# Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM and Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM have begun shipping



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 13, 2021)

> I have received reports and confirmations that the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM and Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM have begun shipping to folks that had preordered.  Quantities are limited, but they should begin arriving on doorsteps or in-store tomorrow.
> Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Key Features
> 
> First ultra-wide-angle, fixed focal length RF lens
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 13, 2021)

My 16mm hasn’t shipped from Adorama. Don’t think they were shipping until tomorrow? Lucky!! Haha


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Oct 13, 2021)

Got my 16mm ten minutes ago and heading out now to test it


----------



## OskarB (Oct 13, 2021)

Some Shops have the RF 100-400 on stock here in Austria, but I haven't seen the RF 16 so far.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 13, 2021)

Many other RF lenses (24-70/2.8L, 100-500) are showing up on B&H and Amazon as 'more on the way' and 'in stock soon'.


----------



## simba42 (Oct 13, 2021)

Got my preordered RF 100-400 today here in Germany.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 13, 2021)

Received the pre-order invoice 22 minutes ago and paid it, the RF16mm should arrive tomorrow afternoon!


----------



## hunck (Oct 13, 2021)

RF 16mm. Ordered mine in Holland. (cameranu) It shipped today, I'll have it in a few hours.


----------



## InchMetric (Oct 13, 2021)

First day order from BH shows no action yet.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 13, 2021)

hunck said:


> RF 16mm. Ordered mine in Holland. (cameranu) It shipped today, I'll have it in a few hours.


Ah, you went for the faster shipping option! Please give us an impression when you receive it, that should tide me over till postnl shows up tomorrow around 16:00


----------



## LeBlobe (Oct 13, 2021)

Is there RF extension tube small enough for the 16mm f/2.8?


----------



## Swurre (Oct 13, 2021)

Yes, got my RF16mm 2.8 STM today


----------



## GrunRad (Oct 13, 2021)

OskarB said:


> Some Shops have the RF 100-400 on stock here in Austria, but I haven't seen the RF 16 so far.


Picked up my RF 100-400 today (Vienna/Austria), will try it out tomorrow...


----------



## slclick (Oct 13, 2021)

That 100-400 will complete my lens lineup. Happy Days


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 13, 2021)

Any reviews of the 16mm yet? Im really curious about the image quality.


----------



## joseph ferraro (Oct 14, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> Is there RF extension tube small enough for the 16mm f/2.8?


Kenko makes a 10mm one.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Oct 14, 2021)

POST SAMPLES!!!  

(please)


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 14, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> Is there RF extension tube small enough for the 16mm f/2.8?


Would a 13mm extension tube work with the 26mm lens? What is the issue to look out for?


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 14, 2021)

Looks like a lot of people on Europe have gotten lucky! Anyone get their preorders in the US yet? From where?


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 14, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> Is there RF extension tube small enough for the 16mm f/2.8?


There are quite a lot of options for extension tubes for RF mount.


----------



## Marximusprime (Oct 14, 2021)

I was surprised to find there were two 100-400s in stock at Amazon US. I ordered one and it'll be here tomorrow. The 16mm was out of stock.
Edit: Amazon now says there are 12 in stock.


----------



## Marximusprime (Oct 14, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Looks like a lot of people on Europe have gotten lucky! Anyone get their preorders in the US yet? From where?


I didn't preorder mine, but they had a couple in stock at Amazon. I ordered one and it'll be here tomorrow.


----------



## Ninja Squirrel (Oct 14, 2021)

If it help's with anyone else's read on Canon's stock levels, my RF 100-400 order placed on the 25th has just changed status to 'Fulfilled'.


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 14, 2021)

Marximusprime said:


> I was surprised to find there were two 100-400s in stock at Amazon US. I ordered one and it'll be here tomorrow. The 16mm was out of stock.
> Edit: Amazon now says there are 12 in stock.


Was that 12 100-400s or 12 16mm?


----------



## PixelTrawler (Oct 14, 2021)

I've mine preordered with Amazon UK but no dispatch yet (The RF 16)

I just checked youtube for any new clips and there are two short clips of people walking around with it. The IBIS wobble in both clips is a bit crazy as they walk around. 
Its very noticeable...

If you search RF 16 on youtube and sort by new you'll see them.


----------



## LeBlobe (Oct 14, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Would a 13mm extension tube work with the 26mm lens? What is the issue to look out for?


The minimum focus distance might be inside the lens making it unusable. That's the issue with ultra wide macro.


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 14, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> The minimum focus distance might be inside the lens making it unusable. That's the issue with ultra wide macro.


Thanks for the reply. Just got the Meike 13mm and 18mm tubes to use with this lens. Feeling great about that purchase now.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Oct 14, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Thanks for the reply. Just got the Meike 13mm and 18mm tubes to use with this lens. Feeling great about that purchase now.


Hopefully they mount. The RF 35 doesnt fit some tubes e.g. the Fotodiox Pro ones.
Was hoping to get tubes myself. It would be great if you posted back when they arrive to see if they work.


----------



## Marximusprime (Oct 14, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Was that 12 100-400s or 12 16mm?



Sorry, it was 12 100-400s. I haven't seen any 16mms in stock.
Edit: Now the 100-400s are out of stock.


