Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM

[dlee13]

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

 

[dlee13]

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

 

[FrenchFry]

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

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

 

[dlee13]

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

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

 

[FrenchFry]

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

Thanks !

 

[Aussie shooter]

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

 

[Foxdude]

From Nokishita
View attachment 200078

View attachment 200079

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

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

 

[sanj]

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

 

[H. Jones]

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

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

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

 

[sanj]

It is not on Amazon anymore.

 

[sanj]

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

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

 

[HMC11]

From Nokishita
View attachment 200078

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

 

[esspy2]

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

 

[Chaitanya]

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

 

[TBRO08]

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

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

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435461244056530948

According to him the 100-400 is a f5.6-8, priced at 649.99

 

[adigoks]

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

 

[Skyscraperfan]

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

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

 

[dominic_siu]

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

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

 

[Chaitanya]

From Nokishita
View attachment 200078

View attachment 200079

f8 is a bit too much

 

[Hanley]

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

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

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