Previous versions of AmbientMike's message #16980391 « Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses? »
AmbientMike Offline [X]
Re: Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
AmbientMike wrote: snegron7 wrote:
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.
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.
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 soits not really extra
Feb 04, 2026 at 12:46 PM
AmbientMike Offline [X]
Re: Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
AmbientMike wrote: snegron7 wrote:
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.
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.
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
Feb 04, 2026 at 12:39 PM
Previous versions of AmbientMike's message #16980391 « Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses? »
