Canon Announces the RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM

[neuroanatomist]

...it would put to rest complaints about digital distortion corrections.

I doubt anything will effectively do that, at least for some time to come. But for those who pay attention, the results speak for themselves. It's dissociative – people will happily NR the hell out of high ISO images, but complain that digital correction of distortion is unacceptable. I don't get it, but then I don't get why some people think the earth is flat, either.

 

[AlanF]

I doubt anything will effectively do that, at least for some time to come. But for those who pay attention, the results speak for themselves. It's dissociative – people will happily NR the hell out of high ISO images, but complain that digital correction of distortion is unacceptable. I don't get it, but then I don't get why some people think the earth is flat, either.

The Flat Earth Society

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, home of the flat earth forums and the largest library of Flat Earth Society journals, newsletters, interviews, and books.

theflatearthsociety.org

 

[neuroanatomist]

The Flat Earth Society

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, home of the flat earth forums and the largest library of Flat Earth Society journals, newsletters, interviews, and books.

theflatearthsociety.org

I'm aware...

Someone with a website shares your opinion, that means you must be right!

The Flat Earth Society

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, home of the flat earth forums and the largest library of Flat Earth Society journals, newsletters, interviews, and books.

theflatearthsociety.org

Why? Because you and some Internet bloggers think so? Look at the specs of Canon's flagships for the past 12 years. But you think the R1 should break that mold. Mmmmkay. Some people just like sounding foolish, I suppose.

Just because someone specifically addresses something on the internet doesn't make them right. Or look less like idiots.

The Flat Earth Society

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, home of the flat earth forums and the largest library of Flat Earth Society journals, newsletters, interviews, and books.

theflatearthsociety.org

It seems you’re just here to complain that Canon isn’t catering to your personal wish. That’s abundantly clear from your few posts here.

News flash, Canon doesn’t care if you’ve been a loyal customer for 30 years. They’re going to make the cameras they believe address the needs of the majority of customers, and unlike you, they’re in a position to know what those needs really are.

You previously stated the Z9 is ‘selling like hotcakes’. Since manufacturers don’t publish sales numbers by model and bodies at that price don’t make aggregated ‘top 10’ lists, you really have no idea how well it sold. But Canon almost certainly does. They chose an R1 with 24 MP. You clearly think that’s a mistake, and you’re welcome to your own opinion. But I am certain that the company that has led the ILC market for >20 years and dominates it today knows more about making and selling cameras that a rando on the internet like you.


CRguy gets affiliate revenue from purchases, and indicated that R1 preorders are strong.

I didn’t suggest you made it up. I saw the referenced article. As I stated, that is, “One guy who earns a living from clicks and ‘talked to a few retailers’.” Yet based on that, you conclude it’s disastrous for Canon. Mmmmmkay.

Maybe you believe everything you read on the internet? If so, this may interest you.

The Flat Earth Society

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, home of the flat earth forums and the largest library of Flat Earth Society journals, newsletters, interviews, and books.

theflatearthsociety.org

The point being made is that thenewcamera is not a reputable source.

If you are one of those people who believes everything you read on the Internet, have fun here:

The Flat Earth Society

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, home of the flat earth forums and the largest library of Flat Earth Society journals, newsletters, interviews, and books.

theflatearthsociety.org

 

[ashmadux]

Canon just announced a new ultra wide angle lens for the RF mount. The Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM is very suited to be paired with the 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM that Canon delivered last year. It certainly feels as if Canon is making an F2.8 IS STM prosumer lineup of lenses, and I'm all here for that.

Canon Officially Announces the RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM - Canon Rumors

Canon just announced a new ultra wide angle lens for the RF mount. The Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM is very suited to be paired with the 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM that Canon delivered last year. It certainly feels as if Canon is making an F2.8 IS STM prosumer lineup of lenses, and I’m […]

www.canonrumors.com

Great breakdown article. Loved it. The range is way too limiting even for my landscapes..28mm is a nonstarter as a max(i dont shoot video)

But at the same time, i can do things with this for sure. And its looks like the bokeh isnt as ugly-ish as on their trio of cheap,profile driven 1.4 shenanigan lenses farce.

If it was 800ish. Cool. But its not. Another 'oh well' canon product. Sigh.

