Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM lens review with samples

[@Augnos]

Having owned this lens for a couple years now, this one spends quite a bit of time on my camera. It’s awesome for live music and artist portraits, and doubles as a near-fisheye lens when uncorrected! But the biggest factor for me is that it weighs a fraction of my wide 2.8 zoom. I love this size, and I bring this lens with me everywhere.

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

This lens should be good for hand-held selfie vlogging, which would be my primary use for it. Maybe occasional night photography, too. Thanks, Chris.

[@WOLFTICKVIDEOS]

100% That, and some square crop product shots is what I need.

[@Sanddesert]

for that purpose it would have been so nice to have IS in the lens to get a bit of extra stabilisation on top of the body IS.

[@Simoneister]

@@Sanddesert There's pretty much no need for lens IS on an ultra-wide

[@justesmond]

You may want to check out the review of this lens by Todd Dominey in addition to Christopher’s review. Mitch Lilly also does an insightful review on this lens. As a result of this review and the two others mentioned I’m going to pass on this lens. I can get a used Canon 17-40 or 16-35 or a Tamron 17-35 that will be more versatile without all of the optical compromises Canon made on this lens. I’ll pass on this lens. I had such high hopes.

[@alandargie9358]

@@justesmond I think you are right for shots where good across the frame quality is needed. I use the 16-35 f4 EF and it is very sharp right into the corners (I used to have the 17-40 which wasn't too bad either). But I think the attractions of this 16mm are its size and weight as a carry anywhere lens for trips where photography is perhaps not the main aim.

[@dlim5687]

Thank you for the wonderful review! It is worth noting that the test was done on a 45MP camera which puts higher demand on resolution. On a EOS R or R6 the resulting resolution obtained by the lower MP sensor will be sharper due to lower spatial sampling.

[@elenderKnecht]

I truly hope so, would be a great lens on the R6

[@hedley.bradstone-unbridled]

@@elenderKnecht I have been playing with this lens for about ten days now - I think it is very good on the R6. I didn't notice any issues on an RP, either. I shoot RAW images and the Canon DPP4 editing software corrects the distortion very well.

[@aussieacollie7551]

Can you explain how that works?

[@LuigiVN]

This lens was sharp and nice from 2.8 on my RP. Stop it down and it gets really friggin great. One of the best pieces of glass and the must fun I have ever used.

[@dannyynnad132]

I hope to see a comparison soon between this canon RF 16mm and the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm RF

[@kevinrtres]

My bet is that the Rokinon wins hands down!!!

[@TimLucasdesign]

The Samsang/Rokinon 14mm AF version is a lot more expensive than this one.

[@timstiv]

@@TimLucasdesign In Australia the Samyang is 3X more expensive.

[@philipchong6273]

I have the Samyang. It is $600. I will be selling it as it is a little heavy. I rather have this.

[@bburchellphotos]

Wow! That lens image rendition is more distorted than space time!

[@john_casey]

That comment here is on spot, nice one^^

[@lqr824]

This is actually a pretty good thing, since distortion can be corrected absolutely perfectly, introducing at most the cost of averaging two neighboring pixels together (which at 45MP is practically no cost at all, given how many pros argue how 22MP is "enough"). Everything about a lens, just about, can be traded off against everything else, and it's an obvious move to trade off things you CAN'T correct automatically, such as size weight cost and sharpness, for those you can.

[@jeremytheoneofdestiny8691]

Chris needs to use that line in an upcoming review!

[@romancotton8536]

@@lqr824 ehhh i wouldnt say perfectly. I have a tilt shift lens and ive never been able to replicate the straigh lines it gives.

[@erikgull5914]

Hi Christopher, I really like your unbiased and thorough lense reviews. I would very must love to see a reveiw of the RF 16mm 2.8 on one of the new APS-C R series cameras.

[@GrandPianoGamer]

Just got this lens today. I think it is becoming my favorite lens! Its so tiny! It's also razor sharp! Great for real estate photos, landscapes, and any other wise angle needs! I highly recommend purchasing this lens if you haven't already!

