Canon RF 10-20mm f/4 'L' IS STM (full-frame!) lens review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ต.ค. 2024
- My pleasure to finally get a chance to handle this crazy / beautiful lens.
All sample pictures taken by me on a Canon EOS R5 and R7 camera.
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
Equipment I use for making these reviews and other videos:
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonE...
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonE...
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma5...
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonR...
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/Marumi...
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020...
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSm...
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC...
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1...
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMin...
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons....
By the way everyone, there's another oft-requested new Canon lens sitting in my office right now, awaiting testing :-)
Not the RF10-1000/1 L IS USM is it?
24-105 2.8 I hope!!
When will you do a Sony FE 12-24mm f2.8 GM review?😢
If it’s the 35mm VCM can you please find out what the hell “Voice” in Voice Coil Motor means 🤔
@@EverythingCameFromNothing "Voice coil" is what a loudspeaker uses. And that term stuck for a coil making back-and-forth movements in a magnetic field.
It breaks my heart to know that there are people out there who would dislike a Christopher Frost video
Gotta love those extreme wide angles. Such an amazing lens but definitely deep pockets to be able to enjoy that lens 🥲🥲
RF 10-20m F4 + RF 24-105mm F4 👀 winning combo
i think the nifty fifty is better and more useful than the 10-20
@@medrim2418I personally think the sigma 200-500 f2.8 is better than the 50mm 1.8
@@julius4858crazy take, those two are used completely differently
@@trektn So are 10-20 and 50....
@@VangelisMatosMedina okay? I didn't say anything about the 10-20
That distortion is crazy.
It's a 10mm zoom tbf
@@justinburley8659 with the Voigtländer 10mm you don't have so much distortion
Classic Canon
They just pray that it gets fixed in camera
@@WU_Foto Isn’t that a prime lens though? It’s a lot easier to correct distortion when you are only working with one focal length
@@nk__ Sony has same problems with mechanical vignette and distortion in some lenses.
I think I'll better get ef L or Art lenses and adapter. I have some on my Sony.
Whenever I will get a R6 Mark II, I will totally buy this lens. No questions asked. Together with the 24-105 2.8 and the 100-500. And I am set for life :) But that will take some time...
Love all your video's :) You're my to go guy for reviews.
Yay a new RF review!!! Thank you!!!
Great review 👍
Just imagine shooting the milkeyway with this lens😮
First lens in almost a decade that gets me somewhat exited - and it does so: for its versatility and capability.
Would appreciate to see an equivalent lens in zoom range and image quality for Sony FF & and would favour an even smaler size to electronic features, such as autofocus.
Thanks for the information dense and rich review, Mr. Frost.
You want a 10mm lens for E-mount? What do you use it for if I may ask? I can only think of interior photography, and even there 10mm seems too extreme.
I just pray for 14-35mm that takes filters. But it seems the E-mount is too small to make that possible since all other mounts have a 14mm lens that takes filters, except Sony.
@@Eikenhorst I would want a 10-20mm Zoom with a very good performance (at least at f5.6 "already") to be able to resolve (up to) around 80MPx (in the future) and not yet running into diffraction, long before a sufficient corner to corner performance is accomplished.
My crtical work is landscape work - mostly high up in the mountains somewhere remote, with around a third of my own weight on my back. Untill now I'm stitching using a panoramic head, but a flat projection setting in the software.
One of my groups of works is being "printed" (light jet) at between 1,5 by 2 to 1,8 by 3m, at a native=original resolutiuon of several hundred MPx - and another one at around two thirds of that size. For the first group of works the above set-up would still not suffice for more then sketches, but the second group of works might be at reach and therefore would significantly lighten my workflow and the weight on my back and widen the range of motives and recording situations, as e. g. a camera on a tripod cantilevering out across the ridge of a cliff,..and many more,...things that move faster than rocks.
Since I want maximum debth of field = always stopping down to the diffraction limit, the sensor size of medium format brings no advantage: the possibility of stopping down further exactly counterbalances the change in focal lenght in that respect. Ergo, I want to stick to 36 by 24mm, being versatile & relatively light weight.
