# Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 8, 2021)

> A Canon Rumors reader has let me know that Amazon jumped the gun on posting the soon-to-be-announced Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM
> Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Specifications
> 
> 9 elements in 7 grounds (1 aspherical element)
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

This is a lot less than the guesses from the other thread ($500-$900), so a lot of people could be happy with the pricing on this lens. Depending on quality, of course.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 8, 2021)

At that price (and especially if it was a pancake) it would be an immediate buy for me.
Although - any possibility this is just the site asking for a deposit for a pre-order? That's common.


----------



## Nord0306 (Sep 8, 2021)

I might get this instead of the RF 14-35, either way it would replace an old 17-35 f2.8 in my bag, I can't see the downside.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

Jethro said:


> At that price (and especially if it was a pancake) it would be an immediate buy for me.
> Although - any possibility this is just the site asking for a deposit for a pre-order? That's common.


I think it was briefly spotted on Amazon, though so far no one has produced a screenshot. If that's the case it was probably the full price.
Pancake would be really nice!
I'm a tad worried about image quality at this price point, but I'm really looking forward to seeing it! Someone on DP Review also mentioned the listing said "macro," so that would be a really cool additional feature, if true!





RF 16mm f/2.8 Amazon listing.: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com





The RF 14-35 has a max magnification ratio of 0.15x at 14mm (0.38x at 35mm) and the RF 15-35 has a max magnification ratio of 0.10x at 15mm (0.21x at 35mm). If this 16mm lens has a 0.5x reproduction ratio at 16mm, it will offer a truly unique look for wide angle close up!


----------



## BBarn (Sep 8, 2021)

Nice to see the possibility of another low cost RF lens. If the price is that low it's unlikely to have IS, which seems consistent with earlier information regarding the lens description. At such a low price, the lens is also unlikely to have a separate control ring.

So another lens along the same lines as the RF 50mm f/1.8. If the lens lacks both IS and a dedicated control ring, I'll likely pass.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 8, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Pancake would be really nice!
> I'm a tad worried about image quality at this price point, but I'm really looking forward to seeing it! Someone on DP Review also mentioned the listing said "macro," so that would be a really cool additional feature, if true!


At that price point, IQ will always be at some level compromised (although ML lens 'correction' seems to produce marvels these days!), but for a walk-around prime lens at that length (especially a pancake) a lot of us would likely wear those compromises. If it had any sort of usable macro length that would just be the icing.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 8, 2021)

BBarn said:


> Nice to see the possibility of another low cost RF lens. If the price is that low it's unlikely to have IS, which seems consistent with earlier information regarding the lens description. At such a low price, the lens is also unlikely to have a separate control ring.
> 
> So another lens along the same lines as the RF 50mm f/1.8. If the lens lacks both IS and a dedicated control ring, I'll likely pass.


I'd prefer IS as well (having an EOS R). But the newer bodies all have IBIS, and if the rumoured <$1k body does also, IS becomes less essential in affordable lenses.


----------



## BBarn (Sep 8, 2021)

Jethro said:


> I'd prefer IS as well (having an EOS R). But the newer bodies all have IBIS, and if the rumoured <$1k body does also, IS becomes less essential in affordable lenses.


Except that the IBIS may not offer much improvement in the real world. Actual real world data on the IBIS performance with the RF 50 f/1.8 is scarce, and what there is doesn't seem all that great (about 2 stops). Perhaps a non-IS UWA will fare better (not holding my breath).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

BBarn said:


> Nice to see the possibility of another low cost RF lens.


The non-L RF 24-105 is $400. I think we’re seeing Canon setting up for a sub $1K (at launch) FF MILC.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Sep 8, 2021)

BBarn said:


> Nice to see the possibility of another low cost RF lens. If the price is that low it's unlikely to have IS, which seems consistent with earlier information regarding the lens description. At such a low price, the lens is also unlikely to have a separate control ring.
> 
> So another lens along the same lines as the RF 50mm f/1.8. If the lens lacks both IS and a dedicated control ring, I'll likely pass.


If it lacked IS, but has a dedicated control ring, I would be very excited. If no control ring is offered though, it will be a pass for me as well, as I have fully integrated the control ring into my shooting style.


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 8, 2021)

BBarn said:


> So another lens along the same lines as the RF 50mm f/1.8. If the lens lacks both IS and a dedicated control ring, I'll likely pass.


For me, I am not too bothered if there is no IS as I would primarily be using it for landscape. At that focal length, it would allow a sufficiently slow shutter speed anyway, even if using it handheld. What would be important is IQ. If it is at the level of the RF 35mm 1.8, or close enough, then I would likely get this instead of the 14-35 as I don't like the latter's vignetting and distortion at the 14-15 end. Otherwise, I will have to stomach the 14-35's imperfections as I really like its weight & size, and that it costs considerably less than the 15-35 f2.8.


----------



## ThatCW (Sep 8, 2021)

Folks, I pre-ordered the RF 16mm f/2.8 when I stumbled onto the Amazon listing (now gone). Here's a screenshot of the order which gives a glimpse of the lens. The only information on the page, which I've already shared, dimensions, weight, and focusing distance. It did not contain the full specs that you'd typically find with a lens.


----------



## ThatCW (Sep 8, 2021)

And here's a larger screen grab from the "order details" page with a clearer picture of the lens and the $299.99 price. I saw nothing about this being a macro lens. Perhaps someone inferred that from the the close focusing distance. Again, details were scarce.


----------



## BBarn (Sep 8, 2021)

A 16mm makes little sense for a FF kit lens, or even for an APS-C kit for that matter. I think kits with a prime lens are a tough sell these days, regardless of price. Better a low cost highly compact zoom, like a 28-85 f/4-6.3.


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 8, 2021)

At 16 mm shooting daylight landscapes or Astro or real estate from a tripod, I’m not sure how important image stabilization really is for this lens. 

By the old rule of thumb, shouldn’t one be able to handhold down the 1/25th or even 1/15th pretty well with this focal length?

As far as macro, that was me. When the listing was live there was a paragraph or so descriptor. I recall seeing the word in there. I could be mistaken, but I’ve also seen that description used for reproduction ratios as little as 0.25x - so who knows what it’s worth even if it said that.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

ThatCW said:


> Folks, I pre-ordered the RF 16mm f/2.8 when I stumbled onto the Amazon listing (now gone). Here's a screenshot of the order which gives a glimpse of the lens. The only information on the page, which I've already shared, dimensions, weight, and focusing distance. It did not contain the full specs that you'd typically find with a lens.


Thank you for posting these!
Just curious, what happens if you click “buy it again”? Does the product page become visible with “temporarily out of stock?”


----------



## ThatCW (Sep 8, 2021)

“Buy it again” is grayed (whited) out. On other products, it’s an active gold/yellow button. So, when I hit the “Buy it again” button, it just takes me to a “Your Orders” page, on the “buy again” tab. It shows everything else I’ve ordered and could reorder. But it does NOT show my pre-order (maybe that’s why) of the RF 16mm f/2.8.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

BBarn said:


> A 16mm makes little sense for a FF kit lens, or even for an APS-C kit for that matter. I think kits with a prime lens are a tough sell these days, regardless of price. Better a low cost highly compact zoom, like a 28-85 f/4-6.3.


The $400 24-105 non-L is the kit lens. The 16/2.8 will be a low-cost UWA alternative (compared to the 14/15-35 L UWA zooms).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

ThatCW said:


> “Buy it again” is grayed (whited) out. On other products, it’s an active gold/yellow button. So, when I hit the “Buy it again” button, it just takes me to a “Your Orders” page, on the “buy again” tab. It shows everything else I’ve ordered and could reorder. But it does NOT show my pre-order (maybe that’s why) of the RF 16mm f/2.8.


As a warning, this has happened before with Amazon and they cancelled the pre-order. Hope that doesn’t happen here!


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

ThatCW said:


> “Buy it again” is grayed (whited) out. On other products, it’s an active gold/yellow button. So, when I hit the “Buy it again” button, it just takes me to a “Your Orders” page, on the “buy again” tab. It shows everything else I’ve ordered and could reorder. But it does NOT show my pre-order (maybe that’s why) of the RF 16mm f/2.8.


Thanks for checking!
I've sometimes been able to view product information for an item Amazon no longer sells this way. 

The screenshots that you shared have some interesting pieces of information. For instance, it does look like the lens has a control ring for those that feel this is a "must have".

Also, the release date of October 14th is somewhat encouraging (4 weeks from announcement). Here's hoping the R3 will come sooner or share this date, instead of shipping in November!


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> For me, I am not too bothered if there is no IS as I would primarily be using it for landscape. At that focal length, it would allow a sufficiently slow shutter speed anyway, even if using it handheld. What would be important is IQ. If it is at the level of the RF 35mm 1.8, or close enough, then I would likely get this instead of the 14-35 as I don't like the latter's vignetting and distortion at the 14-15 end. Otherwise, I will have to stomach the 14-35's imperfections as I really like its weight & size, and that it costs considerably less than the 15-35 f2.8.


Just curious, what makes you think that this $299 RF 16mm lens will have less vignetting and rely less on software corrections than the $1699 RF 14-35mm L lens? If anything, Canon's acceptance of vignetting/distortion on the vastly more expensive lens would suggest to me that there would be nothing preventing Canon from using this approach on the 16mm prime, which could be smaller, lighter, and less expensive to produce if it relied on software corrections. I think that reliance on software correction may become the "new normal" if it's already making its way into L lenses. 
If you get a chance to try out the 14-35mm lens, it's great fun to use and extremely versatile as a zoom that goes from ultra-wide to near-normal. A 16mm prime might be a good addition for time when you want to go light, but would have a really hard time checking all of the same boxes at the 14-35mm.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> At 16 mm shooting daylight landscapes or Astro or real estate from a tripod, I’m not sure how important image stabilization really is for this lens.
> 
> By the old rule of thumb, shouldn’t one be able to handhold down the 1/25th or even 1/15th pretty well with this focal length?
> 
> As far as macro, that was me. When the listing was live there was a paragraph or so descriptor. I recall seeing the word in there. I could be mistaken, but I’ve also seen that description used for reproduction ratios as little as 0.25x - so who knows what it’s worth even if it said that.


Thanks for clarifying!

I see the following:
- 35mm 1.8 is a 0.5x "macro" that has macro in the name: Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM Lens
- 50mm 1.8 has 0.25x magnification but does not feature macro in the name: Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens
- 85mm 2.0 is a 0.5x "macro" that has macro in the name: Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM Lens

The 16mm seems to look a lot more like the 50mm lens, and also does not have macro in the lens name, so it would probably be less than 0.5x and closer to 0.25x, even if it were a pseudo-macro lens. This is less exciting, but would still be higher than other RF ultra wide lenses (0.1x on the 15-35 at 15mm and 0.15x on the 14-35 at 14mm), though I don't know how much higher as their magnification at 16mm is not published. 

Still a cool lens for little scenes of mushrooms or leaf cutter ants, etc., just not quite as cool as I momentarily hoped. 

Thank you for sharing your findings!


----------



## LeBlobe (Sep 8, 2021)

they have a rf 24mm macro annonced, i would be suprised if this one was macro too


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> they have a rf 24mm macro annonced,


Announced where?


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 8, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Just curious, what makes you think that this $299 RF 16mm lens will have less vignetting and rely less on software corrections than the $1699 RF 14-35mm L lens? If anything, Canon's acceptance of vignetting/distortion on the vastly more expensive lens would suggest to me that there would be nothing preventing Canon from using this approach on the 16mm prime, which could be smaller, lighter, and less expensive to produce if it relied on software corrections. I think that reliance on software correction may become the "new normal" if it's already making its way into L lenses.
> If you get a chance to try out the 14-35mm lens, it's great fun to use and extremely versatile as a zoom that goes from ultra-wide to near-normal. A 16mm prime might be a good addition for time when you want to go light, but would have a really hard time checking all of the same boxes at the 14-35mm.


Those are good points. I am actually not expecting much for a $299 lens, just hoping that its IQ can come close to or match the rf 35mm. Between a $1699 and $299, I can more easily accept the vignetting/distortion for the cheaper lens. Will definitely try out the 14-35 when it becomes available. Had been looking towards buying that before noting the need for fairly substantial corrections at the edges. Still vacillating.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 8, 2021)

Holy crap Canon, let me give you my money 

No matter what the image quality on this thing is, I am totally sold on a nifty-16 lens. Totally a "throw-it-in-the-bag-and-forget-about-it" lens for when a rainbow shows up and you can't fit it in the view of the 24-70. 

It definitely makes me somewhat reconsider if I want the 14-35 or the 15-35mm. I was leaning towards the 14-35 for traveling light vs a larger 15-35, but I could easily pick up this to toss in my shoulder bag on a vacation and forget about, and then have the 15-35mm for paid work. It's an excellent emergency back-up, and excellent wide-angle tiny lightweight lens for remote cameras.


----------



## HenWin (Sep 8, 2021)

It appears to me that the lens in the photo--on the left--has some serious finger prints on it!


----------



## ThatCW (Sep 8, 2021)

Combine the RF 16mm f/2.8 with the RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 and every travel lens contingency is covered. The RF 16mm f/2.8 for low light, tight space, indoor quarters like museums, historical buildings, cathedrals, etc. perfectly compliments the RF 24-240.


----------



## LeBlobe (Sep 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Announced where?











Here's confirmation of the RF 100-400, RF 24 Macro and RF 18-45. Sadly, they're quite delayed


When we posted our original RF lens roadmap, a lot of the lenses listed were expected to launch in 2021, and as we have seen, not many have come to fruition.



www.canonrumors.com





not sure if it qualifies as annonced or confirmed or soon hehe


----------



## tigers media (Sep 8, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Great to get some good news finally for cheaper lenses for us plebs! 16mm very cool focal length I'm definitely keen on this one looks tiny be great for travel and hiking. things are looking up..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> not sure if it qualifies as annonced or confirmed or soon hehe


Thanks, and yes – definitely not an announcement, and probably not even confirmation. But...hopeful.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 8, 2021)

At this price, it may be a very good astro option. Will wait for reviews on sharpness/vignetting/comma though.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 8, 2021)

Another immediate thought, this is a definitive vlogging lens. Tiny lightweight lens that is ultra wide for selfie mode. 

