p.8 #1 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
Update:
I had a chance to log in to Adobe ACR last night. Apparently there is a lens profile for my Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM! It did make a bit of a difference, but doesn't seem to help much with the distortion at the wide end. Thank you, this will cut my processing time in half!
All you have to do in DPP is click a check box to get rid of distortion. Did you try that yet
p.8 #3 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
No! Not the filter debate!! Just kidding! 😀
I guess I should've clarified my definition of "cheap" lenses. By cheap, I didn't mean inexpensive lenses from years past. I have several inexpensive lenses that are optically fantastic (like most of my 50mm f1.8 lenses from Canon, Nikon and Pentax).
Back in "the old days" I looked for lenses that were designed to have the least amount of optical flaws. Most of these lenses were near perfect when stopped down a bit.
Fast forward to current days. Many manufacturers are relying more on software than on optical construction to achieve good images. These newer lenses are sometimes more compact and lighter in weight than more expensive, optically enhanced lenses. They also sell for less money than their more expensive counterparts like "L" or "GM" series lenses.
And therein lies what I personally consider a problem. When looking at a RAW image taken by these newer, more compact, more "affordable" lenses, you can see their optical design compromises. Yes, there are lens profiles in many photo editing programs, but when many lenses are first released, these profiles are not readily available.
Shooting RAW does provide us with more options to edit an image to our liking, but it can be time consuming, especially when you don't use lens profiles. And this is where my initial "inspiration" for this post started: to my knowledge when I wrote the original post, there were no lens profiles for the RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM that I owned (I confirmed last night that there were lens profiles for that lens thanks to several helpful folks here). Correcting extreme vignetting, softness and extreme distortion in RAW for this lens before getting the chance to work on other image enhancements was a nightmare for me. In my very personal opinion, this was quite frustrating, and promted me to express how I haven't had this issue in RAW when using lenses that don’t rely so heavily on software (like lenses that are designed optically better to begin with). Again, I have older, inexpensive lenses that don’t require so much work in RAW.
Also, if it were not for lens profiles, most of the current, newer RF lenses I own when opened in RAW look terrible in terms of vignetting, distortion and softness. Most of my lenses are not super expensive lenses like the L or GM series, so I call them "cheap" lenses. I should've chosen a better word to describe them, but I couldn't think of one. ...Show more →
I hear you, and along that line of thought, it is also worth a chuckle when you realize that some of the inexpensive Chinese lenses of late are very well corrected, even better than some OEM glass because they will never have an in camera profile correction available, and the worst offending character is usually just some vignette which is easily corrected manually and often left alone or even added intentionally in post by some.
p.8 #5 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
Update:
I had a chance to log in to Adobe ACR last night. Apparently there is a lens profile for my Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM! It did make a bit of a difference, but doesn't seem to help much with the distortion at the wide end. Thank you, this will cut my processing time in half!
Happy to hear that you were able to [grudgingly] resolve [most of] your problem.
RE: your dissatisfaction with the limited effectiveness of Adobe's lens profile...
...You may not be aware, but Adobe's lens profiles are not supplied by Canon. They are Adobe-developed efforts to apply lens corrections. Third party accommodation to new Canon or any other manufacturer's lenses will necessary result in some availability delay.
You have been receptive to Ruthenium's suggestion to try the DXO products. There are many FM'ers that prefer non-Adobe products for post-processing. While I don't use them, preferring LR-based solutions [though not Adobe algorithms] I believe I understand how they may, indeed, provide better, or at least preferred, starting points than ACR.
I would also suggest, along with AmmbientMike, that you investigate Canon's DPP.
At the very least, it provides Canon's proprietary, and in-camera DLO corrections that you seem to be satisfied with. In addition, it opens up displaying the picture style and setting for the image, i.e, your SOOC JPG-equivalent view. You can then, if you wish, export it directly in Photoshop for processing as Photoshop's PSD format. Alternatively, you can also export it as a TIFF (w/o Canon's linear profile if desired) or a JPG.