The wide end would serve mainly for cropping: choice of picture proportions and "cropping instead of shifting" and to have a zoom range that is very unlikely to be a limiting factor in the field. And I want to try the latest and most powerfull pixel-shift tech, which I would consider Sony to be capable of maintaining a postion on top of the wave or even ahead within the next few years.
Cool, but far too pricey I'll keep my 16mm 2.8
Thanks for testing it on the R7 as well! It seems like all the RF glass is up to the challenge of that sensor. I've adapted the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L Mark III to it and it doesn't always rise to the challenge!
Bravo, Canon - very well done! 👍🏻
Would love a review(s) of the Voigtlander 10/12/15mm !!
Serious question . Isn't barrel distortion an unavoidable characteristic of an ultra wide lens ? I always considered the creative use of this distortion one of the main reasons for choosing an extremely wide angle.
It can be corrected to a certain degree by adding more lens elements. Laowa has a 12mm lens with just 1.1% distortion. Not sure how low you distortion can get at 10mm. I would assume you could even bring it to zero if you add a very heavy correcting element.
In the past photographers would not have accepted such a heavy distortion and black corners, but now Canon can hide those defects in the viewfinder. I think it even does that be default and you can't turn that off unless you block certain contacts of the lens.
Thanks . I've been shooting for over 40 years , but I'm still learning every day.
They could've probably fixed distortion but it would be at the cost of lens size, sharpness or other characteristics of the lens.
Do you think it is sharper than the Sigma 8-16mm? A number of us are still interested in that Sigma, and its 8mm, after your wonderful review a few years back 😊
Yes, as a Sony user this may be the only Canon RF lens I am really jealous of (perhaps also the 35 w/half macro and the 28 pancake)
RF 35/1.8 is a decent performer, but nothing outstanding (especially CA), but I had my fun with it. It's getting traded-in for 35/1.4L once it comes out eventually...
You don't find the 28-70 f/2 or the 24-105 f/2.8 lenses interesting?
@@justinburley8659 For me - not particularly. I am looking forward to a smaller Sony 24-70/2.
@@OneWeekGetAway That’s basically the same lens… You are saying that you do find that lens interesting, but not enough to switch systems (which is justifiable)
I feel like the new laowa 10mm 2.8 AF fills this role well enough on e mount
Good video, but it would be better if the diagram didn't go from f4 to f11 immediately. Many of us would like to know how sharp this lens is at f5.6 and f8
It would be interesting if you added a section to your tests that would show how well the in-camera geometry corrections fix the image. Some (especially third party) lenses tend to display strong distortions when corrected. I would be especially interested in how well the corrections handle center warping at different focus distances.
omg that Canon sensor wobble
Can't wait till he reviews rf24-105 2.8
Where did you take pictures at the 1:39 mark? That’s stunning!!!
Calling the uncorrected image at 10mm as heavily vignetting is an understatement here. No surprise there is noticeable noise correction as well as digital edge sharpening in the final image. The first I have seen in a camera lens, at least to such an obvious degree.
Manufacturers only get through with that cheating because electronic viewfinders hide those problems from the photographer. Imagine seeing a distorted image with black corners in the viewfinder. It makes me very angry that those lenses still cost so much money despite all their optical flaws.
I didn't call it heavy vignetting. I called it 'a disaster zone' with 'literally black corners'
@@skyscraperfan Compare the edges of the corrected pictures to the Laowa 10mm ....
The sharpness is great. Wow
Will still keep adapting my EF 11-24 F/4
yes, even though that lens is heavy - at least the 11mm shots are way more optically correct than on this lens!
That's a lot of money for a lens with black corners at the wide end. I wonder how far you have to zoom in before the image actually covers the corners.
Recently I bought the Laowa 9mm Zero D for my R7 (14.4mm FF), even though it's only 103 degrees FoV, I can't imagine wanting anything wider.
I think, why lenses don't come with the respectively integrated Drop ND Filter Inside the lens for each aperture of the lens? Why? Is it something impossible?
Never clicked a video so fast!
As someone who never uses lens corrections, it's disappointing to see every new lens go this route. I shoot a lot of low light events, and correcting the distortion in high ISO photos causes the noise to turn into a horrible moire pattern. Why spend nearly $3000 for a lens that's not even near optically perfect?
