Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM and Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM have begun shipping

Oct 14, 2021
7
30
Thanks for the information. Agree, nothing surprising – it's a $300 FF ultrawide lens, and given that Canon 'forces' corrections on the RF 14-35L, I'd be surprised if they didn't do so on the 16/2.8. But I'm also not surprised that if delivers decent images, and a small, light and inexpensive lens that delivers decent images will end up in a lot of people's kits.

Just checked the pictures in Lightroom Classic CC - the most recent one. Lo and behold: Canon does not seem to "hard crop" the pictures when shooting RAW. They appear distortion corrected when viewed in camera, but the RAW itself is completely unaffected. I'll attach some pictures in a few minutes.

See attached image. I cheated a tiny bit, though. The foreground and treetop were gradient adjusted by about a stop, plus 2/3 of a stop overall, because my RP badly underexposed the shot. What drives me nuts - and what I hope Canon will fix in an firmware update - is the distortion corrections in camera. Because if I can crop it myself, I wanna have complete control over the picture I am about to take.

Both were shot at f/2.8 with my RP.
 

Attachments

  • _MG_7004.jpg
    _MG_7004.jpg
    3.5 MB · Views: 221
  • _MG_7003.jpg
    _MG_7003.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 212
Last edited:

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
460
576
Gladly! I got it in the Netherlands from Kamera-Express. They're a large retailer operating in countries in North-Western Europe. I paid a smaller amount for the pre-order and in the mail arranging the rest of they payment it was mentioned that the link was valid for a limited time due to limited quantaties of this lens becoming available.
Sounds like an excellent process that went smoothly! No small feat in these times, thank you for sharing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RikC

RexxReviews

I'm New Here
Sep 3, 2021
23
14
Mine has not shipped, contacted B&H they say they haven't got the shipment yet and that will contact Canon for them to give BH an estimate date. Also ordered within 30 min of preorders.
Wow.... Canon announced this 30 days ago and knew they were shipping well before that and still managed not getting stock to one of the larges US based retailors? What an epic fail
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,920
1,861
Gladly! I got it in the Netherlands from Kamera-Express. They're a large retailer operating in countries in North-Western Europe. I paid a smaller amount for the pre-order and in the mail arranging the rest of they payment it was mentioned that the link was valid for a limited time due to limited quantaties of this lens becoming available.
I was a bit surprised to see it in stock today at cameraland.nl, but then I remembered them telling me they stopped doing pre-orders for products where demand outstrips supply.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,420
4,075
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Wow.... Canon announced this 30 days ago and knew they were shipping well before that and still managed not getting stock to one of the larges US based retailors? What an epic fail
If that's what you consider an "epic fail" you need to get a life. I'm as anxious as anyone to get the lens, but I'm not going to whine about waiting a few days. For all we know, they might be sitting in a container waiting to be unloaded by overworked dock workers. Not everything is Canon's fault.
 
Nov 29, 2015
33
30
An f/8 lens in 2021…meanwhile Sony just released the worlds lightest 70-200 f/2.8.

What’s happening to Canon?
More like what's happening to Sony? The Sony 70-200 is a whopping 25gm lighter than the Canon and considerably larger when not zoomed, and just as prohibitively expensive. High quality (increasingly) expensive 70-200 F2.8 zooms have been available for a long time. Small, light, and cheap long zooms (or primes) are not nearly so common. Canon is actually innovating with the F8 primes and this F5.6-8 zoom. It's actually smaller, lighter (by a lot) and a bit cheaper than the Tamron 100-400, which I bought as much for the weight savings over the Canon 100-400 or 100-500 as the cost savings (though that was important too). It's great to have these options. If you don't want it, no-one is forcing you to hand over the surprisingly small bucks to buy it. You can still pay tonnes of cash for the EF 100-400 or the RF 100-500. And the 16 F2.8 is another welcome addition. A lot of people (me included) use UWA zooms almost exclusively at the wide end. The availability of a small, light, cheap 16 F2.8 is great. And it doesn't have to be sharp wide open. I mostly shoot my UWA for landscapes, stopped down to at least F5.6 and usually F8 or F11.
 

rontele7

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 8, 2017
62
76
Earth
Canon is actually innovating
Innovating...with the slowest lenses on the market that produce such incredible distortion (see 24-240 f/6.3) that they require software to correct?