----------



## RikC (Oct 14, 2021)

Hi, thought I'd post a picture as a new registered user here. Got my RF 16mm f/2.8 delivered this morning. Posed it next to my nifty fifty! Exact same outer casing. The lens hood of the 50mm, the ES-65B fits on the 16mm lens as well but has some very minor showing in the corner of the picture in photo mode on my R6. In video mode with enhanced digital stabilization crop it shouldn't be noticeable I think. I did also order the accompanying hood as well, the ES-65C, but that hasn't shipped yet though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 14, 2021)

RikC said:


> Hi, thought I'd post a picture as a new registered user here. Got my RF 16mm f/2.8 delivered this morning. Posed it next to my nifty fifty! Exact same outer casing. The lens hood of the 50mm, the ES-65B fits on the 16mm lens as well but has some very minor showing in the corner of the picture in photo mode on my R6. In video mode with enhanced digital stabilization crop it shouldn't be noticeable I think. I did also order the accompanying hood as well though, the ES-65C, but that hasn't shipped yet though.


Welcome and thanks!


----------



## RikC (Oct 14, 2021)

One extra picture of the back of both lenses: same outer casing but a rather different optical element design. And also the 50mm appears so be made in Malaysia and the 16mm in Taiwan.




The 16mm also appears to make less focusing noises than the 50mm when used for video. But then off-course it also has less focusing to do as wider and slower lens.


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 14, 2021)

RikC said:


> One extra picture of the back of both lenses: same outer casing but a rather different optical element design. And also the 50mm appears so be made in Malaysia and the 16mm in Taiwan.
> 
> View attachment 200765
> 
> ...


Thanks so much for sharing!
Where did you manage to get your lens so quickly?


----------



## Moritz_RD02 (Oct 14, 2021)

I just got my RF16 copy and wanted to share my first thoughts. And please hold on to your butts, strap in, as this will propably (not) shock you:

You can NOT (!) turn of the distortion correction, regardless whether you're shooting raw or jpg. You can trick your r-whatever into showing the whole picture (literally) when you slightly unscrew it from the mount, forcing the now not properly coupled lens to to show the whole "mess". It gets a lot wider, a lot more distorted, but interestingly does not show too dark corners. At least at infinity, that is. At the closest focussing distance it shows basically black corner-extremeties gets even more distortion and a much (!) narrower view. This lens focus breathes athletically.

Image quality, from what I could test so far, is okay-ish; the corrected image is nearly flat and shows basically no distortion, center is sharp, corners are unsurpisingly less so at f/2.8 but do get better at smaller apertures. I would guess that my EF 16-35 f4 L is probably a whole lot better (when compared at the same apertures).

But: It is tiny. And light. And to be honest: As a freakishly small lens for strolling around, hiking without too much gear or even cycling (for which I bought it) it ain't too bad a deal. At least so far.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 14, 2021)

Moritz_RD02 said:


> I just got my RF16 copy and wanted to share my first thoughts. And please hold on to your butts, strap in, as this will propably (not) shock you:
> 
> You can NOT (!) turn of the distortion correction, regardless whether you're shooting raw or jpg. You can trick your r-whatever into showing the whole picture (literally) when you slightly unscrew it from the mount, forcing the now not properly coupled lens to to show the whole "mess". It gets a lot wider, a lot more distorted, but interestingly does not show too dark corners. At least at infinity, that is. At the closest focussing distance it shows basically black corner-extremeties gets even more distortion and a much (!) narrower view. This lens focus breathes athletically.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the information. Agree, nothing surprising – it's a $300 FF ultrawide lens, and given that Canon 'forces' corrections on the RF 14-35L, I'd be surprised if they didn't do so on the 16/2.8. But I'm also not surprised that if delivers decent images, and a small, light and inexpensive lens that delivers decent images will end up in a lot of people's kits.


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 14, 2021)

An f/8 lens in 2021…meanwhile Sony just released the worlds lightest 70-200 f/2.8.

What’s happening to Canon?


----------



## Marximusprime (Oct 14, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> An f/8 lens in 2021…meanwhile Sony just released the worlds lightest 70-200 f/2.8.
> 
> What’s happening to Canon?



They're not remotely in the same class?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 14, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> An f/8 lens in 2021…meanwhile Sony just released the worlds lightest 70-200 f/2.8.
> 
> What’s happening to Canon?


Sony's lens is the world's lightest by 25 g. The Canon RF 70-200/2.8 is just 2% heavier. The Canon lens has a removable tripod collar, so it will probably be lighter without that than the Sony with just the removable foot taken off. 

Meanwhile, Canon released a $650 zoom lens that goes to 400mm, a 600mm lens for $700 and an 800mm lens for $900.

What is happing to Canon is that they're going to sell a lot of these affordable lenses, and probably continue to gain more market share than Sony.


----------



## InchMetric (Oct 14, 2021)

The notion is interesting. With a 45mp R5, you can shoot from the hip and then later get a nice 10mp 35mm equivalent shot from almost anywhere in the frame. Some distortion correction software to "center" the image on the zone would facilitate this broad capture in the field, and compose "in the lab."