Exactly. Sadly many photographers still pay those prices. They really should not. For such a price I expect an optically corrected lens, even if it is much heavier than the digitally corrected one.
If you are using mirrorless cameras and lenses you are using some degree of correction whether you like it or not, in fact some makers such as Olympus/om systems bake the instructions into the raw file header which a lot of popular software { PS/LR etc } automatically applies with no option to disable it☹ I used to get annoyed by it and complained in forums and the like but it is the way the lenses are designed to be used
If you can remove the distortion and vignetting digitally you don't have to do it in the optical design. That leaves fewer compromises optically and you can concentrate on sharpness and other aspects which can't be fixed digitally.
@@JamesAAshton I wonder if a lens element, that corrects the distortion, would really make the lens noticeably less sharp. Then I could understand the decision. Otherwise it just looks like cost cutting without offering the customer a lower price.
I just know that these new RF lenses in general are far better than old EF lenses when it comes to af, sharpness and ca. Dark corners and distortion is annoying but Ive never encountered it to destroy an entire image like bad sharpness and ca does.
I feel like the in-camera correction technology is what allows the production of "extreme" capability nowadays. I'm guessing this type of lens has always existed, probably, it just wan't very practical (see 7:05)
Such a system was first implemented by Canon on compact cameras with Digic 4 from 2008 on. On DSLRs it really would not have been possible because there is no way to correct the viewfinder image. EOS M series did not support mandatory lens corrections though later bodies supported optional ones. EOS R is the first canon system that supports mandatory corrections. I think MFT has always supported them.
Photoshop Elements does not allow you to choose lens corrections. If the corrections are mandatory they are applied, if they are optional they are not applied. This is annoying as hell on lenses like EF-M 11-22 mm that have strong distortion.
This does give freedom to design wider and lighter lenses.This 10-20 mm weights half of what EF 11-24 mm weights.
@@okaro6595 thank you for this!
Just picked up a used Sigma EF 12-24 Art for $600 and I can use it on different camera systems.
Sigma even allows you to send the lens in and convert it to a new mount for a reasonable fee.
@@skyscraperfan or you can use 1 lenses kit through different adapters on different cameras 😍
@@skyscraperfan I have close to ten different EF adapters. Keeping the EF mount is great bang for buck.
@@frankfeng2701 you can also use several adapters at same time. For example: Canon EF + EF to Sone FE + Sony FE to Nikon Z.
I ordered this a couple weeks ago... hoping to have it in my hands soon :)
So the uncorrected RAW images are wider - so is this actually wider than 10mm and is corrected to 10mm equivalent, or is the corrected FOV equivalent to a longer focal length?
The corrected is 10 mm equivalent.
The funny thing is that the basic Canon profile is not always the most effective and cuts more than needed. Dustin Abbott experimented with the 24 1.8 and came to the conclusion that if you carefully adjust distortion manually, then this is a 22mm lens. But Canon cuts more boldly. Maybe the idea is to cut off the very soft part and this will hide the obvious flaw. Even if at the cost of having to stretch the picture more and the overall detail will drop. But it’s better than obvious softness in tests, right ? As they say “ it’s the end result that matters.”
@@dima1353 agreed. The RF 16 f2.8 is 16mm in jpeg, so with in-camera cut. The raw when autocorrected with Lightroom profile is clearly wider, at least 15mm, and I saw a video with profile correction from another raw processor (don't remember the name) where the raw got even wider in the cut, like a 14mm (they were showing side by side the jpeg, the LR raw and this other software's raw, of the same photo taken on a tripod, first in jpeg and then in raw)
Much like 70-200 lenses that are not 200mm.
Goooood eeeeveninggg
For all the talk of how "big mounts" were going to revolutionize lens design Canon seems to learn more and more on software correction. Both for distortion and vignetting which often kills a lot of the benefits of high end glass. No thanks!
They are not alone in this Sony in a number of lenses such as the recent 20-70mm F/4 has epic distortion uncorrected. No point rallying against it this is the way they do it now. m43 has been doing it for years
@@jimstirling7223 Sony has the small mount though. Just weird they made a whole new mount from scratch and still have these heavily compromised designs
Look how big the EF 11-24 was. Just because they also use software correction doesn't mean it's not also correct in that the shorter flange distance allows for wide angle lenses to be more compact.
