Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM

CaMeRa QuEsT

EOS M5 11-22/4-5.6 22/2 50/1.8 STM+EF-EOSM 270EXII
Sep 12, 2016
43
42
I get the mirth but I think it is related to the "officially killing the EF-M mount off" part of your comment which has no basis.

Is has been suggested that a low cost wide angle lens would be needed if a APS-C sensor is introduced to RF mount for a R7. This could certainly be part of that stra
I get the mirth but I think it is related to the "officially killing the EF-M mount off" part of your comment which has no basis.

Is has been suggested that a low cost wide angle lens would be needed if a APS-C sensor is introduced to RF mount for a R7. This could certainly be part of that strategy.
My hope was that Canon's next APS-C lens would be a fast portrait prime in EF-M mount, instead we get this 16mm RF mount lens. The EF-M mount is going to be 10 years old next year and still no portrait prime for it from Canon. How is this mount not already dead for Canon? Also, look at all the great APS-C lenses that Tamron has brought to market in the last couple of years for the E mount, none of which are offered in EF-M mount, even though Tamron was the first (and for a long time the only) 3rd party lens maker doing a native AF EF-M mount lens with their 18-200mm that is also available in E mount. I had to settle for a low quality yet still expensive Sigma 56mm f/1.4 because why would Canon bring to market a portrait lens 8 or more years after the mount was first introduced? EF-M is dead and this 16mm f/2.8 is the mount's tombstone.

What I find really amusing is all the people in this forum believing that Canon is currently capable of making a FF 16mm f/2.8 UWA prime the size of their own nifty fifty (look ma, a tiny 43mm filter thread on a FF UWA!) AND that Canon is currently willing to sell such a lens at the same price as said nifty fifty. Hope, indeed, springs eternal.
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
462
578
What I find really amusing is all the people in this forum believing that Canon is currently capable of making a FF 16mm f/2.8 UWA prime the size of their own nifty fifty (look ma, a tiny 43mm filter thread on a FF UWA!) AND that Canon is currently willing to sell such a lens at the same price as said nifty fifty. Hope, indeed, springs eternal.

Am I understanding correctly that you believe this 16mm lens will be an APSC RF lens, not a full-frame RC lens?
If so, would you care to elaborate on the reasons?

If it were an APSC lens, would we expect to see some sort of designation for that on the lens? I don't see any indication of APSC on the lettering in the image from Nokishita.

1631314618911.png
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,147
4,765
What I find really amusing is all the people in this forum believing that Canon is currently capable of making a FF 16mm f/2.8 UWA prime the size of their own nifty fifty (look ma, a tiny 43mm filter thread on a FF UWA!) AND that Canon is currently willing to sell such a lens at the same price as said nifty fifty. Hope, indeed, springs eternal.
Really not sure what you’re on about… Clearly Canon IS currently capable of making a FF 16/2.8 UWA the same size as the RF 50/1.8, those specs have leaked and the lenses are close to identical (40mm long, 43mm filter thread).

I don’t recall many suggestions that the RF 16/2.8 would cost the same as the RF 50/1.8, rather surprise and pleasure that it will be $300 compared to $200 for the 50. Most people were expecting a much higher price for an RF 16/2.8.
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
462
578
At 16 mm shooting daylight landscapes or Astro or real estate from a tripod, I’m not sure how important image stabilization really is for this lens.

By the old rule of thumb, shouldn’t one be able to handhold down the 1/25th or even 1/15th pretty well with this focal length?

As far as macro, that was me. When the listing was live there was a paragraph or so descriptor. I recall seeing the word in there. I could be mistaken, but I’ve also seen that description used for reproduction ratios as little as 0.25x - so who knows what it’s worth even if it said that.
Per the latest Nokishita release, we are looking at 0.26x, which is really good for a wide angle!

It's not 0.5x, but at this price point it might still be worth it!
1631314401565.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustUs7

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
238
443
Per the latest Nokishita release, we are looking at 0.26x, which is really good for a wide angle!

It's not 0.5x, but at this price point it might still be worth it!
View attachment 200123
Seems generous to call that, ‘macro’, but I know I saw the word in Amazon’s description. I suspect copy and paste with editing from another lens description, but still. This will be in the bag the next hiking vacation we take. Should have plenty of time to see reviews and samples before them. No real ultra wide angle needs before that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

petitBogueBogue

I'm New Here
May 13, 2015
16
0
Is it really a ff 16mm lens? The hood just doesn't seem to make sense for such an ultra-wide angle!
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,147
4,765
Then what about the height of the hood?
What about it? It’s a petal-shaped ultrawide hood. The hood for the RF 15-35 is similarly shallow. Look at hoods for EF ultrawides, they’re shallow, too. The long petals of the built-in hood on my 11-24 extend just 5 mm past the front element.