It doesn't sound like it makes sense for thr R3, but I bet you the R camera coming in January or whenever the rumor was is going to be a tiny vlogging camera with no EVF, which would be a perfect companion to this.


----------



## slclick (Sep 8, 2021)

Control rings are nice but I can shot with or without, not a deal breaker. You have got to be flexible, right? Looks good.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 8, 2021)

It’s beautiful, I think I’m in love


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> The screenshots that you shared have some interesting pieces of information. For instance, it does look like the lens has a control ring for those that feel this is a "must have".


It has one ring (cue Tolkien), which can be used as a control ring or a manual focus ring. The higher-end RF lenses have a dedicated control ring (until you get to the very high end – the 400/2.8 and 600/4 lack a dedicated control ring).


----------



## unfocused (Sep 8, 2021)

If this is correct, let me say that I was totally wrong about the pricing. I did not think Canon would release a 16mm 2.8 lens at such a low cost. If it has any type of decent image quality, this will be a no-brainer. I'd love the idea of putting this little lens in my bag to have available for those times when I want an ultra wide.


----------



## rontele7 (Sep 8, 2021)

A perfect lens! The 15-35 is crazy expensive and huge, and the 14-35 is slow at f/4. This lens gives everyone the ability to shoot wide and fast.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 8, 2021)

From Nokishita


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 8, 2021)

Trying to decide now if I should sell my Tamron 100-400mm for this Canon. Probably wait to see the weight as I pretty much only use it for cityscapes.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 8, 2021)

According to the cache on the Amazon product page, "RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM" has a minimum shooting distance of 88cm at 200mm, a maximum shooting magnification of 0.41x at 400mm, and an image stabilization effect of 6 steps (R5 / R6) / 5.5. Stage (R / RP), teleconverter RF1.4x / RF2x compatible, seems to be nano USM.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> According to the cache on the Amazon product page, "RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM" has a minimum shooting distance of 88cm at 200mm, a maximum shooting magnification of 0.41x at 400mm, and an image stabilization effect of 6 steps (R5 / R6) / 5.5. Stage (R / RP), teleconverter RF1.4x / RF2x compatible, seems to be nano USM.


Nice ! Are you able to share the same info for the 16mm?
Teleconverter compatibility is a pleasant surprise! I wonder if it's for the full range or just a subset, like the 100-500.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 8, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Nice ! Are you able to share the same info for the 16mm?
> Teleconverter compatibility is a pleasant surprise! I wonder if it's for the full range or just a subset, like the 100-500.


Sorry but Nokishita hasn’t posted it yet. When they do I’ll post here!


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> Sorry but Nokishita hasn’t posted it yet. When they do I’ll post here!


Thanks !


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 8, 2021)

That doesn't give me too much confidence that it will make a good astro/aurora lens. Hopefully I am wrong though and it is sharp enough with decent comma control


----------



## Foxdude (Sep 8, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> From Nokishita
> View attachment 200078
> 
> 
> View attachment 200079


Wow, the 100-400 looks very tempting to me! Especially the 0.41 max magnification, and nano usm. Teleconverter compatibility is also big plus. Price is not bad either, just hoping IQ to be good enough. And I think it is. It is slow, as expected, but this keeps the size/price/weight down. 

The 16mm 2.8 also looks tempting, even I'm not so interested shooting ultrawide. This lens seems the kind of throw-it-in-the-bag-and-forget-it, as others have mentioned. Exciting times. And just yesterday I ordered Sigma 56mm 1.4 for my M100.... hard times for my wallet!


----------



## sanj (Sep 8, 2021)

A must-have! Great for gimbal work. Also, this could make my R5 a 'family dinner' compact camera.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 8, 2021)

Wow, Canon is really staking their claim with RF lenses. That 100-400 is going to be a very, very nice lens for enthusiasts who don't want to spend even $1400 on a used 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L. 

I didn't see the exact length specs, but I imagine this isn't much bigger than the existing 70-300. 

So many incredible options for entry level full frame, which is an incredible way to get people hooked on a system.


----------



## sanj (Sep 8, 2021)

It is not on Amazon anymore.


----------



## sanj (Sep 8, 2021)

BBarn said:


> A 16mm makes little sense for a FF kit lens, or even for an APS-C kit for that matter. I think kits with a prime lens are a tough sell these days, regardless of price. Better a low cost highly compact zoom, like a 28-85 f/4-6.3.


This lens makes great sense to me! The size, the f2.8 wow!


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 8, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> From Nokishita
> View attachment 200078


Thank you for sharing! Again, assuming IQ is fine, the 100-400 is most attractive at this price point given that it has IS and USM instead of STM. I guess there would be limitations to shooting moving birds, but it should work well in good lighting conditions - I hope.


----------



## esspy2 (Sep 8, 2021)

RF 16mm F/2.8 will be a great vlogging lens for R6 and R5 users, however many of them there are. If the new camera in January has IBIS, then that would be very exciting.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 8, 2021)

.5x max mag ratio and an APS-C sized Rf body would be perfect macro combo for field use(combined with 100mm L)


----------



## TBRO08 (Sep 8, 2021)

Nokishita has leaked some specifications for the RF 16mm and the 100-400

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435456831145406467

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435461244056530948According to him the 100-400 is a f5.6-8, priced at 649.99


----------



## adigoks (Sep 8, 2021)

canon please , R7 please 
R7 with this 100-400 would be perfect budget wildlife combo


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 8, 2021)

My biggest fear is still that those lenses will have a heavy distortion that is secretly corrected by the software. I still hate the idea. It is like autotuning a singer that can't sing very well. The result will sound great, but it still is fake somehow.

As I am aiming for a low resolution body anyway, I do not expect any problems with sharpness. It might not look perfect on a future 80 megapixel body, but it should be sharp enough to serve a resolution of 20 or 24 megapixels.


----------



## dominic_siu (Sep 8, 2021)

Nord0306 said:


> I might get this instead of the RF 14-35, either way it would replace an old 17-35 f2.8 in my bag, I can't see the downside.


I think so too, after reading through The Digital Picture Bryan’s review of RF 14-35, I’m really disappointed with the distortion


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 8, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> From Nokishita
> View attachment 200078
> 
> 
> View attachment 200079


f8 is a bit too much


----------



## Hanley (Sep 8, 2021)

BBarn said:


> Nice to see the possibility of another low cost RF lens. If the price is that low it's unlikely to have IS, which seems consistent with earlier information regarding the lens description. At such a low price, the lens is also unlikely to have a separate control ring.
> 
> So another lens along the same lines as the RF 50mm f/1.8. If the lens lacks both IS and a dedicated control ring, I'll likely pass.


So you want IS and a dedicated control ring for $299 - dream on pal!


----------



## Hobby (Sep 8, 2021)

Foxdude said:


> Wow, the 100-400 looks very tempting to me! Especially the 0.41 max magnification, and nano usm. Teleconverter compatibility is also big plus. Price is not bad either, just hoping IQ to be good enough. And I think it is. It is slow, as expected, but this keeps the size/price/weight down.
> 
> The 16mm 2.8 also looks tempting, even I'm not so interested shooting ultrawide. This lens seems the kind of throw-it-in-the-bag-and-forget-it, as others have mentioned. Exciting times. And just yesterday I ordered Sigma 56mm 1.4 for my M100.... hard times for my wallet!


I have an RP with EF24-70 adapted. 24mm is wide enough for me, most of the times. Don't shoot ultrawide very often. But this 16mm if f/2.8 could be a no-brainer, if IQ is acceptable. Funny, I am also considering the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 for my M100. And even more, I probably will get the M50ii for EVF and the better autofocus!  And for the compact size. Because I can not find an alternative RF lens (85) for my RP. RF is to expensive for me. Waiting for Black Friday. Waiting for Sigma & Tamron RF. Waiting forever. Who knows. But this RF 16mm seems to be in the affordable price range and something special/wide. For me especially family pictures indoors.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 8, 2021)

Given its price, I expect it to have just enough distortion to make it correctable to either a rectilinear 16mm lens, or diagonal fisheye.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 8, 2021)

A remarkable thing about this 16mm prime is that it's Canon's _first affordable, non-L FF ultrawide_ in several decades (there appears to be an FD 17mm f/4 but I have no idea how much it used to cost back in the day)_. _Sure, it's a prime rather than a zoom, but that's the price to pay. The compact size is clearly thanks to the RF mount's short register distance, enabling a simple non-retrofocal optical design.

It also occurs to me that this one, the 35mm/1.8 1:2 and the 50mm/1.8 (or 85mm/2) together make up a very attractive moderate-cost "prime trinity", and the 35mm can be complemented or substituted by the eventual 24mm, depending on personal preferences. Furthermore, a 16/(24)/35/50mm set would also be a superb match with a crop camera!



Chaitanya said:


> f8 is a bit too much


If f/7.1 is the new f/5.6, then f/8 is the new f/6.3.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 8, 2021)

Obviously we don’t know who Canon target when they make certain lenses BUT my best guess would be that they figure if people want a tele zoom for birds, they’d probably go with something like the 100-500mm or an even longer third party option since 400mm isn’t that long.

To me this 100-400mm is more for someone who’s on a budget, shoots mainly landscapes or maybe larger wildlife where the f/8 minimum aperture at 400mm wouldn’t be as much of an issue.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 8, 2021)

So the 100-400 is F8 at 400mm. How is that any better than having a 70-300 on an APS-C body? At least with 7.1 you had some light/noise advantage compared to APS-C 70-300 F5.6. I understand small size and cost but F8 is getting ridiculous now.


----------



## sanj (Sep 8, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> My biggest fear is still that those lenses will have a heavy distortion that is secretly corrected by the software. I still hate the idea. It is like autotuning a singer that can't sing very well. The result will sound great, but it still is fake somehow.
> 
> As I am aiming for a low resolution body anyway, I do not expect any problems with sharpness. It might not look perfect on a future 80 megapixel body, but it should be sharp enough to serve a resolution of 20 or 24 megapixels.


Your fears will come true. Big time. If we want more perfection in the lenses we buy we need to empty our wallets more.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 8, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Just curious, what makes you think that this $299 RF 16mm lens will have less vignetting and rely less on software corrections than the $1699 RF 14-35mm L lens? If anything, Canon's acceptance of vignetting/distortion on the vastly more expensive lens would suggest to me that there would be nothing preventing Canon from using this approach on the 16mm prime, which could be smaller, lighter, and less expensive to produce if it relied on software corrections. I think that reliance on software correction may become the "new normal" if it's already making its way into L lenses.
> If you get a chance to try out the 14-35mm lens, it's great fun to use and extremely versatile as a zoom that goes from ultra-wide to near-normal. A 16mm prime might be a good addition for time when you want to go light, but would have a really hard time checking all of the same boxes at the 14-35mm.



The 16mm will probably have black corners uncorrected, just like the 24-200 at 24mm.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 8, 2021)

adigoks said:


> canon please , R7 please
> R7 with this 100-400 would be perfect budget wildlife combo



F8 + 400mm + APS-C is not a good combo for wildlife, unless it means daylight wildlife only in perfect light. Even F5.6 at 400mm makes you raise ISO to 1600/3200 in morning hours when wildlife is active. Sure, it will be a nice combo for shooting in the zoo or seagulls on the beach.

For budget wildlife get a 90D + EF 100-400 II L


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 8, 2021)

Hobby said:


> Because I can not find an alternative RF lens (85) for my RP. RF is to expensive for me. Waiting for Black Friday. Waiting for Sigma & Tamron RF. Waiting forever. Who knows. But this RF 16mm seems to be in the affordable price range and something special/wide. For me especially family pictures indoors.


There's a Samyang AF 85mm f1.4 for RF that has fairly good reviews. May have to buy/borrow a lens station to upgrade the software, depending on whether you get a later production copy. Hope this helps.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 8, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> A remarkable thing about this 16mm prime is that it's Canon's _first affordable, non-L FF ultrawide_ in several decades (there appears to be an FD 17mm f/4 but I have no idea how much it used to cost back in the day)_. _Sure, it's a prime rather than a zoom, but that's the price to pay. The compact size is clearly thanks to the RF mount's short register distance, enabling a simple non-retrofocal optical design.
> 
> It also occurs to me that this one, the 35mm/1.8 1:2 and the 50mm/1.8 (or 85mm/2) together make up a very attractive moderate-cost "prime trinity", and the 35mm can be complemented or substituted by the eventual 24mm, depending on personal preferences. Furthermore, a 16/(24)/35/50mm set would also be a superb match with a crop camera!
> 
> ...


For some reason it feels worse than f/6.3 to f/7.1 transition. While .4x mag ratio at 400mm is great for shy butterflies and lizards that f8 is the limiting factor while shooting on anything but bright sunny days. Atleast it's better than EF 100-400mm in terms of close focusing capabilities.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 8, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> For some reason it feels worse than f/6.3 to f/7.1 transition. While .4x mag ratio at 400mm is great for shy butterflies and lizards that f8 is the limiting factor while shooting on anything but bright sunny days. Atleast it's better than EF 100-400mm in terms of close focusing capabilities.


I've been happy with dragonfly ISO12800 shots on my R5+100-500mm, so the f/8 for this lens doesn't bother me. And for 0.41x I'd want to be at f/8 anyway, I'm not artistic enough to get small DoF to look pretty at high magnifications.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 8, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I've been happy with dragonfly ISO12800 shots on my R5+100-500mm, so the f/8 for this lens doesn't bother me. And for 0.41x I'd want to be at f/8 anyway, I'm not artistic enough to get small DoF to look pretty at high magnifications.



That depends on the light level too. ISO 12800 can look good in decent light but be unusable in low light.
Also, this 100-400 is not targeted to R5/R3 owners.

