Skip to main content

Canon RF 70-200 f4 is not support :(

Comments

17 comments

  • Sergi Salillas
    Admin

    Paweł Stelmach Thank you for your requests, this lens has been profiled in Capture One 15, therfore this profile will be available in that version and forward. 

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    Sergi,

    I don't see the RF version listed in the Canon lenses in Release 16.

    DOes it have a strange name allocated to the profile?

    The EF version is there. Perhaps the only difference is the mount?

    1
  • CambsCreative

    I have Capture One 23 and the Canon RF 70-200 F4 L lens is not here either, again, the EF version is, but not the Mirrorless RF version. Such a popular lens support for it 'HAS' to be added.

    1
  • Sergi Salillas
    Admin

    CambsCreative SFA Paweł Stelmach

    My bad! Yes, RF is not profiled yet. However, as the mount is the only thing that changes the EF profile should be pretty accurate for the RF lens. Even if your lens does not have a dedicated profile designed by our engineers, you can still achieve great results using Capture One’s powerful lens correction tools with a Generic or Manufacturer profile: Working with an unlisted lens profile.

    And let me thank you for the feedback, we value your input and strive to be transparent about known bugs and future camera support. However, we are not quite there yet for lens support.

    Our goal is to support as many lenses as possible, and we use in-app data to determine which are in high demand. 

    Since this is not currently considered a feature or a camera request, I will move this post to the Gear Talk topic.

    0
  • CambsCreative

    Sergi, not true, the RF glass is a different scientific design altogether so the profile difference between the EF and RF versions will be considerable. Canon did 'not' just take the EF lenses and stick an RF mount on them.

    Also, there is no support for the ever popular RF 100mm F2.8 Macro portrait lens either

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    Sergi,

    I have the impression that the RF lens should have some internal correction and therefore should show the Manufacturer Profile option?

    However, user reports seem to suggest that even that option is absent.

    That seems strange.

    Is it possible that the lens is not being fully identified in all parts of the software? 

    How does the Exif data seem to have a correct identification but the processing side does not?

    (I'm basing this on information from others as I do not have an RF-based system to work with.)

    0
  • Paweł Stelmach

     Canon RF 70-200 F4 L is optically different from the EF version. Also for better workflow, it's much better to have dedicated profile for this lens.

    And I would like to remind you that this is a very good and popular lens for new mirrorless Canon camera.

    0
  • CambsCreative

    There seems to be two or three RF lenses missing from Capture One's lens profiles, though the Exif data is present, just not the processing opportunity. Come on, Capture One, what's with the missing RF glass in your list of lens profiles? And, again, RF equivalents are totally different to EF optics, a completely different mirrorless design with the optics often in different groupings/spaces and even optic amounts etc, so suggesting using the EF 'equivalent' is not an option.

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    Missing lenses should just mean that, in the electronic world of lens built-in adjustments (to make them cheaper to build) one would expect Canon to have decent profile for the lens that is made available to any software processing the image via the data embedded in the image.

    That would normally appear as "Manufacturer Profile" as an option alongside "Generic".

    If the "popularity" of a lens is high enough (in use, not just claimed sales numbers) to make it worth C1 going through their assessment AND finding something to adjust, then one might also find a C1 specific profile as well.

    That the RF range must surely be embedded with a Canon "Manufacturer" adjustment data set, but the option to use it does not appear to be available to users (based on information presented here), seems strange. 

    It would be interesting to take a suitable test image with the combination of camera and lens, Something that can show correction data quite well, and shoot a RAW image and a JPG at the same time.

    The JPG should be corrected by default. The RAW can be processed without any (official) correction. 

    How different do they look?

    0
  • CambsCreative

    There is only 'Generic' in my drop-down list on the latest Capture One, definitely no 'Manufacturer' option as well as the two aforementioned RF lenses missing. 

    I don't have test charts for showing up pincushioning (or whatever) effects of not having a lens profile applied to be able to compare a RAW to a JPEG image to see the differences and don't feel like spending the money on charts or time to do it to be honest. I feel this is a Capture One problem to solve, not mine, I'm the customer and am not being paid by Capture One to do this, it's the other way around, I'm paying them.

    0
  • Paweł Stelmach

    And canon has very few RF lenses, compared to other brands.

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    Yes, I noted the Generic only a few posts above. Hence my puzzlement. Perhaps Sergi could run a quick investigation with the developers.

    I don't think you need to go as far as test charts for a quick assessment. A brick wall would probably be enough to clearly identify any differences between the "corrected" jpg and a RAW image.

    Unless, of course, there is something really strange going on.

    0
  • CambsCreative

    Nothing strange going on SFA, just Capture One has no lens profiles for these lenses, that's it. Again, brick wall, I'm not being paid to fix C1 software.

    0
  • Sergi Salillas
    Admin

    Hello, It is possible to use the powerful and precise lens correction tools in Capture One to work with a Generic or Manufacturer profile. Manufacturer will not appear if Capture One has not received from the camera Manufacturer: Working with an unlisted lens profile

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    CambsCreative

    What I mean by "strange" is that I would expect that Canon has a profile for the lens adjustments built into either the lens or the camera. The lens would make more sense generally BUT, if I understand things correctly, since Canon has not been permitting 3rd party manufacturers to create RF lenses, they could simply keep their own profiles in camera and/or in their EOS Utility application.

