I also wish LR would export 12 or 16 bit HEIF, although jpeg-xl seems to work with apple devices quite well nowadays.
Upvote
0
Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM Review
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Shoot RAW+JPG, apply Canon's digital correction in camera and import the JPG into whatever software you like.
That's exactly what I do to import family photos into Google Photos.
Upvote
0
I was an Aperture user, and it sucks that Apple abandoned it. I use Photos to organize my jpg library, but I use DxO PL for RAW conversions since it does a far better job than other converters I've tried.
Upvote
0
Perhaps. The EF 35/1.4L II launched at $1800, the RF 35/1.4L at $1500, and the RF version is 28% lighter, and the IQ is overall pretty similar. Wanting more for less is reasonable, but expecting it is not very realistic.
Upvote
0
I do something similar, LR is the master library, but all the viewing and sharing is done through Photos+iCloud. Since I stopped paying attention to ISO, a lot more pictures get run through DxO PR4
Upvote
0
I used to use Aperture as a master library, with a library for RAWs and the jpgs in albums. But the RAW library was organized by Year-Month-Session anyway, so I just do that in Finder now (keeping 5 years of RAW on the laptop, the rest archived).I do something similar, LR is the master library, but all the viewing and sharing is done through Photos+iCloud. Since I stopped paying attention to ISO, a lot more pictures get run through DxO PR4
Upvote
0
The opticallimits review should put to rest any concerns about flare, bokeh, and excess vignetting. There were rumors to the contrary with regards to this.
Opticallimits doesn't test for coma and astigmatism, so this doesn't factor in.
www.the-digital-picture.com
Opticallimits doesn't test for coma and astigmatism, so this doesn't factor in.
That may be so, but they haven't tested the Tamron 35/1.4 SP Di which as far as I can tell equals the Canon in performance ( own the Tamron but not the Canon)
Canon RF 35mm F1.4 L VCM Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 35mm F1.4 L VCM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com
Upvote
0
35GM breathes like a dragon. There is a reason why it is cheap in the used market. And it's vignetting is not better than RF35L.
As for Samyang.... I guess size doesn't matter for you right? If so, Sigma 28Art and 40Art are much better than Sammy.
Those numerical score doesn't reflect in a meaningful way if you are comparing across the different systems.
Upvote
0
The EF has been released in 2015 afaik.
Because of inflation you have also to multipy the $1800 with 1.33 ->
$1 in 2015 → 2024 | Inflation Calculator
The 3.24% inflation rate means $1 in 2015 is equivalent to $1.33 today. This inflation calculator uses the official US consumer price index published by the Department of Labor.
www.in2013dollars.com
and get a price of $2394 in todays $.
Upvote
0
I am not sure why people use the US inflation calculator and assume that it makes sense if the input costs are in USD. Yes, for those that buy in the US it is one comparison method but doesn't relate to the profit that Canon makes between the 2 lens release dates.The EF has been released in 2015 afaik.
Because of inflation you have also to multipy the $1800 with 1.33 ->
$1 in 2015 → 2024 | Inflation Calculator
The 3.24% inflation rate means $1 in 2015 is equivalent to $1.33 today. This inflation calculator uses the official US consumer price index published by the Department of Labor.
and get a price of $2394 in todays $.
Using the US inflation rate doesn't account for whether the lens price is more affordable now vs then.
USD is a common currency for cross-border transactions but the costs for Canon are likely to be more aligned with the Japanese costs which have had a much lower inflation rate than the US.
We don't know the input breakdown of components vs labour but would expect that local labour rates (wages index not CPI/inflation) would be more applicable for lenses in particular than local CPI.
In general, wages increases have not matched CPI and yet the central banks's blunt use of interest rates tend to hit the low-medium salaries the most as they are renting/have mortgages vs those that own their own homes. These also tend to have a larger part of their salary for fuel/groceries/rent etc that make up a lot of the CPI basket of goods.
Upvote
0
I never wanted a lens for less. I wanted a 'better than before' lens in all aspects of IQ. It is obvious that there are others who thought the same.
Upvote
0
Nailed it.Not possible! It'll be all they think about as they digitally correct every other aspect of the image in LR/PS....
Upvote
0
I'm not Craig, and I'm actually 100% opposed to his point of view, so let me be the defender of digital corrections.
To make this simple, lens design is always, always about tradeoffs. There're hundreds of them in each optical formula, really. You can keep adding elements to a design to make it better and better corrected, but those add weight, size and cost to the final design. If you don't care much about those, you end up with something like a Zeiss Otus, a breathtaking lens that weighs (and costs!) as much as a good boat anchor. Or, you can go the Micro Four Thirds/Sony E way, and just rely on software for as many parameters as possible to make lenses that are tiny and cheap.
Most lenses live in neither extreme. The usual fare these days is that designers will try to deliver the most impressive resolution as possible, across the frame, unless bokeh is critical. Sometimes they can do both, like on the RF 135mm f/1.8, at the cost of making a super-specialized lens that is pricey. So, for cheaper lenses, bokeh quality is usually inversely proportional to resolution, at least wide open. Lens breathing can be an important item as well, or not, depending on the application (lenses that will be used a lot for video are more desirable with lower breathing, or you can go the lazy Sony way and just crop the image
). Longitudinal chromatic aberration is a common problem on fast lenses, but isn't always fully corrected, because that's hard. Lateral chromatic aberration is trivial to correct digitally, but it does exact a penalty on image quality, so most high-end optics tame it pretty well. Coma and residual spherical aberration are only visible in some applications, like astrophotography, and so those can be either let loose or be highly corrected, depending on the suspected application. Since they are higher-order aberrations, stopping down usually has a disproportionately strong effect on them; sometimes, the best compromise is to let the lens coma like hell wide open, and behave much better 1-2 stops down.This long list of things leaves some aberrations, like vignetting and distortion, far behind on the list of things to correct. These two are quite easy to fix in software, as they only need some mathematical functions to apply the needed projection change or brightening of the edges. Of course, this digital correction comes at a cost – resolution in the corners for distortion and noise for vignetting. As you say, astrophotography is very demanding on lens quality in general, since most aberrations degrade what are already data-deficient images (due to the scant light available). CAs hurt the shape and outline of stars; coma and RSA completely distort them; vignetting makes them noisy; and distortion correction can alter their shape, as well as make them more diffuse. But other applications can also suffer from these aberrations: architectural photography often features extreme dynamic range, and thus any penalty in the borders of the image can often make them unusable, meaning that one needs to stack photos (the same goes for some landscapes); vignetting can lead to cat's eye specular highlights if they're defocused, leading to distracting bokeh for portraits; and distorted corners will never be as good as non-distorted ones, at least on a lens with decent resolution across the field.
