# OpticalLimits reviews the Canon EOS RF 16mm F2.8 STM



## canonnews (Feb 21, 2022)

> OpticalLimits is one of my favorite review sites, and they recently completed their review of the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM.
> First, let’s face facts, the Canon RF 16mm is the cheapest ever full frame 16mm that has ever been produced by an original camera manufacturer.  Ever.   There are going to be some compromises to its performance.
> 
> There are usually three main contributors to lens design;
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 21, 2022)

It's a fun lens for a decent price.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 21, 2022)

Got my first copy and sold it within weeks. Did regret it though and so I got a second copy. Looking at IQ, I do get tears because there is something missing. Looking at Canon other UWA options I do get tears because I would have to sacrifice a very decent vacation So, I'm keeping it.

I do actually get some use out of it:
- hikes (so so light weight)
- class field trips --> group shots and interesting angles
- casual city trip

But at one point, I'll need a serious landscape/ nightscape/ astro capable UWA option.


----------



## entoman (Feb 21, 2022)

"_if you own an EOS R3 or R6, it’s a decent ultra-wide prime lens – because, at 20 megapixels, even a Coke bottle is sharp enough. Well, almost. While on an EOS R5 and 45 megapixels, you don’t really want to look at the image corners._"
What a great quote!


----------



## Jethro (Feb 21, 2022)

And Klaus' final word (which should always be remembered in relation to low-cost options):

_"Overall, you may argue that you get what you pay for but this isn't really true. A 16mmm f/2.8 for this kind of money is an insane bargain even with the mentioned limitations. Just don't expect Mercedes quality for a Lada price tag."_


----------



## AlanF (Feb 21, 2022)

Jethro said:


> And Klaus' final word (which should always be remembered in relation to low-cost options):
> 
> _"Overall, you may argue that you get what you pay for but this isn't really true. A 16mmm f/2.8 for this kind of money is an insane bargain even with the mentioned limitations. Just don't expect Mercedes quality for a Lada price tag."_


Mercedes came 23/28 in terms of reliability according to US Consumer reports with a score of 34 compared with Lexus, Mazda and Toyota in the 70s. So maybe you do get Lada quality for a Mercedes price tag.


----------



## AJ (Feb 21, 2022)

I'm glad to see that Opticallimits now analyzes after (compulsory) corrections. They really struggled with this when they reviewed the RF 24-105/4-7.1
The coke bottle comment seems a little over-the-top to me. This lens is considerably sharper than the old EF 17-40 f/4 L which used to be very popular and well regarded in its heyday.








Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com




It is similar in sharpness to the EF 16-35/2.8 L mk2








Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com




But the EF 16-35/4 L IS is sharper:








Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com




In short, this lens does have some compromises. The corners are a little bit soft. But "pixel soup" seems melodramatic.


----------



## entoman (Feb 21, 2022)

AJ said:


> In short, this lens does have some compromises. The corners are a little bit soft. But "pixel soup" seems melodramatic.


Ultra-wides are typically used for:

Landscapes, which usually require sharpness right into the edges and corners.
Architecture, which requires high sharpness across most of the field, and freedom from aberrations.
Astro, which requires very high sharpness and freedom from distortion and aberrations.

Even at the more forgiving 20MP resolution of an R6, it would seem highly unsuitable for any of the above.

I see this as a lens for experimenters - people who want to "play" with ultra-wide just to see how they get on with it, but who aren't remotely interested in forking out the kind of dosh needed for an L optic. The cost is so low that it will tempt many people who would otherwise have steered clear of such short a focal length.

It will sell extremely well, and those who find that they enjoy ultra-wide shooting, will end up upgrading to an L of similar focal length, so yet again it's a win-win for clever old Canon!


----------



## Frankenstein (Feb 22, 2022)

I own this lens from day one preordered. Love it for video purpose with digital stab ON 1.1X crop gets rid of the nasty edges and corners just about enough. Without considering pricetag, I gave it 4out of 5 star for its compactness, fast af, 43mm front filter and F2.8 bright aperture. If price is included in the equation, this lens is groundbreaking one of a kind, never seen before, best out of best, 6 out of 5 star. With current level of inflation, $299 barely buys you a CPL, a lens cap and hood, where Canon sells an Ultra wide prime F2.8 with AF for this little change. No other lens manufacturer has anything remotely close to it, not even Samyang let alone Sigma Tamron or Sony Nikon. Samyang 14mm RF is over twice the price, 3 times the size and 3 times the weight. 18mm FE is optically inferior and narrower. Tamron 20mm FE has even worse distortion and nowhere near as fast AF for tracking, not to mention 67mm filter for a tiny front glass. Sony Nikon 20mm both excellent but we talk about $900 vs $300. And 20mm is not 16mm


----------



## AJ (Feb 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Ultra-wides are typically used for:
> 
> Landscapes, which usually require sharpness right into the edges and corners.
> Architecture, which requires high sharpness across most of the field, and freedom from aberrations.
> ...


I'm planning to buy this highly unsuitable lens and use it for all three of those applications you listed. ;^)
I hike to get landscape shots. I travel to get architecture shots. Astro, both of those. For hiking and traveling, small is a real bonus.
My goals are to have files suitable for display on a 4k screen and for printing 13"x19" coffee-table books. I don't need huge gallery-style prints. This lens should easily do that.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 22, 2022)

I own a copy of this lens, and for an ultra-wide, it's pretty decent, and fantastic for the price. I use it on remote cameras left out in the woods for weeks at a time, often at the entrance of a den. It's up in the snow right now monitoring a shrew hole. It's attached to a beat-up RP found used and slightly broken on eBay. Perfect sort of lens to pair with a rig that might get chomped by a curious mammal. Lost a beater 6D to a bear last year. I'm reticent to put my Sigma 14mm f/1.8 out there, so the 16mm lens means the rig spends much more time in the woods than otherwise.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 22, 2022)

AJ said:


> The coke bottle comment seems a little over-the-top to me.


Sure (and also a little tongue-in-cheek). Did you have a look at his uncorrected distortion chart?


----------



## Frodo (Feb 22, 2022)

When I bought my RF16, I found it was visibly sharper than the other one the shop had. Sample variation could explain some negative reviews.
It is far from useless uncorrected. I love the look in forest photos without vertical and horizontal lines and the accentuation of the centre of the image, once the extreme borders are cropped. 
The Lightroom profile is significantly wider than the in-camera or DPP profile. 
I do some astrophotography and compared it to me Samyang 14/2.8. The Samyang is sharper, but at f/4 the RF16 is close. A critical distortion is coma and dissppointing that Optical Limits didn't look at this. At f/4, the RF16 is okay.
Landscape astrophotography means having interesting landscapes and good stars. The RF16 has come hiking with me, when the Samyang stayed home. I sold the Samyang and am happy with the decision.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2022)

AJ said:


> I'm glad to see that Opticallimits now analyzes after (compulsory) corrections. They really struggled with this when they reviewed the RF 24-105/4-7.1
> The coke bottle comment seems a little over-the-top to me. This lens is considerably sharper than the old EF 17-40 f/4 L which used to be very popular and well regarded in its heyday.
> 
> 
> ...


The EF 16-35mm f/4 is one of the EF lenses I'm keeping. Not small enough just to have your pocket but on the camera it gives a useful range and very sharp.


----------



## Bonich (Feb 22, 2022)

This lens is unique: Ultra compact and better than 1/4 max magnification.
This opens perspectives you never can do with any of the RF/EF15-35 or so.

This lens is fun to use.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 22, 2022)

I tried it, 


Frodo said:


> When I bought my RF16, I found it was visibly sharper than the other one the shop had. Sample variation could explain some negative reviews.
> It is far from useless uncorrected. I love the look in forest photos without vertical and horizontal lines and the accentuation of the centre of the image, once the extreme borders are cropped.
> The Lightroom profile is significantly wider than the in-camera or DPP profile.
> I do some astrophotography and compared it to me Samyang 14/2.8. The Samyang is sharper, but at f/4 the RF16 is close. A critical distortion is coma and dissppointing that Optical Limits didn't look at this. At f/4, the RF16 is okay.
> Landscape astrophotography means having interesting landscapes and good stars. The RF16 has come hiking with me, when the Samyang stayed home. I sold the Samyang and am happy with the decision.


I did the opposite (although it's the RF 14 2.8 AF Samyang. Maybe my 16 was a bad copy)


----------



## Shellbo6901 (Feb 23, 2022)

I have the r and use the ef 17-40 for real estate. Would it in any way be a bit better or should I stick with the EF. Im slowly trying to move all my lenses to RF, but dont want to shell out for the other RF options if the 16 would be alright.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 23, 2022)

Shellbo6901 said:


> I have the r and use the ef 17-40 for real estate. Would it in any way be a bit better or should I stick with the EF. Im slowly trying to move all my lenses to RF, but dont want to shell out for the other RF options if the 16 would be alright.


My copy of the RF16mm is better in the corners (after correction) than my copy of the EF17-40mm. And it's *much* sharper in the center. But I do miss the ability to zoom, 16mm is too wide for most of the things I use it for, but 45MP gives me more than enough pixels to crop in post 

I don't know how your copy of the 17-40 compares to mine and how important corner performance is for your work, so take the above with a grain of salt.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 23, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Mercedes came 23/28 in terms of reliability according to US Consumer reports with a score of 34 compared with Lexus, Mazda and Toyota in the 70s. So maybe you do get Lada quality for a Mercedes price tag.


Do you know how to improve your Customer Reports ranking?
An European brand was about number 50, one year later number 15, without any technical change.
How did they achieve this? By paying every customer a phone call, asking about satisfaction and what they could do for them...
I'd take such "reports" with a heap of salt...
Yet, I agree that Lexus fully deserves their ranking, but I'd lots more skeptical (in Europe) about the other two, huge diesel issues (4D4) or sometimes extreme corrosion. Mercedes payed a high price for a very (too?) sophisticated engine technology and electronics, and, maybe, arrogance. Lada is far from being as bad as many believe...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Do you know how to improve your Customer Reports ranking?
> An European brand was about number 50, one year later number 15, without any technical change.
> How did they achieve this? By paying every customer a phone call, asking about satisfaction and what they could do for them...
> I'd take such "reports" with a heap of salt...
> Yet, I agree that Lexus fully deserves their ranking, but I'd lots more skeptical (in Europe) about the other two, huge diesel issues (4D4) or sometimes extreme corrosion. Mercedes payed a high price for a very (too?) sophisticated engine technology and electronics, and, maybe, arrogance. Lada is far from being as bad as many believe...