I have a pending patent application that discloses the concept of analyzing settings and condition to enable "digital zoom" only to reasonable image quality limits. Make the control ring a digital zoom ring to aid composition.


----------



## RikC (Oct 14, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Thanks so much for sharing!
> Where did you manage to get your lens so quickly?


Gladly! I got it in the Netherlands from Kamera-Express. They're a large retailer operating in countries in North-Western Europe. I paid a smaller amount for the pre-order and in the mail arranging the rest of they payment it was mentioned that the link was valid for a limited time due to limited quantaties of this lens becoming available.


----------



## Moritz_RD02 (Oct 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for the information. Agree, nothing surprising – it's a $300 FF ultrawide lens, and given that Canon 'forces' corrections on the RF 14-35L, I'd be surprised if they didn't do so on the 16/2.8. But I'm also not surprised that if delivers decent images, and a small, light and inexpensive lens that delivers decent images will end up in a lot of people's kits.



Just checked the pictures in Lightroom Classic CC - the most recent one. Lo and behold: Canon does not seem to "hard crop" the pictures when shooting RAW. They appear distortion corrected when viewed in camera, but the RAW itself is completely unaffected. I'll attach some pictures in a few minutes.

See attached image. I cheated a tiny bit, though. The foreground and treetop were gradient adjusted by about a stop, plus 2/3 of a stop overall, because my RP badly underexposed the shot. What drives me nuts - and what I hope Canon will fix in an firmware update - is the distortion corrections in camera. Because if I can crop it myself, I wanna have complete control over the picture I am about to take.

Both were shot at f/2.8 with my RP.


----------



## RexxReviews (Oct 14, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> First day order from BH shows no action yet.


Mine has not either. I pre-ordered within 20 minutes of them opening preorders. Just shows "back ordered"


----------



## neto velasco (Oct 14, 2021)

RexxReviews said:


> Mine has not either. I pre-ordered within 20 minutes of them opening preorders. Just shows "back ordered"


Mine has not shipped, contacted B&H they say they havnt got the shipment yet and that will contact Canon for them to give BH an estimate date. Also ordered within 30 min of preorders.


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 14, 2021)

RikC said:


> Gladly! I got it in the Netherlands from Kamera-Express. They're a large retailer operating in countries in North-Western Europe. I paid a smaller amount for the pre-order and in the mail arranging the rest of they payment it was mentioned that the link was valid for a limited time due to limited quantaties of this lens becoming available.


Sounds like an excellent process that went smoothly! No small feat in these times, thank you for sharing!


----------



## RexxReviews (Oct 14, 2021)

neto velasco said:


> Mine has not shipped, contacted B&H they say they haven't got the shipment yet and that will contact Canon for them to give BH an estimate date. Also ordered within 30 min of preorders.


Wow.... Canon announced this 30 days ago and knew they were shipping well before that and still managed not getting stock to one of the larges US based retailors? What an epic fail


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 14, 2021)

RikC said:


> Gladly! I got it in the Netherlands from Kamera-Express. They're a large retailer operating in countries in North-Western Europe. I paid a smaller amount for the pre-order and in the mail arranging the rest of they payment it was mentioned that the link was valid for a limited time due to limited quantaties of this lens becoming available.


I was a bit surprised to see it in stock today at cameraland.nl, but then I remembered them telling me they stopped doing pre-orders for products where demand outstrips supply.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 14, 2021)

RexxReviews said:


> Wow.... Canon announced this 30 days ago and knew they were shipping well before that and still managed not getting stock to one of the larges US based retailors? What an epic fail


If that's what you consider an "epic fail" you need to get a life. I'm as anxious as anyone to get the lens, but I'm not going to whine about waiting a few days. For all we know, they might be sitting in a container waiting to be unloaded by overworked dock workers. Not everything is Canon's fault.


----------



## Alastair Norcross (Oct 14, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> An f/8 lens in 2021…meanwhile Sony just released the worlds lightest 70-200 f/2.8.
> 
> What’s happening to Canon?


More like what's happening to Sony? The Sony 70-200 is a whopping 25gm lighter than the Canon and considerably larger when not zoomed, and just as prohibitively expensive. High quality (increasingly) expensive 70-200 F2.8 zooms have been available for a long time. Small, light, and cheap long zooms (or primes) are not nearly so common. Canon is actually innovating with the F8 primes and this F5.6-8 zoom. It's actually smaller, lighter (by a lot) and a bit cheaper than the Tamron 100-400, which I bought as much for the weight savings over the Canon 100-400 or 100-500 as the cost savings (though that was important too). It's great to have these options. If you don't want it, no-one is forcing you to hand over the surprisingly small bucks to buy it. You can still pay tonnes of cash for the EF 100-400 or the RF 100-500. And the 16 F2.8 is another welcome addition. A lot of people (me included) use UWA zooms almost exclusively at the wide end. The availability of a small, light, cheap 16 F2.8 is great. And it doesn't have to be sharp wide open. I mostly shoot my UWA for landscapes, stopped down to at least F5.6 and usually F8 or F11.


