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

[Exploreshootshare]

I can never understand why people in Europe don't consider Iceland as a holiday destination as the flight from Berlin is less than 4 hours or to Tromso in 3 hours.
https://capturetheatlas.com/photo-tours/

I think a lot of people do consider Iceland (or Sweden/ Norway for northern lights) but it is also very expensive. Furthermore, you really have to go there when it dark and cold to see a lot of stars. Many people prefer going to warm islands in the south such as Palma, Mallorca or even Tenerife.

Iceland is on my list! Either in summer time with my wife or during our "carnival vacation" to go on workshop and shoot on my own. Since it is only a week, I have to wait till this week actually lines up perfectly with new moon, workshop dates and also this year (and next year) I have to work as soccer instructor. I train and educate coaches as a part-time job and we have 52 young (18 & 19 year old) soccer coaches waiting to take their final exams of their first coaching degree. That's my other time-demanding hobby

 

[David - Sydney]

Thx for the example and the advice How does the Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 RF perform compared to the RF 16mm f2.8? Would it be worth the upgrade if I swapped those two lenses?

Do you mean the autofocus version? I haven't used it.... it has always been with manual focus for me. There are 2 versions and you only need the manual focus one for astro. Hard to beat the price and you can find them second hand as well.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/859167-REG/Samyang_SY14M_C_14mm_f_2_8_Super_Wide.html

I also haven't tried the RF16/2.8. I have the RF14-35/4 if I need autofocus so haven't compared them.

 

[David - Sydney]

actually lines up perfectly with new moon,

There is still a lot of opportunities around the new moon time where the galactic cloud has risen but the moon hasn't. A crescent moon can also provide foreground lighting avoiding blue hour shooting.
Dan's calendars are based on latitude and uses the weekend as the guide for the milky way. If you want an arch then March-April is the only time in the year for Berlin's latitude.
https://capturetheatlas.com/milky-way-calendars/

 

[Richard CN]

Interesting. I wonder if there is a typical lead out time from patent filing to production, or if it's just all over the place. I honestly think the 15-35 gets an official markii label before anything else (again because it is the weakest offering in the 2.8 L zoom line up).

it's all over the place. it used to be that we never saw the application until after the release.

now at times, we see it after release, and at times, before.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Do you mean the autofocus version? I haven't used it.... it has always been with manual focus for me. There are 2 versions and you only need the manual focus one for astro. Hard to beat the price and you can find them second hand as well.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/859167-REG/Samyang_SY14M_C_14mm_f_2_8_Super_Wide.html

I also haven't tried the RF16/2.8. I have the RF14-35/4 if I need autofocus so haven't compared them.

I meant the AF version. The MF would be fine, but I´d rather have AF and disable it by default. The reason why I opted for the RF 16mm f2.8 was simply weight and size. The Samyang is pretty heavy with 484 gr (510gr with the hood) in comparison to the little 16ish. Since the RF 14-35mm is 540gr I figured, I´d never use the Samyang to "save weight during hikes". Plus, I am hoping for a faster prime some time.

I looked for the AF version of the Samyang during my break and found a couple for a decent price. If everything works out, I might get it at least for the summer. it seems to be a decent-good astro lens.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

But it’s also a good point that Canon has progressed from being rather sad and quite, well, comically bad at making ultra wides to basically being able to make almost any ultra wide that can be imagined

This is true of course, but more recent Canon users should understand that this was a long time ago now. The original EF 16-35/2.8L and the EF 17-40/4L were both poor in comparison with Nikon's offerings at the time (there was no Sony in those days), but they were launched in 2001 and 2003 respectively. The 16-35/2.8L Mark II (Feb 2007 = 18 years ago) was much better, and the superb Mark III (8 years ago) earned a Gold Award on Dpreview. The 16-35/4L (more than 10 years ago) was also excellent, and very affordable.

 

[AJ]

I think a lot of people do consider Iceland (or Sweden/ Norway for northern lights) but it is also very expensive. Furthermore, you really have to go there when it dark and cold to see a lot of stars. Many people prefer going to warm islands in the south such as Palma, Mallorca or even Tenerife.

FWIW, Tenerife is supposed to be an excellent astrophotography location. The volcanic highlands are a desert and clear skies are the norm.
This is just hearsay - I've gone hiking there a few times (very pretty) but never stayed after dark to gaze at the stars.

