p.5 #1 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
rscheffler wrote:
... Adobe's interpretation (slightly wider angle of view
Personally, I want the geometric correction to exactly match what I see in the viewfinder, which would be Canon’s “interpretation”.
(Capture One can do this, for RF lenses only, by choosing “Manufacturer profile” instead of the default – this reads the lens profile embedded in the raw file. However, it may or may not be the case that Canon’s profiles leave some of the vignetting uncorrected for some lenses; I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a review calling this out. If so, it’s another reason to avoid lenses which require a lot of geometric correction.)
p.5 #2 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
melcat wrote:
Personally, I want the geometric correction to exactly match what I see in the viewfinder, which would be Canon’s “interpretation”.
(Capture One can do this, for RF lenses only, by choosing “Manufacturer profile” instead of the default – this reads the lens profile embedded in the raw file. However, it may or may not be the case that Canon’s profiles leave some of the vignetting uncorrected for some lenses; I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a review calling this out. If so, it’s another reason to avoid lenses which require a lot of geometric correction.)
LR has that option, and defaults to the Canon profile. Until very recently you could not override the default at time of import (only after the fact), then they fixed it that you can override on a per-lens, per-camera permutation basis which is annoying if you have too many of each, so I wrote a script that actually overrides that and bulk selects the Adobe profile because I like them much better.
p.5 #4 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
I'm currently in the midst of editing a number of recent projects and have been more proactively tweaking the distortion correction slider in LR to pull back correction from 100 to varying degrees, depending on image content and composition. I'm finding this is turning into a really useful 'fine tuning' tool to help 'recover' peripheral content when images were framed slightly too tightly, for example. Or to 'de-stretch' peripheral subject content (such as people). Given the degree of software correction required with many mirrorless lenses, this is turning into an unexpected benefit, at least for me. IMO, just one more tool or option for greater editing flexibility.
p.5 #5 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
artsupreme wrote:
I just did a quick and dirty test of my 35VCM compared to my RF 24-70 f/2.8 at 35mm and the 35VCM appears to be more of a 32-33mm lens. I tested both f/2.8 and even the corrected 35VCM image is noticeably wider than my 24-70 @ 35mm. The uncorrected 35VCM image is also very usable as well, which I often prefer over the corrected version. I don't know what the actual FL equivalent is of the 35VCM is uncorrected vs corrected but I'm sure someone here can chime in?
I cannot find the true focal length of the 35 VCM, but why do you think that the RF 24-70 f/2.8 @ 35 mm is a good benchmark?
rscheffler wrote:
Here's the 20 VCM at the same venue, but different time. You'll note that with this lens the LRC/Adobe correction is very close to Canon's in-camera correction but with slightly less 'stretching' of the image in the corners, which I prefer.
I checked what happens if I do the distortion correction myself for the 20 VCM.
Here is the uncorrected image (saved from Lightroom with profile corrections disabled):
This is Lightroom with the profile corrections enabled:
This is what I get myself:
I don't have access to the actual distortion profile (I think) but just assumed a distortion curve c*r^2, where r is the distance from the image center. Using spline interpolation, I adjusted the value of c until lines appeared reasonably straight in the corrected image. It is fairly close to the Lightroom result, with a slightly larger field of view.
Just playing around. This is perhaps not the kind of architecture where you expect all lines to be straight in the first place.
p.5 #6 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
Toothwalker wrote:
I cannot find the true focal length of the 35 VCM, but why do you think that the RF 24-70 f/2.8 @ 35 mm is a good benchmark?
I got rid of my 35II, Sigma Art, and Tamron 35's so I couldn't compare with those. But I do still have the cheap RF 35 f/1.8 and it closely matched the FOV of my 24-70 @ 35mm, so I just used the 24-70 @35mm to compare FL with my 35VCM. I would guess the 35VCM FL equivalent is close to 31mm uncorrected, and maybe 32-33mm corrected.
p.5 #7 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
artsupreme wrote:
I got rid of my 35II, Sigma Art, and Tamron 35's so I couldn't compare with those. But I do still have the cheap RF 35 f/1.8 and it closely matched the FOV of my 24-70 @ 35mm, so I just used the 24-70 @35mm@ to compare FL with my 35VCM. I would guess the 35VCM FL equivalent is close to 31mm uncorrected, and maybe 32-33mm corrected.
The RF 35 f/1.8 has a focal length of 36.0 mm, so that would make the VCM 33-34 mm in your comparison.
p.5 #8 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC
Just playing around. This is perhaps not the kind of architecture where you expect all lines to be straight in the first place.
You're not kidding, I was like "I don't see a single straight line in the stone work"