----------



## rontele7 (Oct 14, 2021)

Alastair Norcross said:


> Canon is actually innovating


Innovating...with the slowest lenses on the market that produce such incredible distortion (see 24-240 f/6.3) that they require software to correct?

And that require using a brand new mount that has given us cheaply built, heavy, huge, expensive all-plastic L lenses?

To me it looks like grasping at straws.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 15, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Innovating...with the slowest lenses on the market that produce such incredible distortion (see 24-240 f/6.3) that they require software to correct?
> 
> And that require using a brand new mount that has given us cheaply built, heavy, huge, expensive all-plastic L lenses?
> 
> To me it looks like grasping at straws.


No one is forcing you to buy these inferior products. If you prefer another brand knock yourself out.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Oct 15, 2021)

Moritz_RD02 said:


> Just checked the pictures in Lightroom Classic CC - the most recent one. Lo and behold: Canon does not seem to "hard crop" the pictures when shooting RAW. They appear distortion corrected when viewed in camera, but the RAW itself is completely unaffected. I'll attach some pictures in a few minutes.
> 
> See attached image. I cheated a tiny bit, though. The foreground and treetop were gradient adjusted by about a stop, plus 2/3 of a stop overall, because my RP badly underexposed the shot. What drives me nuts - and what I hope Canon will fix in an firmware update - is the distortion corrections in camera. Because if I can crop it myself, I wanna have complete control over the picture I am about to take.
> 
> Both were shot at f/2.8 with my RP.



At least with the chestnut photo, the colors looks superb. Reminds me of a classic Zeiss ZE prime.

This is so compact and affordable, I may order one. I was pondering the Rokinon 14mm, but I don't need the AF or heavier weight of the two Rokinon RF 14mm offerings I looked at.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Innovating...with the slowest lenses on the market that produce such incredible distortion (see 24-240 f/6.3) that they require software to correct?


It is true that awful geometric distortion in a MILC lens design is not a Canon innovation. Sony, Olympus and Fuji started doing it years before Canon.

Slow lenses cost less. That makes a system more affordable…and for FF MILCs (relative) affordability is definitely a Canon innovation. Today, I could buy an RP, RF 24-105 non-L and RF 100-400 for the same amount I’d have paid 10 years ago for a T1i/500D, 17-55, and 70-300 non-L (I did buy the first two, along with the 85/1.8). List a Sony or Nikon FF MILC with a 2-lens kit covering 24-400mm that would cost <$2050, or a 3-lens kit covering 16-400mm that would cost <$2350. Good luck.



rontele7 said:


> And that require using a brand new mount that has given us cheaply built, heavy, huge, expensive all-plastic L lenses?


The plastics used are lighter than metal and very durable. They can be engineered to be stronger and less sensitive to changes in temperature than metal alloys.



rontele7 said:


> To me it looks like grasping at straws.


Yes, your arguments do appear that way.


----------



## dcm (Oct 15, 2021)

How well does Canon read the market? One indication. 





Amazon.com New Releases: The best-selling new & future releases in Camera Lenses


Amazon.com New Releases: The best-selling new & future releases in Camera Lenses



smile.amazon.com


----------



## InchMetric (Oct 15, 2021)

The BH delay is reason to consider ordering two different places. If it were important. Which it really isn’t, to me.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Oct 15, 2021)

dcm said:


> How well does Canon read the market? One indication.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe better than some people realize.

Anyway, I just learned of this RF 16mm the past couple days, decided to buy one today, and already found a copy this afternoon at a camera store outside Seattle. Payment done, and the lens should be headed over the border into Oregon the next day or two.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 15, 2021)

I'm happy with the RF16mm, it performs like expected and DPP4 does a good job correcting the distortion. Here's 100% crop of the center at minimum focussing distance in LR using a TIFF generated by DPP4. The AF was fast enough to keep up with the subjects


----------



## PixelTrawler (Oct 15, 2021)

How do the native raws look in Lightroom?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 15, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Innovating...with the slowest lenses on the market that produce such incredible distortion (see 24-240 f/6.3) that they require software to correct?
> 
> And that require using a brand new mount that has given us cheaply built, heavy, huge, expensive all-plastic L lenses?
> 
> To me it looks like grasping at straws.



Offering big aperture and expensive lenses is not a sign of innovation. The 24-240 require software corrections because that's the only way to make the lens small and affordable.
There is physics and compromises need to be made.

Are you complaining about huge and expensive L lenses but when Canon releases small and affordable ones, you want them to have the same size and optical quality as L lenses?


----------



## Moritz_RD02 (Oct 15, 2021)

PixelTrawler said:


> How do the native raws look in Lightroom?



Good from the brief moment I've had it. Mind you that Lightroom CC Classic (as of now) shows them completely uncorrected, with every "problem" I've stated above in my post.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 15, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I'm happy with the RF16mm, it performs like expected and DPP4 does a good job correcting the distortion. Here's 100% crop of the center at minimum focussing distance in LR using a TIFF generated by DPP4. The AF was fast enough to keep up with the subjects
> 
> View attachment 200785


Are those Giant snails? That lens could be a fun one for Crop body as well as FF body. How is distortion and corner shading?


