Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM

EOS 4 Life

Sep 20, 2020
I’m not sure why some people are complaining that this 16 mm prime has no IS. The newest Canon R series have IBIS. More and more Canon cameras are likely to have IBIS to remain competitive.

look at all the Tamron lenses for Sony. No IS built in. This helps keep costs down and we all like that, right?
IBIS is not so great on the wide end.


EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 2, 2020
... I expect Canon can't make an even smaller kit zoom that can still project a 35mm (or only almost-35mm, in the case of the 24-105) image circle to match the RP body type.

Canon could make a smaller kit FF zoom. Nikon has a small 24-50 kit lens for their Z mount, so a kit zoom smaller than the 24-105 is obviously possible. Perhaps Canon thinks the 24-105 is sufficient.

I'll admit that I find the idea of a 24-50 rather limiting. But as a happy RP/24-105 user, there are times I would prefer to carry a smaller zoom lens.

H. Jones

Aug 1, 2014
The fact that the 16mm and 50mm share basically an identical size makes me hopeful there's more lenses in the pipeline for this form factor. I think there's room for a 24mm at this size, though I could see Canon pushing the 24mm to the size of the 35mm f/1.8 due to the rumored macro feature.

Someone else on here mentioned it would be a good size for a 40mm, as well, but I do wonder if Canon can make a truly pancake lens like the EF 40mm for the RF mount. I know the 16/50mm aren't big, but they're just slightly bigger than a true pancake lens.

That said, I'm aware the RF lenses are technically smaller overall when you include the flange distance, since you would need a bigger camera to mount the EF 40mm.
  • Like
Reactions: sanj


EOS 5D Mark IV
Dec 18, 2011
1 The RF 16mm seems to be a very interesting lens for video with EOS Rxyz in tight environments and low light.
2 On the C70 it converts to a 24mm equiv lens which is interesting in this context.
3 Last but not least, if vignetting is below 5 stops at f/8 and distortion is very low, it might be a great 16mm option.

Maybe it isn't that bad optically without corrections because they have optimzed the small front lens large back lens principle.

Finally it will be a 2nd RF lens which draws lots of people into the RF lens user group and lets some people switch to RF glass totally.

For me I am not shure if I should buy the this one or the EF 16-35 f/4 which would be compatible with my EF system cameras and the RF system.


Sep 10, 2016
But the IS on the RF 15-35/2.8 allowed handheld 0.5s to 1s shots. Great for street photos (blurred people, blurred water fountains, etc)
So why couldn’t the same low handheld shutter speeds be attainable with a Canon body with IBIS and this 16 mm non IS lens?


from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
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.
If you have the megapixels, then the process you describe shouldn't be noticeable. I do agree your description is correct. I'll meet you half-way: except for say macro copying stands, if distortion is important enough to correct, then you usually have to be adjusting camera rotation a degree or two, and/or fixing converging perspective and so on, and I think it'd be best to do those in a single operation along with correcting distortion.

I don't think lens distortion is strong enough to be a real factor in the EVF. Maybe I'm just a superhero from shooting Leica M's and Mamiya 7's but I'm used to what's in the viewfinder being only indicative of what's in the final image. No way that I'd care to have perspective corrected in the EVF UNLESS the distortion was huuuuge.


wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
I doubt that there will be much, if any weather-sealing, but I'm also not that concerned. Just don't use it in wet conditions without covering the camera and if it does get damaged, it's not a major loss.
If it looks likely that a lens (or camera) might get exposed to rain or water splashes, then wise users would take precautions to protect it. I usually keep a polythene bag in my pocket for precisely that eventuality.

But it's likely that some camera users will over-estimate the degree of weather-sealing provided by camera and lens manufacturers. Also I think it's pretty safe to say that *all* of us have at some time found ourselves caught out in a shower with an unprotected camera.

Virtually any camera or lens will survive a few spots of rain, but it's important for users to understand the *degree* of weather-sealing, and to choose gear accordingly.

Also bear in mind that weather-sealing isn't just about protecting gear from direct contact with water, it's also about protecting the internals from humidity. "Covering the camera" won't protect it from humidity. A budget lens is unlikely to last long if regularly exposed to high humidity, but a weather-sealed L lens will last for years in such conditions.

Aussie shooter
Dec 6, 2016
Regarding astrophotography, I fear that vignetting will be a big problem with the 16 mm. The pancake EF-S 24mm and EF 40 mm, as well as even the RF 35mm, have pretty severe vignetting, so I suspect that even if coma is well controlled (and that's a pretty big 'if'), there will be significant vignetting with this 16 mm. I'd like to be wrong, but I doubt this will be a good lens for astro. Personally, I don't really care whether distortion is corrected with software if the end result is still sharp, as seems to be the case with the 14-35, but software correction for vignetting is nothing but a radial (or reverse radial) exposure boost and increases noise, one of the main issues for astro.
That is my fear but hopefully I am wrong. I would make for a great light astro lens if the IQ is good enough. And if it is there is no question that I will get it.

David - Sydney

CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
Hey, a guy can dream, right? :) Yes, 14mm would be better for astro but I'd MUCH rather carry around this 16mm lens than my awkward-sized 14mm Rokinon.
You mean dream that Canon will release a UWA astro landscape prime with great coma/corner sharpness at a reasonable price and size? Hard to what niche is buying the 14mm/2.8L ii
Dec 6, 2018

This would be an excellent lightweight option to store in a bag for landscape photography rather than the 16-35mm. I usually carry a 24-70 and sold my 16-35 because I don't use the wide zoom much. But around $299 and featherweight, I would certainly stow a tiny prime 16mm.


Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
Orewa , New Zealand
Nice to see the possibility of another low cost RF lens. If the price is that low it's unlikely to have IS, which seems consistent with earlier information regarding the lens description. At such a low price, the lens is also unlikely to have a separate control ring.

So another lens along the same lines as the RF 50mm f/1.8. If the lens lacks both IS and a dedicated control ring, I'll likely pass.
Why do your need IS in a very wide angle lens , do you have very shaky hands ? :ROFLMAO:


CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
I wonder how it compares to the Samyang 14mm RF AF 2.8?
I was lucky enough to get one and it's really very good.
If this 16mm is any good, I'll get that too as 14mm is sometimes just too wide.
The Samyang 14mm 2.8 is excellent, but it's pretty big (gigantic front element!), and it's no walk-around lens.


May 8, 2015
I think Canon and Nikon had 21mm wide-angles that required the mirror to be locked up for using them, mainly for architecture use, in order to take advantage of the simple solutions possible when you don't have a mirror in the way.

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.
A particular problem with the original 19mm's design with digital (and some colour film) is having the rear elements so close to the sensor/film means the angle the light has to exit at is really severe and nothing really lines up well. Not only does this mean the mid-frame to the edges are very soft and very dark, but on most digital sensors it causes very strong purple vignette. (On some colour films it can be green.)
Obviously a lot of time has passed since 1964 and manufacturing techniques have improved immensely, but the laws of physics do not change and designs like that lens (and potentially this one) still face most of the same troubles. Being bale to put big elements closer to the sensor helps in getting the wide angle of view, but geting that wide angle with good quality is another matter.

They should make some extension tubes, or another vendor should. a tiny extension has a huge effect for wide-angles.

Many third-parties already do make RF tubes. For essome bizarre reason Kenko's tubes are priced at something stupid like £200 for a couple of tubes, while you're looking at £40 or so for brands like Meike and JJC. Canon probably are holding off making official ones until they feel sales of their macro and semi-macro RF lenses have already dropped off; it's hard to keep selling macro lenses when many people feel they can get the same results with a standard lens and a tube. Once Canon do, inevitably, put out their own tubes, you'll see more companies copying them and prices on RF tubes will come down.

and IBIS is there for owners of everything other than R and RP.
Sure, but the RP is the highest-selling RF body to date and the R is second. For all the headlines they get, the R6 and R5 are still new, high-priced, low-availability products. And of course we have no idea if Canon will put IBIS in every other body going forward; it would be a very Canon thing to reserve IBIS only for bodies above the £2000 mark.

Is the corner sharpness good enough for landscapes?
Is the weather-sealing adequate for use in showery conditions?
Does it suffer from unacceptable levels of flare?
Does it suffer from unacceptable levels of CA?
Does it suffer from unacceptable levels of barrel or pincushion distortion?

1) Will probably depend on how much of the image someone defines as the "corner". Given how the other non-L RF lenses have been, and the size of this lens, it's a safe bet there's going to be a lot of distortion and vignetting to correct.
2) It's categorically not weather sealed, as is the case for all of Canon's non-L lenses, since Canon think it's still 1986 and sealing and lens hoods are a "luxury" addition. If someone wants weather sealed, cheap, compact lenses, they need to move to Fuji's f/2 and f/2.8 primes, or Tamron's on Sony.
3) It's an ultra wide with apparently backwards optics, so flaring should be very common but not particularly strong.
4) Yes but I'm willing to bet the camera will burn opcodes into the files to correct it so we never see the fringing outside of RawTherapee.
5) See #1.

IBIS is not so great on the wide end.

IBIS isn't quite as effective as you go wider than it is in the middle range, but this lens being so small will help a lot (IBIS being more effective the nearer to the sensor the largest optics are), and really it's telephotos where IBIS is basically useless. (Keeping the sensor still doesn't matter when a giant front element is swinging around two feet away!)

I wonder how it compares to the Samyang 14mm RF AF 2.8?

Given the size difference, I think it's safe to assume this lens will be relying more on software and the Samyang will remain the better 'pure' optic. However, as the 24-240 shows Canon have gotten opcodes down to a fine art (or they've copy&pasted from Fuji, who are the real masters of software correction) and the actual end result from the Canon may be superior, regardless of how it gets there.
But the Samyang will surely have better autofocus (not that AF really varies much with UWAs, but even so, these STM motors have been consistently terrible), is weather sealed, and you didn't have to pay extra to get a hood. So it's not like the Samyang (or Rokinon/Bower, whatever branding of it someone buys) will suddenly become pointless or outright replaced.

Cards on the table, my gut instinct is the Canon will be better for jpg and video while the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower will be better for raw stills, and both will have their place in a lot of peoples' bags.
  • Like
Reactions: HMC11 and sobrien


Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
...because a given angular movement results in a larger image shift away from center than at the center. Even perfect IBIS that tracks the image center will be inherently unable to simultaneously track the corners.
Interesting, I’d never thought of that.
  • Like
Reactions: InchMetric


Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
Some more information from Nokishita: