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

Oct 14, 2021
6
30
How is distortion and corner shading?
A ton worse than the EF 16-35/4. Here is a native side by side of the RF16 (left picture) vs EF 16-35/4 (at 16mm, to the right), both mounted on my RP, both shot from a tripod, both at f4. Mind you that the native view of the RF is a LOT wider than the EF. When viewed in-camera however the FOV from the RF is pretty much the same as with the EF.
 

Attachments

  • A6130F76-0D29-4D27-8F63-536C5BEE075A.jpeg
    A6130F76-0D29-4D27-8F63-536C5BEE075A.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 219
  • 48DCD162-445F-40D1-A01C-26EDA421ADE3.jpeg
    48DCD162-445F-40D1-A01C-26EDA421ADE3.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 218
Last edited:

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,919
1,859
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?
These are 'regular' snails here in the Netherlands, wikipedia says Helix pomatia, common names the Roman snail, Burgundy snail, edible snail, or escargot. Roughly thumb sized.
I've only looked at the corrected DPP4 versions, so I can only say "no distortion or corner shading after DPP4 did its thing", which isn't very helpful :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chaitanya

PixelTrawler

EOS M50
Nov 16, 2016
45
2
A ton worse than the EF 16-35/4. Here is a native side by side of the RF16 (left picture) vs EF 16-35/4 (at 16mm, to the right), both mounted on my RP, both shot from a tripod, both at f4. Mind you that the native view of the RF is a LOT wider than the EF. When viewed in-camera however the FOV from the RF is pretty much the same as with the EF.
Wow you can see a big difference along the rug on the floor. But it looks pretty good for a cheap small walk around lens.
Hoping to use it for some discreet night shots in the city. Dublin is not a city to walk around with an expensive big obvious lens and camera at night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moritz_RD02

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
346
733
...
I've only looked at the corrected DPP4 versions, so I can only say "no distortion or corner shading after DPP4 did its thing", which isn't very helpful :)
Exactly the opposite of course. The corrected version is EXACTLY what users of this lens will want to know, since the corrections will be automatic once all the software programs have the profile.

It constantly amazes me how some Canon users are so offended by these lenses that have auto-correction. As mentioned, other brands have been doing this with some mirrorless lenses for years now, and their users seem to accept this relatively easily - because in the end you get lenses that are smaller lighter and cheaper, and often with better results, than if the corrections are all being done optically. And even with those optically corrected lenses, you still often get considerable distortion, vignetting and CA that users still correct on their computers afterwards.
 

RexxReviews

I'm New Here
Sep 3, 2021
23
14
The BH delay is reason to consider ordering two different places. If it were important. Which it really isn’t, to me.
I pre ordered from 4 different places as we needed 4 in total and all of them are having the same issues. B&H, Adorama, Amazon and a local shop.
 
Oct 15, 2021
1
5
Received my RF 16mm this morning from my local camera store and did some testing.
I wanted to provide a few sample images just for reference in case these help anyone.

For my line of work, which is Real Estate and Interiors (both photo & video), this lens is incredible and will be more go to lens.
For photos, I'm typically shooting between f/5.6-7.1 and as expected, it's incredibly sharp; center to corner. Even at f/2.8, I'm extremely happy.

Attached are 3 screenshots of the same image in my office;
(I had to take screenshots because the Canon Rumors uploader wouldn't allow for the large RAW or JPEG files.)

Two images are in Canon DPP4, with one being RAW and the other JPEG; and the last image being the RAW image in LR.
This way you can see the image with the DPP 16mm lens correction applied and without it in LR.
(Both image completely straight out of camera and no adjustments what so ever)

When testing, I shot both RAW + JPEG L;
SS: 1/4
A: f/2.8
ISO: 320

And similar to the RF 14-35 f/4, the 16mm is actually wider than 16mm and relies on the digital profile correction to get it to 16mm, which is why there is so much distortion without the profile correction, similar to my LR RAW example. This must have been how they could get the costs down on the lens.

I also did a test where in LR, if you apply the profile correction for the EF 15mm 2.8, then adjust the distortion slider to roughly +40 you will "straighten out the image"...that being said, if you do a side by side comparison to the DPP RAW file with the 16mm profile correction applied, you're actually getting an even wider field of view, closer to 12-14mm. Again, this is just a test and a "work around" for LR users until the 16mm profile is released. (Take note of how much more doorframe is in this "corrected" image in LR with the 15mm profile compared to the DPP RAW image)

Overall, I am BEYOND thrilled with the performance of the lens, for my purposes at least! :)

If there's anything else you'd like me to test, let me know.

Thanks for looking!
 