It was a joke response, but based on fact. These are not the crap feedback reports you get on the internet based on random reporting. The Consumer Association in the UK "Which" has a proper ratings procedure based on their members reporting how often their cars went back for for repairs etc etc. Mercedes did badly in that too. I have had 3 Mercedes, including an upmarket cabriolet, and my own personal experience is that they are unreliable. Mercedes went down the reliability drain when they had their ill-fated merger with Chrysler, and decided their earlier legendary reliable models were over-engineered. My current Toyota is in a different league. "Which" is highly reliable and the reports are available in detail only to paid up subscribers, one of which I am, and I wouldn't pay for them and then pay more for a pinch of salt.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 23, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It was a joke response, but based on fact. These are not the crap feedback reports you get on the internet based on random reporting. The Consumer Association in the UK "Which" has a proper ratings procedure based on their members reporting how often their cars went back for for repairs etc etc. Mercedes did badly in that too. I have had 3 Mercedes, including an upmarket cabriolet, and my own personal experience is that they are unreliable. Mercedes went down the reliability drain when they had their ill-fated merger with Chrysler, and decided their earlier legendary reliable models were over-engineered. My current Toyota is in a different league. "Which" is highly reliable and the reports are available in detail only to paid up subscribers, one of which I am, and I wouldn't pay for them and then pay more for a pinch of salt.


I understood it was a joke.
Besides, I fully agree with you...I also drive a Japanese car, (but no Coyota- sorry for that ) and I am fully satisfied. Often it comes down to innovation vs. reliability!


----------



## AJ (Feb 23, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> My copy of the RF16mm is better in the corners (after correction) than my copy of the EF17-40mm. And it's *much* sharper in the center. But I do miss the ability to zoom, 16mm is too wide for most of the things I use it for, but 45MP gives me more than enough pixels to crop in post
> 
> I don't know how your copy of the 17-40 compares to mine and how important corner performance is for your work, so take the above with a grain of salt.


Hopefully the rumored 24/1.8 STM macro will be announced soon, and hopefully it'll be another compact and inexpensive lens.
That should make for a nice combo with the 16/2.8. For most uses one doesn't really need anything in between.


----------



## scrup (Feb 23, 2022)

Lens will work better on the crop camera Canon is releasing later this year.


----------



## Shellbo6901 (Feb 23, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> My copy of the RF16mm is better in the corners (after correction) than my copy of the EF17-40mm. And it's *much* sharper in the center. But I do miss the ability to zoom, 16mm is too wide for most of the things I use it for, but 45MP gives me more than enough pixels to crop in post
> 
> I don't know how your copy of the 17-40 compares to mine and how important corner performance is for your work, so take the above with a grain of salt.


thanks. The 17 works fine for 85% of the rooms in a house I have to shoot, but if the 16mm isn't any worse that for $199 it would be a no brainer but not if cropping is needed bc then it'd be pointless. I may just have to try it and return it bc i have yet to see a review of it from the real estate aspect.


----------



## gbc (Feb 23, 2022)

entoman said:


> Ultra-wides are typically used for:
> 
> Landscapes, which usually require sharpness right into the edges and corners.
> Architecture, which requires high sharpness across most of the field, and freedom from aberrations.
> ...


I've been using this lens for concert photography, and it has been a fantastic replacement to my Tokina 11-16mm, which I could only use as a 15-16mm anyway since it's an EF-S lens. But this 16mm is so small that I never have to think twice about bringing it, and it's fantastic at getting close-up shots of an entire band, spread across a big stage. Yes, the edges look... not the best, but combine the size, price, and overall image quality, and I don't think I'd use any other ultra wide lens. When I'm reaching in my bag, I have a tough time telling it apart from my RF-EF adapter.
I've also used it a bit for astrophotography, which is not really my forte, but this lens has been more than capable of getting some pretty good Milky Way shots or other shots where most of the attention is in the center of the frame.


----------



## entoman (Feb 23, 2022)

gbc said:


> I've been using this lens for concert photography, and it has been a fantastic replacement to my Tokina 11-16mm, which I could only use as a 15-16mm anyway since it's an EF-S lens. But this 16mm is so small that I never have to think twice about bringing it, and it's fantastic at getting close-up shots of an entire band, spread across a big stage. Yes, the edges look... not the best, but combine the size, price, and overall image quality, and I don't think I'd use any other ultra wide lens. When I'm reaching in my bag, I have a tough time telling it apart from my RF-EF adapter.
> I've also used it a bit for astrophotography, which is not really my forte, but this lens has been more than capable of getting some pretty good Milky Way shots or other shots where most of the attention is in the center of the frame.


Rock concerts is a good example of a situation where edge sharpness isn't critical, so I agree the RF 16mm is a good option, especially considering the price.

I'd be interested in hearing additional opinions from other astro shooters though, as it seems to be an application where sharpness and freedom from aberrations are absolutely paramount.


----------



## benpisati (Feb 24, 2022)

I'm very sorry to see that canon has only focused on a professional line and a very cheap one. There is a middle lens class missing, of compact prime lens not necessarily ultra-bright but of quality and with weather sealing. From this point of view, it must be admitted, at the moment, in the choice of lens the competition really offers much more.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 25, 2022)

benpisati said:


> I'm very sorry to see that canon has only focused on a professional line and a very cheap one. There is a middle lens class missing, of compact prime lens not necessarily ultra-bright but of quality and with weather sealing.


I agree with you. But I honestly believe Canon will address this issue. There are several patents out there for F1.4 primes for example. Building up a new line-up is very challenging and they probably chose 2 out 3 to go first. Plus, there are great middle class EF lenses which can be used with an adapter. So it does make sense... 



> From this point of view, it must be admitted, at the moment, in the choice of lens the competition really offers much more.


Admittingly, yes Sonys lineup does sound intriguing due to Tamron/ Sigma lenses but I figure in two years we'll have them for RF as well.


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 25, 2022)

In other words, *don't buy this*.

Having such a wide lens as the only option is ridiculous when they're all great zooms available for probably not much more money.

On top of that it was obvious that this is a cheapo lens like the nifty 50. But you don't want cheapo at these type of wide angles. The EFM 11-22 dance of circles around this little piece of crap.

Used to be that the mid-range and low end Canon lenses still had some merits. Are they only care about the most expensive lenses. What a great disservice to Canon customers.

And where is that 50 mm 1.4 update? Ohh.... It's only been like 20 years. Ridiculous.


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 25, 2022)

benpisati said:


> I'm very sorry to see that canon has only focused on a professional line and a very cheap one. There is a middle lens class missing, of compact prime lens not necessarily ultra-bright but of quality and with weather sealing. From this point of view, it must be admitted, at the moment, in the choice of lens the competition really offers much more.


This nails it on the head. If you're not buying SUPER expensive lenses then you barely have any options except for ridiculously slow consumer junk.

Even the 24 to 105 didn't get any real optical upgrades and they are on the third version and for the RF mount. 

Now RF has great lenses except now there's no mid-range at all


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 25, 2022)

The Veruca Salt Syndrome, the ego and lens catalogs


I have no problem waiting for the 1.4, 1.8 and 2.8 RF primes from Canon. It'll happen as the entire EF catalog didn't happen overnight either. So Canon's priorities don't match mine,I know I'm not alone but there *are* people who are satisfied, what's the old adage about pleasing people?


----------



## CJudge (Feb 25, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> In other words, *don't buy this*.
> 
> Having such a wide lens as the only option is ridiculous when they're all great zooms available for probably not much more money.
> 
> ...


But at it’s widest, the EF-M 11-22 has a full frame equivalence of a 17mm f/6.3. At 2 and a third stops less light, increased DOF, slightly narrower FOV, and a longer minimum focus distance… even though it doesn’t cost much more than the RF 16, it’s in a different category. It’s a compact zoom, not an ultra compact fast prime.

The most egregious aspect of the RF 16 is the really rather awful extreme corners. But as you move towards the centre it quickly becomes excellent. Cropping to a 17mm framing will actually get rid of the worst. And when used for video shooting, those extreme corners aren’t even captured. If you look closely at the corners of many of the most well regarded movies, you’ll see they often look rubbish, with smearing and an uneven focus plane. But the lenses that give this characteristic are still chosen again and again, because if anything, filmmakers tend to want to keep the audiences eyes away from the very edge of the frame.

Obviously, this does not apply to landscape and architectural photography, where detailed corners are very much appreciated. But my point is that for certain uses, this lens is a bargain. And for other uses, I’m more than happy to treat it as an 18mm-20mm f/3.2, by cropping the image. Still a great option to have in my kit, for €300.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Frodo (Feb 26, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> In other words, *don't buy this*.
> 
> Having such a wide lens as the only option is ridiculous when they're all great zooms available for probably not much more money.
> 
> ...


I presume that this rather absolute comment is made after extensive use and comparison with other lenses.
I have made some comparisons and I find it to be an adequate lens to pair with my RF 24-105/4L for hiking. Stopped down to f/4 it makes an adequate astro lens when using the Lightroom profile and cropping slightly.

The Optical Limits review actually comments "the results are actually decent at medium aperture settings".

Gordon Laing compared the RF 16mm to the RF 14-35mm and commented:
- Judging from these magnified crops, their quality in the middle of the frame at their maximum apertures is actually pretty similar, and this is with the 16mm operating one stop brighter too.
- but when both lenses are closed to f5.6, I’d say the 14-35 is looking a little crisper if you have a high resolution body like the R5 to get the most out of it.
- Moving onto the corner crops from both lenses back at their maximum apertures actually shows a surprisingly similar result, when I’d expected the 14-35 to perform better; in fact if you pixel-peep, the 16 looks a tad better-resolved on the finest details.