 

[PGSanta]

The 15-35 f2.8 L is the weakest of the trinity RF zooms, and honestly the only one I'm slightly disappointed in; this is a welcome addition for those that want to skip it/want some weight/space savings, but I hope the 15-35 gets a version ii sometime within the next 2 years. Canon can do better.

 

[Jethro]

For amusement, I collated the MTFs for the RF 16-28mm and the lowly RF 16mm/2.8, and its centre cropped to 28mm field of view (14.6 Mpx crop from R5). The zoom at 16mm is remarkably good, but the el cheapo prime can be adequate for less demanding shots at 16mm and cropped to 28mm.

View attachment 222090

Very nice comparison - I'm pretty impressed with the prime so far (only recently purchased).

 

[Skux]

Collapsible design is the main caveat, it's just annoying to use. Cameras should be ready to shoot as quicky as possible.

...just leave it extended?

If you miss a shot because you had to extend a lens or turn your camera on, you weren't prepared to begin with.

 

[padam]

...just leave it extended?

If you miss a shot because you had to extend a lens or turn your camera on, you weren't prepared to begin with.

I wonder if you have any sort of experience with these lenses, otherwise you'd be able to see the problem in practise.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The 15-35 f2.8 L is the weakest of the trinity RF zooms, and honestly the only one I'm slightly disappointed in; this is a welcome addition for those that want to skip it/want some weight/space savings, but I hope the 15-35 gets a version ii sometime within the next 2 years. Canon can do better.

Interesting opinion. I´d like to know why exactly you're disappointed in this lens. I owned the lens for quite a while and actually loved the pics it produced. Handling is great and it is well built. The only thing I didn't like was the weight. When the RF 14-35mm F4 came out I opted for a wider lens, with better magnification, 300 gr lighter and a lot cheaper. All reasons you can´t blame the 15-35mm F2.8 for.

 

[David - Sydney]

Just in time as I've been looking to replace my EF 16-35mm f4.

I just upgraded to the RF14-35/4 and it is amazing!
Shooting Manatees and Hammerhead sharks last month needed the extra 2mm... actually it was mostly left at 14mm as they were filling the frame. Shorter//lighter (including the adaptor)
Love it!
Just need to find a buyer for my EF16-35/4 now.

 

[HeavyPiper]

I just upgraded to the RF14-35/4 and it is amazing!

Great to read, I'm sure that the 14-35mm f4 is the one I would get.

 

[Del Paso]

Interesting opinion. I´d like to know why exactly you're disappointed in this lens. I owned the lens for quite a while and actually loved the pics it produced. Handling is great and it is well built. The only thing I didn't like was the weight. When the RF 14-35mm F4 came out I opted for a wider lens, with better magnification, 300 gr lighter and a lot cheaper. All reasons you can´t blame the 15-35mm F2.8 for.

I bought mine after comparing it to similar lenses.
It is heavy, that's right!
Otherwise, the RF 15-35 is sharp into the deepest corners, from 15 to 35mm. Especially the sharpness at 35mm setting was the main reason why I favored this lens, and not its competitors.
As to MTFs: Does it make sense to test an UWA at maximum aperture? That's usually not the aperture UWAs are used at. Remember, also the RF 50mm f/1,8 is a disaster wide open, but great above f/2,8...

 

[David - Sydney]

Thinking about the (ultra)wide angle options from Canon, there now is a really nice portfolio:

1. RF 10-20mm F4 L
2. RF 14-35mm F4 L
3. RF 15-35mm F2.8
4. RF 15-30mm F can´t remember
5. RF 16mm F2.8
6. RF 16-28mm F2.8

7. RF 24mm F1.8
8. RF 24mm F1.4 L
9. RF 28mm F2.8

(hopefully) still to come:
10. F2 UWA zoom
11. RF 12/ 14mm f2 L (something along that)
12. RF 20mm F1.4 (oh please Canon, please!) ---> the one lens I am waiting for here. If you don't want to make it, let Sigma do it!

That sounds like a great UWA portfolio to me

Edit: Omg, I forgot a few lenses added the 10-20mm, 24mm and 28mm. Don´t know where exactly to draw the line here. I once learned: 20mm - 35mm and lower --> (moderate) wide angle
10mm - 19mm --> ultrawide angle

I don´t know if everybody agrees to it.