[@jiasios]

The test doesn't show any sharpness at the edges...

[@kilohotel6750]

This is a great lens for me. I shoot wildlife and when I’m out sometimes I’ve got beautiful landscape around and just want to take a snapshot. It’s so small I can just throw it in the bag and it’s there if I need it. I’m not looking for L glass quality or pro landscape images just shots showing the environment I’m in looking for wildlife.

[@mbvglider]

Agreed. This lens actually is incredible, especially at the price. The lack of flaring, attractive sunstars, buttery bokeh, tiny size, and great close-ups are more important for me than corner sharpness. Considering that I had a 16-35mm f/2.8 and only used it as an oversized 16mm f/2.8, this is a no-brainer for me.

[@AgnostosGnostos]

Sony will never dare to create such a lens at this price.

[@aviator201]

Hi Chris, while you are looking at the new RF 14-35 can I ask you to mention how it compares to the Nikon Z 14-30? thank you for all you do!

[@njrivetelite]

I just got the 14-35mm F4 L and I love it.

[@Vaptomwen]

@@njrivetelite me too!

[@billgraeser8382]

Thanks!

[@christopherfrost]

Thanks!

[@justinhoward6755]

If Canon made more affordable glass like this, I would possibly consider swapping from Sony. Sucks having no access to 3rd party lenses too.

[@loukimein6229]

True, affordable options are weak at the moment for the rf mount, no option but to buy the ef to rf adapter for most people

[@digitaldevigner4080]

I think part of the beauty of RF and the lack of 3rd party options is the almost perfect adaption of EF lenses from Canon or 3rd parties. That opens up an equal if not greater set of choices vs other mirrorless lens mounts with E or L mount. I still use Tamron G2 f2.8 zooms which work phenomenally great on my Canon R6. You can even get an adapter from Canon that adds the bonus control ring. So maybe not specifically RF mount but we do have a ton of 3rd party options.

[@badoyaucheng37]

Sucks with no access to 3rd party lenses. Indeed

[@navagiopoint]

@@digitaldevigner4080 but it’s huge. Especially when compared to say a A7M4 with sigma 28-70DN. I’m a r5 user but the kit usually don’t go out unless some serious weather or some free environment where they don’t care for a pro-looking set up

[@HH60gPaveHawk]

You *want* this lens? It is an affordable ultra wide, but there are barely any good qualities! I’m all for compact, but not at the expense of IQ, WR, not amazing coma, distortion, etc

[@doscheid]

Canon should make it possible to turn of the jpeg/video correction for lens distortion. That distortion might be interesting in some situations.

[@EddySawaya8637]

Canon which was the old librarian of the camera world is lately releasing some super innovative and interesting new gear. Yeah it's not perfect but nothing is ever perfect at 300$, especially with such a small package. Might buy one myself some day!

[@divergentus]

Just picked one up today for my R6. Interesting that they reused the same outer plastics as the RF50mm 1.8. Very happy with it - opens up some new photographic possibilities and some fun exaggerated pics at the close focusing distance. The corner softness does not bother me, and it's really not so bad. I'm only a hobby photographer and for the price, this is an essential lens for anyone with an RF camera.

[@lenf3641]

Got this lens for my R6. Love it, so many possibilities to compliment my rf24-105 f4 L and rf50 f1.8.

[@saintckk]

Thanks for your honest reviews unlike other reviewers, I've cancelled my pre-order after watching the distortion in raw files and focus breathing! I can't stand crap glass which need a lot of software correction

[@Axonteer]

Wish i had the money for an R5 body, but i choose the R5 to go with a lense (70-200 f2.8 to replace my old IS ii 2.8 which is rather heavy and long) My next aim is the 100-500 once it becomes available... i had my eye on the 16mm as the 85mm was a bit dissapointing with its STM AF being what it is (very slow when the barrel is long) and... ... if they didnt overcompensate the corners so hard, this lense would be a definite carry with me in my bag.

