Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM

[BBarn]

Weren't all the low end EF-S kit zooms 18-55?

Yes, it is a very common APS-C kit zoom. So the RF 18-45 does make one wonder if a RF APS-C is planned.

But I also wonder why an equivalent FF zoom (~28-85) hasn't appeared for the RP or the seemingly planned low cost FF mirrorless entry. If there is one thing lacking in the low cost RF area, it's a small general purpose zoom. The 24-105 IS STM is nice and low in cost, but it's not that small. Especially on the petite RP body.

 

[peters]

If the imagequality is somewhat good:
with this size and price its a nobrainer for me! That would be an incredible value for travel. I doubt that the price is actualy so low...

If I use wide angle lenses I usualy find myself on the widest end on the lense. It would be pretty much no difference, If it was a prime lense f2,8 is quite nice for 16mm on a fullframe =)

 

[peters]

I'm surprised astrophotography hasn't taken up more of the discussion. I would happily get rid of my MF Rokinon 14mm 2.8 for a Canon RF AF lens.

The Sigma 20mm 1,4 is also quite a beauty for this, in my experience

 

[peters]

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.

I completely agree.
In my experience the IBIS cant event get close to the kind of shots you can achieve with a gimbal. Especialy longer walks can be pretty awesome with an gimbal. You can achieve nearly a dolly-like look. Thats completely different to handheld. For imagefilms where you want a "high quality" overall feeling, its a great little tool to achieve nice results in a super compact, cheap and quick setup.

I also found that IBIS doesnt looks so nice for handheld shots. But anyway, I am not a big fan of handheld shots. I usualy prefer a tripod, gimbal or even slider.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, it is a very common APS-C kit zoom. So the RF 18-45 does make one wonder if a RF APS-C is planned.

But I also wonder why an equivalent FF zoom (~28-85) hasn't appeared for the RP or the seemingly planned low cost FF mirrorless entry. If there is one thing lacking in the low cost RF area, it's a small general purpose zoom. The 24-105 IS STM is nice and low in cost, but it's not that small. Especially on the petite RP body.

It's not that small, but at $400 it's a relatively inexpensive FF standard zoom. I suspect that a 28-85mm zoom would not be that much smaller, although the barrel extension would be shorter.

If you want small, there's the 50/1.8.

 

[TMT]

Astro landscapes make a big difference between 14mm and 16mm and manual focus is needed rather than AF for these shots. Coma quality/corner sharpness will be interesting. Doing multi-shot panoramas for milky way is easier using 14mm.
Can you describe how AF will assist for astrolandscapes?

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.

 

[aceflibble]

But I also wonder why an equivalent FF zoom (~28-85) hasn't appeared for the RP or the seemingly planned low cost FF mirrorless entry. If there is one thing lacking in the low cost RF area, it's a small general purpose zoom. The 24-105 IS STM is nice and low in cost, but it's not that small. Especially on the petite RP body.

The RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 is about the same size as the EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5, which was the cheap kit zoom of the mid-90s, smaller than the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS which was the 'upgraded kit' zoom of the early 2000s, and only about half a centimeter larger all-round than the EF -S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 which has been the cheapest Canon kit zoom of the last decade. Given the 24-105 already has to rely very heavily on software corrections, even more than the infamous 24-240, 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.

Of course such lenses can be made smaller if they only have to project an APS-C image circle, like Fuji's very small yet excellent 18-55mm, but I doubt that is something Canon will do now. I suspect Canon have run the numbers and concluded it's more cost effective for them to only produce 35mm lenses going forward, rather than any kind of secondary 'RF-S' line complicating design, production and marketing. I expect there will be APS-C RF bodies, because there are lots of wildlife photographers and some sports photographers who aren't touching mirrorless until a high-density 7D/D500 equivalent is made, but producing lenses specifically for that format may simply not be profitable enough for Canon to bother any more; we've already seen them all-but abandon EF-M, after all.

 

[gruhl28]

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.

 

[renlok]

I predict this will be Canon's best RF selling lens by the end of the year.

 

[Absolutic]

Wow, if it is true this will easily replace my 17-40L lens, that has to be stopped to F11 anyway to get any corner resemblance of sharpness at 17mm. I don't use UWA often (in fact very rarely) but for $300, a great little travel UWA? I'll order one in a second, provided performance is decent, but I doubt the 15+ year old 17-40L would beat any modern RF lens......

 

[entoman]

The 16mm could prove an invaluable companion - light enough and small enough to be kept permanently in the kit bag.

F2.8 is plenty for most situations.
AF will probably be a bit slow and slightly noisy compared to more expensive optics, but that won't be a problem for its intended usage.
Optical stabilisation isn't necessary with such a wide angle lens, and IBIS is there for owners of everything other than R and RP.
Price is amazing value.

So the big questions are:

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?

 

[Skyscraperfan]

No man, this is the best possible news for us.

Lens design is a constant war of tradeoffs.

In order to reduce distortion, they have to make something else worse: fringing, astigmatism, cost, size, ultimate sharpness, all of the above. Ditto to reduce vignetting. We want them to be able to stop worrying about factors like this the camera can trivially correct, and instead concentrate on making the camera better in ways that can NOT be compensated for in software.

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.

 

[unfocused]

Is the weather-sealing adequate for use in showery conditions?

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.

 

[unfocused]

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...

I'm old school and still routinely vignette most images to place greater emphasis and put more light on the subject. It's a carry over from my 1970s photojournalism training.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Back in the days when we took our kids to amusement parks (in the before-times, pre-COVID), I saw plenty of people using Rebel bodies with the 18-55 kit lens in light showers.

On one trip when I had my 1D X and 24-70/2.8 II, it was a sunny day and I got some great closeups of my kids being doused as we were on a water ride (me and my camera were also getting doused).

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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.

 

[BBarn]

... 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]

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.

 

[mb66energy]

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.

 

[mpb001]

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?