Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM

aceflibble

EOS RP
May 8, 2015
355
192
Also, what about the size of the front element? Optical vignetting will deem to be massive if the lens is for ff!

Uh, you might want to take a look at the vignetting of... *checks notes*... literally every RF lens released to date. Every lens is about a stop darker than the nearest EF equivalent. Canon, regardless of whether anyone thinks they're right or not to do so, have decided vignetting is one of the aspects of a lens they do not need to correct optically any more.

I'm assuming that as a prime lens that it would have less barrel distortion than an equivalent zoom.

Same deal here. While the distortion on RF primes hasn't been so different to EF as the vignetting has been, in general they still requiring a little more correction. I can't imagine, for one second, that Canon would make this small 16mm have less distortion than, for example, the 14-35mm f/4L which they're charging about, what, six times the price for? Though, yes, all other things being equal you would expect a prime to have less distortion than a zoom, considering the price and size they've gotten this lens down to and how loose they've been with optical corrections so far, the smart money is betting on this lens being practically fisheye uncorrected.

For reference, Fuji's compact 16mm f/2.8 also has heavy barrel distortion which relies on mandatory opcode corrections, and that lens only has to generate an APS-C image circle. The old EF 20mm f/2.8 has strong wavy distortion, and that's a much larger lens and a narrower angle of view.
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
460
576
Since this lens is probably going to have some heavy distortion uncorrected, it would have been fun for Canon to add an option to the lens so that you can choose between fisheye and rectilinear when taking photos. Maybe this could be done in the menus, and it can certainly be added in post as a "correction" option, but it would have been really fun to see a switch to toggle between the two so you can see the final fisheye effect while shooting as well (not just the final rectilinear effect).
To me, at least, this extra feature would have been far more valuable and useful than the SA control that was added to the 100mm macro.
I fully understand that this lens is being offered at a lower price point. Just pointing out a way that Canon's marketing could make the software corrections more interesting and could sell it as a feature that can be leveraged for interesting results rather than something that most people will complain about even if the final product looks great.
 

aceflibble

EOS RP
May 8, 2015
355
192
^^ In the same fashion I've long wanted them to change the in-camera vignette correction to offer reduced levels of correction, since a little bit of vignette can sometimes help to make a center or just-off-center subject really stand out. Natural-looking vignette is one of the effects that lightweight phone and tablet editing apps don't do very well, so for those times when you want to throw an image up online quickly, being able to correct some but not all the vignette on an in-camera jpg would be useful.
I do also often find distortion correction is too strong and ends up 'over-correcting' into the opposite type of distortion, so any kind of choice in exactly how distortion correction was applied for any lens, not just these quasi-fisheye wide angles, would be nice. Maybe they could offer no correction, one third correction, two thirds correction, full correction. Doesn't have to be a full Lightroom- or Capture One-style distortion control, but yeah, any kind of additional options are always good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry
Oct 4, 2020
7
12
^^ In the same fashion I've long wanted them to change the in-camera vignette correction to offer reduced levels of correction, since a little bit of vignette can sometimes help to make a center or just-off-center subject really stand out. Natural-looking vignette is one of the effects that lightweight phone and tablet editing apps don't do very well, so for those times when you want to throw an image up online quickly, being able to correct some but not all the vignette on an in-camera jpg would be useful.
I do also often find distortion correction is too strong and ends up 'over-correcting' into the opposite type of distortion, so any kind of choice in exactly how distortion correction was applied for any lens, not just these quasi-fisheye wide angles, would be nice. Maybe they could offer no correction, one third correction, two thirds correction, full correction. Doesn't have to be a full Lightroom- or Capture One-style distortion control, but yeah, any kind of additional options are always good.
DPP4 offers Digital Lens Optimizer and peripheral illumination correction on a slider. It's a terrible program, but I love how Canon renders its images and feel like using other programs makes all the cameras look sort of the same, whereas using DPP4 makes it such that you can do RAW processing, but still get Canon algorithms, processing, and rendering.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,988
1,347
I wonder about flare, its IQ at the edges and about coma...

I do not expect much for distortion and vignetting.

I understand it is cheap but to be useful for more than landscapes it has to have some qualities...

But the size is certainly its superpower!