 

[P-visie]

The RF 16-28mm lens is now on Canons “Product supply status” page along with the RF70-200mm Z lenses.

Google translated link.

 

[Richard CN]

The RF 16-28mm lens is now on Canons “Product supply status” page along with the RF70-200mm Z lenses.

Google translated link.

naturally.

 

[AJ]

This is true of course, but more recent Canon users should understand that this was a long time ago now. The original EF 16-35/2.8L and the EF 17-40/4L were both poor in comparison with Nikon's offerings at the time (there was no Sony in those days), but they were launched in 2001 and 2003 respectively. The 16-35/2.8L Mark II (Feb 2007 = 18 years ago) was much better, and the superb Mark III (8 years ago) earned a Gold Award on Dpreview. The 16-35/4L (more than 10 years ago) was also excellent, and very affordable.

I agree. The first ultrawide lens to offer corner-to-corner sharpness was the Nikon 14-24/2.8. It came out in 2007. I was so far ahead of Canon's offerings that people were adapting the Nikon to their 5D2s. Canon responded in due time, but Nikon was the industry disrupter.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

FWIW, Tenerife is supposed to be an excellent astrophotography location. The volcanic highlands are a desert and clear skies are the norm.
This is just hearsay - I've gone hiking there a few times (very pretty) but never stayed after dark to gaze at the stars.

Yes, it is. According to NASA, it is among the three best places for astrophotography.
I went there in August on my honeymoon. We did go up the Teide several times. The problem is that there are several thousands tourists (absolutely not kidding... they bring the tourists in bus loads) up there and their guides cover the sky with green (and sometimes blue) laser beams. They proudly told us they are visible up to 8km... and visible in your images... so I waited and waited but some are still busy even after 2.00 A.M...then I lost my patience and went to the hotel.

And of Course, there are a lot of cars at night. So, we hiked/ walked away from the people. But there were also groups wandering around with flashlights to look at the rock formations and such. So while the Teide is great place for astrophotographers, location scouting and probably hiking is required. And although I'm sure there great places up on the volcano, I wasn't quite able to access them. We did hike for about 40 min away from the parking lot, but couldn't go any further because my wife was still dealing with a swollen foot due to blood poisoning caused by mosquito bite or something. (BTW: the bite occurred the night before the wedding and her foot was swollen so bad, she could only dance our first dance (and our last that night) thx to a lot pain meds and before she had to sit for the rest of the night.

Anyway, I was (a bit) disappointed because I had seen the Milky Way core in New Zealand (which was amazing) and a lot of people told me Tenerife would be even much better. Spoiler, no, it is not. For me, New Zealands skies were far more impressive! With high expectations crashing down on me, I didn't put in the effort I probably should've poured in (especially location scouting and hiking to place no tourists (guides) go.

Here is one pic of the Teide night sky. It was shot on the R5 with the 16mm F2.8. I still have to edit my night sky pic from the Teide, but Lightroom isn't the best option and I need time get used to the processing of the night time images. I had to compromise the pic (50% quality in LR) to post it here due to size issues.

 

[AJ]

Yes, it is. According to NASA, it is among the three best places for astrophotography.
I went there in August on my honeymoon. We did go up the Teide several times. The problem is that there are several thousands tourists (absolutely not kidding... they bring the tourists in bus loads) up there and their guides cover the sky with green (and sometimes blue) laser beams. They proudly told us they are visible up to 8km... and visible in your images... so I waited and waited but some are still busy even after 2.00 A.M...then I lost my patience and went to the hotel.

And of Course, there are a lot of cars at night. So, we hiked/ walked away from the people. But there were also groups wandering around with flashlights to look at the rock formations and such. So while the Teide is great place for astrophotographers, location scouting and probably hiking is required. And although I'm sure there great places up on the volcano, I wasn't quite able to access them. We did hike for about 40 min away from the parking lot, but couldn't go any further because my wife was still dealing with a swollen foot due to blood poisoning caused by mosquito bite or something. (BTW: the bite occurred the night before the wedding and her foot was swollen so bad, she could only dance our first dance (and our last that night) thx to a lot pain meds and before she had to sit for the rest of the night.

