Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM

[Hobby]

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

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

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

 

[Antono Refa]

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

 

[Sharlin]

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

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

f8 is a bit too much

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

 

[dlee13]

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

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

 

[blackcoffee17]

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

 

[sanj]

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

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

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

 

[blackcoffee17]

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

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

 

[blackcoffee17]

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

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

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

 

[HMC11]

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

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

 

[Chaitanya]

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

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


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

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

 

[koenkooi]

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

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

 

[blackcoffee17]

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

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

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

 

[koenkooi]

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

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

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



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

 

[dboris]

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

 

[BBarn]

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

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

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

 

[Skyscraperfan]

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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

 

[JustUs7]

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

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

 

[sanj]

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

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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