Christopher Frost reviews the RF 16mm f/2.8

[Frodo]

In short:
- Nice and small (but you knew that)
- Sharp wide open in the centre, but soft in the corners at all apertures. Due to huge amount of software stretching of the origjnal distorted images
- Little coma (surprise)
- Very little flare
- Lots of focus breathing for video

The poor image quality in the corners would tend to reduce its value as an astro lens. What wasn't clear was how much cropping is needed to get to good resolution. I'll stick top my Samyang 14/2.8 as my astro lens.

 

[Del Paso]

No lens for landscapes... soft corners.
I'll keep using my tack-sharp (yes, it's true!) EF 2,8/14mm II, or the EF 16-35 f4.
By the way, I'll never understand why the EF 14mm is so often criticized, mine is really very good, right into the extreme corners, not to speak of its mechanical quality, far above Samyang and co.
And for my Leica, I just discovered the Voigtländer VM 15mm III, quality seems to vary, but I got an excellent one, so to be tested before buying. Yet, no lens for astro (f 5,6!). And, important for Leicaists: NO magenta color-shift at all (version III).

 

[Frodo]

I may still get this lens to complement my RF 24-105/4 for hiking. Landscape and forest photos are more tolerant of soft corners than astro. But it is USD 500 in New Zealand.
@Del Paso , my Samyang was much sharper than a friend's EF14mm, but that might have been v1.

 

[Del Paso]

I may still get this lens to complement my RF 24-105/4 for hiking. Landscape and forest photos are more tolerant of soft corners than astro. But it is USD 500 in New Zealand.
@Del Paso , my Samyang was much sharper than a friend's EF14mm, but that might have been v1.

It's a fact that 14mm Samyangs can be very good, even sharper than the EF14mm II.
But buying a Samyang is a bit of a lottery game, quality varies in huge proportions.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Bummer. Oh well. Maybe i just bite the bullet and start saving for the RF15-35 2.8. It'll take a while but might be worth it in the end