by just shooting RAW. Extract the jpeg preview if you need to immediately deliver/post an image and keep the RAW for future editing. The jpeg preview will automatically have the lens profile applied (this can't be turned off in-camera).
p.3 #11 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
Thanks! I currently shoot RAW + JPEG, but I find myself liking the JPEG image much more than the RAW image (especially with my R6II).
That is your choice. What part of this don't you get?:
rscheffler wrote:
No, you still shoot RAW. All modern Canon cameras embed a full resolution, high compression, preview jpeg in the RAW file that can be extracted with the right software. IMO this makes RAW files truly 2 in 1 in that you can easily get the benefits of both file types by just shooting RAW. Extract the jpeg preview if you need to immediately deliver/post an image and keep the RAW for future editing. The jpeg preview will automatically have the lens profile applied (this can't be turned off in-camera).
p.3 #14 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
At first, I misunderstood your post. The answer to the title question "Why bother shooting raw with cheap lenses?" is simply: because you can (you have this option). This starting question can be mistaken for wondering why you may need raw at all, and you received some good responses from FMers who restated the benefits of processing from raw.
It is reading your (unfortunately long) opening post that gave me the real sense of your problem, quote "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?"
I understand that your frustration is actually with the process. Specifically, with the time and effort the process takes in Photoshop. Basically, to me this is a software problem, and you have two choices. One is to abandon processing raw from the "cheap lenses" altogether, as you are musing in the opening post. The other is to make changes in your processing pipeline/routine.
That second option isn't trivial, as it requires trying other software. This can be at the very least time-consuming. Many people would naturally be very reluctant to try new software after developing sufficient confidence with one product.
The simplest option you can try is probably this. Try DxO PureRAW. This app shall apply all lens corrections as well as denoise your raw, then export the result to PS where you can continue processing. I suggest this as an option, not as a sure solution to your problem. I don't know if this option should work to your satisfaction.
Ultimately, I agree with you that your present experience with PS is not worth it. It is frustrating and it kills the joy of doing photography. Yet, my impression is that your problem is a software problem, and the solution lies in making software changes.
p.3 #15 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
Thanks! I currently shoot RAW + JPEG, but I find myself liking the JPEG image much more than the RAW image (especially with my R6II).
You're not supposed to like the RAW image, you know
That would be like a painter saying "I don't like the blank canvas".
I always find it so curious that the hardest handwringing is done by those with the most gear and the least amount of work to show for it. Nothing in photography is worth this much concern.
p.3 #16 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
ruthenium wrote:
At first, I misunderstood your post. The answer to the title question "Why bother shooting raw with cheap lenses?" is simply: because you can (you have this option). This starting question can be mistaken for wondering why you may need raw at all, and you received some good responses from FMers who restated the benefits of processing from raw.
It is reading your (unfortunately long) opening post that gave me the real sense of your problem, quote "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?"
I understand that your frustration is actually with the process. Specifically, with the time and effort the process takes in Photoshop. Basically, to me this is a software problem, and you have two choices. One is to abandon processing raw from the "cheap lenses" altogether, as you are musing in the opening post. The other is to make changes in your processing pipeline/routine.
That second option isn't trivial, as it requires trying other software. This can be at the very least time-consuming. Many people would naturally be very reluctant to try new software after developing sufficient confidence with one product.
The simplest option you can try is probably this. Try DxO PureRAW. This app shall apply all lens corrections as well as denoise your raw, then export the result to PS where you can continue processing. I suggest this as an option, not as a sure solution to your problem. I don't know if this option should work to your satisfaction.
Ultimately, I agree with you that your present experience with PS is not worth it. It is frustrating and it kills the joy of doing photography. Yet, my impression is that your problem is a software problem, and the solution lies in making software changes. ...Show more →
Thank you! I have been looking into an alternative for Adobe. DXO PureRAW seems to be a favorite among many people. I will definitely give them a try! On a side note; would you happen to know if DXO PureRAW has lens profiles for the Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM? Thank you!
p.3 #17 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
RoamingScott wrote:
I always find it so curious that the hardest handwringing is done by those with the most gear and the least amount of work to show for it. Nothing in photography is worth this much concern.
p.3 #18 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
As already explained by another, this is a fundamental understanding of what the files mean. Jpeg are presharpened and enhanced by an algorithm. A raw is a blank slate with more data. So, I cannot comprehend how one can state that they like a jpeg better than a raw...it doesn't show an understanding of the material.
A person that has never used a camera and is looking for advice? Sure. But someone with experience makes it just such an odd thing to say.
snegron7 wrote:
Thanks! I currently shoot RAW + JPEG, but I find myself liking the JPEG image much more than the RAW image (especially with my R6II).
I totally get the marketing behind smaller lens designs available a more affordable prices. However, there have been several older non-L or GM lenses I've used that are optically better than most of my current lenses. Most of my current lenses rely heavily on software and that is very apparent in the RAW files. I've also had lenses in the past that even with software showed heavy vignetting (Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 which I was never happy with). ...Show more →
p.3 #20 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
shadow9d9 wrote:
As already explained by another, this is a fundamental understanding of what the files mean. Jpeg are presharpened and enhanced by an algorithm. A raw is a blank slate with more data. So, I cannot comprehend how one can state that they like a jpeg better than a raw...it doesn't show an understanding of the material.
A person that has never used a camera and is looking for advice? Sure. But someone with experience makes it just such an odd thing to say.
I understand your concern. I probably didn't express myself as concisely as I should have.
Example:
1. I use my Canon R6II with a Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM to take a picture of a building. My R6II is set to RAW + JPEG.
2. I get home, remove the SD card from my R6II, insert it into a card reader that's plugged into my laptop, and save my images to a folder on my desktop.
3. I then open that folder to view the picture I took of that building. In order to view the RAW version of that image, I have to use Adobe Photoshop ACR (Adobe Camera Raw).
4. When ACR shows me the RAW image of the building, it looks dark, warped, soft, with heavy vignetting, and low contrast. It appears at first glance Like a picture taken with an old, 110 film camera from the 1970's (pardon the reference, but I'm old).
5. I then proceed to "work" on the image in ACR to improve the vignetting, lack of contrast, darkness, white balance, optical disortion, etc.
6. After finally getting the image to look like what I remember the building actually looked like in real life, I open it in Photoshop.
7. I then compare it to the original JPEG image (remmber that I shot with both RAW + JPEG when I first captured the image of the building?). I realize that both images are pretty much the same; the RAW image I just finished processing AND the JPEG image hat was first captured when I took the image to begin with.
8. I then become frustrated for having spent so much time in ACR when I could have just used the original JPEG that I captured initially when I shot the image. After all, both my original JPEG and my proceesed RAW images look nearly identical; both look good.
9. My frustration = TIME spent processing that RAW image.