P.S It can also serve as a cap for R cameras :LOL:
 

aceflibble

EOS RP
May 8, 2015
355
192
DPP4 offers Digital Lens Optimizer and peripheral illumination correction on a slider. It's a terrible program, but I love how Canon renders its images and feel like using other programs makes all the cameras look sort of the same, whereas using DPP4 makes it such that you can do RAW processing, but still get Canon algorithms, processing, and rendering.
It only offers that fine control for files from certain camera models. I, reluctantly, have spent most of the last year and a half working deep in DPP and the Canon colour profile formats (to enable in-camera split toning and a bunch of other effects; there's a lot Canon cameras can do that Canon just ignore), and as I've found to the detriment of my spare time and sanity, not everything that works in DPP with one model of camera necessarily works with another. Some functions are greyed out for some cameras, while others are enabled but only with basic on/off functionality.

But, more to the point, I was talking about more options for the in-camera processing, not processing raws at a desktop.
 

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
238
443
I’m pretty amped that they specifically mentioned starscapes in their marketing. If it had issues with coma or astigmatism, I expect they would limit it to landscape, architecture, and v-logging; no? Why mention starscapes if it’ll do a bad job?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,132
4,736
Why mention starscapes if it’ll do a bad job?
Marketing. Canon said this about the EF 75-300 III (cheap, low-IQ Rebel kit telezoom): “The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch.” Luxury, like an L-series lens.
 

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
238
443
Marketing. Canon said this about the EF 75-300 III (cheap, low-IQ Rebel kit telezoom): “The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch.” Luxury, like an L-series lens.
That wasn’t necessary. Let the reviewers ruin it for me. I’m enjoying myself right now. :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: neuroanatomist

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
660
371
Canon's was/is a 19mm, the FL 19mm f/3.5, and it is a huge pain to use, utterly terrible optically, and architecture is the last thing you'd want to use it for thanks to its extremely heavy and non-linear distortion. It came with a hotshoe viewfinder attachment to shoot with the mirror up.
They later made a retrofocus version which could be used with the mirror down, but it's a much larger and heavier lens, and the optics are no better.
You imply I said something incorrect, but what specifically?

I never said it wasn't a pain. In fact I assumed "mirror-up" implied it was a TOTAL pain.

I never said it was good optically, but at least meant to imply it was better than the same size or money could deliver any other way at that point on the technology ladder.

What would be preferable for architecture, at least for projects that record an entire room or space in one shot? Distortion from hell? If it's that or no shot at all, would someone working on architecture not use it? Tip of the hat, you do seem to know this subject, so what, pray tell, WOULD people have used?

Finally, 21mm, 19mm, sorry for my mistake. What do you want to bet that it was actually not exactly 19mm either? I read about these lenses a quarter century ago and they were pertinent to the discussion, in a way that the difference between 19mm and 21mm isn't of any importance whatsoever.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
660
371
Canon should have let me design their lens line. I could have done a better job. They need to work backwards from expected users.

A "street user" (and any other pro who could use a wide little prime) needs weather sealing and maybe higher physical strength. I haven't yet looked into IQ but the street user would be happy to pay twice this for really killer specs. (Though maybe there's no way to massively increase quality without an utterly different form factor. Or maybe quality's already great.)

A "hobbyist" needs a few more features, whether macro or IS or some other bells and whistles. (Even weather sealing might count.)

This sounds like a great lens, but might just miss fitting either user type perfectly.
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
178
65
Has anyone seen any early image quality reviews yet for the 16mm? I thought some reviewers might have had a copy to test and just had to wait until the official announcement to publish, but I haven’t seen any optical test results yet.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,132
4,736
Canon should have let me design their lens line. I could have done a better job. They need to work backwards from expected users.
Lol. While I have little doubt you could have done a great job of designing a lens lineup for you personally, I have zero doubt Canon understands the lens market and the expected users’ desires far better than you.
 

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
238
443
Canon should have let me design their lens line. I could have done a better job. They need to work backwards from expected users.

A "street user" (and any other pro who could use a wide little prime) needs weather sealing and maybe higher physical strength. I haven't yet looked into IQ but the street user would be happy to pay twice this for really killer specs. (Though maybe there's no way to massively increase quality without an utterly different form factor. Or maybe quality's already great.)

A "hobbyist" needs a few more features, whether macro or IS or some other bells and whistles. (Even weather sealing might count.)