[@PHILGOODOK1]

Hello and thank you for this video. I had this RF 16mm f2.9 stm lens for two days of testing with my Canon RP. It is really for very particular Photos and it has too many deformations ! ... Finally I did not keep it and bring it back to the store, I prefer my RF 50 f1.8 stm which I find more versatile ! I would wait for the cannon to release a 24 or 28 mm RF for the Landscapes ! ... Sincerely, Philgood ...

[@manukello]

i did exactly the same

[@PHILGOODOK1]

@@manukello Truly ? Did you do the same as me? You made the RF 16mm f2.8 and you kept the RF 50 f1.8 stm ?!

[@manukello]

@@PHILGOODOK1 Yes, I really did not like the distortion and blur in the corners. I handed over the lens to the store, although it was fully functional. and 50 1.8 I already had before

[@PHILGOODOK1]

@@manukello Well, thank you for your answer, that reassures me a bit, so I am not the only one to have made this observation! Another thing, with my Canon RP, I therefore use the RF 50mm f1.8, but also the EF 4omm f2.8 stm lenses, and the EF 35 f2 is usm with the RF-EF adapter ring. I noticed that the image rendering is more natural and less contrasted with EF lenses than with RF 50mm, what do you think ???

[@manukello]

@@PHILGOODOK1 yes, I noticed it too. the shadows on the RF lens are very black and contrasting

[@PhotoGearFun]

I got this one a couple of days ago and have tested it for vlogging on my R5, R6, and EOS - R. For vlogging the R5 did pretty well but the other 2 didn't do so well with the stabilization. I haven't had a chance to use it for photos yet thanks for the review!

[@guogegreat]

Why it’s good on r5 but not on r6?

[@PhotoGearFun]

@@guogegreat I'm not really sure to be honest. I am going to watch them side by side and see. It's not the that R6 is terrible I just think the R5 looks better.

[@guogegreat]

@@PhotoGearFun okay, thanks!

[@monum]

@@PhotoGearFun probably because of the higher MP count? Means more stabilization?

[@kenjiyamamoto423]

firmware update now is available,.

[@DJBastor]

The edges are not sharp until f5.6 and we got no correction for lightroom yet. Anyway great review. For astrophotography not usable at this time.

[@hardywoodaway9912]

who would have thought….

[@DJBastor]

@@hardywoodaway9912 canon said its for astro on their main page

[@THEFOR2]

It’s usable. Not to much coma.

[@romancotton8536]

​@@DJBastor its worth the extra processing if you dont already have a wide lens

[@DJBastor]

@@romancotton8536 got an 16-35 F4 is usm

[@njrivetelite]

I Pre-ordered this lens in mid September. But when it came time for stores to have them in stock, it was backordered with no arrival date known. I have the Tamron 15-30 2.8 G2 and it does a great job for images but I needed an ultra wide for video on a gimbal. The 15-30 2.8 G2 is a relatively heavy lens.. and with the EF adapter it becomes even more front heavy. Plus the auto focusing in video is a bit jerky. I ended up canceling the lens order and I went in a different direction. I went for the higher end RF 14-35mm F4 L that recently was released and just arrived in stock. While the F4 doesn't open up as wide as an F/2.8. It's a fast focusing sharp ultrawide lens. I personally am loving it. I very much enjoy the range of Zoom from 14-35mm.. plus it's easy to balance on my gimbal. It's lightweight while having solid construction. I think it's probably a better match for my R5 & R6.

[@ApexPredatorWithSungGlasses]

Watching Chris's lens reviews is entertaining on its own right---even tho I don't have the $$ to get that full frame lens or an R5 body. 😅 I mean it's oddly satisfying seeing that picture at 4:27 and the results of the distortion grid at 5:42.

[@fragu123]

I like the way you judge lenses! Very British though… I am German and have been living in England for some years and I had to learn to not pixel peep and understand that “you shouldn’t fix things unless they’re broken” etc.. In Germany, a lot of people quite liked the RF16 when it appeared in the market and when the German reviewers destroyed it because of corner sharpness missing and distortion, they didn’t like the lens anymore…. In England imo there is more common sense in that respect and good enough is for many - good enough😉 makes life easier and more enjoyable. Best regards to fantastic England - not perfect, but for sure much, much more than good enough, just a great place to live…👋🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇩🇪

[@PatrickRosenbalm]

Very nice video sir! I'll be adding one to my kit!

[@hunglemed]

great reviews, hope to see RF14-35F4L and vs with EF16-35F4L & RF15-35 F4L

[@g0blinfractal472]

this will be my preferred lens for architecture and landscape photo!

[@maxhammick948]

It's a shame canon don't let you turn off the corrections easily, if they did then you'd get a free fisheye lens

[@robertm3951]

Lens correction is usually only metadata in the RAW files. You should be able to get back to the original.

[@Augnos]

Shooting RAW doesn’t apply in-camera corrections. The compressed RAW can help keep file sizes down if that’s a concern, too.

[@maxhammick948]

You can shoot raw, but it's not ideal - afaik you can't avoid the corrections in video, and you don't get preview the image until you get it off the camera

[@okaro6595]

@@robertm3951 It depends on the raw processor. On Photoshop Elements you cannot turn the corrections off, at least with PowerShot G9X II, but the comment as hopefully a joke.

[@dima1353]

I think its worth to look at corners without distortion corrections to understand what amount of softness we get from this warping. I thing in this pure half-fish eye form lens can be not so bad.

[@TrellWest]

Is it good for vlogging? That’s the obvious use case for this lense release I believe

[@johnnyblazexkim1]

Do you have a link to the filter and hood

[@levantq5972]

great review!

[@tjkrueger2655]

Seems like a casual walk-around lens, I wouldn't bother for landscapes

[@krismenon8071]

I agree the corner sharpness is very bad. My copy isn’t all very sharp in the center either. I correct the fisheye look in LR. ALMOST EVEY IMAGE I SHOT HAD TO BE CORRECTED.

[@peterebel7899]

Great review for a decent little lens!

[@networm64]

2:58 Is it only me getting seasick watching how quick the background is changing its shape? I just got how strong the barrel distortion should be by watching this! I kindda like a lens to be able to be an option as a wider fisheye lens in raw files, but this problem by itself makes a serious problem in videography. Even more important than the focus breathing. What ever you shoot with it just avoid panning quicky! And the effect comes from the delay in the lens correction to be applied for the new scene.

[@mxilplict]

I will be buying this to complement my “kit” lens, an RF 28-70 f/2! This lens is the perfect pairing to standard zooms, since I usually don’t go wider than 16mm and most of the ultrawide zoom range is overlapped by the standard zooms. Plus it is so small there’s always room to throw it in.

[@john_casey]

I don't think this will complete your zoom area. You will still have a really good 28-70mm and then you will have a crappy 16mm xD

[@mxilplict]

@@john_casey I forgot to mention that i also own an EF 11-24L, RF15-35L/2.8, and an RF70-200 2.8L. But since I shoot the 28-70 for 95% of my shots, I’m looking for something ultrawide that is compact enough to fit in my 10L daily carry bag holding my R5, speedlight and 28-70. For the size and weight, this looks like the lens for me.

[@Tainted-Soul]

@@mxilplict My problem is I also have the Rf28-70 , RF70-200 F2.8 , the RF100-500 and now the RF100 Macro and a Tamron 15-35 f 2.8 which I would like to swap for either the RF15-35 f2.8 or the RF14-35 F4 which ever Christopher says is sharper lol I am hoping the F4 is just as sharp as the F2.8 as Less weight the 70-200 has found it been left out to save weight I can not bring myself to leave the 28-70 yet as I just love it like the 100-500

[@mxilplict]

@@Tainted-Soul Yup - 1st world problems. When I bring all of lenses, I literally roll with a pelican case. If i were in your situation I would go with the 16 too, or just turn that 28-70 90 degrees and shoot a pano of 3-5 shots for stitching, if there isn’t any fast movement in your scene.