I'm wondering how long until we are going to see F11 aperture for zooms.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> That depends on the light level too. ISO 12800 can look good in decent light but be unusable in low light.
> Also, this 100-400 is not targeted to R5/R3 owners.
> 
> I'm wondering how long until we are going to see F11 aperture for zooms.


Agreed, you can't use it in bad dark, but this is about half an hour after dawn:





Tripod, e-shutter, ISO12800 and Topaz denoise 'clear'. And it's at f/6.3, so not a good example in this f/8 discussion


----------



## dboris (Sep 8, 2021)

Now that I know that cheap lenses are coming with the R3, I feel, better dropping 7300$ in that body without requiring to buy 3K lenses *toss*


----------



## BBarn (Sep 8, 2021)

Hanley said:


> So you want IS and a dedicated control ring for $299 - dream on pal!


Never said I expected those features at that price. Just anticipating what features it might have at that price. 

I would have been much more interested if this 16 were along the lines of the RF 35 (including a higher price).


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 8, 2021)

From the photos it looks like there is a control ring. Can't that one also be used for focus?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

dboris said:


> Now that I know that cheap lenses are coming with the R3, I feel, better dropping 7300$ in that body without requiring to buy 3K lenses *toss*


And Apple is announcing an iPhone and watch to come with the R3, so you should feel even better!


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 8, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> From the photos it looks like there is a control ring. Can't that one also be used for focus?


From Amazon’s earlier goof, one of the images had a focus/control switch like the RF 50mm and the RF 24-240mm.


----------



## sanj (Sep 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The 16mm will probably have black corners uncorrected, just like the 24-200 at 24mm.


I doubt that. The black corners on 24-200 is perhaps because it is a zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

sanj said:


> I doubt that. The black corners on 24-200 is perhaps because it is a zoom.


We’ll see. Primes are ‘easier’ but this is an ultrawide lens with a compact size and low price. That most likely means corners were cut both figuratively and literally.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Sep 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> We’ll see. Primes are ‘easier’ but this is an ultrawide lens with a compact size and low price. That most likely means corners were cut both figuratively and literally.


Vignetting + Distortion could justify the (apparently low) price.
We'll see if they disappear thanks to digital corrections.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

JohanCruyff said:


> Vignetting + Distortion could justify the (apparently low) price.
> We'll see if they disappear thanks to digital corrections.


Canon showed with the 24-240 and 14-35 that the corrections are effective. But if they’re needed it means a loss of corner sharpness and increased noise at the edges of the frame. For a 10x superzoom or a $300 UWA prime, I think those are reasonable trade offs. For a $1700 L lens, I’m not sure that’s true.


----------



## SilverBox (Sep 8, 2021)

I still often use the ancient 20mm f/2.8 USM when shooting live events, which has excellent IQ wide open and is well corrected enough to make for some not too crazy portraits close up. It stands to reason that this is its spiritual successor and I hope it performs as well!


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The non-L RF 24-105 is $400. I think we’re seeing Canon setting up for a sub $1K (at launch) FF MILC.


Neuro, I was thinking the same thing. This and that rumor that the fanboys would be gnashing their teeth regarding a new body in January makes me think that we're due for an RF vlogging camera.

Were they to do one of those, it would be with some ancient sensor tech, like the RP/6D's, add another an audio port and make a flippy screen that doesn't get blocked by a mike or cords, and they're done. [Aside from adding their new "smart" hotshoe so they can sell spendy mics.] That would square with the expectation of fanboy derision. This lens would be the perfect pairing, and would also go against the (never realistic) rumor of a crop body.

Would sell like doughnuts at a cop convention.


----------



## Marximusprime (Sep 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> F8 + 400mm + APS-C is not a good combo for wildlife, unless it means daylight wildlife only in perfect light. Even F5.6 at 400mm makes you raise ISO to 1600/3200 in morning hours when wildlife is active. Sure, it will be a nice combo for shooting in the zoo or seagulls on the beach.
> 
> For budget wildlife get a 90D + EF 100-400 II L


I don't consider the 100-400 to be a budget lens, at $2400. Maybe the Sigma 100-400 or the 150-600 C.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 8, 2021)

While the 100-400 does nothing for me...THIS lens most certainly does. This will immediately become my go-to real estate gimbal lens and is now a seriously important lens for me to purchase. I will be pre-ordering this lens no questions asked...I was already excited about the new 14-35 on the gimbal, this is even lighter and brighter!?! Yeah, I'm ordering this immediately.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 8, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> Neuro, I was thinking the same thing. This and that rumor that the fanboys would be gnashing their teeth regarding a new body in January makes me think that we're due for an RF vlogging camera.
> 
> Were they to do one of those, it would be with some ancient sensor tech, like the RP/6D's,[..]


The RP/6D2 sensor is too slow for proper AF in 4k. If they want to support AF in 4k and use their own sensors, the choices are between the M6II/90D sensor, the 1DX3/R6 sensor, the R5 sensor and the R3 sensor.

16mm might be a bit tight for APS-C vlogging, but we'll see. Gordon will show it in his review


----------



## unfocused (Sep 8, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> While the 100-400 does nothing for me...THIS lens most certainly does. This will immediately become my go-to real estate gimbal lens and is now a seriously important lens for me to purchase. I will be pre-ordering this lens no questions asked...I was already excited about the new 14-35 on the gimbal, this is even lighter and brighter!?! Yeah, I'm ordering this immediately.


I'm just curious as I don't shoot video much, but I was under the impression that with IBIS you don't really need a gimbal. Is that wrong?


----------



## Hobby (Sep 8, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> There's a Samyang AF 85mm f1.4 for RF that has fairly good reviews. May have to buy/borrow a lens station to upgrade the software, depending on whether you get a later production copy. Hope this helps.


Yes. But I am somewhere between cheap and expensive. I am looking for the R6, but what then? Not completely convinced of the STM primes, and the L primes are to expensive and to heavy. A cheaper body does not solve my problem. It's the lenses. We'll wait and see. Only L-candidate for me is the RF24-105 f/4. But I like this 16mm as extra-wide with my current EF24-70 f/2.8.


----------



## mpb001 (Sep 8, 2021)

No real need for IS on this lens. Being a 2.8, that’s plenty for even low light use handheld. I think that for anyone who uses say the wide end of a ultrawide zoom, this may be a great alternative, if sharpness is as good as an L series.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 8, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I'm just curious as I don't shoot video much, but I was under the impression that with IBIS you don't really need a gimbal. Is that wrong?


A gimbal and IBIS stabilize in completely different ways. There are movements on a gimbal such as rotation around a focal point, lifting the camera, maintaining completely level horizon lines and stabilizing footage when walking where a gimbal just can’t be matched. It’s highly customizable as well, so you can plan a movement and command the gimbal to behave the way that best fits that footage - and save those common movements to custom functions on some gimbals.

That said, IBIS is extremely valuable for simulating a monopod for locked footage and smoothing out handheld footage - two areas where a gimbal is either too combersome to warrant setting up or just annoying to use for something simple like that. IBIS also keeps more of that organic run/gun feel while a gimbal feels and looks robotic and pristine. So I use both for different shots.


----------



## HMC11 (Sep 8, 2021)

Hobby said:


> Yes. But I am somewhere between cheap and expensive. I am looking for the R6, but what then? Not completely convinced of the STM primes, and the L primes are to expensive and to heavy. A cheaper body does not solve my problem. It's the lenses. We'll wait and see. Only L-candidate for me is the RF24-105 f/4. But I like this 16mm as extra-wide with my current EF24-70 f/2.8.


I think a kit containing the RP (maybe R6), RF 16mm, RF 24-105L and RF100-400mm might be a very usable combination, as these cover a very good focal length range (assuming that the IQ for the 16 & 100-400 are good enough for one's use case, of course), and is relatively inexpensive compared with R5 plus L lenses. This combination will also be reasonably small & lightweight for travel. Having said this, if I could only have 2-3 lenses, I would probably save up to buy the ones that are a bit more 'future-proof', eg. RF L lenses that can handle a high megapixel FF sensor, on the assumption that today's high resolution cameras will eventually be the lower end of tomorrow's range of camera bodies (hence within enthusiasts' price range). At this point in time, and for my use case, I am actually quite happy with a 30mp FF camera with the AF & eye-detection capability of the R5/6. Buying L lenses now with an eye for a R Mk II type of body is something I think I can articulate towards. Patience is called for in my case .


----------



## Andy Westwood (Sep 8, 2021)

This RF 16mm f/2.8 is not a pancake as already mentioned however small enough and cheap enough to live in my everyday camera bag and will save me carting my Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 brick everywhere just in case I need to shoot ultra-wide.

Nothing against the 14-24 Sigma I love that too, but it’s so heavy and a chuck of a lens especially once adapted.

This little RF 16mm lens is fabulous so if IQ is reasonable, I’ll get one when they become available to purchase, in a few years’ time


----------



## Hobby (Sep 8, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> I think a kit containing the RP (maybe R6), RF 16mm, RF 24-105L and RF100-400mm might be a very usable combination, as these cover a very good focal length range (assuming that the IQ for the 16 & 100-400 are good enough for one's use case, of course), and is relatively inexpensive compared with R5 plus L lenses. This combination will also be reasonably small & lightweight for travel. Having said this, if I could only have 2-3 lenses, I would probably save up to buy the ones that are a bit more 'future-proof', eg. RF L lenses that can handle a high megapixel FF sensor, on the assumption that today's high resolution cameras will eventually be the lower end of tomorrow's range of camera bodies (hence within enthusiasts' price range). At this point in time, and for my use case, I am actually quite happy with a 30mp FF camera with the AF & eye-detection capability of the R5/6. Buying L lenses now with an eye for a R Mk II type of body is something I think I can articulate towards. Patience is called for in my case .


Yes it is. Completely agree.
And with these things, patience is the keyword.
The ox is slow but the earth is patient.


----------



## xwxw (Sep 8, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The RP/6D2 sensor is too slow for proper AF in 4k. If they want to support AF in 4k and use their own sensors, the choices are between the M6II/90D sensor, the 1DX3/R6 sensor, the R5 sensor and the R3 sensor.
> 
> 16mm might be a bit tight for APS-C vlogging, but we'll see. Gordon will show it in his review



I like your analysis. I do believe R5/R3 sensors are off limits for a $799 camera. I do not believe the 90D one will make it into the next camera anyway.

That leaves either the R (i.e., 5D4) or the R6 sensors. I would like to have the latter, but not sure Canon is willing to. 

R sensor on the other hand is also old, but I do not know if there is anything Canon can do to savage it for another few year's use (most likely not). 

A last choice would be to use a Sony 24m sensor, which will matches the "annoying a lot of fanboys" rumor. Seriously I think this does have a chance.


----------



## Finn (Sep 8, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> [...]
> It definitely makes me somewhat reconsider if I want the 14-35 or the 15-35mm. I was leaning towards the 14-35 for traveling light vs a larger 15-35, but I could easily pick up this to toss in my shoulder bag on a vacation and forget about, and then have the 15-35mm for paid work. It's an excellent emergency back-up, and excellent wide-angle tiny lightweight lens for remote cameras.


Depending on final quality of images this 16mm f2.8 might have solved this dilemma for me as well.

I will now be getting the 15-35 f/2.8 and bring the 16mm f2.8 when I want to bring a wide angle but don't want or don't have space to lug around the 15-35. I generally limit myself to bringing two lenses anywhere I go, so being able to throw in a wide angle (and relatively fast) lens in the bag and not even feel it would be awesome!

A lot of times I just want to bring my 70-200 f/2.8 and now I can throw this lens in the bag just in case without hefting around a 15-35 or 24-70 f2.8 and still benefit from a f2.8 aperture if I need it.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 8, 2021)

xwxw said:


> I like your analysis. I do believe R5/R3 sensors are off limits for a $799 camera. I do not believe the 90D one will make it into the next camera anyway.
> 
> That leaves either the R (i.e., 5D4) or the R6 sensors. I would like to have the latter, but not sure Canon is willing to.
> 
> ...


I completely forgot about the 5D4/R sensor! If they couple that with a Digic X, it can do DLO for video, proper HDR and take HEIF images, which I think would benefit vloggers.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 8, 2021)

Finn said:


> Depending on final quality of images this 16mm f2.8 might have solved this dilemma for me as well.
> 
> I will now be getting the 15-35 f/2.8 and bring the 16mm f2.8 when I want to bring a wide angle but don't want or don't have space to lug around the 15-35. I generally limit myself to bringing two lenses anywhere I go, so being able to throw in a wide angle (and relatively fast) lens in the bag and not even feel it would be awesome!
> 
> A lot of times I just want to bring my 70-200 f/2.8 and now I can throw this lens in the bag just in case without hefting around a 15-35 or 24-70 f2.8 and still benefit from a f2.8 aperture if I need it.


I've seen multiple people refer to the EF pancake lenses as "Body caps". Instead of putting on a body cap they keep the lens on. The EF40mm was a bit better suited for that, with it being close to 50mm.


----------



## Finn (Sep 8, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I've seen multiple people refer to the EF pancake lenses as "Body caps". Instead of putting on a body cap they keep the lens on. The EF40mm was a bit better suited for that, with it being close to 50mm.


I think we will see a RF pancake lens but I think it will be closer to 20mm and possible f/4. A 20mm f/2.8 pancake would be a nice body cap lens indeed if its $199.


----------



## Swerky (Sep 8, 2021)

Here is my money...I’d need to move to eos R first. I just hope it’s sharp, with decent bokeh (although that’s not a direct necessity for an ultra wide angle lens) and low flare. Wouldn’t worry about distortion, vignette (not too harsh though hopefully) and CA.


----------



## noncho (Sep 8, 2021)

16 2.8 is great for my walkaround prime setup with RF 35 1.8 and RF 85 2.0.
Yes, it's probably not well corrected top quality prime for that price, but it's a good option.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Sep 8, 2021)

I´ll preorder the 16mm asap. 

I just came back from a three hiking trip (actually 10-day trip, but 3-day hiking) and carried then 24-105mm F4 and 70-200mm F4 with me (both near perfect for hiking imho). All the time I figured, I can't/ wouldn't want to carry a third zoom lense (in this case an UWA F4) but this makes perfect sense now! 