Let me know if you have actually used this lens.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Feb 28, 2022)

The RF 16mm f/2.8 is an ultra-wide angle lens that's built around two criteria, compact size and price, compromising quality. The choice with any lens is size, price or quality, pick any _two _only.

It's designed to fit into the plastic case of the RF nifty fifty, and is priced relatively cheaply for a lens of such a focal length. To achieve all this, and keep the price down, it uses an optical design that only half-corrects the image,, leaving extreme distortion which it relies on software to fix, and uses a plastic molded (PMo) aspherical lens element.

What it's really designed well for is as a vlogging and webcam lens in video applications, and as a compact, lightweight UWA travel lens for stills photography, or as a lens with "fun and unique distortion", whatever that means, according to Canon's website - "_Whether you are capturing an awe-inspiring starscape, portraits_ _*with fun and unique distortion* or simply a group selfie while on vacation, the combination of the open f/2.8 lens and ultra wide-angle 16mm field of view makes this a light weight and versatile lens to pack anywhere you go_*.*"

For other applications, it's not ideal, but passable depending on the needs of the photographer, their quality requirements, and how the final images will be used. The OpticalLimits review describing the corners as "pixel soup" is a fair assessment as this lens isn't the right lens to use for applications that require corner sharpness, unless budget is an issue, or the use is for casual photography.

Applications such as landscape, architecture and astrophotography (which are not my area) probably don't need autofocus, or compact size. If you do that kind of work, please correct me if I've misspoken here. I would assume that there are probably better quality third party manual focus primes for the money, if those are the intended applications.


----------



## Frodo (Feb 28, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Applications such as landscape, architecture and astrophotography (which are not my area) probably don't need autofocus, or compact size. If you do that kind of work, please correct me if I've misspoken here. I would assume that there are probably better quality third party manual focus primes for the money, if those are the intended applications.


I agree with many of your comments. I shoot quite a lot of landscapes and some landscape astrophotography (where landscape is an important part of the images). The example of the Samyang 14/2.8 I had was very sharp and reasonably well centred and it served me well for years. The fact that it was fully manual was not a problem, indeed, focusing at infinity was easier than with focus-by-wire lenses. It was significantly sharper at f/2.8 than the RF16mm, but stopped down to f/4, the RF16mm is close.

But the best lens is the one you've got with you, and I found I wasn't taking the heavier, bulkier Samyang with adapter on my hikes, and it was quite front heavy on the lightweight Sirui carbon tripod I take hiking. The RF16mm, in contrast, will accompany me on all my hikes.

Many of my astro photos involve vertical stitching of 3 landscape orientation photos . I have printed and sold these at A2 size with the Samyang. Will be interested to see how the RF16mm performs as this involves a little cropping.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 1, 2022)

I would think that using a 16mm lens for vlogging would be great for folks with tiny noses and really giant ears.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 1, 2022)

stevelee said:


> I would think that using a 16mm lens for vlogging would be great for folks with tiny noses and really giant ears.


Agree, I've never understood that with vloggers who walk around with the camera at arms length. I suspect nobody explained the issue of UWA distorton! 
The Youtubers also love this focal length because they can place the camera some distance from themselves, giving a very wide field of view, so the audience gets a good view of their blue and purple LED illuminated background, or shelves containing artistically arranged knick-knacks.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 1, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Agree, I've never understood that with vloggers who walk around with the camera at arms length. I suspect nobody explained the issue of UWA distorton!
> The Youtubers also love this focal length because they can place the camera some distance from themselves, giving a very wide field of view, so the audience gets a good view of their blue and purple LED illuminated background, or shelves containing artistically arranged knick-knacks.


never have truer words been typed


----------



## stevelee (Mar 1, 2022)

The closest thing I have done to vlogging was when churches were not having in-person services. The Episcopal church in my neighborhood had a multi-lingual reading of Acts 2 on Pentecost Sunday. I appeared in the Wally Cox square as I read the original Ancient Greek. For their 2020 Christmas Eve service, I sang tenor (badly, as usual) from the Peter Brady square of their virtual choir. To shoot the videos, I put my 6D2 on a tripod and used the 85mm f/1.8 lens. The flip-out screen worked great for centering myself in the image. The in-camera microphone picked up my voice just fine from that distance. The painful part was listening to my singing voice when editing the video (even worse than my struggles with tongue-twisting combinations of th, ph, and s sounds in a language I hadn't read aloud in decades).


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 1, 2022)

I accidentally hit the record button once on my 5D3. Believe it or not, I didn't attend NYU.


----------



## nunataks (Jun 13, 2022)

Question - do the auto corrections apply in video automatically? I'd think trying to shoot video with straight lines would be quite difficult otherwise with this lens.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 13, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Question - do the auto corrections apply in video automatically? I'd think trying to shoot video with straight lines would be quite difficult otherwise with this lens.


If you haven't changed the defaults: yes, they will be applied to the video.


----------



## Frodo (Sep 18, 2022)

For those who consider that the RF 16/2.8 is not suitable for technical uses, such as astrophotography, I will print this image (shot last night) at A2. 10 seconds at f/4 at ISO 6400 on EOS R processed in DXO PureRaw2, 12 images stacked in Sequator.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 18, 2022)

Frodo said:


> For those who consider that the RF 16/2.8 is not suitable for technical uses, such as astrophotography, I will print this image (shot last night) at A2. 10 seconds at f/4 at ISO 6400 on EOS R processed in DXO PureRaw2, 12 images stacked in Sequator.


Frodo, that's a mighty nice photo to my eye, I like it and I complement you on your skill! Well done, thanks for sharing! 

I will pull you up on your reasoning though, that's the logical fallacy of composition and division, where the assumption is that one part of something will apply to the whole, or that the whole must apply to all the parts. Exceptions don't make the rule. That excellent photo is an exception, under particular circumstances, with a specific subject, using a particular technique (stacking).

The quality of your image far exceeds what we typically see from the RF 16mm f/2.8.

If someone was to say that this lens was no good for anything, they would be wrong. It does have its specific uses, but these are only a subset of what UW lenses of this focal length can normally do, which is why it's justifiable to say it's not a very good lens, it has significant limitations, but works for particular niche uses well, such as hiking, travel, fixed subject distance/self recording video (vlogging) and apparently stacked night photos (where heavy vignetting and the lack of fine details in the corners don't matter).

That's why it's important is know the limitations of the gear we use, so we can work around it, and use it where it's appropriate. Different people may have different requirements, and lenses all make compromises in the areas of size/weight, image quality or price (you can only pick two of the three). 

Canon's decision in the Rf system, in their entry level lenses, has been to focus on building a system around the parameters of lightweight/small and cheap, so by selecting these two, we have to give up something in image quality. Great if you prefer lightweight/small lenses (and some are better value for money than others), but that's not every photographer's preference. That only leaves very expensive (read overpriced) top-tier L-series lenses. There would be a significant proportion of photographers taht are fine with a larger, heavier lens that costs a bit more and delivers better image quality, but don't want to pay the extortionate prices of Canon RF-L lenses, and that is where the problem lies...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 18, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> ...If someone was to say that this lens was no good for anything, they would be wrong. It does have its specific uses, but these are only a subset of what UW lenses of this focal length can normally do, which is why it's justifiable to say it's not a very good lens, it has significant limitations, but works for particular niche uses well, such as hiking, travel, fixed subject distance/self recording video (vlogging) and apparently stacked night photos (where heavy vignetting and the lack of fine details in the corners don't matter)...


The "subsets" you mention constitute a huge percentage of what people shoot with a wide angle lens. A more accurate assessment would be to say that this lens is a very handy, affordable and good quality ultra-wide angle lens for general use. 

Here is another example of how the lens can be used.






LogicExtremist said:


> ...lenses all make compromises in the areas of size/weight, image quality or price (you can only pick two of the three).
> 
> Canon's decision in the Rf system, in their entry level lenses, has been to focus on building a system around the parameters of lightweight/small and cheap, so by selecting these two, we have to give up something in image quality. Great if you prefer lightweight/small lenses (and some are better value for money than others), but that's not every photographer's preference. That only leaves very expensive (read overpriced) top-tier L-series lenses. There would be a significant proportion of photographers taht are fine with a larger, heavier lens that costs a bit more and delivers better image quality, but don't want to pay the extortionate prices of Canon RF-L lenses, and that is where the problem lies...


In terms of "image quality" that is not only a subjective value judgment but it implies that the lower cost Canon lenses are giving up a significant amount of image quality, when in reality the compromises are not that significant under most circumstances and for most users. 

Your comments also fail to recognize diminishing returns. It's common knowledge that the added costs between "good enough" and "excellent" is a steep arc. You and others seem to be under the misimpression that quality follows a straight line path upwards and that the cost of adding additional quality only requires incremental and evenly proportional investments, when in reality as we approach perfection the relative costs rise out of proportion to the gains. That's why the gap between a medium telephoto at f4 and f2.8 is much smaller than the gap between f2.8 and f2, for example. 

You think that giving up some weight savings would offer an equal or proportional cost savings, but of course, you have no evidence to support that theory.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 18, 2022)

unfocused said:


> The "subsets" you mention constitute a huge percentage of what people shoot with a wide angle lens. A more accurate assessment would be to say that this lens is a very handy, affordable and good quality ultra-wide angle lens for general use.
> 
> Here is another example of how the lens can be used.


I would disagree, UW lenses are predominately used for landscape, real estate and architecture, with astrophotography probably as a subset of landscape. Hiking/travel and vlogging aren't as large. Keep in mind that lenses that can shoot the major categories I mentioned can also do the latter, but it doesn't work the other way around.




unfocused said:


> In terms of "image quality" that is not only a subjective value judgment but it implies that the lower cost Canon lenses are giving up a significant amount of image quality, when in reality the compromises are not that significant under most circumstances and for most users.
> 
> Your comments also fail to recognize diminishing returns. It's common knowledge that the added costs between "good enough" and "excellent" is a steep arc. You and others seem to be under the misimpression that quality follows a straight line path upwards and that the cost of adding additional quality only requires incremental and evenly proportional investments, when in reality as we approach perfection the relative costs rise out of proportion to the gains. That's why the gap between a medium telephoto at f4 and f2.8 is much smaller than the gap between f2.8 and f2, for example.
> 
> You think that giving up some weight savings would offer an equal or proportional cost savings, but of course, you have no evidence to support that theory.