Attachments

  • DPP RAW.png
    DPP RAW.png
    4.9 MB · Views: 165
  • DPP JPEG.png
    DPP JPEG.png
    4.7 MB · Views: 159
  • LIGHTROOM RAW.png
    LIGHTROOM RAW.png
    4.4 MB · Views: 159
  • LR RAW w: EF 15 PROFILE.png
    LR RAW w: EF 15 PROFILE.png
    4.4 MB · Views: 152
Last edited:
Dec 6, 2018
194
310
I pre ordered from 4 different places as we needed 4 in total and all of them are having the same issues. B&H, Adorama, Amazon and a local shop.
I bought mine from a Kenmore camera store in Washington yesterday. Having just learned about this 16mm the past couple days, I read a post on Fred Miranda forums by one of the sales guys at Kenmore when he posted last night. So mine is already in the shipping stage.
 

joseph ferraro

5DM4/R5 Macro
Apr 16, 2020
13
9
Received my RF 16mm this morning from my local camera store and did some testing.
I wanted to provide a few sample images just for reference in case these help anyone.

For my line of work, which is Real Estate and Interiors (both photo & video), this lens is incredible and will be more go to lens.
For photos, I'm typically shooting between f/5.6-7.1 and as expected, it's incredibly sharp; center to corner. Even at f/2.8, I'm extremely happy.

Attached are 3 screenshots of the same image in my office;
(I had to take screenshots because the Canon Rumors uploader wouldn't allow for the large RAW or JPEG files.)

Two images are in Canon DPP4, with one being RAW and the other JPEG; and the last image being the RAW image in LR.
This way you can see the image with the DPP 16mm lens correction applied and without it in LR.
(Both image completely straight out of camera and no adjustments what so ever)

When testing, I shot both RAW + JPEG L;
SS: 1/4
A: f/2.8
ISO: 320

If there's anything else you'd like me to test, let me know.

Thanks for looking!
thanks for sharing! I can't wait until mine gets here (eventually :) ) I got it to do close up macro work and supplement my Laowa 15 when I want a bit more working room accepting the cost of slightly less magnification since I'm usually around 1:4 on the laowa anyhow.
 

RexxReviews

I'm New Here
Sep 3, 2021
23
14
Received my RF 16mm this morning from my local camera store and did some testing.
I wanted to provide a few sample images just for reference in case these help anyone.

For my line of work, which is Real Estate and Interiors (both photo & video), this lens is incredible and will be more go to lens.
For photos, I'm typically shooting between f/5.6-7.1 and as expected, it's incredibly sharp; center to corner. Even at f/2.8, I'm extremely happy.

Attached are 3 screenshots of the same image in my office;
(I had to take screenshots because the Canon Rumors uploader wouldn't allow for the large RAW or JPEG files.)

Two images are in Canon DPP4, with one being RAW and the other JPEG; and the last image being the RAW image in LR.
This way you can see the image with the DPP 16mm lens correction applied and without it in LR.
(Both image completely straight out of camera and no adjustments what so ever)

When testing, I shot both RAW + JPEG L;
SS: 1/4
A: f/2.8
ISO: 320

And similar to the RF 14-35 f/4, the 16mm is actually wider than 16mm and relies on the digital profile correction to get it to 16mm, which is why there is so much distortion without the profile correction, similar to my LR RAW example. This must have been how they could get the costs down on the lens.

I also did a test where in LR, if you apply the profile correction for the EF 15mm 2.8, then adjust the distortion slider to roughly +40 you will "straighten out the image"...that being said, if you do a side by side comparison to the DPP RAW file with the 16mm profile correction applied, you're actually getting an even wider field of view, closer to 12-14mm. Again, this is just a test and a "work around" for LR users until the 16mm profile is released. (Take note of how much more doorframe is in this "corrected" image in LR with the 15mm profile compared to the DPP RAW image)

Overall, I am BEYOND thrilled with the performance of the lens, for my purposes at least! :)

If there's anything else you'd like me to test, let me know.

Thanks for looking!
That's what I actually ordered our first 4 for. We train new RE photographers and the kits we use for training had been consisting of an EOS-R and a big ass EF 17-40 and and adapter. We figured these would lighten the load quite a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: helloholmes
I just uploaded a Video using the rf16mm lens, for the price is great, it does have tons of vignette which I like for the type of pictures I shoot, its sharp and we need to see it as what it is, a $299 lens great to shoot and to have in the backpack. I ordered it from About 30 min after release from B&H, it was still backordered and a friend of mine found it in a local shop about an hour away from downtown L.A. and he got it for me Video here
 

JordanCS13

EOS R5 | R6
Aug 1, 2020
27
80
www.admiringlight.com
For those looking at shipping, I can tell you what the guy at my local store in Columbus told me: their shipment is coming on Monday (with my pre-ordered 16 on that shipment). Things came in via boat to California, were a day or so late, and are arriving via UPS to the store on Monday, at which point I should be able to pick mine up. Looks like west coast stores are the ones more likely to have had it in stock yesterday, while more easterly ones are still waiting for the trucks to arrive. There are almost certainly some exceptions to this, though.
 