This sounds like a great lens, but might just miss fitting either user type perfectly.
I think Canon did a perfect job. Your design would add a lot of cost that I don’t want to pay. Two things first and foremost. 16mm and under $300. Squeeze whatever performance you can into that package and huge sales will follow. I think that’s a better understanding of the market than what you present.
 

aceflibble

EOS RP
May 8, 2015
355
192
You imply I said something incorrect, but what specifically?
You said "mainly for architecture use". That lens was never marketed as such—you can find archives of all of Canon's material from then—and architectural photography at the time was dominated by large format, though even on 35mm there were at that point shift lenses which were being offered for this task. The pancake (mirror lock-up) 19mm was very specifically advertised and sold for street photography.
I never said it was good optically,
If someone says "I'm not sure this lens will have good optics" and you reply with "well there was this other lens before that did alright", you're very clearly trying to say there is little, if not no, reason to doubt the optics of the new lens.

Don't bring up something as a conversation point if you're going to fall back on "well I don't know, it was a long time ago, it's not really my thing". If you're that unsure about something then don't try to put it forward as a talking point, let alone as a potential example to reassure (or dissuade) someone about a new product.

And for the record, yes, you are right that the 19mm wasn't quite literally 19mm; it was 18.7mm. Really struck upon the weakspot there, good job.


Has anyone seen any early image quality reviews yet for the 16mm? I thought some reviewers might have had a copy to test and just had to wait until the official announcement to publish, but I haven’t seen any optical test results yet.
1) It's only been in peoples' hands for a couple of days, far too early for any actual "reviews" of it.
2) Most of the media are just focusing on the R3; apparently there are very few actual working units of the 100-400 and 16mm to hand out. (And they don't draw clicks like a new body does.)
3) The few people who have gotten to play with the 16mm have only been allowed to report on the in-camera processing from the back of the camera. Nobody has been allowed to keep files. I've already seen one store proudly proclaim the lens has no distortion, only to then admit they forgot to check if the camera was correcting that automatically and that they hadn't looked at even the jpgs, let alone raws. Literally, everyone who has touched the 100-400 and 16 have only seen the images on the rear screen of the camera.

Canon have gotten stricter with their embargoes lately and nobody who has touched the R3, 100-400 or 16mm yet can really say anything about any of them other than repeating Canon's marketing. It's going to be late October before anyone who can actually talk freely about them will be able to get hold of one and use it for long enough to have some meaningful results.
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
178
65
1) It's only been in peoples' hands for a couple of days, far too early for any actual "reviews" of it.
2) Most of the media are just focusing on the R3; apparently there are very few actual working units of the 100-400 and 16mm to hand out. (And they don't draw clicks like a new body does.)
3) The few people who have gotten to play with the 16mm have only been allowed to report on the in-camera processing from the back of the camera. Nobody has been allowed to keep files. I've already seen one store proudly proclaim the lens has no distortion, only to then admit they forgot to check if the camera was correcting that automatically and that they hadn't looked at even the jpgs, let alone raws. Literally, everyone who has touched the 100-400 and 16 have only seen the images on the rear screen of the camera.

Canon have gotten stricter with their embargoes lately and nobody who has touched the R3, 100-400 or 16mm yet can really say anything about any of them other than repeating Canon's marketing. It's going to be late October before anyone who can actually talk freely about them will be able to get hold of one and use it for long enough to have some meaningful results.
In the past, reviewers have often been given equipment well before it has been released, and did testing, and were able to publish their results right after the official announcements. But as you say, in this case it seems that did not happen, especially for the lenses. And reviewers do seem more interested in the advanced R3 than the consumer 16mm and 100-400mm.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,180
887
Davidson, NC
I do not care so much about vignetting. All wide angle lenses have a few stops of vignetting wide open and that can be corrected quite wll in Lightroom. Distortion is another thing though. It bends the whole image. A secret distortion correction is quite a fake. The photo might still look sharp, but usually you have to rotate an image a fraction of a degree. That means the same image is edited, then rasterized and saved, then edited again ans rasterized again. With each rasterization you loose some information. So it would be much better to to the distortion correction and the rotation in a single step. In some situations distortion correction would not even be needed, but Canon DPP does not even fgve us the option to disable it.

Doing distortion correction in the EVF in real time might also drain the battery a little.
But I’d that what Lightroom actually does, or is it more like ACR in saving corrections as instructions that are applied together in one swoop?