The first export option would be equivalent to a
open in Adobe Bridge --> open in ACR --> open in Photoshop workflow, or
open in Adobe Photoshop --> open in ACR (implicit) --> return to Photoshop workflow
That is to say, hardly any different in concept or workflow with which you are already familiar.
...and, drumroll... both free and subscription-less!
p.8 #6 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
Now, back to the original topic I posted about; why bother using RAW when you have sub-par (cheap) lenses.
I'll take this as a serious question and not just a rhetorical barb and respond. Reasons to use raw instead of jpg with any lens include:
1. You retain the full original image data from the sensor, rather than being lifted to a camera-generated default modification of the data.
2. Unlike with the jpg, which "throws away" a lot of the original data, you can recover useful (and often critical) data from the raw file in post.
3. The raw file provides the most powerful start point for non-destructive editing in post.
4. As improvements to post-processing tools are introduced, you can apply them to older files in a raw converter, sometimes making previously unusable files useful. (One example is the recent addition of the AI Denoise function in Lightroom and ACR which can render usable files whose original noise levels could not be fixed with previous NR tools.) If you went with the in-camera jpg, you will not be able to apply these updates in useful ways if at all.
If you prefer jpg because your camera is altering things like distortion in ways that you like and you cannot figure out how to get equivalent corrections in post using raw, and if the jpg file provides sufficient image data for your purposes, then using the jpg could be an OK choice.
Also, by the way, not all "cheap" lenses are optically poor. Not all expensive lenses are optically ideal and/or perfectly correctible in every software environment.
p.8 #7 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Prepare to add me to your ignore list, Snegron7. I think your question makes absolutely no sense. If you must shoot with inferior lenses (the difference between L- and non-L is way more than IQ, btw) it seems like just plain common sense to me: shoot raw, you can get more out of those inferior lenses. Bye.
p.8 #8 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Erictator wrote:
I hear you, and along that line of thought, it is also worth a chuckle when you realize that some of the inexpensive Chinese lenses of late are very well corrected, even better than some OEM glass because they will never have an in camera profile correction available, and the worst offending character is usually just some vignette which is easily corrected manually and often left alone or even added intentionally in post by some.
Eric
I 100% agree with you! A couple of years ago or so, I purchased a Viltrox AF 16mm f1.8 in FE mount for my A7c. Optically, that lens was absolutely amazing! It was probably one of the est lenses I have ever used. However, it developed issues where it made my A7c freeze up a few times while on an overseas trip. I ruled out dirty contacts as a cause for this. Luckily, Viltrox (or their distributor) contacted me after the warranty period had expired (negative review I left for them), and they accepted a return. I was impressed with their service! I really wish that that 16mm would not have developed that communication problem because it was a very good (optically) lens and wa not expensive at all.
On the flip side, I recently purchased a Samyang 35mm f1.8 for FE mount and returned it the next day. The AF on both my A7c and A7iv was really bad; in addition to making lots of noise, the AF was jumpy/erratic, not smooth at all. Maybe it was deffective, maybe it was designed poorly. I don't know. I did read on line afterwards that other people had similar issues with that lens.
I've also had mixed experiences with OEM lenses. With both the Sony 40mm f2.5 G and the Sony 85mm f1.8, I had to send back two copies of each because they were decentered. Sadly, I sold both my good copies and I immediately regretted doing so. 😀
p.8 #9 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
TomSchriefer wrote:
Prepare to add me to your ignore list, Snegron7. I think your question makes absolutely no sense. If you must shoot with inferior lenses (the difference between L- and non-L is way more than IQ, btw) it seems like just plain common sense to me: shoot raw, you can get more out of those inferior lenses. Bye.
I respect your opinion. It's perfectly ok to disagree and discuss different opinions. I only add people to my "ignore list" when they devolve from a discussion/debate to hurling insults/bullying/making disparaging personal attacks. I understand that people can be passionate about the hobby they love, but when that passion turns into hostility, then it's no longer a healthy discussion.
p.8 #10 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
StephenS_CP wrote:
Happy to hear that you were able to [grudgingly] resolve [most of] your problem.
