p.5 #1 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
kirbic wrote:
Just to reiterate what I stated in post #17 on page 1 of this thread, ACR (and Lr) do support this lens. Support was introduced with v 17.2, which would have been April 2025. If you have not updated lately, that is likely the reason you don't have profiles for the lens.
p.5 #2 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
I don't know how I found this thread, as I shoot neither Sony nor Canon. However, I have wondered this same thing.
I like sooc jpegs a lot. The camera (Nikon in my case) does a good job at correcting lens imperfections. Where the RAWs make sense is 1) when I'm working near the limits of what the SENSOR can do, 2) if I'm on a shoot and getting paid for it, 3) if I'm using a character lens.
For a lot of my personal stuff, I normally don't keep the RAWs just because the baked in corrections are so good. I record RAW+JPEG. During the cull, I delete the RAWs and keep the jpeg if I'm happy with the jpeg.
p.5 #3 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Oscarsmadness wrote:
I don't know how I found this thread, as I shoot neither Sony nor Canon. However, I have wondered this same thing.
I like sooc jpegs a lot. The camera (Nikon in my case) does a good job at correcting lens imperfections. Where the RAWs make sense is 1) when I'm working near the limits of what the SENSOR can do, 2) if I'm on a shoot and getting paid for it, 3) if I'm using a character lens.
For a lot of my personal stuff, I normally don't keep the RAWs just because the baked in corrections are so good. I record RAW+JPEG. During the cull, I delete the RAWs and keep the jpeg if I'm happy with the jpeg....Show more →
p.5 #4 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
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!
Yes, Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM (RAW) is supported, and the lens corrections as well as denoising can be applied in DxO PureRAW 5 (as well as in DxO Photolab 9) automatically, with all default settings (you may need to click on the corrections to enable). The lens corrections that are avaialble: lens softness correction (sharpening), distortion correction, vignetting correction, and chromatic aberrations. For raw denoising, there are two DeepPRIME options: one is less and the other is more aggressive. This second option also does some detail refining. Of all the corrections, you may want to pay attention to the vignetting correction, because the natural vignette of a lens may or may not need to be corrected, depending on the subject, and this correction may or may not need to be at 100%.
You can check the availability of other lens profiles from DxO on https://www.dxo.com/supported-cameras/
The advantage of DxO lens profiles is that they usually work well with the default settings.
The difference between DxO PureRAW and Photolab is that the latter is meant to be used for complete post-processing from raw to jpeg and has more options (including outstanding masking options). DxO PureRAW is a basic version of Photolab, intended for those who may want to continue processing in a different app. In my work, most corrections are done in Capture One, however, these corrections are often done on denoised dng files originating from DxO Photolab, rather than on the raw files.
p.5 #5 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
ruthenium wrote:
Yes, Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM (RAW) is supported, and the lens corrections as well as denoising can be applied in DxO PureRAW 5 (as well as in DxO Photolab 9) automatically, with all default settings (you may need to click on the corrections to enable). The lens corrections that are avaialble: lens softness correction (sharpening), distortion correction, vignetting correction, and chromatic aberrations. For raw denoising, there are two DeepPRIME options: one is less and the other is more aggressive. This second option also does some detail refining. Of all the corrections, you may want to pay attention to the vignetting correction, because the natural vignette of a lens may or may not need to be corrected, depending on the subject, and this correction may or may not need to be at 100%.
You can check the availability of other lens profiles from DxO on https://www.dxo.com/supported-cameras/
The advantage of DxO lens profiles is that they usually work well with the default settings.
The difference between DxO PureRAW and Photolab is that the latter is meant to be used for complete post-processing from raw to jpeg and has more options (including outstanding masking options). DxO PureRAW is a basic version of Photolab, intended for those who may want to continue processing in a different app. In my work, most corrections are done in Capture One, however, these corrections are often done on denoised dng files originating from DxO Photolab, rather than on the raw files.
p.5 #11 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
There is a simple solution... I shoot RAW + JPEG, if the JPEG looks good for my use case, then that's what I use.