Furthermore, I'm not overpaying for the 14-35mm F4, so I'll get the RF 16mm and keep it as long as the prices for L lenses are sky-high.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 8, 2021)

xwxw said:


> A last choice would be to use a Sony 24m sensor, which will matches the "annoying a lot of fanboys" rumor. Seriously I think this does have a chance.


I don't remember Canon ever using phase detect autofocus on Sony sensors in Canon cameras. So, autofocus on such a camera would likely be subpar.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon showed with the 24-240 and 14-35 that the corrections are effective. But if they’re needed it means a loss of corner sharpness and increased noise at the edges of the frame. For a 10x superzoom or a $300 UWA prime, I think those are reasonable trade offs. For a $1700 L lens, I’m not sure that’s true.



I would become very concerned if they started doing this sort of thing on L lenses. As far as I can recall, it's a characteristic of non-L lenses only. (It is kind of a turn off to me, so I've stuck to L lenses, so far...other peoples' mileage may vary of course.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I would become very concerned if they started doing this sort of thing on L lenses. As far as I can recall, it's a characteristic of non-L lenses only. (It is kind of a turn off to me, so I've stuck to L lenses, so far...other peoples' mileage may vary of course.)


They’ve done it already on the new RF 14-35/4.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 8, 2021)

I'm only a little surprised by the number of people, myself included, who are looking at this lens and saying they would buy this instead of the 14-35 f4 L zoom. I wonder what this might do to the market for that lens. 

Of course it depends on the image quality of the 16 f2.8, which we won't know until it is released. But, I've often said the market ultimately determines the price of any product and I could see that definitely being the case with the 14-35 once Covid shortages subside. Bold prediction: within 2-3 years the 14-35 f4 will be in the same range as the 16-35 f4 EF lens.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 8, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> A gimbal and IBIS stabilize in completely different ways. There are movements on a gimbal such as rotation around a focal point, lifting the camera, maintaining completely level horizon lines and stabilizing footage when walking where a gimbal just can’t be matched. It’s highly customizable as well, so you can plan a movement and command the gimbal to behave the way that best fits that footage - and save those common movements to custom functions on some gimbals.
> 
> That said, IBIS is extremely valuable for simulating a monopod for locked footage and smoothing out handheld footage - two areas where a gimbal is either too combersome to warrant setting up or just annoying to use for something simple like that. IBIS also keeps more of that organic run/gun feel while a gimbal feels and looks robotic and pristine. So I use both for different shots.


Thanks! Very informative.


----------



## danfaz (Sep 8, 2021)

Most likely a purchase for me. Perfect for the rare occasions I'd need or want an UWA lens, and I won't feel bad I'm not using a lens I spent around 2 grand on.


----------



## frjmacias (Sep 8, 2021)

Definitely hitting preorder on this one as soon as they go live again. This would be the perfect ultra wide to pair with my R5 for travel.


----------



## esglord (Sep 8, 2021)

If that's the price and small size, I'm in


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon showed with the 24-240 and 14-35 that the corrections are effective. But if they’re needed it means a loss of corner sharpness and increased noise at the edges of the frame. For a 10x superzoom or a $300 UWA prime, I think those are reasonable trade offs. For a $1700 L lens, I’m not sure that’s true.


I try not to over-analyze my lenses and certainly don't do any test chart comparisons, but I do own the Olympus 12-100mm f/4 lens and just recently bought the Nikon Z 14-30mm - both lenses use auto-correction to correct distortion. Perhaps if you are an extreme pixel peeper, you will notice the effects of the auto-correction, but in my experience (and many reviews I have read) the corner sharpness on the Olympus is very good, and the Nikon's corner sharpness was better than my Canon 16-35 f/4 L - used on the same camera (Nikon Z5, with adapter for the Canon lens.) So, at least in my experience with these "pro level" lenses, you aren't trading off anything. Again, that's my un-scientific experience and others experience may differ.


----------



## DBH (Sep 8, 2021)

Gritch, Gritch, Gritch. Canon won't make inexpensive lenses.
Gritch, Gritch, Gritch. I don't like the inexpensive lenses Canon made.
Gritch, Gritch, Gritch. If I owned Canon I would . . . . . . . 

R6, 800, 100-500, 100 Macro, 35 Macro, 50 f1.8, both Extenders, 24-105 L


----------



## David Raboin (Sep 8, 2021)

Thoughts on the 16mm... This lens might be one of the fruits of the RF mount. This is the first inexpensive, ultra-wide prime from any manufacturer. If this lens performs well and doesn't rely on in-camera tricks to limit distortion, Canon will have a huge hit on their hands. The RF 16mm is a shot at Rokinon. It's also a potential unique draw to the Canon system. We might have an ultra-wide plastic fantastic. That's exciting. Or, it could be cheap junk and rely on software fixes. Wait and see.


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 8, 2021)

BBarn said:


> Except that the IBIS may not offer much improvement in the real world. Actual real world data on the IBIS performance with the RF 50 f/1.8 is scarce, and what there is doesn't seem all that great (about 2 stops). Perhaps a non-IS UWA will fare better (not holding my breath).



That depends quite a bit on how the IBIS testing was conducted. Most user testing that I see ends up getting done at very short subject distances where all stabilization systems become much less effective as translational tremors contribute much more to image blurring than at longer distances where IBIS effectiveness is normally reported.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 8, 2021)

They were certainly short on cheaper RF lenses. This looks like a nice little lens. Compact and lightweight and will probably do the job.
Canon went very highend with the initial RF lens (which wasn't a bad strategy) but it needed to get cheaper and lighter lens out to go with the lighter cameras. This is a good start.


----------



## Grhmbl (Sep 8, 2021)

sniff.. instead of a 16mm, I wish we get a 10 or 11mm prime. Why does Canon leave this niche to Laowa, Samyang etc.?


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 8, 2021)

Grhmbl said:


> sniff.. instead of a 16mm, I wish we get a 10 or 11mm prime. Why does Canon leave this niche to Laowa, Samyang etc.?


Nothing saying we won't...but that would have vastly less utility for most people than this lens will. Minus a 24mm (which is forthcoming, this will give Canon a solid range of affordable primes from 16 - 100mm on RF. I would like to see a 135mm and a 28mm too but I'm just speaking for what 99% of the world needs and wants.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> They were certainly short on cheaper RF lenses. This looks like a nice little lens. Compact and lightweight and will probably do the job.
> Canon went very highend with the initial RF lens (which wasn't a bad strategy) but it needed to get cheaper and lighter lens out to go with the lighter cameras. This is a good start.


I agree, it just seems like these lenses would pair well with smaller/lighter/more budget friendly bodies (ie, RP), and are a bit of an odd choice to release simultaneously with the biggest, heaviest mirrorless body released to-date.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I wonder if Amazon did/will accidentally leak the R3 price?


----------



## Traveler (Sep 8, 2021)

This is gonna be the lens when I don’t want to carry my future 14-35 in my bag 
A wide lens “just-in-case-I-need-it”


----------



## Traveler (Sep 9, 2021)

mpb001 said:


> No real need for IS on this lens. Being a 2.8, that’s plenty for even low light use handheld. I think that for anyone who uses say the wide end of a ultrawide zoom, this may be a great alternative, if sharpness is as good as an L series.


But the IS on the RF 15-35/2.8 allowed handheld 0.5s to 1s shots. Great for street photos (blurred people, blurred water fountains, etc)


----------



## gbc (Sep 9, 2021)

Great, if true. I know 16mm is weird for a prime lens, but the wide angle I've been using, the Tokina 11-16 2.8, which I've used across my last six camera bodies, is essentially a prime at 16 since it's an EF-S mount and I moved to full frame four cameras ago. So I am extra pleased at the small size of this I can finally give the Tokina the retirement it so richly deserves.


----------



## TMT (Sep 9, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> That doesn't give me too much confidence that it will make a good *astro/aurora lens*. Hopefully I am wrong though and it is sharp enough with decent comma control





David Raboin said:


> Thoughts on the 16mm... This lens might be one of the fruits of the RF mount. This is the first inexpensive, ultra-wide prime from any manufacturer. If this lens performs well and doesn't rely on in-camera tricks to limit distortion, Canon will have a huge hit on their hands. *The RF 16mm is a shot at Rokinon*. It's also a potential unique draw to the Canon system. We might have an ultra-wide plastic fantastic. That's exciting. Or, it could be cheap junk and rely on software fixes. Wait and see.


I'm surprised astrophotography hasn't taken up more of the discussion. I would happily get rid of my MF Rokinon 14mm 2.8 for a Canon RF AF lens.


----------



## CaMeRa QuEsT (Sep 9, 2021)

This 16mm lens is not a FF lens, it's an APS-C lens. You are all missing the really big points of this intro: this lens' existence both mean that Canon is going to concurrently introduce an RF mount APS-C body, and that Canon is officially killing the EF-M mount off.


----------



## ZenYogiVegan (Sep 9, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The RP/6D2 sensor is too slow for proper AF in 4k. If they want to support AF in 4k and use their own sensors, the choices are between the M6II/90D sensor, the 1DX3/R6 sensor, the R5 sensor and the R3 sensor.
> 
> 16mm might be a bit tight for APS-C vlogging, but we'll see. Gordon will show it in his review


I've seen Gordon vlog with a 35mm!


----------



## mpb001 (Sep 9, 2021)

I’m not sure why some people are complaining that this 16 mm prime has no IS. The newest Canon R series have IBIS. More and more Canon cameras are likely to have IBIS to remain competitive. 

look at all the Tamron lenses for Sony. No IS built in. This helps keep costs down and we all like that, right?


----------



## esglord (Sep 9, 2021)

Traveler said:


> This is gonna be the lens when I don’t want to carry my future 14-35 in my bag
> A wide lens “just-in-case-I-need-it”


This!


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2021)

TMT said:


> I'm surprised astrophotography hasn't taken up more of the discussion. I would happily get rid of my MF Rokinon 14mm 2.8 for a Canon RF AF lens.


Astro landscapes make a big difference between 14mm and 16mm and manual focus is needed rather than AF for these shots. Coma quality/corner sharpness will be interesting. Doing multi-shot panoramas for milky way is easier using 14mm.
Can you describe how AF will assist for astrolandscapes?


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2021)

CaMeRa QuEsT said:


> This 16mm lens is not a FF lens, it's an APS-C lens. You are all missing the really big points of this intro: this lens' existence both mean that Canon is going to concurrently introduce an RF mount APS-C body, and that Canon is officially killing the EF-M mount off.


I get the mirth but I think it is related to the "officially killing the EF-M mount off" part of your comment which has no basis.

Is has been suggested that a low cost wide angle lens would be needed if a APS-C sensor is introduced to RF mount for a R7. This could certainly be part of that strategy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Is has been suggested that a low cost wide angle lens would be needed if a APS-C sensor is introduced to RF mount for a R7. This could certainly be part of that strategy.


I suspect it would have to be a low cost wide angle _zoom_. One has been rumored…for FF. Some suggest that’s a standard zoom for APS-C, but it’s a good UWA zoom for FF.

Canon seems to be rounding out the non-L affordable RF lens lineup, I do think the rumored $800 R-series FF body is looking likely.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 9, 2021)

rick2 said:


> Have you ever tried to teach your dog how to pose?
> 
> View attachment 200090


Give it up man. You are just embarrassing yourself.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect it would have to be a low cost wide angle _zoom_. One has been rumored…for FF. Some suggest that’s a standard zoom for APS-C, but it’s a good UWA zoom for FF.
> 
> Canon seems to be rounding out the non-L affordable RF lens lineup, I do think the rumored $800 R-series FF body is looking likely.


A zoom would be preferably of course but wouldn't be f2.8. The only possible zoom lens in the roadmap is RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM which isn't that wide on a crop sensor.

For me, 16mm/2.8 is an unusual choice although many in the forum have suggested that they will buy it.
I would have thought that there would be a greater demand for the RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro on the roadmap.... but a R7 would give it more priority.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> A zoom would be preferably of course but wouldn't be f2.8. The only possible zoom lens in the roadmap is RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM which isn't that wide on a crop sensor.


It’s wide enough on FF. So you’d have 18-45 consumer zoom and 16/2.8 consumer prime. 24-105 consumer zoom and 50/1.8 consumer prime. 100-400 consumer zoom and 85/2 consumer prime. Covers a lot of bases for a cheap FF camera.


----------



## Joel C (Sep 9, 2021)

I have to say, at 300$ this will work wonderfully for a locked off camera filming video for me. (That way I do not need to put an expensive lens in danger)


----------



## tapanit (Sep 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Astro landscapes make a big difference between 14mm and 16mm and manual focus is needed rather than AF for these shots. Coma quality/corner sharpness will be interesting. Doing multi-shot panoramas for milky way is easier using 14mm.
> Can you describe how AF will assist for astrolandscapes?


AF obviously won't matter for astro, but the small size and low weight make it interesting for that purpose, too. When I head out to the northern wilderness for a week in the autumn and weather forecast suggests the chances of clear skies are small but not nonexistent, I find myself looking at the Sigma 14/1.8 and counting how many days worth of food it weighs... and, sometimes, end up picking the Voigtländer 20/3.5 pancake instead. If the RF 16/2.8 is optically reasonably good, it would be a much better choice in that situation.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Sep 9, 2021)

Yes ! And can't wait for a 24mm with the same shape ... !


----------



## Skux (Sep 9, 2021)

Make a 24mm and a 40mm like this and I'll switch to RF, I'll finally freaking do it.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 9, 2021)

adigoks said:


> canon please , R7 please
> R7 with this 100-400 would be perfect budget wildlife combo


Well that rather depends how much an R7 costs... there has always been a split between people who want a budget option and those who want a mini-1 series with higher pixel density for 'reach' at any cost. I still remain sceptical any such body will arrive but I don't see why they'd price it low.


----------



## WriteLight (Sep 9, 2021)

TMT said:


> I'm surprised astrophotography hasn't taken up more of the discussion. I would happily get rid of my MF Rokinon 14mm 2.8 for a Canon RF AF lens.