However (and I swear this is the last part of an already-too-long reply), digital corrections can often lead to much better lenses overall. Because we haven't talked about many, many other design considerations. AF is a huge one – usually you want the autofocus element/group in the middle of the lens, and the larger those are, the stronger the motors that you will need. And if the design also incorporates IS, that's a big problem too, as now you need to put even more electronic stuff in there, and all stabilization systems degrade image quality, so you might need to compensate for that. Oh, and don't forget that lenses will probably be used at different focusing distances, from near to far, and each setting requires its own optimizations. So, often times what's best for optical designers is to just let a couple of parameters go to hell, in order to create a much stronger formula overall. And these parameters are usually vignetting and distortion, since they're easy to correct for in post and afford the engineers a lot of freedom if left alone. I'd personally take something like the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM over any of the EF alternatives, even with its huge vignetting and distortion, because what I get in return is a much smaller and lighter lens with excellent close focus and versatility, plus pretty good resolution even wide open. Again, this is all about what you're willing to sacrifice.
Upvote
0
Whoa! I didn't write the article!I'm not Craig, and I'm actually 100% opposed to his point of view, so let me be the defender of digital corrections.
To make this simple, lens design is always, always about tradeoffs. There're hundreds of them in each optical formula, really. You can keep adding elements to a design to make it better and better corrected, but those add weight, size and cost to the final design. If you don't care much about those, you end up with something like a Zeiss Otus, a breathtaking lens that weighs (and costs!) as much as a good boat anchor. Or, you can go the Micro Four Thirds/Sony E way, and just rely on software for as many parameters as possible to make lenses that are tiny and cheap.
Most lenses live in neither extreme. The usual fare these days is that designers will try to deliver the most impressive resolution as possible, across the frame, unless bokeh is critical. Sometimes they can do both, like on the RF 135mm f/1.8, at the cost of making a super-specialized lens that is pricey. So, for cheaper lenses, bokeh quality is usually inversely proportional to resolution, at least wide open. Lens breathing can be an important item as well, or not, depending on the application (lenses that will be used a lot for video are more desirable with lower breathing, or you can go the lazy Sony way and just crop the image
This long list of things leaves some aberrations, like vignetting and distortion, far behind on the list of things to correct. These two are quite easy to fix in software, as they only need some mathematical functions to apply the needed projection change or brightening of the edges. Of course, this digital correction comes at a cost – resolution in the corners for distortion and noise for vignetting. As you say, astrophotography is very demanding on lens quality in general, since most aberrations degrade what are already data-deficient images (due to the scant light available). CAs hurt the shape and outline of stars; coma and RSA completely distort them; vignetting makes them noisy; and distortion correction can alter their shape, as well as make them more diffuse. But other applications can also suffer from these aberrations: architectural photography often features extreme dynamic range, and thus any penalty in the borders of the image can often make them unusable, meaning that one needs to stack photos (the same goes for some landscapes); vignetting can lead to cat's eye specular highlights if they're defocused, leading to distracting bokeh for portraits; and distorted corners will never be as good as non-distorted ones, at least on a lens with decent resolution across the field.
However (and I swear this is the last part of an already-too-long reply), digital corrections can often lead to much better lenses overall. Because we haven't talked about many, many other design considerations. AF is a huge one – usually you want the autofocus element/group in the middle of the lens, and the larger those are, the stronger the motors that you will need. And if the design also incorporates IS, that's a big problem too, as now you need to put even more electronic stuff in there, and all stabilization systems degrade image quality, so you might need to compensate for that. Oh, and don't forget that lenses will probably be used at different focusing distances, from near to far, and each setting requires its own optimizations. So, often times what's best for optical designers is to just let a couple of parameters go to hell, in order to create a much stronger formula overall. And these parameters are usually vignetting and distortion, since they're easy to correct for in post and afford the engineers a lot of freedom if left alone. I'd personally take something like the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM over any of the EF alternatives, even with its huge vignetting and distortion, because what I get in return is a much smaller and lighter lens with excellent close focus and versatility, plus pretty good resolution even wide open. Again, this is all about what you're willing to sacrifice.
Upvote
0
did you read the article by any chance - I mentioned this. I even drew a pretty little diagram for it
I dislike digital corrections, but I also know there are limits imposed on the designers, and they have to make compromises somewhere. There are no absolutes, everything is series of compromises.
Upvote
0
it's me. not Craig.
there is a loss of resolution on digital stretching of the frame to fit a full image circle. On the other hand, we lose resolution anyways because of the AA filter, so it's all in the wash.
it also makes it more of a pain on third party raw converters and so on.
But we don't know how much of the problems are sensor versus actual optical design issues - for instance, these lenses may get better as the sensors improve. So the lens that you get today, in 10 years time, may even perform better.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
