Distortion correction profile for Sony 16-35mm f4 PZ lens

Hi. I’m evaluating Photolab for the first time and although I’m generally impressed, the optics module for my most used lens (16-35mm f4 PZ on the A7RV) gives awful distortion correction when compared to the jpeg image (sony’s own lens profile). It’s a lens that has a lot of uncorrected distortion but the Photolab corrrections probably don’t even go half way (at 16mm).
Is this indicative of other optics modules? Sadly the software won’t be an option for me if so.

I tried this raw = Sony 16-35mm F4 PZ Sample Gallery: Digital Photography Review

can you illustrate what DxO PL6 module is lacking

it is different camera of course - but is it the case of A7R5 vs A74 … my untrained ( I rarely use any such wide lenses ) eye does not see any problems

Hi Dave and welcome,

Can you upload a sample RAW file and the DOP file produced by PL6 along with an in-camera produced full-sized JPG contained in a zipped file to a file sharing service(such as Dropbox, Wetransfer, p-Cloud, etc.) and post the link to it here? This way we can see what the problem is and can better help you with it.

Thanks for the responses. I’ll post an example when I’m home this evening. Cheers

Also it may not be the best sample image as the roofline isn’t perfectly square (guttering needs replacing!) but it’s the remaining barrel distortion I’m concerned about.

Hopefuly this works but let me know if any problems:
Dxo Sample RAW, dop and jpeg

That camera was just added to be supported.


M → No Correction


VC1 → DxO - Optical Corrections only

DSC00660.ARW.dop (18,2 KB)


I suggest to contact DxO support and send them the file / refer to this thread.

Yep, confirmed the module for this body and lens needs to be reworked. As @Wolfgang suggests open a ticket with support. I had to use a manual correction of 80(barrel distortion) to get it straightened out. I also corrected the perspective and volume deformation.

It’s not a pure barrel distortion, I can see a moustache distortion when I switch off the manufacturer profile (in Capture One, I was curious). C1’s own profile was sort of the one from DxO. I guess the first batches of the lenses had some flaws and were corrected by the manufacturer - I think this would explain the difference between OoC JPG and what we see in various converters

Couple of things for @unners:

To me the question is, how “perfectly straight” roof and gudder are, I have some doubts about that in first place.

Then, I suggest you turn the camera on a tripod into portrait orientation and level it, take some shots and stitch a panorama. Don’t use the 16 mm - that lens is clearly not made with “architecture” as main purpose. I’ve seen worse, but not many.

That way you can avoid being too close between outer frame and roof and you don’t need to apply perspective tools.

1 Like

Thanks for the responses everyone. It was literally the first shot I tried in Photo lab and I’d heard such good things about the optics modules so it was a bit surprising. I’ve opened a ticket with support anyway so will keep everyone posted.

@JoJu, the house is definitely not completely straight as I mentioned and the photo itself was purely for demonstration. The inbuilt lens profile does a perfectly good enough job for jpegs and in lightroom/C1 and I’d have no problems shooting architecture with it if need be. The uncorrected distortion is very high but I see no problems with corner sharpness once corrected (properly) and in my opinion it’s worth the tradeoff for the size/weight. I do have the Voigtlander 15mm lens is well which has very low distortion but obviously without the flexibility of the zoom.

Well, the Nikkor Z 14-30/4 is about in the same distortion class. I was a bit surprised the Sony was already profiled. Just 10 months on the market… :smile:

I gather there can be a bit of a wait sometimes! Thanks for the help.