RE: your dissatisfaction with the limited effectiveness of Adobe's lens profile...
...You may not be aware, but Adobe's lens profiles are not supplied by Canon. They are Adobe-developed efforts to apply lens corrections. Third party accommodation to new Canon or any other manufacturer's lenses will necessary result in some availability delay.
You have been receptive to Ruthenium's suggestion to try the DXO products. There are many FM'ers that prefer non-Adobe products for post-processing. While I don't use them, preferring LR-based solutions [though not Adobe algorithms] I believe I understand how they may, indeed, provide better, or at least preferred, starting points than ACR.
I would also suggest, along with AmmbientMike, that you investigate Canon's DPP.
At the very least, it provides Canon's proprietary, and in-camera DLO corrections that you seem to be satisfied with. In addition, it opens up displaying the picture style and setting for the image, i.e, your SOOC JPG-equivalent view. You can then, if you wish, export it directly in Photoshop for processing as Photoshop's PSD format. Alternatively, you can also export it as a TIFF (w/o Canon's linear profile if desired) or a JPG.
The first export option would be equivalent to a
open in Adobe Bridge --> open in ACR --> open in Photoshop workflow, or
open in Adobe Photoshop --> open in ACR (implicit) --> return to Photoshop workflow
That is to say, hardly any different in concept or workflow with which you are already familiar.
...and, drumroll... both free and subscription-less!
Thank you!! I definitely want to try DXO. I will admit that I haven't really worked much with DPP, but since I have it on my laptop already I will be experimenting more with it. This also motivates me to go out and take pictures, as I often find myself tied up with work and household to-do things. Thanks again! 😀
p.8 #11 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'll take this as a serious question and not just a rhetorical barb and respond. Reasons to use raw instead of jpg with any lens include:
1. You retain the full original image data from the sensor, rather than being lifted to a camera-generated default modification of the data.
2. Unlike with the jpg, which "throws away" a lot of the original data, you can recover useful (and often critical) data from the raw file in post.
3. The raw file provides the most powerful start point for non-destructive editing in post.
4. As improvements to post-processing tools are introduced, you can apply them to older files in a raw converter, sometimes making previously unusable files useful. (One example is the recent addition of the AI Denoise function in Lightroom and ACR which can render usable files whose original noise levels could not be fixed with previous NR tools.) If you went with the in-camera jpg, you will not be able to apply these updates in useful ways if at all.
If you prefer jpg because your camera is altering things like distortion in ways that you like and you cannot figure out how to get equivalent corrections in post using raw, and if the jpg file provides sufficient image data for your purposes, then using the jpg could be an OK choice.
Also, by the way, not all "cheap" lenses are optically poor. Not all expensive lenses are optically ideal and/or perfectly correctible in every software environment....Show more →
All very solid points for shooting in RAW. I don't oppose shooting RAW per se, as in the past I used to shoot exclusively in RAW (back when I used to shoot with my old Nikon D1X's and D200's). My biggest quip is when I'm shooting RAW now and my images don't look as good as they did back in my D1X/D200 days. The lenses I used back then made a noticeable difference. There were some lenses that were almost unusable in RAW, while others required almost no corrections.
I no longer own any of those lenses, as I've gone primarily with Canon, Sony and Micro Four Thirds now. I personally feel that the newer "affordable" Canon RF lenses (non L), rely very heavily on software. Sooc in RAW you can see their shortcomings, some lenses moreso than others. If you are not using lens profiles in post, correcting these shortcomings is extremely tedious. It's actually several long extra steps before you're able to work on WB, denoising, etc. My personal experience (especially with the Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM prior to "discovering" that lens profiles were finally available for it thanks to several members here) is that it is much less work dealing with sooc jpegs. Other than extreme distortion on the wide end, sooc jpegs are very nicely rendered with the RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM. Same with most of the other less expensive (non L) RF primes and zooms that I currently own.
p.8 #12 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
Thank you!! I definitely want to try DXO.
