Review: Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM by Christopher Frost

Johnw

EOS RP
Oct 10, 2020
27
9
Filters are definitely relevant for astro. I've imaged the sun with a 20 stop ND in front of the EF-RF adapter variable ND.

Generally though filters are more relevant for astro at telephoto lengths than UWA. Still I felt the same as you did on the 11-24 about adapting the Sigmas partly for that reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,124
1,502
I have the lens too and I’m quite happy for my use cases.


For selfie I don’t care about corner sharpness, but all other aberrations are perfectly controlled.


For astro I won’t use the lens corrections but light frames to deal with vignetting .. no one cares about straight lines for Milky Way photography so I actually get sharpness and contrast where I need it. Coma is fairly okay, worst case I have to stop it down to f4 .. still better then the EF 16-35mm f4L for Milky Way I reckon, it had more aberrations traded for better corner sharpness.


Big plus for the smooth bokeh and close focusing distance!

most annoying is actually the lack of weather proofing, despite its small size I’d like to leave it out for Astro for a couple of hours and don’t have to take it down during a small drizzle.
Where do you base that? I strongly doubt it! Not only from my 16-35 4L IS experience in landscape and astro but also from lenstip,com full review. Sorry but I do not accept your statement. You can like the RF16 all you want or you can pursuade yourself - I do not care - but what you say about 16-35 does not hold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user