Anyway, I was (a bit) disappointed because I had seen the Milky Way core in New Zealand (which was amazing) and a lot of people told me Tenerife would be even much better. Spoiler, no, it is not. For me, New Zealands skies were far more impressive! With high expectations crashing down on me, I didn't put in the effort I probably should've poured in (especially location scouting and hiking to place no tourists (guides) go.

I clicked Like on your post, but good lord that sounds like a zoo....

 

[Exploreshootshare]

It´s like a big zoo with an even bigger cash-cow. They offer trips in a bus (each takes 50- 55 persons) starting at 38 € and if you take a van (each 8 persons) you pay about 70 €. The vans have one person who drives and guides the tourist, the busses have a driver and a guide. Add one drink per person and you can imagine how much money they make every night...

Here is a typical (ruined) pic of those nights. A car driving down street and somebody turning on the flash light in the middle of nowhere during the exposure. You can easily avoid the streets and the cars (although those bright lights can easily influence your pic even if far away), but you can´t always for all the people walking around. Since it is a "ruined" pic, I didn't put any effort into it in post...

 

[AJ]

Image quality comparisons are up at TDP

Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS 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

Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS 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

 

[EverydayPhotographer]

When Canon released the 28-70 f/2.8, I suspected that we\'d be seeing a mid-range compact \"travel trinity\" when all was said and done. This lens only promotes that line of thinking in my mind. I\'m not surprised by the shorter focal length range, but it does make me wonder what comes next. Obviously, the neutered spec sheets are a necessary side effect of keeping the lens price firmly between the L series and the kit lenses. As such, it seems very unlikely to me that they\'d release a 50th (sic) 70-200 into the ecosystem. I like that top end potential though. So if it tops out in the 180 to 200mm range, I\'m probably all in. If it\'s something shorter like a 70-150, I\'m probably going to be left waiting. The hopeful side of me says that Canon once had a very nice 80-200 f/2.8 in the EF lineup, so maybe that\'s a potential starting point. I don\'t know. But I am intrigued by this current course. I travel a lot, and the combination of light weight, compact size, and great quality is a real bonus for me.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Image quality comparisons are up at TDP

Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS 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

Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS 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

Thx for postings these.
I compared the new lens to the RF 14-35mm F4. To me personally, it seems as if the F4 is a tad (sometimes even more) sharper, but it has more color fringing (those green and purple lines). Interestingly, I have never had issues with color fringing with RF 14-35mm in real-life use. The 16mm F2.8 suffers severely of (or from? under? weird preposition) color fringing.

 

[AJ]

Full review:

Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Review

Is the Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

This looks like a good lens for astro. It should perform well wide open.

My takeaway:
If you are looking to save money and don't mind some minor compromises, get the 15-30
If you want range and are okay with f/4, get the 14-35
If you have deep pockets and want both range and f/2.8, get the 15-35
If you don't care about range and want an f/2.8 lens that performs wide open, get the 16-28
If you want a cheap, lightweight, go-anywhere ultrawide and are willing to sacrifice corner performance, get the 16/2.8
If you want a film-era high-performing ultrawide, get the EF 16-35/4

We are spoiled for choice. This is good.

 

[Walrus]

If you are looking to save money and don't mind some minor compromises, get the 15-30
If you want a film-era high-performing ultrawide, get the EF 16-35/4

I would say, if you are looking to save money, get the EF, is cheaper, brighter and better, and only lacks 1mm at the wide end, while getting 5mm extra on long end. Yeah, it's bigger and heavier and needs the adapter, but if it's "to save money", that's the best choice on the market with the Canon name on it (the best absolute choice I would say is the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 in EF mount that sells used for 250€)

 

[AJ]

I would say, if you are looking to save money, get the EF, is cheaper, brighter and better, and only lacks 1mm at the wide end, while getting 5mm extra on long end. Yeah, it's bigger and heavier and needs the adapter, but if it's "to save money", that's the best choice on the market with the Canon name on it (the best absolute choice I would say is the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 in EF mount that sells used for 250€)

With that kind budget in mind, I'd choose the RF 16/2.8. But to each their own.

 

[Walrus]

With that kind budget in mind, I'd choose the RF 16/2.8. But to each their own.

I have the RF 16 STM, so I made exactly that choice (because I rarely shoot under 35mm, so I just needed an "emergency" cheap, small and light, but good enough lens when the 24-70, and even more now that I got the 28-70 STM, is not enough at a wedding); I didn't mention the prime because we where talking about zooms