Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM

[noncho]

16 2.8 is great for my walkaround prime setup with RF 35 1.8 and RF 85 2.0.
Yes, it's probably not well corrected top quality prime for that price, but it's a good option.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I´ll preorder the 16mm asap.

I just came back from a three hiking trip (actually 10-day trip, but 3-day hiking) and carried then 24-105mm F4 and 70-200mm F4 with me (both near perfect for hiking imho). All the time I figured, I can't/ wouldn't want to carry a third zoom lense (in this case an UWA F4) but this makes perfect sense now!

Furthermore, I'm not overpaying for the 14-35mm F4, so I'll get the RF 16mm and keep it as long as the prices for L lenses are sky-high.

 

[Kit.]

A last choice would be to use a Sony 24m sensor, which will matches the "annoying a lot of fanboys" rumor. Seriously I think this does have a chance.

I don't remember Canon ever using phase detect autofocus on Sony sensors in Canon cameras. So, autofocus on such a camera would likely be subpar.

 

[SteveC]

Canon showed with the 24-240 and 14-35 that the corrections are effective. But if they’re needed it means a loss of corner sharpness and increased noise at the edges of the frame. For a 10x superzoom or a $300 UWA prime, I think those are reasonable trade offs. For a $1700 L lens, I’m not sure that’s true.

I would become very concerned if they started doing this sort of thing on L lenses. As far as I can recall, it's a characteristic of non-L lenses only. (It is kind of a turn off to me, so I've stuck to L lenses, so far...other peoples' mileage may vary of course.)

 

[neuroanatomist]

I would become very concerned if they started doing this sort of thing on L lenses. As far as I can recall, it's a characteristic of non-L lenses only. (It is kind of a turn off to me, so I've stuck to L lenses, so far...other peoples' mileage may vary of course.)

They’ve done it already on the new RF 14-35/4.

 

[unfocused]

I'm only a little surprised by the number of people, myself included, who are looking at this lens and saying they would buy this instead of the 14-35 f4 L zoom. I wonder what this might do to the market for that lens.

Of course it depends on the image quality of the 16 f2.8, which we won't know until it is released. But, I've often said the market ultimately determines the price of any product and I could see that definitely being the case with the 14-35 once Covid shortages subside. Bold prediction: within 2-3 years the 14-35 f4 will be in the same range as the 16-35 f4 EF lens.

 

[unfocused]

A gimbal and IBIS stabilize in completely different ways. There are movements on a gimbal such as rotation around a focal point, lifting the camera, maintaining completely level horizon lines and stabilizing footage when walking where a gimbal just can’t be matched. It’s highly customizable as well, so you can plan a movement and command the gimbal to behave the way that best fits that footage - and save those common movements to custom functions on some gimbals.

That said, IBIS is extremely valuable for simulating a monopod for locked footage and smoothing out handheld footage - two areas where a gimbal is either too combersome to warrant setting up or just annoying to use for something simple like that. IBIS also keeps more of that organic run/gun feel while a gimbal feels and looks robotic and pristine. So I use both for different shots.

Thanks! Very informative.

 

[danfaz]

Most likely a purchase for me. Perfect for the rare occasions I'd need or want an UWA lens, and I won't feel bad I'm not using a lens I spent around 2 grand on.

 

[frjmacias]

Definitely hitting preorder on this one as soon as they go live again. This would be the perfect ultra wide to pair with my R5 for travel.

 

[esglord]

If that's the price and small size, I'm in

 

[Czardoom]

Canon showed with the 24-240 and 14-35 that the corrections are effective. But if they’re needed it means a loss of corner sharpness and increased noise at the edges of the frame. For a 10x superzoom or a $300 UWA prime, I think those are reasonable trade offs. For a $1700 L lens, I’m not sure that’s true.

I try not to over-analyze my lenses and certainly don't do any test chart comparisons, but I do own the Olympus 12-100mm f/4 lens and just recently bought the Nikon Z 14-30mm - both lenses use auto-correction to correct distortion. Perhaps if you are an extreme pixel peeper, you will notice the effects of the auto-correction, but in my experience (and many reviews I have read) the corner sharpness on the Olympus is very good, and the Nikon's corner sharpness was better than my Canon 16-35 f/4 L - used on the same camera (Nikon Z5, with adapter for the Canon lens.) So, at least in my experience with these "pro level" lenses, you aren't trading off anything. Again, that's my un-scientific experience and others experience may differ.

 

[DBH]

Gritch, Gritch, Gritch. Canon won't make inexpensive lenses.
Gritch, Gritch, Gritch. I don't like the inexpensive lenses Canon made.
Gritch, Gritch, Gritch. If I owned Canon I would . . . . . . .

R6, 800, 100-500, 100 Macro, 35 Macro, 50 f1.8, both Extenders, 24-105 L

 

[David Raboin]

Thoughts on the 16mm... This lens might be one of the fruits of the RF mount. This is the first inexpensive, ultra-wide prime from any manufacturer. If this lens performs well and doesn't rely on in-camera tricks to limit distortion, Canon will have a huge hit on their hands. The RF 16mm is a shot at Rokinon. It's also a potential unique draw to the Canon system. We might have an ultra-wide plastic fantastic. That's exciting. Or, it could be cheap junk and rely on software fixes. Wait and see.

 

[raptor3x]

Except that the IBIS may not offer much improvement in the real world. Actual real world data on the IBIS performance with the RF 50 f/1.8 is scarce, and what there is doesn't seem all that great (about 2 stops). Perhaps a non-IS UWA will fare better (not holding my breath).

That depends quite a bit on how the IBIS testing was conducted. Most user testing that I see ends up getting done at very short subject distances where all stabilization systems become much less effective as translational tremors contribute much more to image blurring than at longer distances where IBIS effectiveness is normally reported.

 

[Hector1970]

They were certainly short on cheaper RF lenses. This looks like a nice little lens. Compact and lightweight and will probably do the job.
Canon went very highend with the initial RF lens (which wasn't a bad strategy) but it needed to get cheaper and lighter lens out to go with the lighter cameras. This is a good start.

 

[Grhmbl]

sniff.. instead of a 16mm, I wish we get a 10 or 11mm prime. Why does Canon leave this niche to Laowa, Samyang etc.?

 

[twoheadedboy]

sniff.. instead of a 16mm, I wish we get a 10 or 11mm prime. Why does Canon leave this niche to Laowa, Samyang etc.?

Nothing saying we won't...but that would have vastly less utility for most people than this lens will. Minus a 24mm (which is forthcoming, this will give Canon a solid range of affordable primes from 16 - 100mm on RF. I would like to see a 135mm and a 28mm too but I'm just speaking for what 99% of the world needs and wants.

 

[FrenchFry]

They were certainly short on cheaper RF lenses. This looks like a nice little lens. Compact and lightweight and will probably do the job.
Canon went very highend with the initial RF lens (which wasn't a bad strategy) but it needed to get cheaper and lighter lens out to go with the lighter cameras. This is a good start.

I agree, it just seems like these lenses would pair well with smaller/lighter/more budget friendly bodies (ie, RP), and are a bit of an odd choice to release simultaneously with the biggest, heaviest mirrorless body released to-date.

 

[FrenchFry]

Continue reading...

I wonder if Amazon did/will accidentally leak the R3 price?

 

[Traveler]

This is gonna be the lens when I don’t want to carry my future 14-35 in my bag
A wide lens “just-in-case-I-need-it”