This was actually my first thought as well. The only thing that would hold me back at all from picking it up is that I already own the Samyang 14mm 2.8. At that price though there is very little risk in picking it up and going native.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> A zoom would be preferably of course but wouldn't be f2.8. The only possible zoom lens in the roadmap is RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM which isn't that wide on a crop sensor.


Weren't all the low end EF-S kit zooms 18-55?


----------



## BBarn (Sep 9, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Weren't all the low end EF-S kit zooms 18-55?


Yes, it is a very common APS-C kit zoom. So the RF 18-45 does make one wonder if a RF APS-C is planned.

But I also wonder why an equivalent FF zoom (~28-85) hasn't appeared for the RP or the seemingly planned low cost FF mirrorless entry. If there is one thing lacking in the low cost RF area, it's a small general purpose zoom. The 24-105 IS STM is nice and low in cost, but it's not that small. Especially on the petite RP body.


----------



## peters (Sep 9, 2021)

If the imagequality is somewhat good:
with this size and price its a nobrainer for me! That would be an incredible value for travel. I doubt that the price is actualy so low...

If I use wide angle lenses I usualy find myself on the widest end on the lense. It would be pretty much no difference, If it was a prime lense  f2,8 is quite nice for 16mm on a fullframe =)


----------



## peters (Sep 9, 2021)

TMT said:


> I'm surprised astrophotography hasn't taken up more of the discussion. I would happily get rid of my MF Rokinon 14mm 2.8 for a Canon RF AF lens.


The Sigma 20mm 1,4 is also quite a beauty for this, in my experience


----------



## peters (Sep 9, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> A gimbal and IBIS stabilize in completely different ways. There are movements on a gimbal such as rotation around a focal point, lifting the camera, maintaining completely level horizon lines and stabilizing footage when walking where a gimbal just can’t be matched. It’s highly customizable as well, so you can plan a movement and command the gimbal to behave the way that best fits that footage - and save those common movements to custom functions on some gimbals.
> 
> That said, IBIS is extremely valuable for simulating a monopod for locked footage and smoothing out handheld footage - two areas where a gimbal is either too combersome to warrant setting up or just annoying to use for something simple like that. IBIS also keeps more of that organic run/gun feel while a gimbal feels and looks robotic and pristine. So I use both for different shots.


I completely agree.
In my experience the IBIS cant event get close to the kind of shots you can achieve with a gimbal. Especialy longer walks can be pretty awesome with an gimbal. You can achieve nearly a dolly-like look. Thats completely different to handheld. For imagefilms where you want a "high quality" overall feeling, its a great little tool to achieve nice results in a super compact, cheap and quick setup.

I also found that IBIS doesnt looks so nice for handheld shots. But anyway, I am not a big fan of handheld shots. I usualy prefer a tripod, gimbal or even slider.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

BBarn said:


> Yes, it is a very common APS-C kit zoom. So the RF 18-45 does make one wonder if a RF APS-C is planned.
> 
> But I also wonder why an equivalent FF zoom (~28-85) hasn't appeared for the RP or the seemingly planned low cost FF mirrorless entry. If there is one thing lacking in the low cost RF area, it's a small general purpose zoom. The 24-105 IS STM is nice and low in cost, but it's not that small. Especially on the petite RP body.


It's not that small, but at $400 it's a relatively inexpensive FF standard zoom. I suspect that a 28-85mm zoom would not be that much smaller, although the barrel extension would be shorter.

If you want small, there's the 50/1.8.


----------



## TMT (Sep 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Astro landscapes make a big difference between 14mm and 16mm and manual focus is needed rather than AF for these shots. Coma quality/corner sharpness will be interesting. Doing multi-shot panoramas for milky way is easier using 14mm.
> Can you describe how AF will assist for astrolandscapes?


Hey, a guy can dream, right?  Yes, 14mm would be better for astro but I'd MUCH rather carry around this 16mm lens than my awkward-sized 14mm Rokinon.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 9, 2021)

BBarn said:


> But I also wonder why an equivalent FF zoom (~28-85) hasn't appeared for the RP or the seemingly planned low cost FF mirrorless entry. If there is one thing lacking in the low cost RF area, it's a small general purpose zoom. The 24-105 IS STM is nice and low in cost, but it's not that small. Especially on the petite RP body.


The RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 is about the same size as the EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5, which was the cheap kit zoom of the mid-90s, smaller than the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS which was the 'upgraded kit' zoom of the early 2000s, and only about half a centimeter larger all-round than the EF -S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 which has been the cheapest Canon kit zoom of the last decade. Given the 24-105 already has to rely very heavily on software corrections, even more than the infamous 24-240, I expect Canon _can't_ make an even smaller kit zoom that can still project a 35mm (or only almost-35mm, in the case of the 24-105) image circle to match the RP body type.

Of course such lenses can be made smaller if they only have to project an APS-C image circle, like Fuji's very small yet excellent 18-55mm, but I doubt that is something Canon will do now. I suspect Canon have run the numbers and concluded it's more cost effective for them to only produce 35mm lenses going forward, rather than any kind of secondary 'RF-S' line complicating design, production and marketing. I expect there will be APS-C RF _bodies_, because there are lots of wildlife photographers and some sports photographers who aren't touching mirrorless until a high-density 7D/D500 equivalent is made, but producing lenses specifically for that format may simply not be profitable enough for Canon to bother any more; we've already seen them all-but abandon EF-M, after all.


----------



## gruhl28 (Sep 9, 2021)

Regarding astrophotography, I fear that vignetting will be a big problem with the 16 mm. The pancake EF-S 24mm and EF 40 mm, as well as even the RF 35mm, have pretty severe vignetting, so I suspect that even if coma is well controlled (and that's a pretty big 'if'), there will be significant vignetting with this 16 mm. I'd like to be wrong, but I doubt this will be a good lens for astro. Personally, I don't really care whether distortion is corrected with software if the end result is still sharp, as seems to be the case with the 14-35, but software correction for vignetting is nothing but a radial (or reverse radial) exposure boost and increases noise, one of the main issues for astro.


----------



## renlok (Sep 9, 2021)

I predict this will be Canon's best RF selling lens by the end of the year.


----------



## Absolutic (Sep 9, 2021)

Wow, if it is true this will easily replace my 17-40L lens, that has to be stopped to F11 anyway to get any corner resemblance of sharpness at 17mm. I don't use UWA often (in fact very rarely) but for $300, a great little travel UWA? I'll order one in a second, provided performance is decent, but I doubt the 15+ year old 17-40L would beat any modern RF lens......


----------



## entoman (Sep 9, 2021)

The 16mm could prove an invaluable companion - light enough and small enough to be kept permanently in the kit bag.

F2.8 is plenty for most situations.
AF will probably be a bit slow and slightly noisy compared to more expensive optics, but that won't be a problem for its intended usage.
Optical stabilisation isn't necessary with such a wide angle lens, and IBIS is there for owners of everything other than R and RP.
Price is amazing value.

So the big questions are:

Is the corner sharpness good enough for landscapes?
Is the weather-sealing adequate for use in showery conditions?
Does it suffer from unacceptable levels of flare?
Does it suffer from unacceptable levels of CA?
Does it suffer from unacceptable levels of barrel or pincushion distortion?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Sep 9, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> No man, this is the best possible news for us.
> 
> Lens design is a constant war of tradeoffs.
> 
> In order to reduce distortion, they have to make something else worse: fringing, astigmatism, cost, size, ultimate sharpness, all of the above. Ditto to reduce vignetting. We want them to be able to stop worrying about factors like this the camera can trivially correct, and instead concentrate on making the camera better in ways that can NOT be compensated for in software.


I do not care so much about vignetting. All wide angle lenses have a few stops of vignetting wide open and that can be corrected quite wll in Lightroom. Distortion is another thing though. It bends the whole image. A secret distortion correction is quite a fake. The photo might still look sharp, but usually you have to rotate an image a fraction of a degree. That means the same image is edited, then rasterized and saved, then edited again ans rasterized again. With each rasterization you loose some information. So it would be much better to to the distortion correction and the rotation in a single step. In some situations distortion correction would not even be needed, but Canon DPP does not even fgve us the option to disable it.

Doing distortion correction in the EVF in real time might also drain the battery a little.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 9, 2021)

entoman said:


> Is the weather-sealing adequate for use in showery conditions?


I doubt that there will be much, if any weather-sealing, but I'm also not that concerned. Just don't use it in wet conditions without covering the camera and if it does get damaged, it's not a major loss.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 9, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I do not care so much about vignetting. All wide angle lenses have a few stops of vignetting wide open and that can be corrected quite wll in Lightroom...


I'm old school and still routinely vignette most images to place greater emphasis and put more light on the subject. It's a carry over from my 1970s photojournalism training.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I doubt that there will be much, if any weather-sealing, but I'm also not that concerned. Just don't use it in wet conditions without covering the camera and if it does get damaged, it's not a major loss.


Back in the days when we took our kids to amusement parks (in the before-times, pre-COVID), I saw plenty of people using Rebel bodies with the 18-55 kit lens in light showers.

On one trip when I had my 1D X and 24-70/2.8 II, it was a sunny day and I got some great closeups of my kids being doused as we were on a water ride (me and my camera were also getting doused).


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 9, 2021)

mpb001 said:


> I’m not sure why some people are complaining that this 16 mm prime has no IS. The newest Canon R series have IBIS. More and more Canon cameras are likely to have IBIS to remain competitive.
> 
> look at all the Tamron lenses for Sony. No IS built in. This helps keep costs down and we all like that, right?


IBIS is not so great on the wide end.


----------



## BBarn (Sep 9, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> ... I expect Canon _can't_ make an even smaller kit zoom that can still project a 35mm (or only almost-35mm, in the case of the 24-105) image circle to match the RP body type.



Canon could make a smaller kit FF zoom. Nikon has a small 24-50 kit lens for their Z mount, so a kit zoom smaller than the 24-105 is obviously possible. Perhaps Canon thinks the 24-105 is sufficient. 

I'll admit that I find the idea of a 24-50 rather limiting. But as a happy RP/24-105 user, there are times I would prefer to carry a smaller zoom lens.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 9, 2021)

The fact that the 16mm and 50mm share basically an identical size makes me hopeful there's more lenses in the pipeline for this form factor. I think there's room for a 24mm at this size, though I could see Canon pushing the 24mm to the size of the 35mm f/1.8 due to the rumored macro feature.

Someone else on here mentioned it would be a good size for a 40mm, as well, but I do wonder if Canon can make a truly pancake lens like the EF 40mm for the RF mount. I know the 16/50mm aren't big, but they're just slightly bigger than a true pancake lens.

That said, I'm aware the RF lenses are technically smaller overall when you include the flange distance, since you would need a bigger camera to mount the EF 40mm.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 9, 2021)

1 The RF 16mm seems to be a very interesting lens for video with EOS Rxyz in tight environments and low light.
2 On the C70 it converts to a 24mm equiv lens which is interesting in this context.
3 Last but not least, if vignetting is below 5 stops at f/8 and distortion is very low, it might be a great 16mm option.

Maybe it isn't that bad optically without corrections because they have optimzed the small front lens large back lens principle.

Finally it will be a 2nd RF lens which draws lots of people into the RF lens user group and lets some people switch to RF glass totally.

For me I am not shure if I should buy the this one or the EF 16-35 f/4 which would be compatible with my EF system cameras and the RF system.


----------



## mpb001 (Sep 9, 2021)

Traveler said:


> But the IS on the RF 15-35/2.8 allowed handheld 0.5s to 1s shots. Great for street photos (blurred people, blurred water fountains, etc)


So why couldn’t the same low handheld shutter speeds be attainable with a Canon body with IBIS and this 16 mm non IS lens?


----------



## InchMetric (Sep 9, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> IBIS is not so great on the wide end.


...because a given angular movement results in a larger image shift away from center than at the center. Even perfect IBIS that tracks the image center will be inherently unable to simultaneously track the corners.


----------



## entoman (Sep 9, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I doubt that there will be much, if any weather-sealing, but I'm also not that concerned. Just don't use it in wet conditions without covering the camera and if it does get damaged, it's not a major loss.


If it looks likely that a lens (or camera) might get exposed to rain or water splashes, then wise users would take precautions to protect it. I usually keep a polythene bag in my pocket for precisely that eventuality.

But it's likely that some camera users will over-estimate the degree of weather-sealing provided by camera and lens manufacturers. Also I think it's pretty safe to say that *all* of us have at some time found ourselves caught out in a shower with an unprotected camera.

Virtually any camera or lens will survive a few spots of rain, but it's important for users to understand the *degree* of weather-sealing, and to choose gear accordingly.

Also bear in mind that weather-sealing isn't just about protecting gear from direct contact with water, it's also about protecting the internals from humidity. "Covering the camera" won't protect it from humidity. A budget lens is unlikely to last long if regularly exposed to high humidity, but a weather-sealed L lens will last for years in such conditions.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 9, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> Regarding astrophotography, I fear that vignetting will be a big problem with the 16 mm. The pancake EF-S 24mm and EF 40 mm, as well as even the RF 35mm, have pretty severe vignetting, so I suspect that even if coma is well controlled (and that's a pretty big 'if'), there will be significant vignetting with this 16 mm. I'd like to be wrong, but I doubt this will be a good lens for astro. Personally, I don't really care whether distortion is corrected with software if the end result is still sharp, as seems to be the case with the 14-35, but software correction for vignetting is nothing but a radial (or reverse radial) exposure boost and increases noise, one of the main issues for astro.


That is my fear but hopefully I am wrong. I would make for a great light astro lens if the IQ is good enough. And if it is there is no question that I will get it.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Weren't all the low end EF-S kit zooms 18-55?


True but I guess I was comparing to the EF-s 10-18/10-21mm UWA zooms


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2021)

TMT said:


> Hey, a guy can dream, right?  Yes, 14mm would be better for astro but I'd MUCH rather carry around this 16mm lens than my awkward-sized 14mm Rokinon.