As someone who left Adobe for DXO some years ago, I encourage you to follow through on this. The DXO's lens profiles and denoising engine are extremely good. Granted, I haven't tested competitor's software in a while.
Bear in mind though, some of DXO's functionality does require a RAW file to work.
p.8 #13 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Oscarsmadness wrote:
As someone who left Adobe for DXO some years ago, I encourage you to follow through on this. The DXO's lens profiles and denoising engine are extremely good. Granted, I haven't tested competitor's software in a while.
Bear in mind though, some of DXO's functionality does require a RAW file to work.
I absolutely will!! I'm assuming there will be learning curve for me since I've been usind Adobe since way before they went to subscriptions, but I hope it won't be too steep. There are probably a bunch of video tutorials I can research online. Looking forward to it!
p.8 #14 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
All very solid points for shooting in RAW. I don't oppose shooting RAW per se, as in the past I used to shoot exclusively in RAW (back when I used to shoot with my old Nikon D1X's and D200's). My biggest quip is when I'm shooting RAW now and my images don't look as good as they did back in my D1X/D200 days. The lenses I used back then made a noticeable difference. There were some lenses that were almost unusable in RAW, while others required almost no corrections.
I no longer own any of those lenses, as I've gone primarily with Canon, Sony and Micro Four Thirds now. I personally feel that the newer "affordable" Canon RF lenses (non L), rely very heavily on software. Sooc in RAW you can see their shortcomings, some lenses moreso than others. If you are not using lens profiles in post, correcting these shortcomings is extremely tedious. It's actually several long extra steps before you're able to work on WB, denoising, etc. My personal experience (especially with the Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM prior to "discovering" that lens profiles were finally available for it thanks to several members here) is that it is much less work dealing with sooc jpegs. Other than extreme distortion on the wide end, sooc jpegs are very nicely rendered with the RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM. Same with most of the other less expensive (non L) RF primes and zooms that I currently own.
I use Adobe’s “correction” profiles by default and I never have any issues. I don’t even think about it.
The only shortcoming I’ve ever noticed (and mentioned earlier in this thread) is that I will very rarely see some slight color casts in the corners with some corrected fields when the subject is largely a uniform gray with little contrast, for example a photograph with thick fog and little detail. (No one else would likely notice it in my photo, but sometimes I can.)
Applying generic NR, WB, AI Denoise (when needed) takes literally seconds. You can also simply create your own presets for these things and it is even faster.
If software image “enhancement” corrects issues on these lenses that rely on it, and you can not see any degradation in the image in a converted raw file, I don’t see what the problem is with using the so-called corrected lense. I understand that this might bother people (like me) who have done photography long enough to remember when this wasn’t possible and corrections had to be made in the lens, but that was then and this is now.
p.8 #15 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I use Adobe’s “correction” profiles by default and I never have any issues. I don’t even think about it.
The only shortcoming I’ve ever noticed (and mentioned earlier in this thread) is that I will very rarely see some slight color casts in the corners with some corrected fields when the subject is largely a uniform gray with little contrast, for example a photograph with thick fog and little detail. (No one else would likely notice it in my photo, but sometimes I can.)
Applying generic NR, WB, AI Denoise (when needed) takes literally seconds. You can also simply create your own presets for these things and it is even faster.
If software image “enhancement” corrects issues on these lenses that rely on it, and you can not see any degradation in the image in a converted raw file, I don’t see what the problem is with using the so-called corrected lense. I understand that this might bother people (like me) who have done photography long enough to remember when this wasn’t possible and corrections had to be made in the lens, but that was then and this is now....Show more →
Agreed, especially with the "that was then, this is now" analogy. I purchased my first film SLR in 1979. Lenses needed to be good optically or the results were immediately apparent in the images once you developed the negatives. Cool thing is that I was still able to use some of my old Nikon AiS lenses that I purchased in the mid 1980's when I transitioned to digital with the Nikon D1X. Especially notable was my Nikon 105mm f2.5 AiS. Absolutely spectacular results! I don't own any mirrorless Z mount Nikons (yet, as I'm still a bit miffed with Nikon for not producing an F to Z adapter that would allow my collection of AF-D lenses to AF properly on their Z mount cameras), so I don't know how well it would perform. However, my somewhat "older" Canon EF lenses are optically great whenever I use them on my R6II. I haven't tried my much older Canon FL breech mount lenses yet, but I suspect they might perform good as well. I'm actually still in the process of researching decent adaptors for Nikon F, Canon EF, and Canon FL/FD to Sony FE mount. I would love to see how these old lenses perform on my A7c and A7iv, especially the RAW files.