What is 'good enough' image quality is totally subjective, depends on what you're doing with the photographs. What constitutes good, excellent and razor-sharp image quality is objective, measurable and quantifiable. Fact is, the RF 16mm f/2.8 is not a good lens, the RF 14-35 L is, even with its compromises, it delivers far better images, and the RF 15-35L trounces that. You get what you pay for, even relatively speaking at Canon's inflated prices. Market segmentation...

I don't think anyone is missing the point of diminishing returns, that's virtually a straw man argument, every second comment I post reminds people of the compromises in lenses. I'm sure most are familiar with the 80-20 rule, something like an 85mm f/1.4 will give 80% of the performance of a company's 85mm f/1.2 for a lot less money, but to get the remaining 20% of the performance costs orders of magnitudes more. I hope most buyers know this! 

That said, when Canon creates a strange product range where there is no single step up, but a huge gulf between ultra-cheap build with a sometimes fairly compromised IQ, and ultra-expensive with awesome IQ, and no middle ground, then that stuff up that model. I suspect taht's the point being missed here. The mid-range lenses we saw in EF mount gave us better image quality at greater size/weight/price without having to buy flagship glass, the fact that a middle tier taht was cheaper than the top tier is ample evidence that's totally possible, heck I own many of those lenses! Maybe that's why people prefer to have choice as consumers, and perhaps that's why a huge third-party lens market exists. Food for thought...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 18, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I would disagree, UW lenses are predominately used for landscape, real estate and architecture, with astrophotography probably as a subset of landscape. Hiking/travel and vlogging aren't as large. Keep in mind that lenses that can shoot the major categories I mentioned can also do the latter, but it doesn't work the other way around.


Yeah, it's worthless for landscapes.






LogicExtremist said:


> ...Fact is, the RF 16mm f/2.8 is not a good lens, the RF 14-35 L is, even with its compromises, it delivers far better images, and the RF 15-35L trounces that. You get what you pay for, even relatively speaking at Canon's inflated prices. Market segmentation...


I have both the RF16mm f2.8 and the RF 14-35 L. One is light, tiny, inexpensive and faster by a stop. One is wider by 2mm, zooms and is weather resistant. 

If anyone has trouble producing quality images with either lens, it's not the lens that is the problem.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 18, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Fact is, the RF 16mm f/2.8 is not a good lens



Actually that's not a fact, that's a value judgment. Someone that values logic as highly as you claim should realize that.

I actually agree with your take for the most part wrt the optical properties of the RF 16 f/2.8. I prefer lenses with better optical correction mainly because I do shoot a good amount of astro, but that simply means a lens without that might not be good for me. Whether it is good for someone else entirely depends on their goals or intended uses for the lens.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 18, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Your comments also fail to recognize diminishing returns. It's common knowledge that the added costs between "good enough" and "excellent" is a steep arc. You and others seem to be under the misimpression that quality follows a straight line path upwards and that the cost of adding additional quality only requires incremental and evenly proportional investments, when in reality as we approach perfection the relative costs rise out of proportion to the gains.



Very well put. IMO, the lenses with poor optical correction that rely more on digital processing than is typical for the final result such as the RF 16, RF 24, etc can produce good images most of the time for most people in most situations, which was obviously the goal to keep their prices low. The only places where they can struggle imo is in shots that need specific and accurate rendering of small minute details in the corners, some examples would be night shots with star fields, or small objects in the corners that stand apart from the rest of the background. The digital correction can sometimes result in longitudinal smearing of small elements as the image is stretched to correctly fill the frame. This is less noticeable in shots with broad consistent features throughout the image like the landscape shot you shared.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Yeah, it's worthless for landscapes.
> 
> View attachment 205656


You can clearly see the horrible distortion – none of the rocks have straight lines, nor do the cactuses. Plus, the lens seems to render most of the image in brown hues. Obviously, the lens has problems.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 18, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Yeah, it's worthless for landscapes.


That's a false dichotomy logical fallacy, that there are only two possible states, useless or awesome lol!  

The adequacy of lenses for a particular task run on a continuum, and some aren't the best choice, though they may just cut it, in certain shots where the compromises aren't that obvious due to subject matter, conditions, and composition, may suffice. 



unfocused said:


> I have both the RF16mm f2.8 and the RF 14-35 L. One is light, tiny, inexpensive and faster by a stop. One is wider by 2mm, zooms and is weather resistant.
> 
> If anyone has trouble producing quality images with either lens, it's not the lens that is the problem.


Precisely, different lenses, for different purposes, at different price points, with different features and different image quality!

Yes, I also agree with the sufficiency argument, that almost any _reasonable_ camera gear can take amazing photos and is more than sufficient for most people's needs. If people like buying really fancy gear, because they want it, and they enjoy that, great for them! If you had to take a photo for a paid job, you'd take your RF 14-35, it's sufficient for the task and don't really need a RF 15-35 if a wide 2.8 aperture isn't needed. You wouldn't take the RF16mm, it's not in that 'sufficient tier'.

I don't understand the defensiveness people display over brands or specific products they own. The lower tier of Canon's RF lenses have quite a few compromises, thought there are a few gems in there like the RF 35mm f/1.8 macro, but some people even dislike that. I like it but I don't get worked up when people point out its shortcomings. The shortcomings are real, whether it works for me and not for them is an individual case-by-case matter. I've managed some decent shots with my RF 50mm f/1.8 but that doesn't make it a great lens, and in my opinion optically it's worlds better than the RF 16mm. 

What's so hard for people to accept about the fact that cheap consumer lenses have compromises to optical quality, which is measurable. They're not as good as the f/4 L lenses which are generally not as good as the f/2.8 L lenses, in UW at least. If you like the lens, great, nobody is saying you can't, but on the same token, everybody doesn't have to love it either. It's as silly as arguing over which flavour of ice-cream is better lol!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You can clearly see the horrible distortion – none of the rocks have straight lines, nor do the cactuses. Plus, the lens seems to render most of the image in brown hues. Obviously, the lens has problems.


Maybe they should get all the Nat Geo landscapes photog do shoot all their work with it. After all, it's much lighter, cheaper, and nobody should ever need Canon's more expensive L lenses lol! But what about zoom... zoom with your legs!


----------



## Johnw (Sep 18, 2022)

Frodo said:


> For those who consider that the RF 16/2.8 is not suitable for technical uses, such as astrophotography, I will print this image



First of all great image. If I were just looking at that image in the full size without zooming in, I can't see anything wrong with it. Looking at it in more detail however (even not at full resolution), it becomes apparent what some of the weaknesses are of a cheap lens like the RF 16 for an application like astro.

This is an example of a star more in the middle of the image.




It is nice and circular, with the light distributed correctly most strongly at the center and then fading toward the edge of the disc. The color is also uniform and well rendered.

This is an example of a star more toward the corner of the image.




You can see that it has been stretched with a more longitudinal component added and is no longer a circle, and it also exhibits some discoloration due to coma. Now, not all stars in the image are like this, I can see some that are rendered well even in the vicinity of the corners, but it's really a hit and miss still as to whether the digital correction gets it right.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 18, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Actually that's not a fact, that's a value judgment. Someone that values logic as highly as you claim should realize that.
> 
> I actually agree with your take for the most part wrt the optical properties of the RF 16 f/2.8. I prefer lenses with better optical correction mainly because I do shoot a good amount of astro, but that simply means a lens without that might not be good for me. Whether it is good for someone else entirely depends on their goals or intended uses for the lens.


No it's a fact, the results produced by Imatest which show LW/PH, which is the level of detail that the lens resolves, an objective measurement, show it to b lacking.

I think all the reviews tally up in terms of their findings, including the one this article is about:

"Central sharpness is outstanding from f/2.8 to f/5.6, excellent from f/8 to f/16 and still very good at f/22. The edges do not fare so well, but are very good from f/2.8 to f/5.6, good from f/8 to f/16 and just fair at f/22. Depending on the subject matter, the lower edge performance would not be an issue in say vlogging and in any event is better at longer distances than test charts."









Canon RF 16mm F/2.8 STM Lens Review


John Riley has been putting the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM lens to the test with the help of the Canon R6 mirrorless camera.




www.ephotozine.com






"The corners are soft at f/2.8, with the sharpness pushing out nicely as the lens is stopped down. The f/5.6 and f/8 corners are relatively good for a 16mm lens, especially for one at this price point. At longer distances, subject details become smaller, and the blur seems a touch stronger. Again, these are extreme corners, and the image quality improves deeper into the image circle. As mentioned in the resolution chart test results discussion, lateral CA is an issue in the corners."









Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Review


Is the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!




www.the-digital-picture.com






"Our Imatest tests showed the review lens to be capable of exceeding expectations for the 20-megapixel sensor in the EOS R6 camera – although only in the centre of the frame. Resolution fell below expectation roughly half way out from the centre and declined even further towards the periphery. This pattern was true for both JPEG and CR3.RAW files, although the latter were generally higher in resolution.

The highest resolution occurred at f/4, with a slow decline to f/8 where diffraction began to take effect. Interestingly, central resolution remained much higher than peripheral resolution from about f/3.5 onwards, as shown in the graph of our test result below."









Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM lens - Photo Review


Canon’s first RF ultra-wide-angle prime lens is compact, weighs only 165 grams and is ideal for architecture, real estate, landscape, and night sky photography.




www.photoreview.com.au






"Lens designers have a goal in mind and today can achieve it with traditional optics alone or a combination of optics and digital correction. If you want a pure optical solution, there are many well-corrected alternatives, such as the two L ultra-wide zooms, and I’ve no doubt L-series wide primes for the RF system will come soon, but these are all larger, heavier and more expensive. If you want a compact and affordable ultra-wide lens like the RF 16 2.8, it’s going to employ digital corrections and you have to ask yourself if the end result satisfies your needs."