----------



## Moritz_RD02 (Oct 15, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> How is distortion and corner shading?


A ton worse than the EF 16-35/4. Here is a native side by side of the RF16 (left picture) vs EF 16-35/4 (at 16mm, to the right), both mounted on my RP, both shot from a tripod, both at f4. Mind you that the native view of the RF is a LOT wider than the EF. When viewed in-camera however the FOV from the RF is pretty much the same as with the EF.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 15, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Are those Giant snails? That lens could be a fun one for Crop body as well as FF body. How is distortion and corner shading?


These are 'regular' snails here in the Netherlands, wikipedia says _Helix pomatia, common names the Roman snail, Burgundy snail, edible snail, or escargot._ Roughly thumb sized.
I've only looked at the corrected DPP4 versions, so I can only say "no distortion or corner shading after DPP4 did its thing", which isn't very helpful


----------



## PixelTrawler (Oct 15, 2021)

Moritz_RD02 said:


> A ton worse than the EF 16-35/4. Here is a native side by side of the RF16 (left picture) vs EF 16-35/4 (at 16mm, to the right), both mounted on my RP, both shot from a tripod, both at f4. Mind you that the native view of the RF is a LOT wider than the EF. When viewed in-camera however the FOV from the RF is pretty much the same as with the EF.


Wow you can see a big difference along the rug on the floor. But it looks pretty good for a cheap small walk around lens. 
Hoping to use it for some discreet night shots in the city. Dublin is not a city to walk around with an expensive big obvious lens and camera at night.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 15, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> An f/8 lens in 2021…meanwhile Sony just released the worlds lightest 70-200 f/2.8.
> 
> What’s happening to Canon?


Care to elaborate?


----------



## Czardoom (Oct 15, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> ...
> I've only looked at the corrected DPP4 versions, so I can only say "no distortion or corner shading after DPP4 did its thing", which isn't very helpful


Exactly the opposite of course. The corrected version is EXACTLY what users of this lens will want to know, since the corrections will be automatic once all the software programs have the profile.

It constantly amazes me how some Canon users are so offended by these lenses that have auto-correction. As mentioned, other brands have been doing this with some mirrorless lenses for years now, and their users seem to accept this relatively easily - because in the end you get lenses that are smaller lighter and cheaper, and often with better results, than if the corrections are all being done optically. And even with those optically corrected lenses, you still often get considerable distortion, vignetting and CA that users still correct on their computers afterwards.


----------



## RexxReviews (Oct 15, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> The BH delay is reason to consider ordering two different places. If it were important. Which it really isn’t, to me.


I pre ordered from 4 different places as we needed 4 in total and all of them are having the same issues. B&H, Adorama, Amazon and a local shop.


----------



## helloholmes (Oct 15, 2021)

Received my RF 16mm this morning from my local camera store and did some testing.
I wanted to provide a few sample images just for reference in case these help anyone.

For my line of work, which is Real Estate and Interiors (both photo & video), this lens is incredible and will be more go to lens.
For photos, I'm typically shooting between f/5.6-7.1 and as expected, it's incredibly sharp; center to corner. Even at f/2.8, I'm extremely happy.

Attached are 3 screenshots of the same image in my office;
(I had to take screenshots because the Canon Rumors uploader wouldn't allow for the large RAW or JPEG files.)

Two images are in Canon DPP4, with one being RAW and the other JPEG; and the last image being the RAW image in LR.
This way you can see the image with the DPP 16mm lens correction applied and without it in LR.
(Both image completely straight out of camera and no adjustments what so ever)

When testing, I shot both RAW + JPEG L;
SS: 1/4
A: f/2.8
ISO: 320

And similar to the RF 14-35 f/4, the 16mm is actually wider than 16mm and relies on the digital profile correction to get it to 16mm, which is why there is so much distortion without the profile correction, similar to my LR RAW example. This must have been how they could get the costs down on the lens.

I also did a test where in LR, if you apply the profile correction for the EF 15mm 2.8, then adjust the distortion slider to roughly +40 you will "straighten out the image"...that being said, if you do a side by side comparison to the DPP RAW file with the 16mm profile correction applied, you're actually getting an even wider field of view, closer to 12-14mm. Again, this is just a test and a "work around" for LR users until the 16mm profile is released. (Take note of how much more doorframe is in this "corrected" image in LR with the 15mm profile compared to the DPP RAW image)

Overall, I am BEYOND thrilled with the performance of the lens, for my purposes at least! 

If there's anything else you'd like me to test, let me know.

Thanks for looking!


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Oct 15, 2021)

RexxReviews said:


> I pre ordered from 4 different places as we needed 4 in total and all of them are having the same issues. B&H, Adorama, Amazon and a local shop.


I bought mine from a Kenmore camera store in Washington yesterday. Having just learned about this 16mm the past couple days, I read a post on Fred Miranda forums by one of the sales guys at Kenmore when he posted last night. So mine is already in the shipping stage.


