Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM

[stevelee]

IBIS is not so great on the wide end.

I was under the impression that IBIS works better with wide lenses than with teles.

 

[stevelee]

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.

An EF 50mm lens on an M camera is in portrait range. There are several to choose from.

 

[stevelee]

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.

I have an even older (and maybe even worse) version of that cheap lens. I shot total solar eclipse pictures with it on my Rebel. I found online test charts, and f/11 seemed to be the best setting for that lens, so I used it for all shots. Almost all of the CA went away, and I got great once-in-a-lifetime shots, clearly worth the $100 it added to the kit price.

 

[Random Orbits]

I was under the impression that IBIS works better with wide lenses than with teles.

I think it's a more prominent issue with video than stills, although I've seen it with ultrawides (15-35). The center and midframe are sharp but the corners are mushy. For video, it seems to "wobble" in the corners. It's like the IBIS doesn't have enough displacement to apply the full correction. IIRC, I saw it while trying to shoot waterfalls without a tripod. I took bursts, and the center and midframe would be sharp enough, but the corners in some of the images were blurry.

 

[stevelee]

I think it's a more prominent issue with video than stills, although I've seen it with ultrawides (15-35). The center and midframe are sharp but the corners are mushy. For video, it seems to "wobble" in the corners. It's like the IBIS doesn't have enough displacement to apply the full correction. IIRC, I saw it while trying to shoot waterfalls without a tripod. I took bursts, and the center and midframe would be sharp enough, but the corners in some of the images were blurry.

Interesting. My cameras do video stabilization by cropping, same as editing software will do. That’s an advantage of shooting 4K even if your final output is 1080p, you can do stabilization without losing much of anything. Obviously doing it all in post gives you the most control and potentially quality.

 

[joseph ferraro]

At that price point, IQ will always be at some level compromised (although ML lens 'correction' seems to produce marvels these days!), but for a walk-around prime lens at that length (especially a pancake) a lot of us would likely wear those compromises. If it had any sort of usable macro length that would just be the icing.

it should be able to do 1:3.8 at .26x magnification (asked a canon tech) which would be ok for some wide angle macro photography with a min focus distance of about 5.1 inches. Comparing that to a sigma 15mm which was about the same but the mfd was a bit longer. I also use a laowa 15mm macro, usually in the 1:4 range just so I can get some light on my subjects, so I'm looking forward to when the rf16mm is shipped to me. lighting at that distance is always an issue, ymmv.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I was under the impression that IBIS works better with wide lenses than with teles.

IBIS works best at the middle range.
Pretty much every long telephoto has lens stabilization.
Canon coordinated IBIS varies from lens to lens

 

[Joules]

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

But the RF 24-240mm 6.3, 24-105 5.5 and 14-35 4.0 do not cover the full FF sensor - not even before cropping, as their corners are not just dark, but actually black. Does Canon not call them FF lenses? Pretty sure they do.

Which I think is fair, after all for all but the absolute very widest focal length, they are just regular FF lenses. But in this thread, we're talking about a prime. How much of the image circle has to be black/cropped away before you can't consider a lens as being FF any more? Gives the Full in Full Frame some interesting notion.

Canon in a sense has given each of these lenses an individual crop factor, and named them after the equivalent focal length you end up with after applying this crop. They are all wider than their names suggest when viewing an uncorrected FF image. I've not seen Canon call them any different, or even acknowledge this property of them.

Which actually makes me wonder - are the given f numbers still the actual physical ones (meaning each of these lenses is actually slightly slower on the widest end than advertised) or are they also statements of equivalency that take the crop into account?

Probably the former.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But the RF 24-240mm 6.3, 24-105 5.5 and 14-35 4.0 do not cover the full FF sensor - not even before cropping, as their corners are not just dark, but actually black. Does Canon not call them FF lenses? Pretty sure they do.

A bit pedantic, I think. There’s a big difference between a bit of mechanical vignetting in the corners of a FF lens and an APS-C lens.

All of these numbers are rounded, usually in Canon’s favor. The optical formula for a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 might actually be something like 105-392mm f/4.7-5.9, and since the focal length applies at infinity focus, if that lens has substantial focus breathing then with a closer focus distance it might be something like 88-355mm.

Here’s a reported patent for the RF 14-35mm f/4L IS, the optical formula for which is actually 14.80-32.95mm f/4.1-4.58.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

But the RF 24-240mm 6.3, 24-105 5.5 and 14-35 4.0 do not cover the full FF sensor - not even before cropping, as their corners are not just dark, but actually black.

I guess that extra 1mm is not worth the stop of light vs the 15-35 2.8 then

Thanks for letting me know.
Now I am kind of glad it was impossible for me to get.

 

[SereneSpeed]

Will there be any reviews of the RF 16mm 2.8, before it starts shipping? I was counting on that when I placed my pre-order. Hopefully I get to see real world reviews and examples before the lens shows up at my door.

Any idea what the timeline has been for other lenses in the past?

 

[LogicExtremist]

Will there be any reviews of the RF 16mm 2.8, before it starts shipping? I was counting on that when I placed my pre-order. Hopefully I get to see real world reviews and examples before the lens shows up at my door.

Any idea what the timeline has been for other lenses in the past?