You mean dream that Canon will release a UWA astro landscape prime with great coma/corner sharpness at a reasonable price and size? Hard to what niche is buying the 14mm/2.8L ii


----------



## Traveler (Sep 10, 2021)

mpb001 said:


> So why couldn’t the same low handheld shutter speeds be attainable with a Canon body with IBIS and this 16 mm non IS lens?


Maybe not every R body has an IBIS


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Sep 10, 2021)

*LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHY*

This would be an excellent lightweight option to store in a bag for landscape photography rather than the 16-35mm. I usually carry a 24-70 and sold my 16-35 because I don't use the wide zoom much. But around $299 and featherweight, I would certainly stow a tiny prime 16mm.


----------



## Bennymiata (Sep 10, 2021)

I wonder how it compares to the Samyang 14mm RF AF 2.8?
I was lucky enough to get one and it's really very good.
If this 16mm is any good, I'll get that too as 14mm is sometimes just too wide.


----------



## Chig (Sep 10, 2021)

BBarn said:


> Nice to see the possibility of another low cost RF lens. If the price is that low it's unlikely to have IS, which seems consistent with earlier information regarding the lens description. At such a low price, the lens is also unlikely to have a separate control ring.
> 
> So another lens along the same lines as the RF 50mm f/1.8. If the lens lacks both IS and a dedicated control ring, I'll likely pass.


Why do your need IS in a very wide angle lens , do you have very shaky hands ?


----------



## Jethro (Sep 10, 2021)

Bennymiata said:


> I wonder how it compares to the Samyang 14mm RF AF 2.8?
> I was lucky enough to get one and it's really very good.
> If this 16mm is any good, I'll get that too as 14mm is sometimes just too wide.


The Samyang 14mm 2.8 is excellent, but it's pretty big (gigantic front element!), and it's no walk-around lens.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 10, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I think Canon and Nikon had 21mm wide-angles that required the mirror to be locked up for using them, mainly for architecture use, in order to take advantage of the simple solutions possible when you don't have a mirror in the way.



Canon's was/is a 19mm, the FL 19mm f/3.5, and it is a huge pain to use, utterly terrible optically, and architecture is the last thing you'd want to use it for thanks to its extremely heavy and non-linear distortion. It came with a hotshoe viewfinder attachment to shoot with the mirror up.
They later made a retrofocus version which could be used with the mirror down, but it's a much larger and heavier lens, and the optics are no better.
A particular problem with the original 19mm's design with digital (and some colour film) is having the rear elements so close to the sensor/film means the angle the light has to exit at is really severe and nothing really lines up well. Not only does this mean the mid-frame to the edges are very soft and very dark, but on most digital sensors it causes very strong purple vignette. (On some colour films it can be green.)
Obviously a lot of time has passed since 1964 and manufacturing techniques have improved immensely, but the laws of physics do not change and designs like that lens (and potentially this one) still face most of the same troubles. Being bale to put big elements closer to the sensor helps in getting the wide angle of view, but geting that wide angle _with good quality_ is another matter.



SwissFrank said:


> They should make some extension tubes, or another vendor should. a tiny extension has a huge effect for wide-angles.



Many third-parties already do make RF tubes. For essome bizarre reason Kenko's tubes are priced at something stupid like £200 for a couple of tubes, while you're looking at £40 or so for brands like Meike and JJC. Canon probably are holding off making official ones until they feel sales of their macro and semi-macro RF lenses have already dropped off; it's hard to keep selling macro lenses when many people feel they can get the same results with a standard lens and a tube. Once Canon do, inevitably, put out their own tubes, you'll see more companies copying them and prices on RF tubes will come down.



entoman said:


> and IBIS is there for owners of everything other than R and RP.


Sure, but the RP is the highest-selling RF body to date and the R is second. For all the headlines they get, the R6 and R5 are still new, high-priced, low-availability products. And of course we have no idea if Canon will put IBIS in every other body going forward; it would be a _very_ Canon thing to reserve IBIS only for bodies above the £2000 mark.



entoman said:


> Is the corner sharpness good enough for landscapes?
> Is the weather-sealing adequate for use in showery conditions?
> Does it suffer from unacceptable levels of flare?
> Does it suffer from unacceptable levels of CA?
> Does it suffer from unacceptable levels of barrel or pincushion distortion?



1) Will probably depend on how much of the image someone defines as the "corner". Given how the other non-L RF lenses have been, and the size of this lens, it's a safe bet there's going to be a lot of distortion and vignetting to correct.
2) It's categorically not weather sealed, as is the case for all of Canon's non-L lenses, since Canon think it's still 1986 and sealing and lens hoods are a "luxury" addition. If someone wants weather sealed, cheap, compact lenses, they need to move to Fuji's f/2 and f/2.8 primes, or Tamron's on Sony.
3) It's an ultra wide with apparently backwards optics, so flaring should be very common but not particularly strong.
4) Yes but I'm willing to bet the camera will burn opcodes into the files to correct it so we never see the fringing outside of RawTherapee.
5) See #1.



EOS 4 Life said:


> IBIS is not so great on the wide end.



IBIS isn't _quite_ as effective as you go wider than it is in the middle range, but this lens being so small will help a lot (IBIS being more effective the nearer to the sensor the largest optics are), and really it's telephotos where IBIS is basically useless. (Keeping the sensor still doesn't matter when a giant front element is swinging around two feet away!)



Bennymiata said:


> I wonder how it compares to the Samyang 14mm RF AF 2.8?



Given the size difference, I think it's safe to assume this lens will be relying more on software and the Samyang will remain the better 'pure' optic. However, as the 24-240 shows Canon have gotten opcodes down to a fine art (or they've copy&pasted from Fuji, who are the real masters of software correction) and the actual end result from the Canon may be superior, regardless of how it gets there.
But the Samyang will surely have better autofocus (not that AF really varies much with UWAs, but even so, these STM motors have been consistently _terrible_), is weather sealed, and you didn't have to pay extra to get a hood. So it's not like the Samyang (or Rokinon/Bower, whatever branding of it someone buys) will suddenly become pointless or outright replaced. 

Cards on the table, my gut instinct is the Canon will be better for jpg and video while the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower will be better for raw stills, and both will have their place in a lot of peoples' bags.


----------



## gruhl28 (Sep 10, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> ...because a given angular movement results in a larger image shift away from center than at the center. Even perfect IBIS that tracks the image center will be inherently unable to simultaneously track the corners.


Interesting, I’d never thought of that.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 10, 2021)

Chig said:


> Why do your need IS in a very wide angle lens , do you have very shaky hands ?


Shooting in dimly-lit interiors? Or after dark?


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 10, 2021)

Some more information from Nokishita:


----------



## CaMeRa QuEsT (Sep 10, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I get the mirth but I think it is related to the "officially killing the EF-M mount off" part of your comment which has no basis.
> 
> Is has been suggested that a low cost wide angle lens would be needed if a APS-C sensor is introduced to RF mount for a R7. This could certainly be part of that stra
> 
> ...


My hope was that Canon's next APS-C lens would be a fast portrait prime in EF-M mount, instead we get this 16mm RF mount lens. The EF-M mount is going to be 10 years old next year and still no portrait prime for it from Canon. How is this mount not already dead for Canon? Also, look at all the great APS-C lenses that Tamron has brought to market in the last couple of years for the E mount, none of which are offered in EF-M mount, even though Tamron was the first (and for a long time the only) 3rd party lens maker doing a native AF EF-M mount lens with their 18-200mm that is also available in E mount. I had to settle for a low quality yet still expensive Sigma 56mm f/1.4 because why would Canon bring to market a portrait lens 8 or more years after the mount was first introduced? EF-M is dead and this 16mm f/2.8 is the mount's tombstone.

What I find really amusing is all the people in this forum believing that Canon is currently capable of making a FF 16mm f/2.8 UWA prime the size of their own nifty fifty (look ma, a tiny 43mm filter thread on a FF UWA!) AND that Canon is currently willing to sell such a lens at the same price as said nifty fifty. Hope, indeed, springs eternal.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 10, 2021)

CaMeRa QuEsT said:


> What I find really amusing is all the people in this forum believing that Canon is currently capable of making a FF 16mm f/2.8 UWA prime the size of their own nifty fifty (look ma, a tiny 43mm filter thread on a FF UWA!) AND that Canon is currently willing to sell such a lens at the same price as said nifty fifty. Hope, indeed, springs eternal.



Am I understanding correctly that you believe this 16mm lens will be an APSC RF lens, not a full-frame RC lens?
If so, would you care to elaborate on the reasons?

If it were an APSC lens, would we expect to see some sort of designation for that on the lens? I don't see any indication of APSC on the lettering in the image from Nokishita.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2021)

CaMeRa QuEsT said:


> What I find really amusing is all the people in this forum believing that Canon is currently capable of making a FF 16mm f/2.8 UWA prime the size of their own nifty fifty (look ma, a tiny 43mm filter thread on a FF UWA!) AND that Canon is currently willing to sell such a lens at the same price as said nifty fifty. Hope, indeed, springs eternal.


Really not sure what you’re on about… Clearly Canon IS currently capable of making a FF 16/2.8 UWA the same size as the RF 50/1.8, those specs have leaked and the lenses are close to identical (40mm long, 43mm filter thread).

I don’t recall many suggestions that the RF 16/2.8 would cost the same as the RF 50/1.8, rather surprise and pleasure that it will be $300 compared to $200 for the 50. Most people were expecting a much higher price for an RF 16/2.8.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 10, 2021)

JustUs7 said:


> At 16 mm shooting daylight landscapes or Astro or real estate from a tripod, I’m not sure how important image stabilization really is for this lens.
> 
> By the old rule of thumb, shouldn’t one be able to handhold down the 1/25th or even 1/15th pretty well with this focal length?
> 
> As far as macro, that was me. When the listing was live there was a paragraph or so descriptor. I recall seeing the word in there. I could be mistaken, but I’ve also seen that description used for reproduction ratios as little as 0.25x - so who knows what it’s worth even if it said that.


Per the latest Nokishita release, we are looking at 0.26x, which is really good for a wide angle!

It's not 0.5x, but at this price point it might still be worth it!


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 11, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Per the latest Nokishita release, we are looking at 0.26x, which is really good for a wide angle!
> 
> It's not 0.5x, but at this price point it might still be worth it!
> View attachment 200123


Seems generous to call that, ‘macro’, but I know I saw the word in Amazon’s description. I suspect copy and paste with editing from another lens description, but still. This will be in the bag the next hiking vacation we take. Should have plenty of time to see reviews and samples before them. No real ultra wide angle needs before that.


----------



## petitBogueBogue (Sep 11, 2021)

Is it really a ff 16mm lens? The hood just doesn't seem to make sense for such an ultra-wide angle!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2021)

petitBogueBogue said:


> Is it really a ff 16mm lens? The hood just doesn't seem to make sense for such an ultra-wide anhle lens!


Why would they announce a lens that’s incompatible with any existing camera?

Yes, it’s a FF lens.


----------



## petitBogueBogue (Sep 11, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would they announce a lens that’s incompatible with any existing camera?
> 
> Yes, it’s a FF lens.


Then what about the height of the hood?


----------



## petitBogueBogue (Sep 11, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would they announce a lens that’s incompatible with any existing camera?
> 
> Yes, it’s a FF len





petitBogueBogue said:


> Then what about the height of the hood?


Also, what about the size of the front element? Optical vignetting will deem to be massive if the lens is for ff!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2021)

petitBogueBogue said:


> Then what about the height of the hood?


What about it? It’s a petal-shaped ultrawide hood. The hood for the RF 15-35 is similarly shallow. Look at hoods for EF ultrawides, they’re shallow, too. The long petals of the built-in hood on my 11-24 extend just 5 mm past the front element. 

I’m pretty sure Canon can correctly determine the appropriate size and shape for a lens hood. Further, I’d hazard a guess they know more about optical design than you or me.



petitBogueBogue said:


> Also, what about the size of the front element? Optical vignetting will deem to be massive if the lens is for ff!


Again, what about it? Yes, the lens will probably have significant vignetting. Many RF lenses do. It’s readily correctable in the resulting images (yes, there’s the consequence of increased peripheral noise). Consider the awful distortion and substantial vignetting of the 14-35/4L, bad enough that Canon forces the corrections for in-camera JPGs and in RAW conversions with DPP (i.e., unlike other lenses those corrections cannot be turned off). They do that on a $1600 L-series lens, why would it be a surprise on a $300 non-L lens? However, we actually don’t know anything about the optical performance of the 16/2.8 yet.

As I said, it’s a FF lens. Period.


----------



## petitBogueBogue (Sep 11, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> What about it? It’s a petal-shaped ultrawide hood. The hood for the RF 15-35 is similarly shallow. Look at hoods for EF ultrawides, they’re shallow, too. The long petals of the built-in hood on my 11-24 extend just 5 mm past the front element.
> 
> I’m pretty sure Canon can correctly determine the appropriate size and shape for a lens hood. Further, I’d hazard a guess they know more about optical design than you or me.
> 
> ...


Then I have nothing to say but feel sorry for that. In the EF, FD, and even FL eras, canon lenses used to be very usable even without much in-camera or post processing. Now cutting-cost seems to be its mainstream business ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2021)

petitBogueBogue said:


> Then I have nothing to say but feel sorry for that. In the EF, FD, and even FL eras, canon lenses used to be very usable even without much in-camera or post processing. Now cutting-cosy seems to be its mainstream business ...


Fair enough. The good thing is that you’re not being forced to buy these lenses.


----------



## dcsimages (Sep 11, 2021)

Looks like it would be very useful for real estate interiors. I'm assuming that as a prime lens that it would have less barrel distortion than an equivalent zoom.


----------



## petitBogueBogue (Sep 11, 2021)

dcsimages said:


> Looks like it would be very useful for real estate interiors. I'm assuming that as a prime lens that it would have less barrel distortion than an equivalent zoom.


With all due respect to Canon, I think this is a consumer-grade rather than a professional-level lens. As a hobbyist, I will prefer using the lens for snapshot, landscape, and particularly vlogging. I think it will do a great job there.