[@sarahjulianne2954]

Wow that was a really good review. That was super helpful thanks

[@jackavle]

Please do a 50mm f/1.2 comparison between Sony, Nikon, and Canon! I love your reviews, made a lot of my lens choices based on them. Keep up the good work! God bless!

[@romancotton8536]

i love that lens. My favorite so far of all RF lenses

[@PromoMoviescomau]

Unbeatable RF Lens for the price! Thanks Chris.

[@john_casey]

Again thank you for your great reviews. I just played this video next to the Irix 15mm f/2.4 that I own the Firefly version of (about 450€ back then). The RF 16mm f/2.8 is about 340€ (without lens hood of course, sigh Canon) here. It is a difference like night and day. Canon should be ashamed to sell such a piece of garbage, no matter the price. They should just charge 400-500€ and make an usable lens. This thing here is good for one thing: vlogging. I really was interested in this lens because the Irix plus the EF-RF-adapter is a huge combo and I watched out for a smaller lens. I don't need high end quality, I didn't expect a L lens, obviously. But man, this here... I'll wait for some reviews with Lightroom correction, but I don't have any more hope. 340€ is just too much for worst picture quality on the market. Thanks again for destroying my dream of a lightweight lens, Christopher, really, thanks ;)

[@danielw.4296]

Hey Chris, great review as always! :) At what distance did you shoot the pictures with the test chart? I got the lens 10 days ago and realized that the corner sharpness really depends on the focus distance.

[@Vlay76]

What focus method do you use?

[@martin9933]

Thanks for the (as allways) great review! I have a question: I currently own the EOS RP and the Samyang manual focus EF 14mm f2.8 using it mainly for arcitacture photography. I am thinking about changing it for the RF 16mm because of it´s size, the auto focus and the fact that it´s a native RF-lens, so I wouldn´t need the adapter. The bad corner sharpness makes me doubt now. Would you recommend it for arcitecture photography over the Samyang?

[@christopherfrost]

I would personally go with the Samyang for its extra wideness and sharpness, but the in-camera correction with this lens and its autofocus appeal to my lazy side haha

[@martin9933]

@@christopherfrost Thanks so much for your quick answer!! :-) I guess I will stick with the Samyang for now and see if some day there will be more wide AF options for the RF mount.

[@timstiv]

@@christopherfrost is the centre sharpness equal on both? 🤔

[@77appyi]

on a UWA i would trade a bit of corner softness for good flair control any day ..i have ruined more UWA photos with flair when the sun is in/near the frame than corner softness. .also it looked to be in the extreme corners. chances are if you were focused on the rule of 1/3eds the corners would most probably be out of focus anyway

[@romancotton8536]

unless you have a zeiss wide angle lol

[@future62]

I feel like Canon overprioritized the small size here. This lens could have probably cost the same while having more optical correction and better performance. Very similar to the RF 50 1.8 in concept which is not a good thing IMO.

[@Robert_Gonzales]

I love my 50mm 1.8 I use it way more than my 24-105 L

[@natatheexplorer2392]

And finally, been waiting for your review for this lens.

[@NadirOnTheGo]

Thanks for the review Chris

[@klochkovkostya9490]

Thanks for your review! I pre-ordered this lens. I'm waiting for the start of sales. In Russia, its price is expected to be about 430 USD.

[@bjarkihalldors]

Excellent review.

[@fabioz6621]

So... Is it a good 18mm f4? That is all I would need..

[@GregorBrown]

How does this compare to the Sigma 16mm prime lens ？

[@exogendesign4582]

It's a great lens, all in all, It can even do macro shots, I figured the trick when using nd filter to avoid hazing, just use 2-3 stop of nd then adjust aperture to 4.5-5.6 tops and that's a harsh sunny day. To avoid warping the edges, I shot it in Cropped mode for details, then for long shot I go f4 - 4.5 so that it has a balance sharpness. Its also very light, Before I get aches doing Glide shot with the Ronin S all day during weddings, but with the 16mm and R6, damn It was a breeze the beauty of it, is I only drain battery for like 25% out of the 100% of ronin and that's like 9-12 hours of shooting non-stop. I do videographer though. But for this lens, its great at its price and can probably compete to other pancake lens. R6 is also an amazing Camera.

