Avotius
Some guy
Today I was reading some reviews as I ponder my first X mount lens purchase. I was looking at the Fuji 35, which I hear is a killer lens, and the Zeiss 32, because Zeiss optics are like catnip for me.
While looking around I saw that the Fuji 35 does not use in camera lens corrections (or in raw processing) and the Zeiss 32 does.
Maybe its just me, but if the lens is going to cost $301 dollars more, you might be forgiven for thinking that it should be designed "right" because from what I have read online these after the fact corrections are a lossy process and does effect the final image.
Digital paranoia?
While looking around I saw that the Fuji 35 does not use in camera lens corrections (or in raw processing) and the Zeiss 32 does.
Maybe its just me, but if the lens is going to cost $301 dollars more, you might be forgiven for thinking that it should be designed "right" because from what I have read online these after the fact corrections are a lossy process and does effect the final image.
Digital paranoia?
edge100
Well-known
Having owned and used the 35 since purchasing the X-Pro1 in mid-2012, I can honestly say that I've never once thought "Boy, this is an ok photo, but I really wish this lens had in-camera corrections."
Don't worry about it.
Don't worry about it.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I agree... Buy and use premium quality lenses, don't worry about it.
There is no "right." There's only whether the photo that is produced is satisfying to your eye.
G
There is no "right." There's only whether the photo that is produced is satisfying to your eye.
G
Avotius
Some guy
I am pretty tempted to get the Zeiss 32mm lens, just those lens corrections give me that scratchy feeling in the back of my head that Zeiss didn't finish the job. They are charging so much for a lens and maybe there is a wiff of half assing it? Knowing that you are not getting 100% of what the lens can give you because they are using software to alter distortion at the expense of resolution?
When the Fuji 14mm lens came out they made light of its lack of software correction as a feature.
When the Fuji 14mm lens came out they made light of its lack of software correction as a feature.
Spicy
Well-known
i like my lens to be the corrected one
rwintle
Scientist by day
I'd do it all in post, myself.
FA Limited
missing in action
i don't think i care too much if the resolution and rendering after correction is not compromised which would be the biggest concern
willie_901
Veteran
There are several types of corrections. My concern about two of them increases as the amount correction increases. I have no concern at all about the third.
The vignetting correction is simply a brightness (exposure) gradient. I see no reason to be concerned at all about this sort of correction. This correction could be made to prints in an analog darkroom. If you desire vignetting for aesthetic purposes, then it can be applied with digital or analog manipulation.
Correction for chromatic aberration and barrel/pincushion distortion is a different matter. I a not aware of analog darkroom techniques that correct for these problems. In both cases when the artifacts are strong, in-camera or post-processing corrections can cause new artifacts. With barrel/pincushion distortion there can be second or even third order (two or three curvatures) imposed on the first-order curvature. If the automatic corrections only correct first-order problems, the residual curvature can be more obvious. Stron first-order curvature correction can distort pixel shape (circular to oval). In extreme crops or extremely large prints this may be an issue. With in-camera correction one is at the mercy of their brand's firmware group. If your camera has sophisticated correction algorithms, you may find the results to be pleasing even when large corrections are applied. Many brands update in-lens firmware so more sophisticated in-camera correction parameters can be available as time goes on.
In a way, concern about in-camera correction has to do with JPEG photographers. JPEG photographers who apply post-processing corrections are not taking advantage of one of the primary reasons to reject raw capture... convenience. So anyone who embraces JPEG capture should logically embrace in-camera correction.
The vignetting correction is simply a brightness (exposure) gradient. I see no reason to be concerned at all about this sort of correction. This correction could be made to prints in an analog darkroom. If you desire vignetting for aesthetic purposes, then it can be applied with digital or analog manipulation.
Correction for chromatic aberration and barrel/pincushion distortion is a different matter. I a not aware of analog darkroom techniques that correct for these problems. In both cases when the artifacts are strong, in-camera or post-processing corrections can cause new artifacts. With barrel/pincushion distortion there can be second or even third order (two or three curvatures) imposed on the first-order curvature. If the automatic corrections only correct first-order problems, the residual curvature can be more obvious. Stron first-order curvature correction can distort pixel shape (circular to oval). In extreme crops or extremely large prints this may be an issue. With in-camera correction one is at the mercy of their brand's firmware group. If your camera has sophisticated correction algorithms, you may find the results to be pleasing even when large corrections are applied. Many brands update in-lens firmware so more sophisticated in-camera correction parameters can be available as time goes on.
In a way, concern about in-camera correction has to do with JPEG photographers. JPEG photographers who apply post-processing corrections are not taking advantage of one of the primary reasons to reject raw capture... convenience. So anyone who embraces JPEG capture should logically embrace in-camera correction.