----------



## petitBogueBogue (Sep 11, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Per the latest Nokishita release, we are looking at 0.26x, which is really good for a wide angle!
> 
> It's not 0.5x, but at this price point it might still be worth it!
> View attachment 200123


Agree! Such magnification expands its usability a lot indeed, especially for vlogging. ^^


----------



## gruhl28 (Sep 11, 2021)

petitBogueBogue said:


> Is it really a ff 16mm lens? The hood just doesn't seem to make sense for such an ultra-wide angle!


Are you saying the hood looks too deep for an ultra-wide angle? It does look deeper than I expected. I have to admit it did cross my mind that maybe this actually only covers a cropped area of the sensor. But I would expect some kind of designation on the lens if it weren’t a standard ff RF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> Are you saying the hood looks too deep for an ultra-wide angle? It does look deeper than I expected. I have to admit it did cross my mind that maybe this actually only covers a cropped area of the sensor. But I would expect some kind of designation on the lens if it weren’t a standard ff RF.


Given the small size of the front element, a deeper hood is logical.

You’re correct that Canon would not call this the RF 16mm f/2.8 if it didn’t cover a FF image circle.


----------



## tbgtomcom (Sep 11, 2021)

That's an interest lens. I'm eager to see the reviews on this one.


----------



## BBarn (Sep 11, 2021)

Would expect performance commensurate with size, price and recent RF lenses. Think RF 50 f/1.8 performance, which it outwardly resembles. Very good but not great IQ, after required correction. Not likely a good candidate for Astro. I can see it being worth $300 to many enthusiasts.


----------



## danfaz (Sep 12, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Am I understanding correctly that you believe this 16mm lens will be an APSC RF lens, not a full-frame RC lens?
> If so, would you care to elaborate on the reasons?
> 
> If it were an APSC lens, would we expect to see some sort of designation for that on the lens? I don't see any indication of APSC on the lettering in the image from Nokishita.
> ...


Another question is why would they be announcing an RF APS-C lens when there's no RF APS-C camera for it???


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 12, 2021)

petitBogueBogue said:


> Also, what about the size of the front element? Optical vignetting will deem to be massive if the lens is for ff!



Uh, you might want to take a look at the vignetting of... *checks notes*... literally every RF lens released to date. Every lens is about a stop darker than the nearest EF equivalent. Canon, regardless of whether anyone thinks they're right or not to do so, have decided vignetting is one of the aspects of a lens they do not need to correct optically any more.



dcsimages said:


> I'm assuming that as a prime lens that it would have less barrel distortion than an equivalent zoom.



Same deal here. While the distortion on RF primes hasn't been so different to EF as the vignetting has been, in general they still requiring a little more correction. I can't imagine, for one second, that Canon would make this small 16mm have less distortion than, for example, the 14-35mm f/4L which they're charging about, what, six times the price for? Though, yes, all other things being equal you would expect a prime to have less distortion than a zoom, considering the price and size they've gotten this lens down to and how loose they've been with optical corrections so far, the smart money is betting on this lens being practically fisheye uncorrected.

For reference, Fuji's compact 16mm f/2.8 also has heavy barrel distortion which relies on mandatory opcode corrections, and that lens only has to generate an APS-C image circle. The old EF 20mm f/2.8 has strong wavy distortion, and that's a much larger lens and a narrower angle of view.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 13, 2021)

Since this lens is probably going to have some heavy distortion uncorrected, it would have been fun for Canon to add an option to the lens so that you can choose between fisheye and rectilinear when taking photos. Maybe this could be done in the menus, and it can certainly be added in post as a "correction" option, but it would have been really fun to see a switch to toggle between the two so you can see the final fisheye effect while shooting as well (not just the final rectilinear effect). 
To me, at least, this extra feature would have been far more valuable and useful than the SA control that was added to the 100mm macro. 
I fully understand that this lens is being offered at a lower price point. Just pointing out a way that Canon's marketing could make the software corrections more interesting and could sell it as a feature that can be leveraged for interesting results rather than something that most people will complain about even if the final product looks great.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 13, 2021)

^^ In the same fashion I've long wanted them to change the in-camera vignette correction to offer reduced levels of correction, since a little bit of vignette can sometimes help to make a center or just-off-center subject really stand out. Natural-looking vignette is one of the effects that lightweight phone and tablet editing apps don't do very well, so for those times when you want to throw an image up online quickly, being able to correct some but not all the vignette on an in-camera jpg would be useful.
I do also often find distortion correction is too strong and ends up 'over-correcting' into the opposite type of distortion, so _any_ kind of choice in exactly how distortion correction was applied for _any_ lens, not just these quasi-fisheye wide angles, would be nice. Maybe they could offer no correction, one third correction, two thirds correction, full correction. Doesn't have to be a full Lightroom- or Capture One-style distortion control, but yeah, any kind of additional options are always good.


----------



## honeyiscool (Sep 13, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> ^^ In the same fashion I've long wanted them to change the in-camera vignette correction to offer reduced levels of correction, since a little bit of vignette can sometimes help to make a center or just-off-center subject really stand out. Natural-looking vignette is one of the effects that lightweight phone and tablet editing apps don't do very well, so for those times when you want to throw an image up online quickly, being able to correct some but not all the vignette on an in-camera jpg would be useful.
> I do also often find distortion correction is too strong and ends up 'over-correcting' into the opposite type of distortion, so _any_ kind of choice in exactly how distortion correction was applied for _any_ lens, not just these quasi-fisheye wide angles, would be nice. Maybe they could offer no correction, one third correction, two thirds correction, full correction. Doesn't have to be a full Lightroom- or Capture One-style distortion control, but yeah, any kind of additional options are always good.


DPP4 offers Digital Lens Optimizer and peripheral illumination correction on a slider. It's a terrible program, but I love how Canon renders its images and feel like using other programs makes all the cameras look sort of the same, whereas using DPP4 makes it such that you can do RAW processing, but still get Canon algorithms, processing, and rendering.


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2021)

I wonder about flare, its IQ at the edges and about coma...

I do not expect much for distortion and vignetting.

I understand it is cheap but to be useful for more than landscapes it has to have some qualities...

But the size is certainly its superpower!

P.S It can also serve as a cap for R cameras


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2021)

tron said:


> P.S It can also serve as a cap for R cameras


Like the 40/2.8 on my 1D X.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 14, 2021)

honeyiscool said:


> DPP4 offers Digital Lens Optimizer and peripheral illumination correction on a slider. It's a terrible program, but I love how Canon renders its images and feel like using other programs makes all the cameras look sort of the same, whereas using DPP4 makes it such that you can do RAW processing, but still get Canon algorithms, processing, and rendering.


It only offers that fine control for files from certain camera models. I, reluctantly, have spent most of the last year and a half working deep in DPP and the Canon colour profile formats (to enable in-camera split toning and a bunch of other effects; there's a lot Canon cameras can do that Canon just ignore), and as I've found to the detriment of my spare time and sanity, not everything that works in DPP with one model of camera necessarily works with another. Some functions are greyed out for some cameras, while others are enabled but only with basic on/off functionality.

But, more to the point, I was talking about more options for the in-camera processing, not processing raws at a desktop.


----------



## AlP (Sep 14, 2021)

Technical specifications: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1STP3mliy6GVsa9tuwLVcmWvMsNtTxVnJ/view


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 14, 2021)

See this little cute lens in action here (no sample photos though):


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 14, 2021)

I’m pretty amped that they specifically mentioned starscapes in their marketing. If it had issues with coma or astigmatism, I expect they would limit it to landscape, architecture, and v-logging; no? Why mention starscapes if it’ll do a bad job?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2021)

JustUs7 said:


> Why mention starscapes if it’ll do a bad job?


Marketing. Canon said this about the EF 75-300 III (cheap, low-IQ Rebel kit telezoom): “The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch.” Luxury, like an L-series lens.


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marketing. Canon said this about the EF 75-300 III (cheap, low-IQ Rebel kit telezoom): “The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch.” Luxury, like an L-series lens.


That wasn’t necessary. Let the reviewers ruin it for me. I’m enjoying myself right now.


----------



## gruhl28 (Sep 16, 2021)

Has anyone seen any early image quality reviews yet for the 16mm? I thought some reviewers might have had a copy to test and just had to wait until the official announcement to publish, but I haven’t seen any optical test results yet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Canon should have let me design their lens line. I could have done a better job. They need to work backwards from expected users.


Lol. While I have little doubt you could have done a great job of designing a lens lineup for you personally, I have zero doubt Canon understands the lens market and the expected users’ desires far better than you.


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 16, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Canon should have let me design their lens line. I could have done a better job. They need to work backwards from expected users.
> 
> A "street user" (and any other pro who could use a wide little prime) needs weather sealing and maybe higher physical strength. I haven't yet looked into IQ but the street user would be happy to pay twice this for really killer specs. (Though maybe there's no way to massively increase quality without an utterly different form factor. Or maybe quality's already great.)
> 
> ...


I think Canon did a perfect job. Your design would add a lot of cost that I don’t want to pay. Two things first and foremost. 16mm and under $300. Squeeze whatever performance you can into that package and huge sales will follow. I think that’s a better understanding of the market than what you present.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 16, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> You imply I said something incorrect, but what specifically?


You said "mainly for architecture use". That lens was never marketed as such—you can find archives of all of Canon's material from then—and architectural photography at the time was dominated by large format, though even on 35mm there were at that point shift lenses which were being offered for this task. The pancake (mirror lock-up) 19mm was very specifically advertised and sold for street photography.


SwissFrank said:


> I never said it was good optically,


If someone says "I'm not sure this lens will have good optics" and you reply with "well there was this other lens before that did alright", you're very clearly trying to say there is little, if not no, reason to doubt the optics of the new lens.

Don't bring up something as a conversation point if you're going to fall back on "well I don't know, it was a long time ago, it's not really my thing". If you're that unsure about something then don't try to put it forward as a talking point, let alone as a potential example to reassure (or dissuade) someone about a new product.

And for the record, yes, you are right that the 19mm wasn't quite literally 19mm; it was 18.7mm. Really struck upon the weakspot there, good job.




gruhl28 said:


> Has anyone seen any early image quality reviews yet for the 16mm? I thought some reviewers might have had a copy to test and just had to wait until the official announcement to publish, but I haven’t seen any optical test results yet.


1) It's only been in peoples' hands for a couple of days, far too early for any actual "reviews" of it.
2) Most of the media are just focusing on the R3; apparently there are very few actual working units of the 100-400 and 16mm to hand out. (And they don't draw clicks like a new body does.)
3) The few people who have gotten to play with the 16mm have only been allowed to report on the in-camera processing from the back of the camera. Nobody has been allowed to keep files. I've already seen one store proudly proclaim the lens has no distortion, only to then admit they forgot to check if the camera was correcting that automatically and that they hadn't looked at even the jpgs, let alone raws. Literally, everyone who has touched the 100-400 and 16 have only seen the images on the rear screen of the camera.

Canon have gotten stricter with their embargoes lately and nobody who has touched the R3, 100-400 or 16mm yet can really say anything about any of them other than repeating Canon's marketing. It's going to be late October before anyone who can actually talk freely about them will be able to get hold of one and use it for long enough to have some meaningful results.


----------



## gruhl28 (Sep 17, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> 1) It's only been in peoples' hands for a couple of days, far too early for any actual "reviews" of it.
> 2) Most of the media are just focusing on the R3; apparently there are very few actual working units of the 100-400 and 16mm to hand out. (And they don't draw clicks like a new body does.)
> 3) The few people who have gotten to play with the 16mm have only been allowed to report on the in-camera processing from the back of the camera. Nobody has been allowed to keep files. I've already seen one store proudly proclaim the lens has no distortion, only to then admit they forgot to check if the camera was correcting that automatically and that they hadn't looked at even the jpgs, let alone raws. Literally, everyone who has touched the 100-400 and 16 have only seen the images on the rear screen of the camera.
> 
> Canon have gotten stricter with their embargoes lately and nobody who has touched the R3, 100-400 or 16mm yet can really say anything about any of them other than repeating Canon's marketing. It's going to be late October before anyone who can actually talk freely about them will be able to get hold of one and use it for long enough to have some meaningful results.


In the past, reviewers have often been given equipment well before it has been released, and did testing, and were able to publish their results right after the official announcements. But as you say, in this case it seems that did not happen, especially for the lenses. And reviewers do seem more interested in the advanced R3 than the consumer 16mm and 100-400mm.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 22, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I do not care so much about vignetting. All wide angle lenses have a few stops of vignetting wide open and that can be corrected quite wll in Lightroom. Distortion is another thing though. It bends the whole image. A secret distortion correction is quite a fake. The photo might still look sharp, but usually you have to rotate an image a fraction of a degree. That means the same image is edited, then rasterized and saved, then edited again ans rasterized again. With each rasterization you loose some information. So it would be much better to to the distortion correction and the rotation in a single step. In some situations distortion correction would not even be needed, but Canon DPP does not even fgve us the option to disable it.
> 
> Doing distortion correction in the EVF in real time might also drain the battery a little.


But I’d that what Lightroom actually does, or is it more like ACR in saving corrections as instructions that are applied together in one swoop?


----------



## stevelee (Sep 22, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> IBIS is not so great on the wide end.


I was under the impression that IBIS works better with wide lenses than with teles.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 22, 2021)

CaMeRa QuEsT said:


> My hope was that Canon's next APS-C lens would be a fast portrait prime in EF-M mount, instead we get this 16mm RF mount lens. The EF-M mount is going to be 10 years old next year and still no portrait prime for it from Canon. How is this mount not already dead for Canon? Also, look at all the great APS-C lenses that Tamron has brought to market in the last couple of years for the E mount, none of which are offered in EF-M mount, even though Tamron was the first (and for a long time the only) 3rd party lens maker doing a native AF EF-M mount lens with their 18-200mm that is also available in E mount. I had to settle for a low quality yet still expensive Sigma 56mm f/1.4 because why would Canon bring to market a portrait lens 8 or more years after the mount was first introduced? EF-M is dead and this 16mm f/2.8 is the mount's tombstone.
> 
> What I find really amusing is all the people in this forum believing that Canon is currently capable of making a FF 16mm f/2.8 UWA prime the size of their own nifty fifty (look ma, a tiny 43mm filter thread on a FF UWA!) AND that Canon is currently willing to sell such a lens at the same price as said nifty fifty. Hope, indeed, springs eternal.