[@itzamna3080]

Hey Chris, are you reviewinng the Cannon VR lens?, Tha'll be cool.

[@lukogs]

Wish you'd show the wide test for vlog style..would it be tight head fit on the frame or some room here and there?

[@robertklein5398]

Good review... but please make a review of the RF 100-400 . It will be very interesting.

[@78primdahl]

Just got it an realised that I won't be able to use whit my formatt hitech filter set, because it has to be mounted on the lens threads an that part of the rf 16mm is moving when focusing 😢😢

[@1chai]

Hi, Chris. Any chance to review the Tokina Opera 16-28mm f/2.8 EF Lens?

[@mike.k]

Chris, for R7 user, would you recommend this lens or efs 10-18 would be better?

[@loldart]

Was hoping for better corners. My just have to suck it up with just the 15-35mm f2.8 for travel and not do this with the 24-70mm f2.8.

[@chrisconcoco]

Where are you based? Greetings from Dorset!

[@og7650]

I wonder if the edge sharpness is also bad. I don’t care much about the very corners but sometimes I place my subject to the lower edge (portrait oriented)

[@vaskoobscura_]

Thank you for this video

[@lifeofdang92]

Hey Chris, which one is better for photo & video? This RF 16mm or Samyang 14mm ?

[@zegzbrutal]

Depending on your need of wideness. IMO 16mm is lighter for hybrid work. And 16mm is enough for me

[@valdemarjrgensen8072]

Is a review for the RF 100-400mm in the works too?

[@timgomes4810]

i like that your watch is a sam 18-55 f3.5-5.6 - makes me feel myself at home since it was my first lens haha

[@WOLFTICKVIDEOS]

Thanks for this!👍

[@zigmarskupriss7131]

Would you say it's good for landscape photography on R6? Lens would be stopped down to f/7.1 or f/8.

[@spooneater9001]

Here's hoping you do the Rf 100 f/2.8 macro at some point

[@navagiopoint]

Hello sir, regarding the sharpness test, did you refocus to the corners or did you focus on the center to test the corner sharpness? A lens with this much distortion might also have the curved focus plane perhaps?

[@okaro6595]

The softness is because of the corrections. When the corners are stretched they naturally get softer.

[@velenux]

Honestly it looks like a great bargain, I'll probably get one even if I have the 15-35 f/2.8, for gimbal work.

[@abalavam]

Did you change mics Chris? Or are you recovering from a flu? Your voice sound deeper yet somewhat cleaner

[@ericthestone]

It will be awesome if Nikon can release a 16mm f/2.8 for their Z mount!

[@detectivejonesw]

I was thinking this

[@detectivejonesw]

Actually you know what, I'd prefer them to make it a bit bigger but actually have reasonable IQ outside of the centre

[@chanjeff4406]

You can consider adapting the Samyang 18 f2.8 E-mount lens with an E to Z adapter. It has got a "Highly Recommended" by Chris!

[@sunnykiri3]

On the average it is a good lens, great review thanks Chris

[@VynZography]

OMG why is a prime lens so distorted 😞

[@muratbasc8302]

Can we say that this lens is a precursor of future rf mount aps-c bodies?

[@theowlfromduolingo7982]

Could you test the Tamron 28-200 E-Mount

[@disphoto]

I assume the RF100-400 is in the pipeline. What a lot of people want to know is how the RF16f2.8 compares to the RF14-35f4 and RF15-35f2.8. Similarly, they want to know how the RF100-400 compares to the RF100-500 and EF100-400IS mk.2.

[@lqr824]

yeah, this reviewer royally sucks for his failure to actually give the side-by-side comparisons. The questions for cost may be an absolute, but practically everything else (corner sharpness, bokeh, size, weight) is relative. Or would be, if he'd give us anything to measure it relative to...

[@svenbreitkopf]

I wish it was available right now. But sadly you cannot get it anywhere at the moment. Or does anyone have suggestions?