And that require using a brand new mount that has given us cheaply built, heavy, huge, expensive all-plastic L lenses?

To me it looks like grasping at straws.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,420
4,075
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Innovating...with the slowest lenses on the market that produce such incredible distortion (see 24-240 f/6.3) that they require software to correct?

And that require using a brand new mount that has given us cheaply built, heavy, huge, expensive all-plastic L lenses?

To me it looks like grasping at straws.
No one is forcing you to buy these inferior products. If you prefer another brand knock yourself out.
 
Dec 6, 2018
194
310
Just checked the pictures in Lightroom Classic CC - the most recent one. Lo and behold: Canon does not seem to "hard crop" the pictures when shooting RAW. They appear distortion corrected when viewed in camera, but the RAW itself is completely unaffected. I'll attach some pictures in a few minutes.

See attached image. I cheated a tiny bit, though. The foreground and treetop were gradient adjusted by about a stop, plus 2/3 of a stop overall, because my RP badly underexposed the shot. What drives me nuts - and what I hope Canon will fix in an firmware update - is the distortion corrections in camera. Because if I can crop it myself, I wanna have complete control over the picture I am about to take.

Both were shot at f/2.8 with my RP.

At least with the chestnut photo, the colors looks superb. Reminds me of a classic Zeiss ZE prime.

This is so compact and affordable, I may order one. I was pondering the Rokinon 14mm, but I don't need the AF or heavier weight of the two Rokinon RF 14mm offerings I looked at.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Moritz_RD02

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,132
4,737
Innovating...with the slowest lenses on the market that produce such incredible distortion (see 24-240 f/6.3) that they require software to correct?
It is true that awful geometric distortion in a MILC lens design is not a Canon innovation. Sony, Olympus and Fuji started doing it years before Canon.

Slow lenses cost less. That makes a system more affordable…and for FF MILCs (relative) affordability is definitely a Canon innovation. Today, I could buy an RP, RF 24-105 non-L and RF 100-400 for the same amount I’d have paid 10 years ago for a T1i/500D, 17-55, and 70-300 non-L (I did buy the first two, along with the 85/1.8). List a Sony or Nikon FF MILC with a 2-lens kit covering 24-400mm that would cost <$2050, or a 3-lens kit covering 16-400mm that would cost <$2350. Good luck.

And that require using a brand new mount that has given us cheaply built, heavy, huge, expensive all-plastic L lenses?
The plastics used are lighter than metal and very durable. They can be engineered to be stronger and less sensitive to changes in temperature than metal alloys.

To me it looks like grasping at straws.
Yes, your arguments do appear that way.
 

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
159
187
The BH delay is reason to consider ordering two different places. If it were important. Which it really isn’t, to me.
 
Dec 6, 2018
194
310
How well does Canon read the market? One indication.

Maybe better than some people realize.

Anyway, I just learned of this RF 16mm the past couple days, decided to buy one today, and already found a copy this afternoon at a camera store outside Seattle. Payment done, and the lens should be headed over the border into Oregon the next day or two.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,920
1,861
I'm happy with the RF16mm, it performs like expected and DPP4 does a good job correcting the distortion. Here's 100% crop of the center at minimum focussing distance in LR using a TIFF generated by DPP4. The AF was fast enough to keep up with the subjects :)

Schermafbeelding 2021-10-15 om 09.23.06.png
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
695
889
Innovating...with the slowest lenses on the market that produce such incredible distortion (see 24-240 f/6.3) that they require software to correct?

And that require using a brand new mount that has given us cheaply built, heavy, huge, expensive all-plastic L lenses?

To me it looks like grasping at straws.

Offering big aperture and expensive lenses is not a sign of innovation. The 24-240 require software corrections because that's the only way to make the lens small and affordable.
There is physics and compromises need to be made.

Are you complaining about huge and expensive L lenses but when Canon releases small and affordable ones, you want them to have the same size and optical quality as L lenses?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: H. Jones

Chaitanya

EOS R
Jun 27, 2013
1,494
672
35
Pune
I'm happy with the RF16mm, it performs like expected and DPP4 does a good job correcting the distortion. Here's 100% crop of the center at minimum focussing distance in LR using a TIFF generated by DPP4. The AF was fast enough to keep up with the subjects :)

View attachment 200785
Are those Giant snails? That lens could be a fun one for Crop body as well as FF body. How is distortion and corner shading?