Skip to main content

New Sony lens support



  • Official comment

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

  • SFA
    Top Commenter


    You wrote:

    "...  they apply a range of corrections to keep the weight down, and as a Capture One profile must be more accurate than the generic versions (otherwise why create them?) please add this to your list."

    I'm not sure that, in these days of digital correction built into the lens design process (as you point out), there can be any assumption that C1 or anyone else should automatically be able to create and obviously better lens profile than the lens manufacturer. In some cases that might indeed be the case, based on preferences for corrections of certain types to certain levels. But surely not for all lenses since that would suggest the manufacturers are incompetent and selling poor products.

    Long prime lenses (especially expensive ones) should be excellent as delivered. If not it may be a faulty lens.

    The same should generally be true of the regular, popular zoom lenses - 70-200 for example.

    Wider zooms may still have greater potential for different opinions about how to perfect them since the probability of greater correction requirements is higher. Nevertheless, any additional adjustments from a revised profile may be more about peripheral light and sharpness falloff tweaks rather than optical distortion correction for a give f-stop and focal length.

    If you have serious concerns about your 70-200, using the Manufacturer Profile,  it might be worth comparing results with another example of the same lens to see if the results are the same. Also, check for any other observations of less-than-acceptable results with the same lens posted by others. Maybe also check with Sony to see if there is a firmware update for the lens.


  • Roger Craven

    Thanks SFA. However, I am not suggesting manufacturers can’t provide an effective generic profile, rather than the very large numbers of lenses from the major manufacturers that C1 has profiled surely indicates that there must be some benefit (perhaps if C1 handles processing in a significantly different way to other processors) and that includes my 200-600 and well as the 20-70. I cannot comment on the mechanics of creating a profile and agree that wider lenses may well have more extreme corrections, and of course longer lenses that can use teleconverters will need a custom profile if the generic cannot accommodate that combination. As the new 70-200 is compatible with a teleconverter, and if my supposition is correct, why is it ruled out? Finally, my lenses to my amateur’s eyes do not have any issues.

  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    Hi Roger,

    C1 does indeed have a long list of supported lenses but many of them, possibly most of them, are lenses made or at least designed, well before the digital revolution, notably in-camera processing power, led to significant changes in the way that lenses are designed.

    This really can to the fore with the Micro 4/3rds format development where the companies using the format wanted to offer lenses that typically required considerable size and mass to make the optical physics laws work in a size that was matched to the cameras and the target of achieving lightness and high portability. 


    Put basically, they realised that, in a digital world with computer processing of the images in camera (or on a computer) they could program in fixes for distortion effects that normally required bigger lenses an exotic, expensive glass.

    Of course that was also cost effective and was quickly picked up by the entire industry as a cost cutting exercise.

    Where deemed absolutely necessary separate profiles are offered for lenses with teleconvertors, although of course new lenses and new teleconverters could be expected to come with their own compatible digital corrections. MIxing brands for lenses and converters might be a grey area in that respect.

    The digital Photo processing software industry (or at least those offering RAW file conversion facilities) have historically focused on lens profiling as a serious marketing attraction and that was fine to do.

    I suspect it created an expectation that correction profiles were an absolute requirement in all cases which may not be entirely correct. But the developers created a challenge for themselves while chasing market share by differentiating their products based on who had the best list of supported lenses.

    Recently the need to test every lens released and find a way to improve what each lens offered is less obviously of benefit since digital lens design techniques usually encompass digital correction anyway to make development faster, more consistent and cheaper. The same goes for compatible converters.

    I think C1 people take a look at the results and the requests and, if they see a potential improvement they can create they may well create a profile for it. However, there seem to be fewer and fewer lenses for which a real and noticeable difference can be provided when digital design techniques have been used to create them.

    Whether is would be best to create a profile anyway, just to claim there is one, could be discussed at length. To my mind it seems better to leave it to the manufacturer whenever possible.




    Well, because a good manufacturer might re-assess for each batch of lenses and provided batch specific adjustments, especially if by so doing they could maintain image correction quality and lower costs. It might be difficult to keep up with batches if the manufacturer is producing in relatively small runs.

    One of the more extreme suggestions I read was that digital production and lens correction would permit correction data to be derived related to an individual lens at point of manufacture and then programmed into the lens.

    If that is happening then any additional corrections, derived on the basis of a single lens under test, or even two samples of the lens to check for consistency, might prove to be unhelpful to other users of the lens.

    I think the lens industry is probably getting to a point of "if it does not look like it is badly broken, don't try to fix it". Just use the Manufacturer profile - as the out-of-camera jpegs will do.

  • Roger Craven

    Thanks for your thoughtful comments SFA, I see you put a lot of effort into commenting on a variety of posts. I will give a close look at the two profiles for my two Sony lenses that have them, but as I am not a pixel peeper I doubt I would find any difference even if present.


Please sign in to leave a comment.