However if I make a print then I want to edit the RAW file. Soft proofing off a jpeg is not such a good idea.
p.5 #13 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
I'll log in and check it again. Thanks!
Curious minds want to know. Have you logged in and checked it yet?
It would be useful to us if you would provide the following:
1) the Release/version of PhotoShop you are using
2) the Release/version of ACR you are using
That might help us understand why you aren't getting the lens profile assistance (distortion, vignetting, diffraction corrections) that are causing you so much grief.
You made the same statement about the Tamron 11-28 RF in a different thread. I don't have the RF 16-28 so I haven't been able to respond to your not being able to get corrections for this particular lens, but I do have the Tamron 11-28.
-- The Tamron lens corrections have been applied to photos that I took in June 2025 and cataloged into Lightroom. I took those images 4 months earlier than the images you've posted to your "Tamron Lens ... Samples" folder, dated from Oct. 2025
-- While I don't have the RF 16-28, both Lightroom Develop module (i.e., the LR ACR frontend) and Photoshop ACR window show that the corrections for the RF 16-28 are available and can be applied even to my Tamron lens. The lens correction for that lens is clearly available in the current Adobe software releases.
p.5 #14 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
StephenS_CP wrote:
Curious minds want to know. Have you logged in and checked it yet?
It would be useful to us if you would provide the following:
1) the Release/version of PhotoShop you are using
2) the Release/version of ACR you are using
That might help us understand why you aren't getting the lens profile assistance (distortion, vignetting, diffraction corrections) that are causing you so much grief.
You made the same statement about the Tamron 11-28 RF in a different thread. I don't have the RF 16-28 so I haven't been able to respond to your not being able to get corrections for this particular lens, but I do have the Tamron 11-28.
-- The Tamron lens corrections have been applied to photos that I took in June 2025 and cataloged into Lightroom. I took those images 4 months earlier than the images you've posted to your "Tamron Lens ... Samples" folder, dated from Oct. 2025
-- While I don't have the RF 16-28, both Lightroom Develop module (i.e., the LR ACR frontend) and Photoshop ACR window show that the corrections for the RF 16-28 are available and can be applied even to my Tamron lens. The lens correction for that lens is clearly available in the current Adobe software releases....Show more →
Haven't had a chance today because I've been repairing several watches (very time-consuming work that requires focus and precision- and yes, I was able to take a few minutes here and there to respond to this post, but firing up the laptop was not a priority today). I will definitely update you once I do. Hopefully (time permitting) tomorrow.
p.5 #16 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
aznduk123 wrote:
For me, no one has yet called out any differences between cheaper lens and nicer lens even with prints
Most 50/1.8 lenses are 'nicer' than the professional ~24-70/2.8 lenses in terms of sharpness at f/2.8 and smaller - they're also cheaper, smaller, and lighter.
p.5 #17 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
I could not bring myself to read five pages, so... Raw or not raw is a completely independent issue from cheap/expensive lenses. Raw offers tweakable white balance and beyond-8bits RGB color depth as a totally basic features. Here I conclude my case.
p.5 #18 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
SkippyW wrote:
This time of year, I'm shooting more indoor track than anything else. And I have a quick turn-around or else it's not relevant after a few hours. LOTS of images over a few hours to cull, and end up using almost all jpg.
BUT...the RAW file is there if I need it. It's a backup.
Similar situation to yours with other shooters I've worked with, but Outdoor T&F: Shoot all of Card 1 in JPEG for easy and quick editing work. Card two is RAW and used to for later review and tweaking for their personal use.
Obviously this is a setup where you have two card slots that can record JPEG and RAW separately where the editor only needs JPEGs and the photo themselves want the RAW for later.
p.5 #20 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Do whatever you like....
Nowadays, you need to have good stuff if you want to take pictures...I mean you need good PC, good softwares and renew them.
I might need to spend money into new software and pc upgrade instead of having so many lenses
I agree with you about that most of the time jpeg are about the same if you have GOOD SHOOTING conditions.
Proceed raw is not a big deal, you have profile with a recent software and PC will work without you pay a lot of attention.