----------



## joseph ferraro (Oct 15, 2021)

helloholmes said:


> Received my RF 16mm this morning from my local camera store and did some testing.
> I wanted to provide a few sample images just for reference in case these help anyone.
> 
> For my line of work, which is Real Estate and Interiors (both photo & video), this lens is incredible and will be more go to lens.
> ...


thanks for sharing! I can't wait until mine gets here (eventually  ) I got it to do close up macro work and supplement my Laowa 15 when I want a bit more working room accepting the cost of slightly less magnification since I'm usually around 1:4 on the laowa anyhow.


----------



## dcm (Oct 16, 2021)

Looks like Canon took my money and shipped the RF 100-400 today.


----------



## Ninja Squirrel (Oct 16, 2021)

dcm said:


> Looks like Canon took my money and shipped the RF 100-400 today.


Grats, I just received my rf 100-400 today.


----------



## RexxReviews (Oct 16, 2021)

helloholmes said:


> Received my RF 16mm this morning from my local camera store and did some testing.
> I wanted to provide a few sample images just for reference in case these help anyone.
> 
> For my line of work, which is Real Estate and Interiors (both photo & video), this lens is incredible and will be more go to lens.
> ...


That's what I actually ordered our first 4 for. We train new RE photographers and the kits we use for training had been consisting of an EOS-R and a big ass EF 17-40 and and adapter. We figured these would lighten the load quite a bit.


----------



## neto velasco (Oct 16, 2021)

I just uploaded a Video using the rf16mm lens, for the price is great, it does have tons of vignette which I like for the type of pictures I shoot, its sharp and we need to see it as what it is, a $299 lens great to shoot and to have in the backpack. I ordered it from About 30 min after release from B&H, it was still backordered and a friend of mine found it in a local shop about an hour away from downtown L.A. and he got it for me Video here


----------



## JordanCS13 (Oct 16, 2021)

For those looking at shipping, I can tell you what the guy at my local store in Columbus told me: their shipment is coming on Monday (with my pre-ordered 16 on that shipment). Things came in via boat to California, were a day or so late, and are arriving via UPS to the store on Monday, at which point I should be able to pick mine up. Looks like west coast stores are the ones more likely to have had it in stock yesterday, while more easterly ones are still waiting for the trucks to arrive. There are almost certainly some exceptions to this, though.


----------



## Adelino (Oct 17, 2021)

neto velasco said:


> I just uploaded a Video using the rf16mm lens, for the price is great, it does have tons of vignette which I like for the type of pictures I shoot, its sharp and we need to see it as what it is, a $299 lens great to shoot and to have in the backpack. I ordered it from About 30 min after release from B&H, it was still backordered and a friend of mine found it in a local shop about an hour away from downtown L.A. and he got it for me Video here


I liked your video, thanks! Nice portraits!


----------



## Moritz_RD02 (Oct 17, 2021)

So I took the RF16 for an autumn stroll yesterday and can say pretty much only positive things about it. Apart from the obvious (light, small, cheap) it's heaps better than I'd ever expected it to be. I'll briefly explain why:

It's basically two lenses in one. It's advertised as a 16mm (duh) but it actually is a lot wider when not in-camera or app corrected and usable at that. And while the corner extremities are pretty fuzzy at f/2.8 it's nowhere near as a bad as I would've thought. To be honest: my olde EF17-40/4 was just as bad when I look through older pictures. Plus: the corners get a massive boost at smaller apertures. I don't shoot test-screens or brick walls, but from what I can tell the corners are downright great starting from f/4.0 and upwards - and not only for a lens at that price point. Yes, it vignettes heavily, especially at minimum focussing distance, but at medium to infinity it's okay-ish and gets significantly better at smaller apertures. Be aware though that at closest focussing distance it has basically dark corners. What surprised me most is the flare resistance - it's basically perfect from the brief extreme sunshine we've had and shows no flare. Beware though, because I am not that keen on using flares in my pictures.

AF is a non issue, though a bit finicky. The multi-wheel at the front is clickless (another gripe I have with it), making it basically useless as a control wheel for any sorts. Also: When the lens is turned on the focussing barrel darts out a bit. It's only flush with the lens barrel when it's off and only does so, when it's turned off with the camera!

The only thing that annoys me is the view within the camera, as it auto-switches to the "corrected" view and you can't turn it off, making exact framing (and to my liking it's a must on wide angle lenses) a pain in the butt. I helped myself with a tripod and slightly misaligning it on the mount, showing me the full view to compose and re-attaching it correctly when I'm done.


----------



## PixelTrawler (Oct 18, 2021)

Moritz_RD02 said:


> So I took the RF16 for an autumn stroll yesterday and can say pretty much only positive things about it. Apart from the obvious (light, small, cheap) it's heaps better than I'd ever expected it to be. I'll briefly explain why:
> 
> It's basically two lenses in one. It's advertised as a 16mm (duh) but it actually is a lot wider when not in-camera or app corrected and usable at that. And while the corner extremities are pretty fuzzy at f/2.8 it's nowhere near as a bad as I would've thought. To be honest: my olde EF17-40/4 was just as bad when I look through older pictures. Plus: the corners get a massive boost at smaller apertures. I don't shoot test-screens or brick walls, but from what I can tell the corners are downright great starting from f/4.0 and upwards - and not only for a lens at that price point. Yes, it vignettes heavily, especially at minimum focussing distance, but at medium to infinity it's okay-ish and gets significantly better at smaller apertures. Be aware though that at closest focussing distance it has basically dark corners. What surprised me most is the flare resistance - it's basically perfect from the brief extreme sunshine we've had and shows no flare. Beware though, because I am not that keen on using flares in my pictures.
> 
> ...