Canon RF 16mm f2.8 STM review | Cameralabs







www.cameralabs.com






"There are weak points. Vignetting was present in our test images up to f/11, and was particularly horrible at f/2.8, with the furthers corners of our images virtually black. Stopping the aperture down alleviated the problem somewhat, with shutter speed or ISO the obvious casualties. Sharpness also suffered towards the corners. Chromatic aberration is the next problem, which was pronounced whenever we had high-contrast edges towards the corners of our images. In actual fact, 'corners' doesn’t quite describe just how far into an image we saw chromatic aberration – in some of our worst affected images we saw purple fringing as far as a fifth of the way into the frame. 

It’s not just a problem at large apertures, either – we got problems at f/8. Using Lightroom’s built-in profile for this lens didn’t help much – we needed to resort to the manual Defringe tool, although this did successfully remove the problem. In fairness, chromatic aberration is something you’ll only see on images with high-contrast edges towards the corners of your images, so you won’t be dealing with it every time, but it’s definitely a weak spot."

"Don't buy it if...
You don’t like image editing
It's by no means bad, but this lens' image quality is nonetheless a good example of the compromises you make when you shop at this end of the lens market."









Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM review


Basically weightless, ultra-wide and very practical




www.techradar.com





As I keep saying, we can learn about the limitations of our lenses so we can work around them in use to get the shots we want, or we can just deny every review because we're emotionally attached to our possessions!


----------



## Johnw (Sep 18, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> No it's a fact



No it's not. What is a fact is this quote you had from Cameralabs.

"There are weak points".

Sure, the lens has some weak points, that's factual. Most lenses have strong and weak points. There is no universal lens that does everything the best.

Whether a lens is "good" for a particular application depends on whether the weak points affect the intended use in a negative way such that another lens would be better for that particular application. There is no universal good or bad designation you can give any lens given the myriad of possible uses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2022)

Johnw said:


> First of all great image. If I were just looking at that image in the full size without zooming in, I can't see anything wrong with it. Looking at it in more detail however (even not at full resolution), it becomes apparent what some of the weaknesses are of a cheap lens like the RF 16 for an application like astro.
> 
> This is an example of a star more in the middle of the image.
> 
> ...


Here's another example of the apparent weaknesses of a cheap lens for an application like astro, borrowed from a TDP review.




Except this particular example of a 'cheap lens' is the RF 50mm f/1.2L that costs nearly 8 times as much as the 16/2.8.

Maybe I'm missing your point...


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 18, 2022)

Johnw said:


> No it's not. What is a fact is this quote you had from Cameralabs.
> 
> "There are weak points".
> 
> ...


Look at the images in the comparisons, Gordon uses diagonal images to put details in corners, because putting compositions with dark or uniform undetailed corners won't show the deficiencies. 

Come on, they all report from different perspectives, look at the tests in totality. Do I have to point out the logical fallacy here? Again, a fallacy of composition, because Gordon hasn't pointed out the deficiencies in the same way as the others (he's not so direct in case you're wondering), your assumption that one case defines all cases and somehow invalidates all the other test results? He doesn't even contradict them, he just makes the case more lightly.

TDP always has a good test procedure, please look at the corner crops there (see image blow). If that doesn't look totally soft and blurry to you, then maybe I need to get my eyes checked lol! 









Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Review


Is the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!




www.the-digital-picture.com





From TDP, corner crop from image stopped down to f/8.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> No it's a fact, the results produced by Imatest which show LW/PH, which is the level of detail that the lens resolves, an objective measurement, show it to b lacking.


You are saying that a certain resolution threshold separates 'good' lenses from 'bad' lenses. Any way you look at it, that's value judgement. Period. Full stop.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maybe I'm missing your point...



My point is simple, different applications often require different lenses, there is no universal good or bad, and as you just pointed out, price is not necessarily an indication that a lens is going to perform better at every possible application.

For example, the $450 Samyang EF 135mm f/2.0 performs better wrt star rendering in the corners than the $2300 RF 50mm 1.2.

But fair point that I shouldn't have used "cheap" as a qualifier to indicate "bad", since I just gave a counterexample of that.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's another example of the apparent weaknesses of a cheap lens for an application like astro, borrowed from a TDP review.
> 
> View attachment 205659
> 
> ...


I didn't think that the RF 50 f/1.2 was considered a decent astro lens (as the huge coma here shows), it's not dependent on lens price but design. If I recall the astro folk use a lot of low distortion UW Laowas and other third-party brands, and not many native Canon lenses from what I've read, not my area, relaying what I've seen. That 50 is a great everything else lens though!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You are saying that a certain resolution threshold separates 'good' lenses from 'bad' lenses. Any way you look at it, that's value judgement. Period. Full stop.


No, it's a categorisation, as both you and I know from science.  Assigning descriptors to a range of values, much like: highly acidic, moderately acidic, weakly acidic, neutral, slightly alkaline, moderately alkaline, strongly alkaline for 0 -> 7-> 14

If you look at the test results in the reviews that utilise Imatest, certain ranges are defined as poor, good, excellent, exceptional. A value judgement is eyeing an image and calling it from that, but the corner crop photos in the TDP review leave little to subjectivity, those are blurred AF!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2022)

Johnw said:


> My point is simple, different applications often require different lenses, there is no universal good or bad, and as you just pointed out, price is not necessarily an indication that a lens is going to perform better at every possible application.


I think few, if any, Canon lenses are really good for astrophotography. Canon doesn't seem to prioritize reducing coma or astigmatism in their designs. I was actually surprised that the EF-M 55-200 has very little coma and almost no astigmatism...but with the focal range and slow aperture, it's not especially useful for astro anyway. 

The RF 28-70/2 is pretty good in that regard, similar corner star performance to my Samyang 14/2.8 (but more expensive, much heavier, and even in terms of exposure length vs. aperture in terms of avoiding star trails).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> No, it's a categorisation, as both you and I know from science.  Assigning descriptors to a range of values, much like: highly acidic, moderately acidic, weakly acidic, neutral, slightly alkaline, moderately alkaline, strongly alkaline for 0 -> 7-> 14
> 
> If you look at the test results in the reviews that utilise Imatest, certain ranges are defined as poor, good, excellent, exceptional. A value judgement is eyeing an image and calling it from that, but the corner crop photos in the TDP review leave little to subjectivity, those are blurred AF!


Oh, I see. _Corner_ resolution is what defines good lenses vs. bad lenses. You're right, that's not a value judgement at all. Not even a little bit.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 18, 2022)

I see, some Canon lenses have "bigly" alkaline corners...


----------



## Johnw (Sep 19, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I see, some Canon lenses have "bigly" alkaline corners...



Well yeah, we Astro people get that “the corners are not that great” seems like a totally irrational response to 99% of people as a response to Frodo’s image.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 19, 2022)

AJ said:


> For hiking and traveling, small is a real bonus.



This is also a great point, a great image that might be just a bit off in the corners is still superior to an image that does not exist because you couldn’t carry the lens needed to produce it to the location.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, I see. _Corner_ resolution is what defines good lenses vs. bad lenses. You're right, that's not a value judgement at all. Not even a little bit.


Not what I was talking about, I was discussing objective and measurable values from test results as a measure of poor, good, excellent, etc, a topic you brought up mind you!

Now that you bring up the criteria of corner sharpness, for landscape, architecture, real estate, astro, the majority of genres where UW lenses are used, corner sharpness matters, and lenses that don't render corner details well would be less desirable for those uses.

For vlogging and casual travel photos, which the RF 16mm f/2.8 seems suited for, it doesn't matter that much at all.

Canon may have decided to sacrifice image quality for size/weight on its new range of cheaper lenses, and of course those who prefer those criteria would love them, those who don't plainly wont. I think a major stumbling block for some is understanding that some people's needs may be different from their own, but that's not my thing to fix. 

Trying to point out the inherent limitations of lens on this forum sometimes is like trying to explain to someone why their two-seater sports car is not the ideal vehicle to transport a ton of construction sand lol! 

Let's just pretend that the subject of this thread, the Optical Limits review (did we forget about that) doesn't exist, and what it says doesn't matter, sounds like a great approach!!! Wow!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 23, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Not what I was talking about, I was discussing objective and measurable values from test results as a measure of poor, good, excellent, etc, a topic you brought up mind you!
> 
> Now that you bring up the criteria of corner sharpness, for landscape, architecture, real estate, astro, the majority of genres where UW lenses are used, corner sharpness matters, and lenses that don't render corner details well would be less desirable for those uses.
> 
> ...


I can't imagine your avatar using emojis.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Not what I was talking about, I was discussing objective and measurable values from test results as a measure of poor, good, excellent, etc, a topic you brought up mind you!


Ok, then. Let's discuss the Optical Limits review of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L. Wide open and even closed 1-2 stops, the corner resolution remains below 1500 lp/mm. It falls in the MTF50 range that Optical Limits categorizes as poor (for the 5DII tests). By comparison, the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, a lens costing less than 1/10 of the 50/1.2, resolves >2300 lp/mm ('fair' MTF50) in the wide open corners.

By your logic, which you stated as a 'fact' for the RF 16/2.8, the EF 50mm f/1.2 L is a not a good lens.



LogicExtremist said:


> Trying to point out the inherent limitations of lens on this forum sometimes is like trying to explain to someone why their two-seater sports car is not the ideal vehicle to transport a ton of construction sand lol!


That's obvious, but has no real relationship to your statement that launched this tangent. As linked above, you stated, "_Fact is, the RF 16mm f/2.8 is not a good lens..._" To extend your above analogy, you are claiming that a two-seater sports car is not a good car.

My point was and remains that a statement like 'the RF 16mm f/2.8 is not a good lens' is a value judgement. Apparently you'd rather just pretend that such a statement doesn't exist. Unfortunately for you, the internet doesn't forget.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 23, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I can't imagine your avatar using emojis.


Did Vulcans use emojis, who knows!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 23, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ok, then. Let's discuss the Optical Limits review of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L. Wide open and even closed 1-2 stops, the corner resolution remains below 1500 lp/mm. It falls in the MTF50 range that Optical Limits categorizes as poor (for the 5DII tests). By comparison, the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, a lens costing less than 1/10 of the 50/1.2, resolves >2300 lp/mm ('fair' MTF50) in the wide open corners.
> 
> By your logic, which you stated as a 'fact' for the RF 16/2.8, the EF 50mm f/1.2 L is a not a good lens.
> 
> ...