    Now, having read what seems to be a relevant section of the R6 camera manual, it seems that the individual adjustments offered for the lenses can be turned off in the camera settings. In the case of some of the settings there are multiple option for an "on" status.

    Presumably of the settings (or maybe just one of them?) is set to "Off" it may be that the way C1 might access such settings is disabled and no adjustment values are loaded. In which case no "Manufacturer Profile" might be offered for the images where the data is not present.

    I'm guessing here. If I had a relevant camera I would test the theory, but I don't. 

    However, in my reading and understanding of the manual sections related to lens correction adjustments (which do not really cover what might happen outside the Canon environment. Hardly surprising.)  and take into account Sergi's recent post here, there seems to be a good reason for checking that the correction values for the specific problem lens(es) are not turned off in camera.

    If they are ON, and based on the expectation of C1 that they would be used if available, then it would seem that there is some sort of mis-match between C1 and the Canon data.

    As for a specific C1 profile for the lenses, I read a review of the lens (from a source I have respect for from past reviews over the years) which suggests that there is very little additional adjustment that could be provided and would make any noticeable difference. They were more or less saying that it would probably not be worth creating a different profile in most use cases, even though their test used RAW files with Canon's adjustments turned off.

    My own experiences with L lenses (EF mounts) suggests much the same. The C1 profiles do indeed make changes that are visible but whether they are notable and vital in general use is a matter of opinion. The lenses I have could probably live very happily without them. 

    Of course, that is just my opinion.

    Irrespective of that observation, the lack of a Manufacturer Profile listing seems unusual and it would be interesting to know what influence the in-camera settings have.

    0
  • CambsCreative

    Thanks so much, SFA, super clear and I appreciate you taking the time. My images all look fine, but I was just concerned looking to see that no profile had been selected. I am sure in-camera lens corrections are turned on, but will double check, but I shoot RAW and not sure what difference this makes. Anyway, images look fine, except the RF 16mm F2.8, which is bloody awful, but it's an awful lens for distortion anyway ;)

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    @CambsCreative

    Hi Nigel,

    Ah, wide angle lenses.

    I have quite a few manual lenses from a time before electronic in-lens correction data was available. Most are old but I dived into a Samyang 14mm a decade or more back and enjoy trying to be creative with it from time to time. 

    If has some pretty awful "moustache" distortion that is too much to consider trying to fix. And I'm using on crop sensor bodies so it's not even a real 14mm. for me.

    However, it is great fun to use in certain situations and my copy seems to be really sharp when things come together. It's easy to get things a little off but in the right circumstances, it can produce some interesting results. I just have to remember that it was a budget buy to fulfill a need for which I could not justify spending a lot more money and that I recognised the potential limitations before I bought it.

    Absolutely no lens data with that one!

    I have an old FD mount 600mm too, also fully manual except for a chipped adapter for FD to EF mount.

    At its design use settings - basically wide open  - it can produce some superb results with no distortion correction required but the depth of field is relatively shallow. The chip, on a crop sensor body and with some extra "Length" as the result of the adapter, identifies it as 800mm. It's big, heavy, and requires a tripod. The manual focus really requires pre-focus and then wait for the subject to appear to get the best results. In the right light, it is lovely. In side light situations it tends to have severe purple fringing and similar aberrations.

    I'm happy to use such lenses knowing their limitations and shooting accordingly. They were low-budget items when I bought them.

    If using a relatively expensive upper-range lens that offers poor results I would be less happy. I have one such lens but I bought it used knowing it had been well used It worked well for a while but the weather got to it. I had it overhauled twice. The first time it failed taking some test shots before I left the repair centre (who had not undertaken the work themselves) . 

    It did not last long the second time, being usually, but not always, very out of focus at the long end of the zoom range. It has quite a nice effect for portraits in its mid-zoom range ... but it's rare for me to take portraits and when the opportunity arises I probably don't have the lens with me. 

    I have to admit that with lenses such as these distortion per se is not the first thing that comes to mind and so corrections, such as may be required, are unlikely to be pre-ordained for correction in any profile that might be created for them. 

    I also have an EF 70-200 f2.8 L Mk 2 which I often use with a 2x extender.

    C1 corrects it a small amount, especially at the shorter end, but realistically for most use cases the corrected and uncorrected states are both fine for my purposes.

    The high-end lenses designed and built before built-in adjustments arrived tended to have very sound optical standards, as they had to for pre-digital hardware. I do wonder if, nowadays, the lens designers rely on digitally corrected images as a means to allow greater design and manufacturing quality freedom while retaining or even enhancing results. In some categories, Micro 4/3rds for example, this approach was required to permit the creation of small lenses with large lens characteristics, for small cameras and lightweight travel requirements.

    In theory, every lens created for a given model could have different build standards, with all out-of-spec results being corrected digitally, no two lenses being exactly the same. 

     

    And then there is AI ... but let's not go there.

     

    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.