Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM

[JohanCruyff]

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

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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

 

[SilverBox]

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

 

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

Would sell like doughnuts at a cop convention.

 

[Marximusprime]

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

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

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

 

[LSXPhotog]

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

 

[koenkooi]

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

Were they to do one of those, it would be with some ancient sensor tech, like the RP/6D's,[..]

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

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

 

[unfocused]

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

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

 

[Hobby]

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

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

 

[mpb001]

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

 

[LSXPhotog]

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

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

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

 

[HMC11]

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

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

 

[Andy Westwood]

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

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

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

 

[Hobby]

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

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

 

[xwxw]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Finn]

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

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

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

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

 

[koenkooi]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[koenkooi]

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

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

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

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

 

[Finn]

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

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

 

[Swerky]

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