If you can't see that the RF 16mm f/2.8 is not a very good lens, and has considerable limitations, and the overall opinions of the review sites out there seem to tally up, then there's not much I can do about that, and there's no need to either! 

Perhaps you can tell me which UW prime is the worst that Canon has ever produced for their *digital full-frame* cameras, and where the RF 16mm f/2.8 ranks in that list of those lenses?  Is it in the top 5? Perhaps top 3? Is it number 1? I'll defer this matter to those you have much more experience than me, and I'm curious as to what the answer might be. Can this site do a poll perhaps?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 23, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> If you can't see that the RF 16mm f/2.8 is not a very good lens, and has considerable limitations, and the overall opinions of the review sites out there seem to tally up, then there's not much I can do about that, and there's no need to either!
> 
> Perhaps you can tell me which UW prime is the worst that Canon has ever produced for their *digital full-frame* cameras, and where the RF 16mm f/2.8 ranks in that list of those lenses?  Is it in the top 5? Perhaps top 3? Is it number 1? I'll defer this matter to those you have much more experience than me, and I'm curious as to what the answer might be. Can this site do a poll perhaps?


For chrissake give up. Loads of happy users have posted here. If you don't like the lens then don't buy it but stop this tedious dissing of those who do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Perhaps you can tell me which UW prime is the worst that Canon has ever produced for their *digital full-frame* cameras, and where the RF 16mm f/2.8 ranks in that list of those lenses?  Is it in the top 5? Perhaps top 3? Is it number 1? I'll defer this matter to those you have much more experience than me, and I'm curious as to what the answer might be. Can this site do a poll perhaps?


Here is the list of ultrawide prime lenses that Canon has launched since the release of their first FF digital camera (the 1Ds) in 2002:

EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM (2007)
RF 16mm f/2.8 STM (2021)
It's a short list, but the RF 16/2.8 ranks in the top 2. 

Do you think it's fair to compare an L lens costing $2100 with a consumer-grade lens costing $300? Well, just for fun let's check out DxO's measurements, throwing in a Zeiss 15/2.8 (a 2012 lens that launched at nearly $3000) for kicks:




Now, DxOMark's Scores are bogus (because they're based as much on the sensor as the lens) but their measurements (Metric Scores) are robust and generally reliable. Looking at those, the RF 16/2.8 is better than the 14/2.8L II on sharpness and transmission, matching the Zeiss lens costing 10x as much.

Bryan/TDP's ISO 12233-type testing (with the caveat that it's n=1 lens copies) shows that the RF 16/2.8 and the EF 14/2.8L II are pretty similar, with the 16/2.8 having a slight edge on center sharpness.









Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





I'm guessing these comparisons do not align with your intended point, maybe you'll pretend they doesn't exist – you seem to be pretty good at that!


----------



## Johnw (Sep 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I think a major stumbling block for some is understanding that some people's needs may be different from their own



Oh yeah, I agree completely.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> For chrissake give up. Loads of happy users have posted here. If you don't like the lens then don't buy it but stop this tedious dissing of those who do.


Alan, I'm not dissing people, just the shoddy logic and reasoning used to justify or downplay the shortcomings of a lens. 

I've already mentioned many times that there can be no argument against anyone stating that they like a lens, that's a statement of fact about a personal preference, and I respect people's likes and dislikes. If someone says they dislike a lens I own, I'm curious and ask why? That can only help me learn more about my lens. I won't personalise it, defend Canon, or deny the limitations and shortcomings of the lens. What would that achieve?

Similarly, I have no problems with cheap lenses that have shortcomings, I like my RF 50mm f/1.8 'nifty fifty' for what it is. I've have detailed its limitations and strengths in an example to illustrate that by knowing this information, we can play to the lens's strength. I've stated that if a cheap lens suits my needs, I'd buy it, and if it doesn't, as in this case, I won't.

When people downplay or deny the limitations of a lens, it may help assuage an owner's feeling if they're feeling a tinge of buyer's remorse, but is generally unhelpful for people making buying decisions, and for those who own it to enable them to get the best out of their RF 16mm.

I suppose some people come to forums to learn things, while others may possibly come to them to validate preconceived notions, beliefs and feelings, which may or may not be valid. Perhaps missing that point is the mistake on my part, as I'm only interested in the latter, and my flaw in reasoning is that others come here for the same reason I do, which would be a logical fallacy...


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here is the list of ultrawide prime lenses that Canon has launched since the release of their first FF digital camera (the 1Ds) in 2002:
> 
> EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM (2007)
> RF 16mm f/2.8 STM (2021)
> ...


No neuro, despite your gratuitous ad-hominem attack at the end (couldn't help yourself could you lol!) this is EXACTLY what I was asking for, so thanks for supplying this useful information.

This clearly points out what the reviews all stated, that a 16mm prime is a very niche lens, even amongst UWs, and that focal length on a crop sensor providing 25.6mm equivalent makes for a more useful 24mm focal length substitute. 

The fact that only three UW primes around this focal length have been released in the last 20 years, with one from a third party both highlights Canon's reading of the market and the very niche nature of the prime focal length, which has been expanded with the need for lightweight vlogging lenses, which may have been the impetus to release the RF 16mm, and maybe their need for lightweight lenses on the RF-S platform if they've been planning on dropping the M-series. An R10 with a RF 16mm f/2.8 is a lightweight 24mm equiv travel/hiking setup that crops away the less sharp periphery.

These three lenses sit so far apart in their market tiers and prices that a like-for-like comparison is not really possible, but as we see, the cheaper RF lens is the worst in class, with:


almost 10x more distortion (4.7% vs 0.4% and 0.5%)
around 2x more vignetting (-3.8EV vs -2Ev or -2.1EV)
over 1.5x more chromatic aberration (27um vs 16um or 7um)
So, it looks like nobody has really cared much about this class of lenses, the pickings are slim, and Canon's doing the marketing thing creating demand while playing catchup in growing vlogging market that boosted their sales of high-end compacts and then the M50 I and II series APSC bodies, a demographic of mainly younger people, and a market that Sony is all over now with dedicated cameras and lenses for this specific video genre.

Looking back at the Optical Limits review, we see that the limitations are constantly raised, offset against the consideration of price.

Distortion:
"...The lens produces a native barrel distortion of almost 10%! This is excessive, making it basically unsuitable for use without digital correction. The latter does an excellent job by reducing the issue to essentially zero. While this is commendable, there is a price to pay for this because the image is stretched substantially, thus reducing resolution in the outer image field."

Vignetting:
"...The vignetting is still heavy at f/2.8 but not terrible when stopped down, considering the ultra-wide nature of the lens. With full correction enabled, the results are quite good even at f/2.8 because the light falloff is very gradual from the center to the corners. Needless to say but the signal boost comes at the cost of increased image noise in the outer image field."

MTF (resolution) at 45 megapixels (EOS R5):
"...The Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM is just not designed for being used without correction. The resolution characteristic is fairly predictable from here. The broader center quality has no issues whatsoever. The lens is tack sharp here, especially when stopped down a little bit. The borders and corners are an entirely different story, though. The borders are Okayish at f/2.8, but the corners are a pixel soup at this setting. Stopping down lifts the borders to reasonable levels, but the corner softness improves only marginally. This is all a bit tragic because, unsurprisingly, the lens appears to be much sharper without distortion correction."

MTF (resolution) at 30 megapixels (EOS R):
"...As you can see below, the general theme remains similar - although the reduced megapixels are boosting the outer image quality (on pixel level) quite a bit. While there's still some softness at f/2.8, the results are actually decent at medium aperture settings."

The verdict sums it up perfectly - "...The Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM is a lens with many facets. It comes down to where you come from and what you want."

"...From a technical standpoint, the RF 16mm f/2.8 STM offers poor quality on a high megapixel camera. The broader center is perfectly sharp but the quality is falling apart in the corners. And that's with auto-correction. The lens is basically unusable in pure RAW mode with excessive barrel distortion, extreme vignetting and high lateral CAs. It's about as underdesigned as it gets and relies heavily on digital correction to lift it back from the imaging abyss."

Optical Quality: 1.5/5 stars (@45 megapixel)
Optical Quality: 2.5/5 stars (@30 megapixel)
Mechanical Quality: 3.5/5 stars
Price/Performance: 5/5 stars

from: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1136-canonrf16f28


Who is this lens for?

"All and all, the RF 16mm F2.8 STM is easy to recommend to Canon R system owners who want to add a wide angle to the mix. It's a strong option for hobbyists getting started with an EOS RP, and more serious shutterbugs with an R6 or R5 can look to it as a lightweight option for travel and walks about town." 








Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM


A slim, affordable prime with a wide angle view




au.pcmag.com






"Buy it if...
You’re on a budget
There's no doubt about it – at this price, this is a bargain for a capable, full-frame-ready lens. You won't do better than this in the RF system at this price point.

You like to hike to your photographic locations
Thanks to its 165g weight, you’ll barely know this lens is on your camera or in your bag. On long landscape trips, that's a big advantage over alternative lenses.

You like to go wide
This lens' 16mm view is a very practical, go-anywhere focal length and also handy for video, too.

Don't buy it if...
You don’t like image editing
It's by no means bad, but this lens' image quality is nonetheless a good example of the compromises you make when you shop at this end of the lens market.

You don’t like moving your feet
Feeling a bit lazy? Buy something that zooms, like the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM, or the rather cheaper and wider RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM."









Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM review


Basically weightless, ultra-wide and very practical




www.techradar.com






The limitations are stated time and again in every review, and the point is made that these compromises are expected in a lens of this price.
No, it's not a good lens technically or optically, as the reviews all clearly indicate.
Is it a lens worth buying? The reviews say yes, what it offers for the price is great, and it may be the lens for you, as the Optical Limits review, the subject of this thread states, " It comes down to where you come from and what you want", and that's the critical decision-making factor for potential buyers.