@@fotografalexandernikolis but how much smaller would the EF UUWA have been with this much distortion correction? It's not just the ultra wides- my RF 35 1.8 had unnecessarily excessive vignetting correction because they put a pinhole front element on. RF 50 1.8 is just a flipped around EF 50 1.8 STM. Canon made an all new mount and then cut corners on lens design.
Those problem came with electronic viewfinders. They have some benefits, but they also allow manufacturers to hide lens defects even when looking through the viewfinder. The argument "others do the same" does not make it any better.
I'm always surprised to find your video is 10 mins long (give or take). It always feels like I watched 30-60 min of info.
So basically it is a fisheye with a distortion correction profile attached :O Insane, but useful for some
Hi, A question if I may, please. Forgetting about things like emcumbrance and sheer weight of these lenses, but just from a pure (dare I say "raw" ?) resolving power and image sharpness point of view, which Canon wide angle lens is the better one now ? The old EF 11-24 L lens with all it's tons of glass or the new nifty RF 10-20 L IS lens ? I never seem to find any review that addresses this to me very important question. Many people just discard the old EF lens because it's so heavy and big and old and a bother to carry around. Yes I get that, but no one weighs these two lenses against the advantage that the EF 11-24 can be used quite easily with drop in filters when you use the EF to RF adapter and as you've shown, the RAW pictures show horrendous optical problems with the new lens. So do you have any idea if when all is said and done the basic optical performance of the 11-24 is not a little bit btter than that of the clever RF 10-20 ?
Thanks in advance if there will be an answer to this.
The lens at 10mm f/4 is sharper than the Laowa 10mm f/2.8 @ f/4, albeit with a crazy amount of digital correction.
What a surprise that a $2300 lens is better than a $600 lens.
@@muttishelfer9122 a $600 prime usually performs just as good as a $2300 f/4 zoom.
For that price I would expect a good optical correction though. Digital correction comes with many downsides. For example it means higher ISO in the corners than in the center.
@@skyscraperfan There is no need you buying it ...
@@skyscraperfan Laowa 10mm offers just 4 stops vignetting in the corners.
How does this turn out in higher ISO in the corner?
I’m sorry, Christopher, but at 2:52 your accent got quite heavy there when you said ‘rubberized’ I had to relisten 3 times. Haha
Well, RF zoom lenses not being able to cover the whole sensor at the wide end are becoming worryingly common. Also the 24-105 f3.5-7.1 at 24mm has black corners, but that is a cheap kit lens. This is a L lens and is not supposed to have that
I think the lens covers more than 10mm, which is the croped slightly for the image corection.
@@meho9668 That is true, but it still means it does not cover the whole sensor. It is like a "speed booster" that projects the full frame image onto an AFS-C sensor. Is that still a full frame photo then?
@@skyscraperfan Final image is 10mm on FF with slight degradation on corners. What is the difference to image which is corrected optically but with bad corners? Final result is the same. So to me is more philosophical question. Digital vs optical correction
@@meho9668 I applaud this lens for the very sharp corners, but that is not the issue. There are good reasons why people bought lenses with low distortions long after digital lens correction was invented. If I follow your logic, we could even accept blurry lenses in the future if there is a way to recover sharpness digitally.
Such a correction means that you do not use the full resolution of a sensor and instead stretch the corners and then sharpen then.
I could understand your argument in a way, if you say that adding the additional lens elements to correct the distortion would reduce image sharpness. I wonder if that is really the case. Would it be impossible to build a lens that is sharp AND has little distortion?
@@skyscraperfan I understand you. But cant comment on what is possible with optical correction. Is above my knowledge. I know however that EF lense were all well corrected opticaly but the corners on the extrems were always soft.
Sigma 8-16mm still has less distortion, apparently.
Ah yes, 'rectiliniar'...
These lenses aren't ment to take photos without corrections. It's like saying that when you turn of all electronics in a new fighter jet no one could fly it. That might be true but no one should use it without what it's designed for. It would have been a lot bigger, heavier and I do not even want to think about the price if no corrections where needed. They managed to get it less then half the weight of the old EF and it's sizeable smaller.