UWA fast primes is the obvious gap here but Canon hasn't shown interested since the EF14/2.8 which was expensive and not stellar.
It isn't like there aren't current lenses out there that are great... but not for R mount :-(
The venerable Samyang 14/2.8 (or 14/2.4)
Sigma's 14/1.4 for Sony/L mount
Sigma's EF 20/1.4 (now discontinued)
Sony's 14/1.8 which is cheap/small and good for foreground astro landscapes during blue hour.
Make them smaller/lighter/cheaper by being manual focus and no IS and there should be reasonable sales for that niche if the coma is controller.

Besides the UWA, the other missing niches are:
- longer macro and/or high mag macro
- updated TS-E for R mount
- zoom fisheye
- the oft-mentioned mid-priced big white tele primes
anything else besides 35/1.2 or should Canon work on version 2 of RF lenses now given that the others are catching up with incrementally better niche lenses like Sony's 28-70/2 (smaller/lighter etc)?

 

[Walrus]

After the 28-70 STM (that I'm probably buying next week) and this new 16-28 (which I'll probably never buy, wide angles are not my cup of tea), I now just wait for a 70-180ish of the same kind (2.8 STM IS, relatively light and inexpensive) to be finally happy with Canon lineup and definitely migrate most of my lenses to RF.
(but my wet dream is still that damn Tammy 35-150 being available in RF mount)

 

[navastronia]

...just leave it extended?

If you miss a shot because you had to extend a lens or turn your camera on, you weren't prepared to begin with.

This is not true in practice. Source: I'm a professional photographer (weddings and events) who bought the 28-70/2.8 last month. It's frustrating to sometimes click it out of position and have the lens not be ready when I need it.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm thinking that given their MO on these two lenses, that something like a 70-180mm F2.8, or a 70-150mm F2.8 would be a distinct possibility to complete the trinity.

Looking at what Tamron are currently offering as a 3rd party and as a rebadged OEM Nikon, it's easy to see the market that canon are looking for. Which is great for us as Canon mount consumers. Both of these lenses offer something rare in the Canon RF mount, quality, sharp, lightweight and easy to carry f2.8 lenses. The new RF 16-28mm lens is an interesting proposition for travel / walkabouts. It offers a lot of capability for a very small and light package. Pop one of these on a R8 and it's super small and very capable.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I think Canon very much wants to only release L-series lenses above $2,000 US from now on. Having a prosumer line in the $1100, 1400 etc range seems to be their plan. I'm fully expecting to see a $4,000 L-series lens within the next few years.

There are already L lenses in this price region and a number of big whites taht already exceed it by some margin. The (for example) RF 100-300 f2.8 LIS is over this price point. Lenses like the RF 85mm f1.2 L DS are just under this price point.

 

[Del Paso]

The Flat Earth Society

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, home of the flat earth forums and the largest library of Flat Earth Society journals, newsletters, interviews, and books.

theflatearthsociety.org

I also warmly recommend-Hans Joachim Zillmer's highly scientific masterpiece "Darwins Irrtum" (Darwin's error).
He demonstrates with irrefutable scientific evidence that mankind and dinosaurs were living in the same period. Quod erat demonstrandum!
I put it in my bookshelf next to S.F. and "humour".
(I bought it used for one euro because I wanted to have a good laugh, I wasn't disappointed)

 

[Richard CN]

From the TDP preview:

Which makes me think: do the published MTFs take into account digital distortion correction? If so, it would probably put at ease some of those who are still hesitant about this.

I do believe the MTF's take into account in camera distortion correction.

from what I've seen initially, the 16-28mm requires in camera digital processing, as it's image circle needs to be stretched at 16mm.

 

[JohanCruyff]

Canon just announced a new ultra wide angle lens for the RF mount.

Dear Richard, I love this website and its forum.
But we've been reading for months anticipations about a RF 200-500 (with or without 1.4x extender, F/4 or F/5.6), but it didn't show up.
Now this interesting, non-anticipated lens appears, out of the blue.

Nobody is to blame, but evidently things have changed, and now there are less reliable sources of trustworthy rumors.

I think it's time to change the name from CanonRumors to CanonHopesAndNews!