Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM

[Loswr]

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?

 

[gruhl28]

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?

What struck me about the review was that he said the corners of the 16mm improved upon stopping down, which contradicts other results. Although I can't say that I saw much of a difference apart from vignetting getting better, but maybe the resolution of the video limited how much I could see. I was also surprised that the 14-35 didn't look significantly better than the 16mm, which also contradicts other results that have shown the 14-35 to be very good in the corners even with the distortion correction. My tentative conclusion (hope) is that perhaps the 16mm is better in the corners at longer distances than close up. See my comment and Neuro's reply in the 14-35 thread about this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...tortion-correction-testing.41022/#post-917468

 

[LogicExtremist]

What struck me about the review was that he said the corners of the 16mm improved upon stopping down, which contradicts other results. Although I can't say that I saw much of a difference apart from vignetting getting better, but maybe the resolution of the video limited how much I could see. I was also surprised that the 14-35 didn't look significantly better than the 16mm, which also contradicts other results that have shown the 14-35 to be very good in the corners even with the distortion correction. My tentative conclusion (hope) is that perhaps the 16mm is better in the corners at longer distances than close up. See my comment and Neuro's reply in the 14-35 thread about this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/rf-14-35mm-f-4l-is-–-distortion-correction-testing.41022/#post-917468

Agreed, it appears that the corners do look better at longer distances on the RF 16mm, and Neuro's testing at longer distances was very insightful, and simulated real-world use more accurately.

When Gordon stopped down the lenses in the review, the corner sharpness increase was very slight, not in the order of magnitude that you normally see on other RF lenses in the same tier such as the budget RF 35 and RF 50.

 

[AlanF]

My RF 16mm f/2.8 arrived today from Canon. I recall @neuroanatomist posting that DxO PL5 gives a significantly wider field of view from RAW than the jpeg out of camera with the 14-35. I found the same with just the couple of shots taken today, with the central section of the image from RAW occupying fewer pixels width. I'll check it out tomorrow taking images of a brick wall to see if there is more distortion with PL5.

 

[tron]

I trust your results Alan. They will give us useful info just like with your telephoto lenses. The next thing is maybe a comparison with your 16-35 f/4L IS (If I recall correctly you have one) to see if the field of view of 16mm after correction is comparable.

 

[AlanF]

@tron I did the tests in a 15 minute break in the rain taking photos of a brick wall at 0.8m distance, using the R6 with either the RF 16mm or the EF 16-35mm f/4 with adapter. Each shot was taken as a jpg and RAW, and the RAW processed using DxO PL5 and its lens correction profiles.

RF 16mm
Out of camera jpg had the bricks 1.093x larger than those processed as RAW. Interestingly, whereas the ooc jpgs are the standard 3648x5472px, the processed RAW are 3648x5981px, which is a factor of 1.093 wider. So, if the 16mm ooc jpgs are truly 16mm focal length, the focal length from RAW corresponds to 14.6mm

EF 16mm
The ooc jpgs were distorted, showing any in-camera correction isn't good, or non-existent. The processed RAW gave bricks 1.074x the size of those from the ooc jpgs from the RF 16mm. This corresponds to a minimum focal length of the zoom of 17.2mm.

So, it seems like @neuroanatomist found with the RF 14-35mm, Canon's internal correction of the horrible barrel distortion works by cropping the extremes of the barrel before or after corrections, whereas the DxO PL5 uses a wider field. The extreme corners from DxO are mushy, but the areas on the RAW corresponding to the extreme corners of out of camera jpegs were as good if not better.

Checked it out at 22cm and 19m, and the results are the same, 9% larger field of view from RAW.

Edit: calculated the focal length directly from image size and it's ~14.4mm for RAW processed image, and ~15.8mm for out of camera jpegs.

 

[tron]

Many Thanks Alan. Detailed analysis as always. It looks like RF16mm is a great value for money and a very decent (after PP) UWA lens.