Are we really arguing against less-than favorable or mixed praise-criticism product reviews? I can't see what we're actually arguing here. Liking a lens and finding it works well for a person's needs doesn't invalidate the review test results, or tell us anything much about the lens, it just indicates that the lens's limitations don't significantly impact the person's intended use. Hooray!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Alan, I'm not dissing people, just the shoddy logic and reasoning used to justify or downplay the shortcomings of a lens.
> ..
> I suppose some people come to forums to learn things, while others may possibly come to them to validate preconceived notions, beliefs and feelings, which may or may not be valid. Perhaps missing that point is the mistake on my part, as I'm only interested in the latter, and my flaw in reasoning is that others come here for the same reason I do, which would be a logical fallacy...


You have fallen into your own trap. You are trying to justify your preconceived notions about not buying a lens of which it appears you do not have deep hands-on experience. The logical facts are that the pros of the lens outweigh the cons to the extent that enough people enjoy it and find it very convenient and affordable, and that's all that matters. By rabbiting on and on to prove it's not a good lens, you are dissing their judgement and possessions. If you don't realise that, then you need to add some EQ to your IQ.



LogicExtremist said:


> If you can't see that the RF 16mm f/2.8 is not a very good lens, and has considerable limitations, and the overall opinions of the review sites out there seem to tally up, then there's not much I can do about that, and there's no need to either!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You have fallen into your own trap. You are trying to justify your preconceived notions about not buying a lens of which it appears you do not have deep hands-on experience. The logical facts are that the pros of the lens outweigh the cons to the extent that enough people enjoy it and find it very convenient and affordable, and that's all that matters. By rabbiting on and on to prove it's the worst lens out there, you are dissing them. If you don't realise that, then you need to add some EQ to your IQ.


I already own the RF 35mm f/1.8 and the Rf 50mm f/1.8, and reviews place the 35mm above the 50mm in IQ. In this series of lenses, the RF 85mm f/2 is rated as having the highest IQ, with the RF 16mm f/2.8 having the lowest. The 50mm is borderline for my uses, so the 16mm won't cut it and I don't have a use for a 16mm prime anyway, which is why I won't buy it. 

To respond to your statement, I don't need to justify any preconceived notions about _not buying a lens_, that wouldn't make sense. If that were the case, I would need to a fuss about why I don't need every other RF lens that I have no use for. From a pragmatic perspective, I either need a lens or I don't, case closed. 

You're correct in what you said but missed the most critical element - "_The pros of *any *lens outweigh the cons to the extent that enough people enjoy it and find it very convenient and affordable, *and it meets their photography needs*, and that's all that matters._ " There, I fixed it! Totally agree. 

I'm not dissing people's choices, I would never do that. I've only been pointing out where the objective results of the review are being disputed by emotional arguments. 

People are getting worked up emotionally by mistakenly thinking it's a zero-sum game here, that they can't enjoy a lens AND acknowledge the inherent limitations of the design that are dictated by the laws of physics. That's how it is for every other lens, always has been and always will be.

As we can all surmise, the 'best' or 'worst' ranking of anything bears no relation in reality to whether a particular product performs sufficiently, it just indicates a relative position in comparison to other items in a group. The RP is the lowest ranked Canon full frame, but that doesn't make it bad. The RF 600 and 800 f/11 lenses arguably rank lowest amongst Canon's supertelephoto lineup, but that doesn't make them bad either. Most can agree that APSC kit lenses, especially the old ones, can be regarded as bad because of various measurable deficiencies.

Whether something is good or bad depends on its own attributed relative to some defined standard of quality, which all objective optical tests have, and performance against specific tasks or functions. I intentionally raised the idea of ranking the worst UW prime lenses, because I realise that people DO make value judgements about such labels, and it got the emotional reaction I was expecting. That mindset is what drives 'gear snobs' on other forums, but there still seems to be an emotional stigma around the idea of owning the worst lens in a product range, even if it is sufficient for its purpose, and people are happy with it. 

We humans are driven as much by emotion as by reason, otherwise marketing hype, which is designed to manipulate emotions, wouldn't work, and a plain spec sheet would be more than enough to motivate buyers! You mentioned EQ earlier. If I'm unintentionally short-circuiting people's validation that they obtain by immersing themselves in communities with predominately similar opinions that reinforce the ideas they already hold, then my apologies, that was not my intention.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Are we really arguing against less-than favorable or mixed praise-criticism product reviews? I can't see what we're actually arguing here.


I’m honestly not sure what you’re arguing about. Nor am I sure why you feel the need to copy/paste large swaths of text from sources that were previously linked. It reminds me of people who try to win an argument with verbal diarrhea, not letting others get a word in edgewise. Except that tactic doesn’t work well online (unless your goal is just to have people ignore your bloated posts).

As to what I’m arguing about, as I’ve said very clearly and several times now, it is your statement, “Fact is, the RF 16/2.8 is not a good lens.” That’s _not_ a fact, it’s your personal value judgement on the lens as a whole. There is nothing objective or factual about it.

“_Testing has shown the RF 16/2.8 has poor corner sharpness._” Objective statement, fact.

“_The RF 16/2.8 has high levels of barrel distortion, and the required correction of that distortion has a deleterious effect on image quality._” Objective statement, fact.

“_The RF 16/2.8 is a bad lens._” Value judgement, not fact.

Every time I have quoted your statement of the third example, you’ve responded with (excessively lengthy) arguments similar to the first two examples.

Perhaps if I frame the discussion in a different, completely hypothetical context. I've looked over LEroy's portfolio of images, and I have the following comments:
"The colors in his image of Ayers Rock are oversaturated."​"The shutter speeds he used for the surfers at Lennox Point are too slow to freeze their motion."​"Fact is, LEroy is not a good photographer."​I can repeat the first two points with multiple posts and thousands of words of text, but my statement about LEroy's photography remains a value judgement, not an objective fact. 

You have repeatedly ignored the point I raised. You can continue to pretend that my point does not exist, or you can finally acknowledge that your statement was your personal value judgment, not a fact as you originally labeled it. Either way, I see no point in discussing this issue further.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> the shoddy logic and reasoning used



Your projector might need a lens change, just fyi, the picture is coming across a bit distorted.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m honestly not sure what you’re arguing about. Nor am I sure why you feel the need to copy/paste large swaths of text from sources that were previously linked. It reminds me of people who try to win an argument with verbal diarrhea, not letting others get a word in edgewise. Except that tactic doesn’t work well online (unless your goal is just to have people ignore your bloated posts).
> 
> As to what I’m arguing about, as I’ve said very clearly and several times now, it is your statement, “Fact is, the RF 16/2.8 is not a good lens.” That’s _not_ a fact, it’s your personal value judgement on the lens as a whole. There is nothing objective or factual about it.
> 
> ...


Which extract from the review did you miss which you would have read in the original review?

Seems you're getting caught up in semantics over what a 'bad lens' is, that's a question you need to ask yourself, as you have a stack of gear and have probably encountered a few in your experience of photography over the years. Obviously, none of them have the words "BAD LENS" embossed on the side, so you're using some criteria to evaluate that, making a comparison against a specific benchmark. _Perhaps people have different criteria that they measure against, depending on what they use the lenses for. Technology play toys or work tools? Big difference!_ 

You can ask yourself, what more technical shortcomings would this lens need for me to consider it bad? High distortion- check, high vignetting check, chromatic aberration in corners - check, soft image corners - check, image circle that doesn't cover full frame sensor - check, lens coma - check, focus breathing - check, audible focus action - check, slow STM motors unable to maintain video focus on moving subjects - check. There's not much left.

If you want to believe that there are no bad lenses in Canon's budget RF series, that's your prerogative. Since most things follow standard distributions statistically (and yes there are exceptions such as poisson distributions), odds on there would be a 50-50 split on the matter when it comes to _opinions_. I'd say that the reviews sum it up as a 'fun', cheap, lightweight and '*good for the price*' UW that's easy to carry, those are the attributes they praise. 

This discussion kind of reminds me of the CNN reporter with a blazing US city behind him burning sky high telling the audience "...the protests are mostly peaceful here tonight"  There's no point flogging a dead horse, and as Dr McCoy would say "*It's* *worse* *than* *that*: *he's* *dead*, *Jim"*, and this one's going nowhere fast! 

We're obviously looking at the same data and drawing two very different conclusions lol! If you can't see it, no point continuing this discussion, I'll let it be, agree to disagree, and put it down to a case of very different perspectives.  

This is old news anyway, there's a rumoured Canon EOS R1 on the latest thread that we're all meant to get excited about now! Everyone is required to speculate about its 100+MP sensor and make wish lists about its specifications!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Which extract from the review did you miss which you would have read in the original review?
> Kind of reminds me of the CNN reporter with a blazing US city behind him burning sky high telling the audience "...the protests are mostly peaceful"


Did you quote the final lines of summary from the review: "_Overall, you may argue that you get what you pay for but this isn't really true. A 16mmm f/2.8 for this kind of money is an insane bargain even with the mentioned limitations. Just don't expect Mercedes quality for a Lada price tag_."? If you didn't, we may wonder who here is the CNN reporter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> …we may wonder who here is the CNN reporter.


In my experience, very few CNN reporters pretend direct questions don’t exist or completely ignore them. That is typically the province of their interviewees, who know they are in the wrong but are unable to admit it so they just ignore the question.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Did you quote the final lines of summary from the review: "_Overall, you may argue that you get what you pay for but this isn't really true. A 16mmm f/2.8 for this kind of money is an insane bargain even with the mentioned limitations. Just don't expect Mercedes quality for a Lada price tag_."? If you didn't, we may wonder who here is the CNN reporter.


Well, short of cut and pasting the whole review, this is the point I've expressed multiple times, and totally agree with. You'd think people would actually read the review the article is about before commenting! 

I've been pointing out its a Lada, at a Lada price with Lada features and performance all along, from day one.
Others are suggesting that's not the case, and that it's actually no different from a Mercedes.
Neuro's attempting to gaslight folks here by suggesting that in in fact not a Lada because Lada's don't actually exist lol! 
Hmmm, CNN...


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Well, short of cut and pasting the whole review, this is the point I've expressed multiple times, and totally agree with. You'd think people would actually read the review the article is about before commenting!
> 
> I've been pointing out its a Lada, at a Lada price with Lada features and performance all along, from day one.
> Others are suggesting that's not the case, and that it's actually no different from a Mercedes.
> ...