[@LouisLuzuka]

16mm + 50mm + 35mm + 85mm I think I'd like these combo's :D

[@beast_boy97]

My old 11-16mm EF lens doesn't work very well with the RF adapter, you can see the adapter in the image, even when zoomed all the way in to 16mm. It's just an OK lens anyways, so I'm hoping to upgrade to something better in the RF series. Is this the best option, or do I have other choices?

[@zegzbrutal]

RF-S 10-18

[@George-id1ui]

When I apply the lens correction to 16mm, I see that the LR does a crop but I don't see how much in mm. If I apply lens correction to 16mm does the image become 24mm or smaller?

[@Augnos]

It’s more like 14mm uncorrected, and crops to 16mm.

[@George-id1ui]

@@Augnos Tnx :)

[@alexis.x]

This RF 16 or Samyang 14mm 2.8 EF with RD adaptor?

[@alanpriest5047]

I am very interested in this lens for use in situations where I wouldn't want to use my £2300 RF15-35mm such as less safe inner city areas, dubious foreign destinations etc. It would provide a very discrete and light weight solution with my EOS R. Does anyone know if the distortion is less and the sharpness is better at longer focal distances?

[@neilbuxtonandmixi]

I've bought this to use with my EOS R6 Mkii for using to capture the northern lights. Hopefully it is up to the task.

[@lb7144]

Hello How did the lens workout with your R6MKII? I have the same camera

[@neilbuxtonandmixi]

@@lb7144 It was superb for the aurora hunting. So easy to focus in the dark too. I've tried to reply with some links but it seems KZbin didn't appreciate it. Hope you get this.

[@lb7144]

@@neilbuxtonandmixi Thank you so very much. I’m going to pick one up. Praying you & your family have a blessed & safe Memorial Day weekend.

[@Herkulez1981]

I shoot profesionell with a couper of 5ds, but im really tempted to buy a r or rp and this lens just to have a fin Little setup to have with me ok vacaions, rosdtrips or just as a cheaper ever day camera. Alot smaller then my 5d4 with a 16-35 2.8 lens on

[@francestod.tandocjr4092]

I have this lens in M42 mount , in a crop sensor it becomes 42mm normal focal lenght, very good for portrait , bokeh is nice and very good subject and background separation, 3D effect.

[@overorderbrett]

is this true 16mm or does it crop in for HD Video?

[@grdprojekt]

Regarding the distortion... I have a feeling they took a 10/11mm fish eye lens element design and let the in-camera correction zoom in & stretch out the living daylight out of it. I hope they get their heads round this quick & dirty lens design principle these last 2 years for pumping out high quantity of RF lenses

[@Zegmaar_Bas]

Wow, I didn't even know this lens was a thing. This is really nice! Thanks for the review :)

[@rimtiggins6078]

Was hoping this might be a decent astro lens, but those corners look awful. Shame. Any plans to review the 14-35mm f4?

[@СерёжаВолкодав]

Hey, mate! STM lens meens that it's for video. Don't fool yourself!

[@christopherfrost]

I'm currently testing the 14-35 :-)

[@aviator201]

@@christopherfrost also looking forward to this! thanks!

[@СерёжаВолкодав]

@@djstuc I already suffer from that. We all suffer. Rf 35 mm 1.8 IS STM owners too. But, it seems like, that this is a software error and I hope that it will be fixed in firmware update.

[@СерёжаВолкодав]

@@djstuc If distortion is the issue for you, than buy Zeiss for 2-3 thousand eiro. Lens size and the weight is allways a compromise.

[@rijulgarg36]

How has sony/tamron/sigma/samyang etc have not released an e-mount counterpart for this?

[@Gabriel_ATG]

I think this lens is showing that canon is preparing for an RF aps-c camera, 16 mm makes more sense on crop cameras, is very small an relatively cheap, and is not the best quality, it reminds me a lot of the 24 mm 2.8

[@john_casey]

16mm is the standard for ultra wide angle lenses on full frame since decades. I think, they will bring out a new very cheap RP and therefore need extremely cheap lenses like this one here. This has nothing to do with aps-c.