p.8 #16 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Rethinking this problem: What makes a lens, cheaper for a manufacturer to produce?
- not correcting distortion
- not correcting lateral chromatic aberrations
- less bright lens (f 2.8 or f4)
- more vignetting
All of these issues can be addressed in post (less bright lens by increasing ISO and reducing the consecutively increased noise in post). Performance of these „software corrections“ improves most, if it is applied to raw images,
Thus, the cheaper a lens is, the more it will profit from shooting raw and adding corrections in post. A clever manufacturer could actually exploit this: He can concentrate on the aberrations that cannot be corrected in post (astigmatism, LOCA, coma) and let the aberrations mentionen above fall as they may, knowing that raw processing will allow to ameliorate them.
p.8 #18 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
As an aside try shooting HEIF instead of JPEG as they will give you smaller more malleable files with greater latitude. If not shooting RAW out combining with RAW this is what I now do and have been impressed with the results. I do this sometime with B&W images as I like the Sony look https://www.kfconcept.com/blog/heif-vs-jpeg
Feb 09, 2026 at 04:32 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #19 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Knut. wrote:
Rethinking this problem: What makes a lens, cheaper for a manufacturer to produce?
- not correcting distortion
- not correcting lateral chromatic aberrations
- less bright lens (f 2.8 or f4)
- more vignetting
All of these issues can be addressed in post (less bright lens by increasing ISO and reducing the consecutively increased noise in post). Performance of these „software corrections“ improves most, if it is applied to raw images,
Thus, the cheaper a lens is, the more it will profit from shooting raw and adding corrections in post. A clever manufacturer could actually exploit this: He can concentrate on the aberrations that cannot be corrected in post (astigmatism, LOCA, coma) and let the aberrations mentionen above fall as they may, knowing that raw processing will allow to ameliorate them....Show more →
Actually all these aberrations can be handled very well in jpeg processing as well. Automatic processing, whether jpeg, heif, or as the file is read into the RAW converter is pretty easy with all these aberrations. It has nothing to do with what type of format being used. And yes, not controlling these aberrations does allow cheaper lenses that still produce very good results. Correcting them does have a small impact most of the time, but the impact is typically small so leaving them uncorrected to a fair degree has become common in modern lenses and especially less expensive ones.
p.8 #20 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Actually all these aberrations can be handled very well in jpeg processing as well. Automatic processing, whether jpeg, heif, or as the file is read into the RAW converter is pretty easy with all these aberrations. It has nothing to do with what type of format being used. And yes, not controlling these aberrations does allow cheaper lenses that still produce very good results. Correcting them does have a small impact most of the time, but the impact is typically small so leaving them uncorrected to a fair degree has become common in modern lenses and especially less expensive ones....Show more →
I agree that correction can be done to some extent with jpegs. But with DXO for example, the highest level of noise reduction is only available with raw images. I do not use lightroom, but for DXO this is definitely the case.
I would also expect correction of LACA and distortion to be more efficient and eating less resolution if it is done on raws as well, but here the effect might not be as pronounced.
Considering vignetting correction one has to remember that jpegs only have 8 bit colour depth. Raising the corner illumination will thus yield cleaner results if done on 14 bit raw images.
The question, the OP asked, was: „Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?“
My strong feeling is that cheap lenses profit even more from raw processing (versus sticking to the in camera jpegs) than expensive, highly corrected lenses with low vignetting, large aperture (lower ISO possible when shooting), less distortion and better LOCA correction. The latter might not need much correction at all.