An EF 50mm lens on an M camera is in portrait range. There are several to choose from.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marketing. Canon said this about the EF 75-300 III (cheap, low-IQ Rebel kit telezoom): “The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch.” Luxury, like an L-series lens.


I have an even older (and maybe even worse) version of that cheap lens. I shot total solar eclipse pictures with it on my Rebel. I found online test charts, and f/11 seemed to be the best setting for that lens, so I used it for all shots. Almost all of the CA went away, and I got great once-in-a-lifetime shots, clearly worth the $100 it added to the kit price.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 23, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I was under the impression that IBIS works better with wide lenses than with teles.


I think it's a more prominent issue with video than stills, although I've seen it with ultrawides (15-35). The center and midframe are sharp but the corners are mushy. For video, it seems to "wobble" in the corners. It's like the IBIS doesn't have enough displacement to apply the full correction. IIRC, I saw it while trying to shoot waterfalls without a tripod. I took bursts, and the center and midframe would be sharp enough, but the corners in some of the images were blurry.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 23, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> I think it's a more prominent issue with video than stills, although I've seen it with ultrawides (15-35). The center and midframe are sharp but the corners are mushy. For video, it seems to "wobble" in the corners. It's like the IBIS doesn't have enough displacement to apply the full correction. IIRC, I saw it while trying to shoot waterfalls without a tripod. I took bursts, and the center and midframe would be sharp enough, but the corners in some of the images were blurry.


Interesting. My cameras do video stabilization by cropping, same as editing software will do. That’s an advantage of shooting 4K even if your final output is 1080p, you can do stabilization without losing much of anything. Obviously doing it all in post gives you the most control and potentially quality.


----------



## joseph ferraro (Sep 23, 2021)

Jethro said:


> At that price point, IQ will always be at some level compromised (although ML lens 'correction' seems to produce marvels these days!), but for a walk-around prime lens at that length (especially a pancake) a lot of us would likely wear those compromises. If it had any sort of usable macro length that would just be the icing.


it should be able to do 1:3.8 at .26x magnification (asked a canon tech) which would be ok for some wide angle macro photography with a min focus distance of about 5.1 inches. Comparing that to a sigma 15mm which was about the same but the mfd was a bit longer. I also use a laowa 15mm macro, usually in the 1:4 range just so I can get some light on my subjects, so I'm looking forward to when the rf16mm is shipped to me. lighting at that distance is always an issue, ymmv.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 23, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I was under the impression that IBIS works better with wide lenses than with teles.


IBIS works best at the middle range.
Pretty much every long telephoto has lens stabilization.
Canon coordinated IBIS varies from lens to lens


----------



## Joules (Sep 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You’re correct that Canon would not call this the RF 16mm f/2.8 if it didn’t cover a FF image circle.


But the RF 24-240mm 6.3, 24-105 5.5 and 14-35 4.0 do not cover the full FF sensor - not even before cropping, as their corners are not just dark, but actually black. Does Canon not call them FF lenses? Pretty sure they do. 

Which I think is fair, after all for all but the absolute very widest focal length, they are just regular FF lenses. But in this thread, we're talking about a prime. How much of the image circle has to be black/cropped away before you can't consider a lens as being FF any more? Gives the Full in Full Frame some interesting notion.

Canon in a sense has given each of these lenses an individual crop factor, and named them after the equivalent focal length you end up with after applying this crop. They are all wider than their names suggest when viewing an uncorrected FF image. I've not seen Canon call them any different, or even acknowledge this property of them.

Which actually makes me wonder - are the given f numbers still the actual physical ones (meaning each of these lenses is actually slightly slower on the widest end than advertised) or are they also statements of equivalency that take the crop into account?

Probably the former.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2021)

Joules said:


> But the RF 24-240mm 6.3, 24-105 5.5 and 14-35 4.0 do not cover the full FF sensor - not even before cropping, as their corners are not just dark, but actually black. Does Canon not call them FF lenses? Pretty sure they do.


A bit pedantic, I think. There’s a big difference between a bit of mechanical vignetting in the corners of a FF lens and an APS-C lens. 

All of these numbers are rounded, usually in Canon’s favor. The optical formula for a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 might actually be something like 105-392mm f/4.7-5.9, and since the focal length applies at infinity focus, if that lens has substantial focus breathing then with a closer focus distance it might be something like 88-355mm.

Here’s a reported patent for the RF 14-35mm f/4L IS, the optical formula for which is actually 14.80-32.95mm f/4.1-4.58.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 27, 2021)

Joules said:


> But the RF 24-240mm 6.3, 24-105 5.5 and 14-35 4.0 do not cover the full FF sensor - not even before cropping, as their corners are not just dark, but actually black.


I guess that extra 1mm is not worth the stop of light vs the 15-35 2.8 then

Thanks for letting me know.
Now I am kind of glad it was impossible for me to get.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Sep 28, 2021)

Will there be any reviews of the RF 16mm 2.8, before it starts shipping? I was counting on that when I placed my pre-order. Hopefully I get to see real world reviews and examples before the lens shows up at my door.

Any idea what the timeline has been for other lenses in the past?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 28, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> Will there be any reviews of the RF 16mm 2.8, before it starts shipping? I was counting on that when I placed my pre-order. Hopefully I get to see real world reviews and examples before the lens shows up at my door.
> 
> Any idea what the timeline has been for other lenses in the past?


That's the clever market strategy that camera manufacturers use. It works something like this:

Build hype early! Give the market a drip feed of information and specs over many weeks or months before to get them worked up into a frenzy.
Limit the information that reviewers can reveal to the public to maintain the mystery and get them speculating, this creates public focus on the unreleased product. 
Offer the public pre-orders so they can purchase the unreleased and unreviewed product they know nothing about. This allows money to be collected early, gives customers a sense of exclusivity, and the illusion that they have something before anyone else does. It also plays on the human fear of loss, FOMO (fear of missing out) is a strong motivator, people imagine there's a chance the product may sell out if they don’t order early, and may not have the chance to buy it on or soon after the release date..
Only allow full reviews (which play up the pros and play down the cons otherwise no more toys to review next time) to be posted up on or after the release date.
Delay shipments or limit stock as this produces a perception of scarcity and creates more demand. The psychological phenomenon of scarcity, in a marketing context, is the where, when a product or service is limited in availability (or perceived as being limited), it becomes more attractive.
If anyone *needs *a tool, they usually require objective information about quality, durability, performance, etc unless they're not concerned about these and any tool close to spec will suffice. If they just *want *it, that won't matter because these sale will be more emotionally driven. People buy with their emotions, and are influenced by subconscious motivations.

Short answer, Canon will make you wait, and they'll drag it out as they always do, it's how the marketing game is played to mess with human emotions and increase sales!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 28, 2021)

SereneSpeed said:


> Will there be any reviews of the RF 16mm 2.8, before it starts shipping? I was counting on that when I placed my pre-order. Hopefully I get to see real world reviews and examples before the lens shows up at my door.
> 
> Any idea what the timeline has been for other lenses in the past?


Gordon Laing reviewed it


----------



## SereneSpeed (Sep 28, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Gordon Laing reviewed it


I think he tried it more than reviewed it.

if he has a review that shows image quality, please let me know. All I’ve seen is the one where he shows the angle of view through three different video modes.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Sep 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> That's the clever market strategy that camera manufacturers use. It works something like this:
> 
> Build hype early! Give the market a drip feed of information and specs over many weeks or months before to get them worked up into a frenzy.
> Limit the information that reviewers can reveal to the public to maintain the mystery and get them speculating, this creates public focus on the unreleased product.
> ...


Thank you. I appreciate the thorough reply.

I guess if I’m lucky enough to get a copy at a decent time, I’ll use the 14 day return policy. It won’t take me long to figure out if it’s a lens for me, or not...


----------



## ThatCW (Oct 7, 2021)

Looks like the RF 16mm F/2.8mm lens is shipping on time. Received this update from Amazon early today. As a reminder, I stumbled onto the Amazon listing for the RF 16m when it was momentarily up roughly a week before Canon's official announcement, hence the early September 7th order date.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 22, 2021)

Received my RF 16mm f2.8 STM lens today from Park Cameras. Only ordered the lens this week so chuffed it arrived so fast.
My R6 outfit now has the RF 16mm f2.8, RF 50mm f1.8, RF 24-105mm f4L and the RF 70-200mm f4L this is my lighter weight Landscape kit along with my Lee Filters (got the wide angle adaptor ring for the 16 & 50mm this week) & Peak Design carbon travel tripod.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Oct 23, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> Received my RF 16mm f2.8 STM lens today from Park Cameras. Only ordered the lens this week so chuffed it arrived so fast.
> My R6 outfit now has the RF 16mm f2.8, RF 50mm f1.8, RF 24-105mm f4L and the RF 70-200mm f4L this is my lighter weight Landscape kit along with my Lee Filters (got the wide angle adaptor ring for the 16 & 50mm this week) & Peak Design carbon travel tripod.


Keen to get some reviews of this lens


----------



## Jethro (Nov 16, 2021)

Gordon Laing's review - (after noting the obvious limitations) very highly recommended:

canon-rf-16mm-f2-8-stm-review

After Neuro's recent analysis of the actual effect of corrections on the RF 14-35mm in a different thread, which presumably will be similar for the 16mm, I'm now a lot more interested than I previously was. It's not a 'priority' lens for me, but one I'll probably eventually get.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 19, 2021)

Just watched Gordon Laing's review:






Interestingly, the RF 16mm f2.8 and the RF 14-35 f/4 have the same problem with soft corners that don't sharpen up with smaller apertures, both being software-corrected, while the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 has optically sharper corners.

What was surprising though in the review was that the corners of the RF 16mm f2.8 were slightly sharper than those of the RF 14-35 f/4. Is this a case of prime vs zoom, with slightly better prime results when both use software corrected corners?


----------



## gruhl28 (Nov 19, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Just watched Gordon Laing's review:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What struck me about the review was that he said the corners of the 16mm improved upon stopping down, which contradicts other results. Although I can't say that I saw much of a difference apart from vignetting getting better, but maybe the resolution of the video limited how much I could see. I was also surprised that the 14-35 didn't look significantly better than the 16mm, which also contradicts other results that have shown the 14-35 to be very good in the corners even with the distortion correction. My tentative conclusion (hope) is that perhaps the 16mm is better in the corners at longer distances than close up. See my comment and Neuro's reply in the 14-35 thread about this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...tortion-correction-testing.41022/#post-917468


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 19, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> What struck me about the review was that he said the corners of the 16mm improved upon stopping down, which contradicts other results. Although I can't say that I saw much of a difference apart from vignetting getting better, but maybe the resolution of the video limited how much I could see. I was also surprised that the 14-35 didn't look significantly better than the 16mm, which also contradicts other results that have shown the 14-35 to be very good in the corners even with the distortion correction. My tentative conclusion (hope) is that perhaps the 16mm is better in the corners at longer distances than close up. See my comment and Neuro's reply in the 14-35 thread about this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/rf-14-35mm-f-4l-is-–-distortion-correction-testing.41022/#post-917468


Agreed, it appears that the corners do look better at longer distances on the RF 16mm, and Neuro's testing at longer distances was very insightful, and simulated real-world use more accurately. 

When Gordon stopped down the lenses in the review, the corner sharpness increase was very slight, not in the order of magnitude that you normally see on other RF lenses in the same tier such as the budget RF 35 and RF 50.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 4, 2022)

My RF 16mm f/2.8 arrived today from Canon. I recall @neuroanatomist posting that DxO PL5 gives a significantly wider field of view from RAW than the jpeg out of camera with the 14-35. I found the same with just the couple of shots taken today, with the central section of the image from RAW occupying fewer pixels width. I'll check it out tomorrow taking images of a brick wall to see if there is more distortion with PL5.


----------



## tron (Mar 5, 2022)

I trust your results Alan. They will give us useful info just like with your telephoto lenses. The next thing is maybe a comparison with your 16-35 f/4L IS (If I recall correctly you have one) to see if the field of view of 16mm after correction is comparable.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 5, 2022)

@tron I did the tests in a 15 minute break in the rain taking photos of a brick wall at 0.8m distance, using the R6 with either the RF 16mm or the EF 16-35mm f/4 with adapter. Each shot was taken as a jpg and RAW, and the RAW processed using DxO PL5 and its lens correction profiles.

RF 16mm
Out of camera jpg had the bricks 1.093x larger than those processed as RAW. Interestingly, whereas the ooc jpgs are the standard 3648x5472px, the processed RAW are 3648x5981px, which is a factor of 1.093 wider. So, if the 16mm ooc jpgs are truly 16mm focal length, the focal length from RAW corresponds to 14.6mm

EF 16mm
The ooc jpgs were distorted, showing any in-camera correction isn't good, or non-existent. The processed RAW gave bricks 1.074x the size of those from the ooc jpgs from the RF 16mm. This corresponds to a minimum focal length of the zoom of 17.2mm.

So, it seems like @neuroanatomist found with the RF 14-35mm, Canon's internal correction of the horrible barrel distortion works by cropping the extremes of the barrel before or after corrections, whereas the DxO PL5 uses a wider field. The extreme corners from DxO are mushy, but the areas on the RAW corresponding to the extreme corners of out of camera jpegs were as good if not better.

Checked it out at 22cm and 19m, and the results are the same, 9% larger field of view from RAW.

Edit: calculated the focal length directly from image size and it's ~14.4mm for RAW processed image, and ~15.8mm for out of camera jpegs.


----------



## tron (Mar 5, 2022)

Many Thanks Alan. Detailed analysis as always. It looks like RF16mm is a great value for money and a very decent (after PP) UWA lens.


----------

