Anyone else using the RF 14-35mm lens? On the plus side DxO has managed to build a lens profile that extracts more from the RAW (highly distorted) image at 14mm, and which looks as good to me in the corners as the Canon profile. Giving me a wider than 14mm lens which is pretty cool. On the negative side it doesn’t match what shows in the viewfinder-- leading to a lot of images where I need to crop. Short of moving in closer and guessing what will show in the processed image I have to shoot knowing I’ll have to manually crop if I want to match what I composed in the viewfinder and end up with less than the full pixels of the camera. I think this is a relatively new problem due to Canon and other’s building lenses designed to be corrected for distortion. Canon’s DPP matches the viewfinder (and in-camera Jpeg) and Lightroom’s profile is only a tiny bit wider. What do other’s think/do?
One of the reasons I initially chose DxO software over the competition is this very observation. I had just started shooting with an ultra-wide Olympus lens (18mm equivalent) and loved the leeway I got from DxO’s extra pixels. If I remember correctly, the extra width you get depends on (a) the initial crop setting (I choose “unconstrained” rather than “preserve aspect ratio”) and (b) distortion and volume correction settings. I suggest playing with these adjustments in PhotoLab to see if you prefer something other than the defaults.
yes, you get extra pixels on the wide end of most lenses - the wider the more. you can already find this on the wide end of a 24-70mm lens (ff) and it even works with compact cameras with fixed lenses such as the canon g1 x or s100 series. for me one of THE reasons to chose PL over any other software.
and here’s what i do: sometimes nothing, sometimes i crop or move the frame to the left or right to get a better image section. in some cases (and this is what i like best) i change the aspect ratio to 16:9 or 16:10 to make use of the extra width without losing much of the height.