Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM

[FrenchFry]

“Buy it again” is grayed (whited) out. On other products, it’s an active gold/yellow button. So, when I hit the “Buy it again” button, it just takes me to a “Your Orders” page, on the “buy again” tab. It shows everything else I’ve ordered and could reorder. But it does NOT show my pre-order (maybe that’s why) of the RF 16mm f/2.8.

Thanks for checking!
I've sometimes been able to view product information for an item Amazon no longer sells this way.

The screenshots that you shared have some interesting pieces of information. For instance, it does look like the lens has a control ring for those that feel this is a "must have".

Also, the release date of October 14th is somewhat encouraging (4 weeks from announcement). Here's hoping the R3 will come sooner or share this date, instead of shipping in November!

 

[FrenchFry]

For me, I am not too bothered if there is no IS as I would primarily be using it for landscape. At that focal length, it would allow a sufficiently slow shutter speed anyway, even if using it handheld. What would be important is IQ. If it is at the level of the RF 35mm 1.8, or close enough, then I would likely get this instead of the 14-35 as I don't like the latter's vignetting and distortion at the 14-15 end. Otherwise, I will have to stomach the 14-35's imperfections as I really like its weight & size, and that it costs considerably less than the 15-35 f2.8.

Just curious, what makes you think that this $299 RF 16mm lens will have less vignetting and rely less on software corrections than the $1699 RF 14-35mm L lens? If anything, Canon's acceptance of vignetting/distortion on the vastly more expensive lens would suggest to me that there would be nothing preventing Canon from using this approach on the 16mm prime, which could be smaller, lighter, and less expensive to produce if it relied on software corrections. I think that reliance on software correction may become the "new normal" if it's already making its way into L lenses.
If you get a chance to try out the 14-35mm lens, it's great fun to use and extremely versatile as a zoom that goes from ultra-wide to near-normal. A 16mm prime might be a good addition for time when you want to go light, but would have a really hard time checking all of the same boxes at the 14-35mm.

 

[FrenchFry]

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.

Thanks for clarifying!

I see the following:
- 35mm 1.8 is a 0.5x "macro" that has macro in the name: Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM Lens
- 50mm 1.8 has 0.25x magnification but does not feature macro in the name: Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens
- 85mm 2.0 is a 0.5x "macro" that has macro in the name: Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM Lens

The 16mm seems to look a lot more like the 50mm lens, and also does not have macro in the lens name, so it would probably be less than 0.5x and closer to 0.25x, even if it were a pseudo-macro lens. This is less exciting, but would still be higher than other RF ultra wide lenses (0.1x on the 15-35 at 15mm and 0.15x on the 14-35 at 14mm), though I don't know how much higher as their magnification at 16mm is not published.

Still a cool lens for little scenes of mushrooms or leaf cutter ants, etc., just not quite as cool as I momentarily hoped.

Thank you for sharing your findings!

 

[LeBlobe]

they have a rf 24mm macro annonced, i would be suprised if this one was macro too

 

[neuroanatomist]

they have a rf 24mm macro annonced,

Announced where?

 

[HMC11]

Just curious, what makes you think that this $299 RF 16mm lens will have less vignetting and rely less on software corrections than the $1699 RF 14-35mm L lens? If anything, Canon's acceptance of vignetting/distortion on the vastly more expensive lens would suggest to me that there would be nothing preventing Canon from using this approach on the 16mm prime, which could be smaller, lighter, and less expensive to produce if it relied on software corrections. I think that reliance on software correction may become the "new normal" if it's already making its way into L lenses.
If you get a chance to try out the 14-35mm lens, it's great fun to use and extremely versatile as a zoom that goes from ultra-wide to near-normal. A 16mm prime might be a good addition for time when you want to go light, but would have a really hard time checking all of the same boxes at the 14-35mm.

Those are good points. I am actually not expecting much for a $299 lens, just hoping that its IQ can come close to or match the rf 35mm. Between a $1699 and $299, I can more easily accept the vignetting/distortion for the cheaper lens. Will definitely try out the 14-35 when it becomes available. Had been looking towards buying that before noting the need for fairly substantial corrections at the edges. Still vacillating.

 

[H. Jones]

Holy crap Canon, let me give you my money

No matter what the image quality on this thing is, I am totally sold on a nifty-16 lens. Totally a "throw-it-in-the-bag-and-forget-about-it" lens for when a rainbow shows up and you can't fit it in the view of the 24-70.

It definitely makes me somewhat reconsider if I want the 14-35 or the 15-35mm. I was leaning towards the 14-35 for traveling light vs a larger 15-35, but I could easily pick up this to toss in my shoulder bag on a vacation and forget about, and then have the 15-35mm for paid work. It's an excellent emergency back-up, and excellent wide-angle tiny lightweight lens for remote cameras.

 

[HenWin]

It appears to me that the lens in the photo--on the left--has some serious finger prints on it!

 

[ThatCW]

Combine the RF 16mm f/2.8 with the RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 and every travel lens contingency is covered. The RF 16mm f/2.8 for low light, tight space, indoor quarters like museums, historical buildings, cathedrals, etc. perfectly compliments the RF 24-240.

 

[LeBlobe]

Announced where?

Here's confirmation of the RF 100-400, RF 24 Macro and RF 18-45. Sadly, they're quite delayed

When we posted our original RF lens roadmap, a lot of the lenses listed were expected to launch in 2021, and as we have seen, not many have come to fruition.

www.canonrumors.com

not sure if it qualifies as annonced or confirmed or soon hehe

 

[tigers media]

Continue reading...

Great to get some good news finally for cheaper lenses for us plebs! 16mm very cool focal length I'm definitely keen on this one looks tiny be great for travel and hiking. things are looking up..

 

[neuroanatomist]

not sure if it qualifies as annonced or confirmed or soon hehe

Thanks, and yes – definitely not an announcement, and probably not even confirmation. But...hopeful.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

At this price, it may be a very good astro option. Will wait for reviews on sharpness/vignetting/comma though.

 

[H. Jones]

Another immediate thought, this is a definitive vlogging lens. Tiny lightweight lens that is ultra wide for selfie mode.

It doesn't sound like it makes sense for thr R3, but I bet you the R camera coming in January or whenever the rumor was is going to be a tiny vlogging camera with no EVF, which would be a perfect companion to this.

 

[slclick]

Control rings are nice but I can shot with or without, not a deal breaker. You have got to be flexible, right? Looks good.

 

[dlee13]

It’s beautiful, I think I’m in love

 

[neuroanatomist]

The screenshots that you shared have some interesting pieces of information. For instance, it does look like the lens has a control ring for those that feel this is a "must have".

It has one ring (cue Tolkien), which can be used as a control ring or a manual focus ring. The higher-end RF lenses have a dedicated control ring (until you get to the very high end – the 400/2.8 and 600/4 lack a dedicated control ring).

 

[unfocused]

If this is correct, let me say that I was totally wrong about the pricing. I did not think Canon would release a 16mm 2.8 lens at such a low cost. If it has any type of decent image quality, this will be a no-brainer. I'd love the idea of putting this little lens in my bag to have available for those times when I want an ultra wide.

 

[rontele7]

A perfect lens! The 15-35 is crazy expensive and huge, and the 14-35 is slow at f/4. This lens gives everyone the ability to shoot wide and fast.

 

[dlee13]

From Nokishita