Why would they announce a lens that’s incompatible with any existing camera?Is it really a ff 16mm lens? The hood just doesn't seem to make sense for such an ultra-wide anhle lens!
Yes, it’s a FF lens.
Upvote
0
Why would they announce a lens that’s incompatible with any existing camera?Is it really a ff 16mm lens? The hood just doesn't seem to make sense for such an ultra-wide anhle lens!
Then what about the height of the hood?Why would they announce a lens that’s incompatible with any existing camera?
Yes, it’s a FF lens.
Why would they announce a lens that’s incompatible with any existing camera?
Yes, it’s a FF len
Also, what about the size of the front element? Optical vignetting will deem to be massive if the lens is for ff!Then what about the height of the hood?
What about it? It’s a petal-shaped ultrawide hood. The hood for the RF 15-35 is similarly shallow. Look at hoods for EF ultrawides, they’re shallow, too. The long petals of the built-in hood on my 11-24 extend just 5 mm past the front element.Then what about the height of the hood?
Again, what about it? Yes, the lens will probably have significant vignetting. Many RF lenses do. It’s readily correctable in the resulting images (yes, there’s the consequence of increased peripheral noise). Consider the awful distortion and substantial vignetting of the 14-35/4L, bad enough that Canon forces the corrections for in-camera JPGs and in RAW conversions with DPP (i.e., unlike other lenses those corrections cannot be turned off). They do that on a $1600 L-series lens, why would it be a surprise on a $300 non-L lens? However, we actually don’t know anything about the optical performance of the 16/2.8 yet.Also, what about the size of the front element? Optical vignetting will deem to be massive if the lens is for ff!
Then I have nothing to say but feel sorry for that. In the EF, FD, and even FL eras, canon lenses used to be very usable even without much in-camera or post processing. Now cutting-cost seems to be its mainstream business ...What about it? It’s a petal-shaped ultrawide hood. The hood for the RF 15-35 is similarly shallow. Look at hoods for EF ultrawides, they’re shallow, too. The long petals of the built-in hood on my 11-24 extend just 5 mm past the front element.
I’m pretty sure Canon can correctly determine the appropriate size and shape for a lens hood. Further, I’d hazard a guess they know more about optical design than you or me.
Again, what about it? Yes, the lens will probably have significant vignetting. Many RF lenses do. It’s readily correctable in the resulting images (yes, there’s the consequence of increased peripheral noise). Consider the awful distortion and substantial vignetting of the 14-35/4L, bad enough that Canon forces the corrections for in-camera JPGs and in RAW conversions with DPP (i.e., unlike other lenses those corrections cannot be turned off). They do that on a $1600 L-series lens, why would it be a surprise on a $300 non-L lens? However, we actually don’t know anything about the optical performance of the 16/2.8 yet.
As I said, it’s a FF lens. Period.
Fair enough. The good thing is that you’re not being forced to buy these lenses.Then I have nothing to say but feel sorry for that. In the EF, FD, and even FL eras, canon lenses used to be very usable even without much in-camera or post processing. Now cutting-cosy seems to be its mainstream business ...
With all due respect to Canon, I think this is a consumer-grade rather than a professional-level lens. As a hobbyist, I will prefer using the lens for snapshot, landscape, and particularly vlogging. I think it will do a great job there.Looks like it would be very useful for real estate interiors. I'm assuming that as a prime lens that it would have less barrel distortion than an equivalent zoom.
Agree! Such magnification expands its usability a lot indeed, especially for vlogging. ^^Per the latest Nokishita release, we are looking at 0.26x, which is really good for a wide angle!
It's not 0.5x, but at this price point it might still be worth it!
View attachment 200123
Are you saying the hood looks too deep for an ultra-wide angle? It does look deeper than I expected. I have to admit it did cross my mind that maybe this actually only covers a cropped area of the sensor. But I would expect some kind of designation on the lens if it weren’t a standard ff RF.Is it really a ff 16mm lens? The hood just doesn't seem to make sense for such an ultra-wide angle!
Given the small size of the front element, a deeper hood is logical.Are you saying the hood looks too deep for an ultra-wide angle? It does look deeper than I expected. I have to admit it did cross my mind that maybe this actually only covers a cropped area of the sensor. But I would expect some kind of designation on the lens if it weren’t a standard ff RF.
Another question is why would they be announcing an RF APS-C lens when there's no RF APS-C camera for it???Am I understanding correctly that you believe this 16mm lens will be an APSC RF lens, not a full-frame RC lens?
If so, would you care to elaborate on the reasons?
If it were an APSC lens, would we expect to see some sort of designation for that on the lens? I don't see any indication of APSC on the lettering in the image from Nokishita.
View attachment 200124
Also, what about the size of the front element? Optical vignetting will deem to be massive if the lens is for ff!
I'm assuming that as a prime lens that it would have less barrel distortion than an equivalent zoom.
DPP4 offers Digital Lens Optimizer and peripheral illumination correction on a slider. It's a terrible program, but I love how Canon renders its images and feel like using other programs makes all the cameras look sort of the same, whereas using DPP4 makes it such that you can do RAW processing, but still get Canon algorithms, processing, and rendering.^^ In the same fashion I've long wanted them to change the in-camera vignette correction to offer reduced levels of correction, since a little bit of vignette can sometimes help to make a center or just-off-center subject really stand out. Natural-looking vignette is one of the effects that lightweight phone and tablet editing apps don't do very well, so for those times when you want to throw an image up online quickly, being able to correct some but not all the vignette on an in-camera jpg would be useful.
I do also often find distortion correction is too strong and ends up 'over-correcting' into the opposite type of distortion, so any kind of choice in exactly how distortion correction was applied for any lens, not just these quasi-fisheye wide angles, would be nice. Maybe they could offer no correction, one third correction, two thirds correction, full correction. Doesn't have to be a full Lightroom- or Capture One-style distortion control, but yeah, any kind of additional options are always good.