Bottom line is that you aren't going to go wrong with either lens. I use the 35mm 1.4 and like it so much that I never bothered looking into the Zeiss.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I used to have the Panasonic/Leica Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH for FourThirds SLRs. A magnificent lens, used it for two years and loved it. Little did I know that Panasonic/Leica had embedded lens correction information in the lens' firmware, so when I fitted it to my Panasonic G1 the tiny amount residual lateral chromatic aberration, which I'd been removing in Lightroom, was automatically eliminated for me.
Properly done, lens corrections are a plus. Even on the most fabulously well designed lenses. That's the boon of living in the modern world, when we can improve upon even that which is nearly perfect.
G
f16sunshine
Moderator
No doubt!
I only "care" about something if I notice it (rather than care I would say I'm bothered).
As far as I know my iPhone, Fuji x20, and Fuji X100 all use lens correction SW.
These are my favorite digital cameras. I never even think about what the camera/lens SW is doing.
My subjective view is then…. Yes! I care about lens correction. I care that the manufacturers get it right
Cheers!
Avotius
Some guy
A lot of people in the poll said they did care about lens corrections but decided not to chime in. Anyone care to make a comment?
ChrisN
Striving
Not sure about the Fuji's, but my Pentax can only deliver lens corrections with a JPG file, not with a RAW file. I'd rather have the full RAW information and make the corrections afterwards in Lightroom.
gavinlg
Veteran
I dont care that much - but usually they are only partially corrected in RAW, in lightroom. TBH I think the 32mm planar isnt as good as the fuji 35mm.
Matthieu
Member
I prefer when prime lenses do not use digital correction and when zooms do.
When I use the former, I expect the best image quality possible and any distortion correction will have a cost, especially near the corners. The 14mm and 35mm are my two favorite lenses in the system and they do not use any correction. I can't put an exact explanation why (or if it is related to digital corrections), but I've always prefered the rendering of the 35mm when compared to an equivalent picture taken with the 18-55mm.
On the other hand, when I put a zoom on my camera, it is for flexibility above anything else. I expect it not to be perfect and I know it will have severe distortion on at least one of its extremes, if not both. In that case, I prefer when the camera corrects it.
When I use the former, I expect the best image quality possible and any distortion correction will have a cost, especially near the corners. The 14mm and 35mm are my two favorite lenses in the system and they do not use any correction. I can't put an exact explanation why (or if it is related to digital corrections), but I've always prefered the rendering of the 35mm when compared to an equivalent picture taken with the 18-55mm.
On the other hand, when I put a zoom on my camera, it is for flexibility above anything else. I expect it not to be perfect and I know it will have severe distortion on at least one of its extremes, if not both. In that case, I prefer when the camera corrects it.
Spyro
Well-known
Sean Reid has a comparison between the two lenses, you might want to have a read
personally I see no reason to get the zeiss lens, it seems that you're sacrificing $300, 2cm in size, half a stop of light and a better corrected optic for no reason whatsoever. I also think that these lenses were designed to plug the holes in the NEX line, the fuji versions are a bit of a side-product that is really neither here nor there.
personally I see no reason to get the zeiss lens, it seems that you're sacrificing $300, 2cm in size, half a stop of light and a better corrected optic for no reason whatsoever. I also think that these lenses were designed to plug the holes in the NEX line, the fuji versions are a bit of a side-product that is really neither here nor there.
DNG
Film Friendly
From what I have seen in my native lenses, that are not that cheap BTW, the maker figures in software correction in POST or IN CAMERA.
To me, this is a bit lazy on their part..
Point in Case:
My 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor Ais is 99% distortion free Out of the Box.
And cost about $250.00 it's day! maybe $400 today?
It has a Close Focus Correction, and great sharpness and contrast.
There is no "good" reason why today's wide's can't have the corrections as part of the optical and glass formula. I really don't believe it will add "that much" in the price in the end game.
But, it is a Shortcut in my view at the design stage. Now that our editing software can do it...
It is 100% possible to include this correction in the design stage. As many here can testify with examples they have from lenses from over 10 years old or so. Before Software (firmware) included it (Not Just Leica Lenses are included here either)
But, I do like that most Digital cams can correct native lenses in camera. It is a blessing, but, also a shortcut at the makers end also.
To me, this is a bit lazy on their part..
Point in Case:
My 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor Ais is 99% distortion free Out of the Box.
And cost about $250.00 it's day! maybe $400 today?
It has a Close Focus Correction, and great sharpness and contrast.
There is no "good" reason why today's wide's can't have the corrections as part of the optical and glass formula. I really don't believe it will add "that much" in the price in the end game.
But, it is a Shortcut in my view at the design stage. Now that our editing software can do it...
It is 100% possible to include this correction in the design stage. As many here can testify with examples they have from lenses from over 10 years old or so. Before Software (firmware) included it (Not Just Leica Lenses are included here either)
But, I do like that most Digital cams can correct native lenses in camera. It is a blessing, but, also a shortcut at the makers end also.
lewis44
Well-known
I mostly use DXO Software for Processing and it has modules for most camera/lens combos built in so I don't think about it. I do tweak the images in Photoshop afterwards, but not much.