This lens is also wider then 10mm without the correction as Fro knows photos did show in his review.
So please be more informative of why it happens and don't go for click bait sound effects all the time.
Otherwise nice work and I would be happy if you perhaps sometime could include M.Zuiko F1.2 lenses for micro 4/3. It's a little sad that I can't find any testing on those from newer cameras from someone like you who do test a lot of lenses. Keep up the good work but also keep in mind that informing your watchers over what might be some considerations when lenses are made and why that is. 🙃
I'm assuming you removed the lens hood for the picture at 10mm without corrections? :D
When will you do a Sony FE 12-24mm f2.8 GM?😢
7:06 NANI!?
If ever we win the lottery!
I'll wait for a third party CP-filter ;-)
Can you review Voigtlander 27mm f2 please
I do really like this lens, but I would honestly prefer a 11-24mm f2.8, or even an 11-28mm f2.8 so it would pair better with the 28-70mm f2 even that version was bigger, heavier, and didn't include optical image stabilization. But maybe that's just me, and hey, maybe they will make a lens that at some point, but for now, this is all there is for canon rf users.
In recent years, Canon seem to have developed a pattern of using camera/software corrections to cover for very distorted images, which, to be honest, I don't find acceptable in an L-series lens at this price point. Which is a shame because aside from that, it does seem like a very good optic.
Not just canon.
This is industry standard now, not just Canon. If you don't see it on final images, why bother to care.
@@MrMartinek99 As the review pointed out, you clearly see in the corners that a distortion correction was applied. It just has become standard now, because electronic viewfinders can hide those distortions from the customers.
Vignetting correction can also become very visible. If you correct vignetting digitally, that means you use a higher ISO in the corners than in the center. So if you already used a high ISO for the whole image, noise might be much worse in the corners.
Of course manufacturers prefer digital corrections, because they do not cost any money. They still charge very high prices for those lenses though, because photographers will buy those lenses anyway.
@@skyscraperfan I commented more in general, not only RF10-20. I see improvements since DSLR era - we get sharper, smaller lenses with better AF motors, which is something I like of course. Other side are worse distortions, which I don't really notice after corrections though. But yes, worse performance in corrected corners can be issue in demanding scenes
@@MrMartinek99 Well, as others have pointed out, you DO see them, if you look anyway. That might be fine- maybe- for a consumer-grade lens, but not for a lens at this price point. The people who get a lens like this ARE going to be looking.
Good review.
It's more evident that lens manufacturers are now relying more on in-camera-corrections to circumvent the flaws in the lenses.
By the way, what light source is used for illuminating the test chart?? Small light source like incandescent bulb or what??!!
Hi Chris. Do you know if we are going to get 3rd party lenses for the RF-S mount?. As use an R10.
Yes, SIGMA will have lenses this year for it
canon !!! please 15mm new version
Seeing lenses with image literally not covering the entire sensor area makes me wonder WTH is Canon thinking?!
Thanks
Thanks for your support!
For that price, i'd be wanting a f2.8
1:14 and that is how long my excitement on a newly released Canon lens usually lives.
Metal Gear Solid! 😉
7:05
0:53 only for full frame? I will not fit on an apsc canon body?
Ooops! I should have worded that differently
@@christopherfrost Yes, good that I watched till the R7 review to know that it fits on an apsc body.
It will definitely fit on an APSC, but Sigma 10-18 f/2.8 is much cheaper.
Surprisingly smartphones also have better wide lens at much lesser prices
yautsch Canon? Didnt u see that at 10mm? I still use the Irix 11mm f4. Such perfect and "low" distortion!
Looking at the crazy corner blackness at uncorrected 10mm, the usable portion of the image is maybe more like 12mm because it needs to be cropped anyway.
I think for such an "L" lens, the distortion and vignetting should be better than this.
It is 10mm after corrections. So uncorrected is even wider
It's a 10mm field of view AFTER corrections.
Actually when uncorrected is wider then 10mm; the 10mm are achieved after the cut
There isn't another lens like this, so I think it's fine if the uncorrected image (THAT NO ONE WILL SHARE) looks like this. It's the end result that matters.