It was indeed pointed out on day one:


Jethro said:


> And Klaus' final word (which should always be remembered in relation to low-cost options):
> 
> _"Overall, you may argue that you get what you pay for but this isn't really true. A 16mmm f/2.8 for this kind of money is an insane bargain even with the mentioned limitations. Just don't expect Mercedes quality for a Lada price tag."_


to which I replied:



AlanF said:


> Mercedes came 23/28 in terms of reliability according to US Consumer reports with a score of 34 compared with Lexus, Mazda and Toyota in the 70s. So maybe you do get Lada quality for a Mercedes price tag.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It was indeed pointed out on day one:
> 
> to which I replied:


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2022)

There are 3 other sites that measure resolution using Imatest as does opticallimits

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/canon-rf-16mm-f28-stm
I paired the RF 16mm with the 45MP EOS R5 and Imatest software to check out its optical performance in the lab, and used it with the R5 and the EOS R3 in the field. It performed well on sharpness tests, showing excellent detail in the center (4,150 lines) and good results toward the edges (2,800 lines) when wide open at f/2.8.

Images shot at narrower apertures show just a bit more detail. The lens nets outstanding results in the center at f/4, and continues to sharpen at the edges at f/5.6, with the best performance at f/8. You'll see some resolution loss at very narrow f-stops, so take a little care not to go all the way down to f/22. The lens manages both good resolution and crisp multi-point sunstars at f/16.

Rated 4.0/5.0* Excellent

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-rf-16mm-f-2-8-stm-lens-review-35969
Central sharpness is outstanding from f/2.8 to f/5.6, excellent from f/8 to f/16 and still very good at f/22. The edges do not fare so well, but are very good from f/2.8 to f/5.6, good from f/8 to f/16 and just fair at f/22. Depending on the subject matter, the lower edge performance would not be an issue in say vlogging and in any event is better at longer distances than test charts.

Rated 4.5/5.0* Excellent value for money; it's good and it's not expensive.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-rf-16mm-f28-stm-review
Sharpness is very good across most of the image frame, even when shooting wide-open at f/2.8, and the extreme edges and corners follow suit between f/5.6 and f/11. However when compared to most other Canon RF-mount lenses, centre sharpness is a little disappointing.

Rated 4.5* An amazingly versatile lens, the RF 16mm is tiny yet epic for shooting anything from architectural interiors to sweeping landscapes, and from close-ups to the starry sky at night. Despite its pocket-sized build, it delivers impressive image quality and boasts a speedy, unerringly accurate autofocus system. Canon really has come up trumps with this lens, which ticks all the right boxes and is incredible value for money at the price.

Never waste your time basing your conclusions on just one review site. The only reliable guide for you is the performance your lens has. But, it seems to me to be incorrect that the lens has been panned by review sites in general.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> There are 3 other sites that measure resolution using Imatest as does opticallimits
> 
> https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/canon-rf-16mm-f28-stm
> I paired the RF 16mm with the 45MP EOS R5 and Imatest software to check out its optical performance in the lab, and used it with the R5 and the EOS R3 in the field. It performed well on sharpness tests, showing excellent detail in the center (4,150 lines) and good results toward the edges (2,800 lines) when wide open at f/2.8.
> ...


Keep in mind the overall rating score in reviews considers criteria such as value for money, construction, etc and average out up to five different criteria, of which IQ is only one, because there's more to a lens than just IQ.

The digitalcameraworld list of suitable uses for this lens is just a lazy template UW lens text cut and paste that should be taken with a grain of salt though....

It's important for people to read the reviews in their totality, look at the actual Imatest results (remembering that the score is also affected by the sensor resolution) and to realise that some reviewers go deeper and are more critical than others in their conclusions. The sample images in decent review sites like TDP speak volumes.

It's really very simple for people to draw their own conclusions from actual evidence. As a quick personal test, they can just look at the centre and corner crop images from the TDP review at the various apertures, of which the corner ones clearly look soft and blurred (I won't repost them again) and ask themselves "Is this image quality acceptable for my purposes?" It's a straight-out yes or no decision for anyone, no need for debates.

A second thing worth looking at is the TDP - Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality tool testing the Rf 16mm f/2.8 wide open at f/2.8 vs stopped down at f/8 if people want to see what changes in image quality in the centre, mid-frame, periphery and corners when the lens is stopped down:









Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





This tool can be used to compare the performance to lenses that people already own, and like/dislike to see if it's better or worse.

An interesting point that Bryan from TDP makes in his review is "_While the enhanced resolution test chart results show rather impressive corner performance (aside from the strong lateral CA), the outdoor examples captured at longer distances show the corners rendered more softly. Improvement shows as the aperture is narrowed, but the corners are still slightly soft at f/11_." Outdoor, real-life use photos taken at realistic distances yield different results from test charts, which Imatest is based on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Never waste your time basing your conclusions on just one review site. The only reliable guide for you is the performance your lens has. But, it seems to me to be incorrect that the lens has been panned by review sites in general.


It’s not a waste of time. It’s a very fruitful use of time to find and present only those sources that support your argument. It’s almost as honest as accusing someone of gaslighting when you’re the one pretending a statement you made doesn’t exist.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s not a waste of time. It’s a very fruitful use of time to find and present only those sources that support your argument. It’s almost as honest as accusing someone of gaslighting when you’re the one pretending a statement you made doesn’t exist.


I was taking the mickey out of you about gaslighting, it was a joke!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Keep in mind the overall rating score in reviews considers criteria such as value for money, construction, etc and average out up to five different criteria, of which IQ is only one, because there's more to a lens than just IQ.
> 
> The digitalcameraworld list of suitable uses for this lens is just a lazy template UW lens text cut and paste that should be taken with a grain of salt though....
> 
> ...


The thrust of my post was absolutely clear. It was about measured Imatest results, which you yourself have described as being objective, and which results I pasted in. But, as usual you have avoided dealing with the simple issue and put up a barrage of words at a tangent.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The thrust of my post was absolutely clear. It was about measured Imatest results, which you yourself have described as being objective, and which results I pasted in. But, as usual you have avoided dealing with the simple issue and put up a barrage of words at a tangent.


Sorry Alan, this discussion is quite absurd, wasted too much time simply stating that the review in topic is factual, that should be patently obvious, but no, some people go fanboy mode and get upset over restating the same shortcomings mentioned in this review and others. The religious fervor shown defending a budget lens and playing down the shortcomings is a bit sad, it becomes a bit tiresome after a while. I sometimes wonder how passionate people are about issues that really matter...

I respect you so I'll take time to answer your question. I'm not avoiding your questions or ignoring you; it's quickly becoming less viable for me to spend time online recreationally any longer. My work and study commitments are taking priority over photography forum conversations, which I feel I've been overdoing recently (as you'd probably agree), so I'm trying to spend less time here. We could discuss the intricacies and nuances of the Imatests for many hours, and after a while arrive at come common understanding or whatever, if I had the time and inclination. It's great when people share their valuable experience and knowledge, that's a great learning opportunity, and increases the information signal to noise ratio of online forums, but not a very productive use of time when threads turn to petty disagreements of opinion that don't really matter, that's really more noise than signal, which makes it tedious for forum lurkers to sift through to find the useful information they need, so forgive me if I'm less inclined to contribute much or bother with these old threads. Thanks for the civil discussion we've had to this point, it's always good.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2022)

TL;DR - I can’t admit I was wrong, so I’m going to take my marbles and go home.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> TL;DR - I can’t admit I was wrong, so I’m going to take my marbles and go home.


Always happy to match wits, it's been good challenging each other's thinking, and as you know I do admit my mistakes so that's a tacky comment. 
People's situations change, you know better, but you just couldn't help but go the ad-hominem route lol! Some things never change!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2022)

So extensive use of the copy/paste function is what you consider ‘matching wits’? 

Funny how you have time to keep reading and responding, but you’re ‘too busy’ to admit your characterization of the 16/2.8 as ‘not a good lens’ was not factual, merely your value judgement based on some internet reviews.


----------



## Frodo (Sep 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist, this quote from several posts back seems to summarise your position:
"The 50mm is borderline for my uses, so the 16mm won't cut it and I don't have a use for a 16mm prime anyway, which is why I won't buy it. To respond to your statement, I don't need to justify any preconceived notions about _not buying a lens_, that wouldn't make sense."
So:
-You don't see a need for this lens for your use case
- You haven't bought the lens and so have no personal experience with it.

In the amount of time you spent typing posts in this thread, you could have borrowed a lens and tried it out.

As for me:
- I had a Samyang 14/2.8 that was significantly sharper than a friend's EF 14/2.8
- My RF 16/2.8 stopped down to f/4 is comparable to the Samyang
- DXO Pure Raw2 substantially improves RF 16/2.8 files (as it does with the RF 50/1.8)
- I tested two RF 16s and RF50s and found noticeable differences
-The small size of the RF 16/2.8 means it comes hiking with me and will take images that the heavier and larger Samyang didn't
-I stack astro images, not to improve the performance of the lens, but to improve the signal to noise ratio of the sensor
-I have an exhibition in November and expect to sell A2 photos shot with this lens.

In my experience and for my use case, I think this is a very good lens. I hope the RF 24/1.8, which I am buying next week, will be as good.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 25, 2022)

Thank God I missed the last few pages of this! Where we loop-the-loop and get back to the starting position: it's a lens with limitations, but (according to multiple reviews and the experiences of actual owners) amazing value for money and a great option for a lot of people. Geez.


----------



## AJ (Oct 5, 2022)

I finally had a chance to try my 16/2.8 for astro. I'm quite happy with the results. f/2.8 is good, f/4 just a tad better, especially in the corners. Are there bigger and better lenses out there? I'm sure there are. But that doesn't make this lens useless or anything of that effect. Works pretty good for my purpose


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 5, 2022)

AJ said:


> I finally had a chance to try my 16/2.8 for astro. I'm quite happy with the results. f/2.8 is good, f/4 just a tad better, especially in the corners. Are there bigger and better lenses out there? I'm sure there are. But that doesn't make this lens useless or anything of that effect. Works pretty good for my purpose
> 
> View attachment 205841


How dare you take such a nice picture with such a wretched lens?


----------