That's the clever market strategy that camera manufacturers use. It works something like this:

1. Build hype early! Give the market a drip feed of information and specs over many weeks or months before to get them worked up into a frenzy.
2. Limit the information that reviewers can reveal to the public to maintain the mystery and get them speculating, this creates public focus on the unreleased product.
3. Offer the public pre-orders so they can purchase the unreleased and unreviewed product they know nothing about. This allows money to be collected early, gives customers a sense of exclusivity, and the illusion that they have something before anyone else does. It also plays on the human fear of loss, FOMO (fear of missing out) is a strong motivator, people imagine there's a chance the product may sell out if they don’t order early, and may not have the chance to buy it on or soon after the release date..
4. Only allow full reviews (which play up the pros and play down the cons otherwise no more toys to review next time) to be posted up on or after the release date.
5. Delay shipments or limit stock as this produces a perception of scarcity and creates more demand. The psychological phenomenon of scarcity, in a marketing context, is the where, when a product or service is limited in availability (or perceived as being limited), it becomes more attractive.

If anyone needs a tool, they usually require objective information about quality, durability, performance, etc unless they're not concerned about these and any tool close to spec will suffice. If they just want it, that won't matter because these sale will be more emotionally driven. People buy with their emotions, and are influenced by subconscious motivations.

Short answer, Canon will make you wait, and they'll drag it out as they always do, it's how the marketing game is played to mess with human emotions and increase sales!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Will there be any reviews of the RF 16mm 2.8, before it starts shipping? I was counting on that when I placed my pre-order. Hopefully I get to see real world reviews and examples before the lens shows up at my door.

Any idea what the timeline has been for other lenses in the past?

Gordon Laing reviewed it

 

[SereneSpeed]

Gordon Laing reviewed it

I think he tried it more than reviewed it.

if he has a review that shows image quality, please let me know. All I’ve seen is the one where he shows the angle of view through three different video modes.

 

[SereneSpeed]

That's the clever market strategy that camera manufacturers use. It works something like this:

1. Build hype early! Give the market a drip feed of information and specs over many weeks or months before to get them worked up into a frenzy.
2. Limit the information that reviewers can reveal to the public to maintain the mystery and get them speculating, this creates public focus on the unreleased product.
3. Offer the public pre-orders so they can purchase the unreleased and unreviewed product they know nothing about. This allows money to be collected early, gives customers a sense of exclusivity, and the illusion that they have something before anyone else does. It also plays on the human fear of loss, FOMO (fear of missing out) is a strong motivator, people imagine there's a chance the product may sell out if they don’t order early, and may not have the chance to buy it on or soon after the release date..
4. Only allow full reviews (which play up the pros and play down the cons otherwise no more toys to review next time) to be posted up on or after the release date.
5. Delay shipments or limit stock as this produces a perception of scarcity and creates more demand. The psychological phenomenon of scarcity, in a marketing context, is the where, when a product or service is limited in availability (or perceived as being limited), it becomes more attractive.

If anyone needs a tool, they usually require objective information about quality, durability, performance, etc unless they're not concerned about these and any tool close to spec will suffice. If they just want it, that won't matter because these sale will be more emotionally driven. People buy with their emotions, and are influenced by subconscious motivations.

Short answer, Canon will make you wait, and they'll drag it out as they always do, it's how the marketing game is played to mess with human emotions and increase sales!

Thank you. I appreciate the thorough reply.

I guess if I’m lucky enough to get a copy at a decent time, I’ll use the 14 day return policy. It won’t take me long to figure out if it’s a lens for me, or not...

 

[ThatCW]

Looks like the RF 16mm F/2.8mm lens is shipping on time. Received this update from Amazon early today. As a reminder, I stumbled onto the Amazon listing for the RF 16m when it was momentarily up roughly a week before Canon's official announcement, hence the early September 7th order date.

 

[jeffa4444]

Received my RF 16mm f2.8 STM lens today from Park Cameras. Only ordered the lens this week so chuffed it arrived so fast.
My R6 outfit now has the RF 16mm f2.8, RF 50mm f1.8, RF 24-105mm f4L and the RF 70-200mm f4L this is my lighter weight Landscape kit along with my Lee Filters (got the wide angle adaptor ring for the 16 & 50mm this week) & Peak Design carbon travel tripod.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Received my RF 16mm f2.8 STM lens today from Park Cameras. Only ordered the lens this week so chuffed it arrived so fast.
My R6 outfit now has the RF 16mm f2.8, RF 50mm f1.8, RF 24-105mm f4L and the RF 70-200mm f4L this is my lighter weight Landscape kit along with my Lee Filters (got the wide angle adaptor ring for the 16 & 50mm this week) & Peak Design carbon travel tripod.

Keen to get some reviews of this lens

 

[Jethro]

Gordon Laing's review - (after noting the obvious limitations) very highly recommended:

canon-rf-16mm-f2-8-stm-review

After Neuro's recent analysis of the actual effect of corrections on the RF 14-35mm in a different thread, which presumably will be similar for the 16mm, I'm now a lot more interested than I previously was. It's not a 'priority' lens for me, but one I'll probably eventually get.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Just watched Gordon Laing's review:

Interestingly, the RF 16mm f2.8 and the RF 14-35 f/4 have the same problem with soft corners that don't sharpen up with smaller apertures, both being software-corrected, while the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 has optically sharper corners.

What was surprising though in the review was that the corners of the RF 16mm f2.8 were slightly sharper than those of the RF 14-35 f/4. Is this a case of prime vs zoom, with slightly better prime results when both use software corrected corners?