Sounds like compromises we can live with. What I want out of it is a small, wide discrete lens thats reasonable image quality for the price. I knew there would be some compromises but it sounds better than I feared.

If the image quality is as good as the RF 35 which is very good for the price, I'll be very happy.


----------



## dcm (Oct 18, 2021)

dcm said:


> Looks like Canon took my money and shipped the RF 100-400 today.


Arrived today (two days early). Initial impressions are quite favorable paired with the R6 based on some cursory shots in the backyard. Nothing to post yet, and no time until the weekend.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 18, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> First day order from BH shows no action yet.


I checked on my order Sunday and B&H had not seen a shipment yet. Maybe stuck in Long Beach Harbor.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Oct 19, 2021)

PixelTrawler said:


> If the image quality is as good as the RF 35 which is very good for the price, I'll be very happy.


I have ordered my copy (delivery date: early november) and I expect its quality to be in the RF 50mm F/1.8 league rather than in the RF 35mm. 
More than acceptable to me.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 19, 2021)

No movement from Adorama yet for my 16mm, still "expecting shipment from manufacturer" 

Not a huge deal to me on a cheap lens I got just for the hell of it, but if this happens with the EOS R3's release I'm going to be super, super frustrated by the lack of communication almost a week after it was supposed to ship.


----------



## OutWithIt (Oct 20, 2021)

B&H just collected payment from me for the 16mm, which means likely shipping tomorrow.


----------



## joseph ferraro (Oct 20, 2021)

OutWithIt said:


> B&H just collected payment from me for the 16mm, which means likely shipping tomorrow.


I was just going over bank statements and saw the same for me. I checked the order status and it now says in Order in progress and no longer back ordered. Happy days.


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Oct 20, 2021)

Ditto. My order for the RF 100-400mm from B&H also shows "Order in Progress". 

Woohoo............


----------



## unfocused (Oct 20, 2021)

joseph ferraro said:


> ...I checked the order status and it now says in Order in progress and no longer back ordered...


Same here.


----------



## joseph ferraro (Oct 20, 2021)

and now a notification that it is shipped from B&H!! whoohooo, it's going to be a fun Friday!


----------



## danfaz (Oct 20, 2021)

joseph ferraro said:


> and now a notification that it is shipped from B&H!! whoohooo, it's going to be a fun Friday!


Got my shipped notice from b&h tonight, too!


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 20, 2021)

Adorama changed my order to "Awaiting Items" and charged my card. Not sure whether that means I missed the first batch or simply that Adorama doesn't yet have the 16mm in their hands yet, but I would hope that it's the later since they charged me already.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 20, 2021)

No surprise, but Canon Price Watch is showing the 16mm f2.8 backordered or out of stock at all the major retailers including Canon. One third-party seller on Amazon shows seven in stock. Looks like first day preorders were a good idea.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 22, 2021)

Mine just arrived from B&H. I'm guessing others are getting theirs too.


----------



## joseph ferraro (Oct 22, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Mine just arrived from B&H. I'm guessing others are getting theirs too.


yup. Mine arrived about an hour ago. I quickly threw it on just to test it for a second. I plan if I have time on doing some better tests over the weekend, depending on my work load. At a first glance, and only looking at results on back of the camera, it looks fantastic to me. Primarily going to use this for wide angle close up work and comparing how the Venus 15mm works, this is going to be dreamy to use.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 22, 2021)

Mine arrived from Adorama this morning. Super nice lens, really enjoying it! Surprised by the image quality, and how much wider it is uncorrected. Honestly. the uncorrected view may be useful for some if they need a wider lens and aren't worried about corrections.

Well worth the low price for a lot of people. I easily feel like this lens will outsell the nifty fifty quite a bit. Makes more sense for consumers to buy a focal length they don't already have in their kit zooms, plus it's a great selfie lens.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 22, 2021)

joseph ferraro said:


> At a first glance, and only looking at results on back of the camera, it looks fantastic to me...


Just a word of caution. It looked to me like the preview jpg on the back of the camera is a corrected view, while when I downloaded images to Photoshop they are uncorrected (in raw). Of course, I could be wrong. I'm sure others will weigh in. 

I actually like the look of an uncorrected wide angle, but that is just me.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Just a word of caution. It looked to me like the preview jpg on the back of the camera is a corrected view, while when I downloaded images to Photoshop they are uncorrected (in raw). Of course, I could be wrong. I'm sure others will weigh in.
> 
> I actually like the look of an uncorrected wide angle, but that is just me.


Yes, LR is, as usual, lacking support. Maybe they'll add support for this lens after adding support for R cameras newer than the R, which is also still lacking.

