...that is after the image processor correction being applied. Why can't Zeiss reach 0.4% if it's so easily amendable?
And thank you for reminding about radial distortion. Good luck fixing that in post. Well, I know "liquify" does miracles...
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
And thank you for reminding about radial distortion. Good luck fixing that in post. Well, I know "liquify" does miracles...
pegelli
Well-known member
Are you sure? The way I read it is that it's 1.1% "raw" (i.e. before any image processing and/or software correction)
No, I'm not, with so many measured numbers (3%, 1.1%, ~0.5%) floating around.
BTW, where does 1.1% distortion come from?
pegelli
Well-known member
Well the 0.5% (or less, depending how you read the graph) is with camera correction "on" according to the Zeiss paper. But they don't mention if the MTF graphs are with camera correction "on" or "off"No, I'm not, with so many measured numbers (3%, 1.1%, ~0.5%) floating around.
BTW, where does 1.1% distortion come from?
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
I'm sure this point has been made elsewhere, but lens design is a huge bag of compromises. Symmetric designs are great, but not for (current) digital sensors, and probably not for AF. Some asymmetric designs are low distortion, but have CA (color fringing in out of focus areas). Other sharp designs have mustache distortion. Some designs are good (e.g., Contax zooms) but are smaller aperture and heavy.
But now that we *can* do software correction for purely geometric distortion, that frees up one variable so that the others - low vignetting and color cast on digital sensors, sharpness to the corners, low CA, light weight, fast AF - can be improved. I'm not seeing that this is a bad thing. Certainly not "unprofessional". Sure, if there is a lens design that matches all the other requirements *and* has no geometric distortions, that would be better. I'm betting that there isn't one.
--Matt
But now that we *can* do software correction for purely geometric distortion, that frees up one variable so that the others - low vignetting and color cast on digital sensors, sharpness to the corners, low CA, light weight, fast AF - can be improved. I'm not seeing that this is a bad thing. Certainly not "unprofessional". Sure, if there is a lens design that matches all the other requirements *and* has no geometric distortions, that would be better. I'm betting that there isn't one.
--Matt
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I'm betting that if there were one created that people (including myself) would scoff at the price...
Nikon 85/1.8G is somehow able to pull off great results in all IQ categories (0.17% Pincsh) without any corrections at a much lower price. :angel:
Distortion is a big deal as it affects every single image you take at any aperture, unlike sharpness, CA and vignetting. Hope, a new generation of professionals understands that.