@@justinburley8659 The end result of the lens ends with the perfomance of the lens. With what it projects onto the sensor. And then the sensor and camera takes the rap for the shortcomings of the lens. But a lens review is just a lens review. Not how well distortion is corrected, not profiles in Lightroom, and not the camera’s image quality reserves.
Too pricey. Also, the plastic used for these lenses seems to get scratched easily. The lenses will look really old fast (aesthetically at least).
find any lense in other system can match that lense
@@kenjiyamamoto423canon already had a decently good 8-15 f4. Or there is the sony 12-24 which is a much better range considering the standard zooms
Canon isnt forcing u to buy anyway... its there in the catalog, if u want to buy then buy, if u dont want to buy then back off
Thanks for the feedback. Although, I was not talking about the optical quality whatsoever. Maybe I did not explain it well. I meant the way lenses are being built in terms of their body material. I own canon RF lenses, EF, Tamron, Sigma, Viltrox, 7artisans and I also own Sony full frame bodies ( some 11 bodies and dozens of lenses in total. I have GAS hehe).
I love canon. But I noticed the exterior material of the lenses is lacking. My RF lenses get scratched too easily (I am talking about the lens body, not the glass). The same with the Tamrons. My EF lenses feel tougher and resist more rough handling. The newer lenses begin to show a lot of marks quite fast. Cheers and thanks again for your input.
I think canon taking an L here (pun intended).
This should’ve been an cheaper apsc lens. I don’t know why would anyone use this on full frame, it is literally a downgrade from the dslr 8-15 f4 lens. I think sony made the right call with going with the 12-24 range which complements the 24-70 much better
The laowa lens is superior for doing everything optically rather than slapping a software lens correction on it like the canon, embarrassing for a lens this expensive, should be half the cost at most
Can it work with Canon's Circular Polarizer RF to EF adapter?
It's RF lens
You can’t adapt rf to ef
This is a native RF lens, so it goes directly on the bare camera mount; the adapter, as its name say, is only for attaching old EF lenses.
Ha yes you're right! It's the other way around ; EF can adapt on RF mount but not RF on EF ... Blame it on a splitting headache and a bad sleep night 😵💫
Wait, Crystal Pepsi is being sold somewhere in the world?!!!! 😮
f/11 is not as sharp as f/8 on this lens
Wow the corner jiggling at 1:34 ... Canon's IBIS is just horrid for video use.
corner warping is absolutely unbareable. its so incredibly distracting it's not even funny. UNUSABLE for video.
In normal operation you will never see the uncorrected image.
@@okaro6595 i think you misunderstood. the image stabilization makes the corners wobble like crazy when handheld. you can see it in the cathedral take at the beginning of the videoz
Canon's IBIS are just unusable for video once you go wider than 24mm. My Canon user friends told me they always turn off IBIS for videos, which is kind or ironic because IBIS is designed primarily for video use, but that shows you how bad Canon's IBIS is. It is overly aggressive.
@@EXkuroganenvr mind even the canon e stabilizer is better than sony ibis 🤣🤣
@@EXkurogane IBIS is designed primarily for video use? Since when?
IBIS was introduced for the first time 4 years before the first DSLRs that could shoot video were released.
One of the main selling points of Pentax was that they had DSLRs with IBIS, and their cameras are the farthest thing from video focused.
$2300 is incredibly expensive! I can't afford this RF system. R6MK2 and this lens, $5000!
That distortion and vignetting is just unacceptable for a lens of that price. Canon can only do that because electronic viewfinders hide those defects from the photographer. I think you can't even turn that off. So electronic viewfinders are basically used for cheating. In an optical viewfinder a potential customer would see the bad distortion and vignetting and probably not buy the lens at all.
Sadly many Canon RF lenses have the same problem. For example the RF 14-35 f/4 and the RF 16mm f/2.8. Such a huge distortion correction means that the camera uses only 90% or less of the full frame sensor. Is it still a full frame photo then?
Vignetting correction is especially bad. With this lens the camera seems to crop away most of the vignetting, but for some other lenses vignetting is corrected by just amplifying the signal by a few stops. If you correct a three stop vignetting though, that also means that an ISO 800 image is an ISO 6400 image in the corners with all the downsides that brings.