DPP4 does great work correcting this lens, it sadly lacks an option to turn *off* corrections.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 23, 2021)

Received mine on Thursday from Park Cameras here in the UK. At time of order they had more than 4 in stock now showing nothing.


----------



## danfaz (Oct 23, 2021)

Got my 100-400 yesterday. Haven't really taken it out yet, but 1st impressions are it's VERY light, focuses really quickly and the images appear to be very sharp. Close focus is impressive, right around 3 feet at 400mm.
Another thing is the zoom ring is very smooth and damped well - L lens like! I love the contoured shape of the ring, too, fits like a glove in the hand.


----------



## joseph ferraro (Oct 25, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Just a word of caution. It looked to me like the preview jpg on the back of the camera is a corrected view, while when I downloaded images to Photoshop they are uncorrected (in raw). Of course, I could be wrong. I'm sure others will weigh in.
> 
> I actually like the look of an uncorrected wide angle, but that is just me.


no caution needed, I looked in LR and PS too, I don't have any correction setting on my R5 on either, so I haven't tested if it actually is applying any corrections to the jpg preview either as I only shoot raw files in my workflow. I am also really only testing it on MF at the absolute closest focus where even uncorrected in LR they aren't looking too bad, and I fully expect some distortions in a lens like this. I had read people are using the canon 24-240 profile at 120-130% as a starting point for corrections as well, it is a starting point but YMMV.


----------



## gruhl28 (Oct 25, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Yes, LR is, as usual, lacking support. Maybe they'll add support for this lens after adding support for R cameras newer than the R, which is also still lacking.
> 
> DPP4 does great work correcting this lens, it sadly lacks an option to turn *off* corrections.


What do you mean by LR lacking support for R cameras newer than the R? It handles my RP, and I haven't heard of anyone having trouble with the R5 or R6. 

Doesn't it usually take LR at least a few weeks to support new lenses?


----------



## unfocused (Oct 25, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> What do you mean by LR lacking support for R cameras newer than the R? It handles my RP, and I haven't heard of anyone having trouble with the R5 or R6.
> 
> Doesn't it usually take LR at least a few weeks to support new lenses?


He is referring to the Camera specific profiles. I don't use them but some people do.


----------



## joseph ferraro (Oct 25, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Mine arrived from Adorama this morning. Super nice lens, really enjoying it! Surprised by the image quality, and how much wider it is uncorrected. Honestly. the uncorrected view may be useful for some if they need a wider lens and aren't worried about corrections.
> 
> Well worth the low price for a lot of people. I easily feel like this lens will outsell the nifty fifty quite a bit. Makes more sense for consumers to buy a focal length they don't already have in their kit zooms, plus it's a great selfie lens.


and yeah - it's a baked in sorta corrected jpg preview even if you have all that off it seems on


unfocused said:


> Just a word of caution. It looked to me like the preview jpg on the back of the camera is a corrected view, while when I downloaded images to Photoshop they are uncorrected (in raw). Of course, I could be wrong. I'm sure others will weigh in.
> 
> I actually like the look of an uncorrected wide angle, but that is just me.





joseph ferraro said:


> no caution needed, I looked in LR and PS too, I don't have any correction setting on my R5 on either, so I haven't tested if it actually is applying any corrections to the jpg preview either as I only shoot raw files in my workflow. I am also really only testing it on MF at the absolute closest focus where even uncorrected in LR they aren't looking too bad, and I fully expect some distortions in a lens like this. I had read people are using the canon 24-240 profile at 120-130% as a starting point for corrections as well, it is a starting point but YMMV.


and yeah it seems there is a baked in corrected preview in the raws after rechecking my LR catalog.. which is fine if you want to extract the raw preview to compare a correction against.


----------



## RexxReviews (Oct 26, 2021)

Just did the new Lightroom update and we did NOT get the new profile for this lens... RIP


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 26, 2021)

RexxReviews said:


> Just did the new Lightroom update and we did NOT get the new profile for this lens... RIP


Get used to that, Adobe is really slow with adding support for Canon products. Looking at the bright side, by the time the products are actually in stock, Adobe will have added support. So the year long wait for things has its upsides!


----------



## RexxReviews (Oct 26, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Get used to that, Adobe is really slow with adding support for Canon products. Looking at the bright side, by the time the products are actually in stock, Adobe will have added support. So the year long wait for things has its upsides!


We managed getting 4 of them from 4 different places. The modified RF 24-240 profile will have to work for now


----------



## RexxReviews (Oct 28, 2021)

so for anyone that wants to try, the EF 15mm 2.8 Profile with a Distortion of 40 also looks decent. I compared the "corrected" photo to a EF 16-35 and you are getting a wider FOV even when corrected compared to the EF 16-35. 

These were taken from the exact same distance, the 16-35 due to its length with the adapter appears to be closer slightly.

The first is the 16mm with the EF 15 profile. The second is the EF 16-35 @16mm. Both at f8.0 100 iso


----------



## JohanCruyff (Nov 11, 2021)

I ordered my RF 16mm on 17 october; it was supposed to be delivered today by Amazon.it, but it has been postponed to 19 november.


----------