I’m pretty sure Canon can correctly determine the appropriate size and shape for a lens hood. Further, I’d hazard a guess they know more about optical design than you or me.

Also, what about the size of the front element? Optical vignetting will deem to be massive if the lens is for ff!
Again, what about it? Yes, the lens will probably have significant vignetting. Many RF lenses do. It’s readily correctable in the resulting images (yes, there’s the consequence of increased peripheral noise). Consider the awful distortion and substantial vignetting of the 14-35/4L, bad enough that Canon forces the corrections for in-camera JPGs and in RAW conversions with DPP (i.e., unlike other lenses those corrections cannot be turned off). They do that on a $1600 L-series lens, why would it be a surprise on a $300 non-L lens? However, we actually don’t know anything about the optical performance of the 16/2.8 yet.

As I said, it’s a FF lens. Period.
 

petitBogueBogue

I'm New Here
May 13, 2015
16
0
What about it? It’s a petal-shaped ultrawide hood. The hood for the RF 15-35 is similarly shallow. Look at hoods for EF ultrawides, they’re shallow, too. The long petals of the built-in hood on my 11-24 extend just 5 mm past the front element.

I’m pretty sure Canon can correctly determine the appropriate size and shape for a lens hood. Further, I’d hazard a guess they know more about optical design than you or me.


Again, what about it? Yes, the lens will probably have significant vignetting. Many RF lenses do. It’s readily correctable in the resulting images (yes, there’s the consequence of increased peripheral noise). Consider the awful distortion and substantial vignetting of the 14-35/4L, bad enough that Canon forces the corrections for in-camera JPGs and in RAW conversions with DPP (i.e., unlike other lenses those corrections cannot be turned off). They do that on a $1600 L-series lens, why would it be a surprise on a $300 non-L lens? However, we actually don’t know anything about the optical performance of the 16/2.8 yet.

As I said, it’s a FF lens. Period.
Then I have nothing to say but feel sorry for that. In the EF, FD, and even FL eras, canon lenses used to be very usable even without much in-camera or post processing. Now cutting-cost seems to be its mainstream business ...
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,147
4,765
Then I have nothing to say but feel sorry for that. In the EF, FD, and even FL eras, canon lenses used to be very usable even without much in-camera or post processing. Now cutting-cosy seems to be its mainstream business ...
Fair enough. The good thing is that you’re not being forced to buy these lenses.
 

dcsimages

I'm New Here
Feb 4, 2015
11
4
Looks like it would be very useful for real estate interiors. I'm assuming that as a prime lens that it would have less barrel distortion than an equivalent zoom.
 

petitBogueBogue

I'm New Here
May 13, 2015
16
0
Looks like it would be very useful for real estate interiors. I'm assuming that as a prime lens that it would have less barrel distortion than an equivalent zoom.
With all due respect to Canon, I think this is a consumer-grade rather than a professional-level lens. As a hobbyist, I will prefer using the lens for snapshot, landscape, and particularly vlogging. I think it will do a great job there.
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
178
65
Is it really a ff 16mm lens? The hood just doesn't seem to make sense for such an ultra-wide angle!
Are you saying the hood looks too deep for an ultra-wide angle? It does look deeper than I expected. I have to admit it did cross my mind that maybe this actually only covers a cropped area of the sensor. But I would expect some kind of designation on the lens if it weren’t a standard ff RF.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,147
4,765
Are you saying the hood looks too deep for an ultra-wide angle? It does look deeper than I expected. I have to admit it did cross my mind that maybe this actually only covers a cropped area of the sensor. But I would expect some kind of designation on the lens if it weren’t a standard ff RF.
Given the small size of the front element, a deeper hood is logical.

You’re correct that Canon would not call this the RF 16mm f/2.8 if it didn’t cover a FF image circle.
 

BBarn

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 2, 2020
73
60
Would expect performance commensurate with size, price and recent RF lenses. Think RF 50 f/1.8 performance, which it outwardly resembles. Very good but not great IQ, after required correction. Not likely a good candidate for Astro. I can see it being worth $300 to many enthusiasts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

danfaz

RSIX
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2015
105
74
www.1fineklick.com
Am I understanding correctly that you believe this 16mm lens will be an APSC RF lens, not a full-frame RC lens?
If so, would you care to elaborate on the reasons?

If it were an APSC lens, would we expect to see some sort of designation for that on the lens? I don't see any indication of APSC on the lettering in the image from Nokishita.

View attachment 200124
Another question is why would they be announcing an RF APS-C lens when there's no RF APS-C camera for it???