Distortion correction also is very bad. You mentioned the visible effects on straight lines. Those are already a problem if you correct the perspective of an architecture image in Photoshop. If you first have to correct the distortion and then the perspective, the lines might look even worse. Especially on a camera with a low resolution like the R6.
Some expensive Canon lenses like the RF 24-105 f/2.8 even have an unacceptable amount of chromatic aberrations. Again, Canon relies on correcting them digitally.
It is very unfortunate that Canon now prefers to correct lens defects digitally instead of optically, but still charges an enormous price for those lenses. I fear the future might get even worse: Lens will not longer be really sharp, because AI will sharpen the images by inventing details.
Even if I buy an RF camera one day, I will probably still use EF lenses that are corrected optically. At least for wide angles. Tele lenses seem to work okay.
Optically shit lens for $2500.
Oh no. I'd rather they made it an 11-20mm or 12-20mm rather than have the corners be literally BLACK. It doesn't even cover the whole sensor!
At 10mm it’s an APS-H lens basically. This is mostly a demonstration of the Canon R5's image quality reserves than lens performance. We can argue whether this is worth the compactness or not, but this level of crop should be mentioned by the manufacturer.
Such things can be tolerate in smartphones and compact cameras and maybe even in cheap lenses, but what could be more “professional” than the L-series lenses? Where to go if you need to get all the juice out of your FF sensor ? After all, you paid $3,000 and not $1500 exactly for this sensor size.
the uncorrected image is wider then 10mm; the 10mm are real and are achieved AFTER the crop of course. Many Canon lenses that heavily relies on digital correction are way wider then declared when uncorrected. The RF 16 f2.8 is 16mm in jpeg, with in-camera cut, but the uncorrected raw is a 10/12mm lens, and when corrected, the FoV is between 13mm and 15mm depending on which profile and raw processor you use.
@@ritrattoaziendaleHis point being he wants to use the whole sensor which he has paid for, not just a part of it. Kinda defeats the whole fullframe consept
@@ritrattoaziendale That is true but not using the whole sensor also means that you do not use your whole resolution. Instead the imagine is stretched and sharpened, which comes with some loss of image quality like the visible effects on the lines in the corners that are pointed out in this video.
Digital correction has been there for at least 20 years, but photographers were still willing to pay a high premium for lenses that do not have to be corrected in the first place. The difference now is that those corrections are applied in the electronic viewfinder. That allows Canon and others to hide those defects. For me that is cheating.
@@HyviaVideoitaMansenlale he IS using the whole sensor; the "crop" is happening with a correction profile, it doesn't cut through the resolution, which is still full and "fullframe", not a single pixel is cut out from R5 or any other camera's resolution. It's pretty clear that you both don't know what you're talking about, just change hobby and be at peace with it.
@@ritrattoaziendale How come is it full resolution if it does not cover the whole sensor let alone have usable area even close to full sensor.
well.. not so sharp in the corners, just ok I'd say which is a kinda dissapoiting at this price point tbh
Still better than sony that doesnt have lens this wide hahahaha
왜곡 억제 쓰레기네ㅋㅋㅋ😂
2:12 high quality plastic. Sounds oxymoronic, although I do get that there are different grades of plastic.
It just still feels cheap.
-
Sort of like MontBlanc and “special resin/plastic”. It still just feels like a cheap plastic pen.
Digressed…
There are couple thousand different major plastic variations.
@@HyviaVideoitaMansenlale thanks for confirming what I said, “I do get that there are different grades of plastics…”.
Obviously you were too eager to comment rather than stop and consider the point (opinion) … “It just still feels cheap”.
In case you also need clarification, this is my opinion.
Opinion.
As in, there WILL be others that have different opinions. As in, they may feel plastic does NOT feel cheap.
But to me it does.
So, Canon cheated: it's not actually 10mm, is it?
It's 10mm corrected. You get extra fov uncorrected
Ah, another "rectiliniear" wide angle zoom lens from Canon.
I'm keeping my EF 11-24/4 thanks
Glad you hold the prices high for those who update ....
basically a fisheye lens for 2300$
but u can buy one from 7artisans 11mm for less than 200$. common canon