Adelino

EOS RP
Jan 21, 2015
380
249
I just uploaded a Video using the rf16mm lens, for the price is great, it does have tons of vignette which I like for the type of pictures I shoot, its sharp and we need to see it as what it is, a $299 lens great to shoot and to have in the backpack. I ordered it from About 30 min after release from B&H, it was still backordered and a friend of mine found it in a local shop about an hour away from downtown L.A. and he got it for me Video here
I liked your video, thanks! Nice portraits!
 
Oct 14, 2021
6
30
So I took the RF16 for an autumn stroll yesterday and can say pretty much only positive things about it. Apart from the obvious (light, small, cheap) it's heaps better than I'd ever expected it to be. I'll briefly explain why:

It's basically two lenses in one. It's advertised as a 16mm (duh) but it actually is a lot wider when not in-camera or app corrected and usable at that. And while the corner extremities are pretty fuzzy at f/2.8 it's nowhere near as a bad as I would've thought. To be honest: my olde EF17-40/4 was just as bad when I look through older pictures. Plus: the corners get a massive boost at smaller apertures. I don't shoot test-screens or brick walls, but from what I can tell the corners are downright great starting from f/4.0 and upwards - and not only for a lens at that price point. Yes, it vignettes heavily, especially at minimum focussing distance, but at medium to infinity it's okay-ish and gets significantly better at smaller apertures. Be aware though that at closest focussing distance it has basically dark corners. What surprised me most is the flare resistance - it's basically perfect from the brief extreme sunshine we've had and shows no flare. Beware though, because I am not that keen on using flares in my pictures.

AF is a non issue, though a bit finicky. The multi-wheel at the front is clickless (another gripe I have with it), making it basically useless as a control wheel for any sorts. Also: When the lens is turned on the focussing barrel darts out a bit. It's only flush with the lens barrel when it's off and only does so, when it's turned off with the camera!

The only thing that annoys me is the view within the camera, as it auto-switches to the "corrected" view and you can't turn it off, making exact framing (and to my liking it's a must on wide angle lenses) a pain in the butt. I helped myself with a tripod and slightly misaligning it on the mount, showing me the full view to compose and re-attaching it correctly when I'm done.
 

PixelTrawler

EOS M50
Nov 16, 2016
45
2
So I took the RF16 for an autumn stroll yesterday and can say pretty much only positive things about it. Apart from the obvious (light, small, cheap) it's heaps better than I'd ever expected it to be. I'll briefly explain why:

It's basically two lenses in one. It's advertised as a 16mm (duh) but it actually is a lot wider when not in-camera or app corrected and usable at that. And while the corner extremities are pretty fuzzy at f/2.8 it's nowhere near as a bad as I would've thought. To be honest: my olde EF17-40/4 was just as bad when I look through older pictures. Plus: the corners get a massive boost at smaller apertures. I don't shoot test-screens or brick walls, but from what I can tell the corners are downright great starting from f/4.0 and upwards - and not only for a lens at that price point. Yes, it vignettes heavily, especially at minimum focussing distance, but at medium to infinity it's okay-ish and gets significantly better at smaller apertures. Be aware though that at closest focussing distance it has basically dark corners. What surprised me most is the flare resistance - it's basically perfect from the brief extreme sunshine we've had and shows no flare. Beware though, because I am not that keen on using flares in my pictures.

AF is a non issue, though a bit finicky. The multi-wheel at the front is clickless (another gripe I have with it), making it basically useless as a control wheel for any sorts. Also: When the lens is turned on the focussing barrel darts out a bit. It's only flush with the lens barrel when it's off and only does so, when it's turned off with the camera!

The only thing that annoys me is the view within the camera, as it auto-switches to the "corrected" view and you can't turn it off, making exact framing (and to my liking it's a must on wide angle lenses) a pain in the butt. I helped myself with a tripod and slightly misaligning it on the mount, showing me the full view to compose and re-attaching it correctly when I'm done.
Sounds like compromises we can live with. What I want out of it is a small, wide discrete lens thats reasonable image quality for the price. I knew there would be some compromises but it sounds better than I feared.

If the image quality is as good as the RF 35 which is very good for the price, I'll be very happy.
 

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
993
622
Colorado, USA
Looks like Canon took my money and shipped the RF 100-400 today.
Arrived today (two days early). Initial impressions are quite favorable paired with the R6 based on some cursory shots in the backyard. Nothing to post yet, and no time until the weekend.