[@okaro6595]

It makes perfect sense on full frame. Canon has no cheap full frame RF ultra wide. At the same they released cheap telephoto so the set is now full.

[@garethgibson6500]

I think the RF 16mm and RF 100-400mm lenses are the direct replacements for their 10-18mm and 55-250mm EF-S lenses, but in the full frame format. I think they're priming for Rebel priced FF R cameras, not an APS-C release. With auto-focus now being pixel based enabling high f-stop AF, APS-C simply doesn't make sense anymore for Canon.

[@Gabriel_ATG]

@@garethgibson6500 answering two comment's, i don't say that canon is making this lens j because it will release an Apsc camera soon, i just say it because the Ef-M talk about if the line will continue or not, canon would not abandon Apsc territory, so any time soon or long canon will release another Apsc mirrorles camera, and it makes more sense to lock people in the RF ecosystem of lenses, instead of having two lines , and this lens gave me a lot of impressions that canon is adding a lot of lenses that match Apsc cameras

[@andreasfriedl9858]

Great review as usual! I received mine a few days ago and did not high hopes based on low price and small size. However, it turns out it is actually quite usable. I plan on taking it with me on trips when landscape is not the primary goal but I still want a wide angle option.

[@fang1662]

😮😮😢😢😮😮😮😮🎉🎉🎉🎉😮 1:35 more 😮

[@sgwardo1953]

Sharp center and fuzzy corners seem to be the design standard for inexpensive Canon RF lenses.

[@okaro6595]

It is the correction. When the corners need to be stretched the image quality suffers.

[@romancotton8536]

@@okaro6595 not really. plenty of low budget wide angle lenses have this problem with or without correction. This is an R5 even if the stretching was causing half the pixels to vanish the lens still wouldnt look this bad if it was better designed

[@b0ddo]

About the image correction: does this mean that, when corrected, you get a cropped image, so a tighter viewing angle than 16mm? Or is it 16mm equivalent viewing angle after correction?

[@frankluo230]

After correction

[@kevindiossi]

No, it flattens the image while correcting for distortion and you still have a full resolution image, albeit a less detailed file because of the severity of the distortion.

[@b0ddo]

ok, so at 5:41, on the left image, you can see a lot of the whiteboard beyond the squares. when corrected, the image has been straightened AND cropped so that it fits the square pattern tighly. It's obvius we lost some information (we cannot see the whiteboard here). A good 16mm lens whould have covered ony the square pattern or the entire board? I am asking this because I might get this, thinking it's 16mm, but I get the coverage of an 18-20mm. And i need wider than 18-20mm :)

[@frankluo230]

@@b0ddo after correction you get 16mm fov which is nothing new. I haven't seen even one exception.

[@b0ddo]

@@frankluo230 great. thanks

[@dwong92464]

I bought this lens to keep as a spare for those times I needed something wider than my 24-105mm f4 could provide. But now I look forward to using it as my landscape lens on my R7.

[@1883entertainment]

I'm really looking at the R7 paired with this for walk-around

[@Badonicus]

Would be useful as a nice street lens ,good wide aperture.

[@AbbFPV]

This is compatible with R50, right?

[@wolfiemedia]

Yes, but it’s 24mm equivalent.

[@Simalacrum]

Hey Christopher, I currently have an old Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 ultrawide that I use with my Canon EOS R - while it's technically designed for APS-C sensors, but fits on the EOS R with an adapter. However, any focal length other than 16mm results in a big black 'box' surrounding the image on full frame, thus essentially making it a 16mm F2.8 prime, just like this lens! With that in mind, do you think this lens would be a worthwhile upgrade...?

[@kribodie]

What do you mean it becomes a 16mm lens? I have an EOS R and I use my Samyang 8mm 3.5 Fisheye with no problems. Yes, there is a black box, but when you turn on the 1.6x setting, you have a super fisheye lens (at a cost of lower megapixel count)

[@ritrattoaziendale]

@@kribodie it means that the Tokina 11-16, when zoomed out all the way to the 16mm, will cover the entire full frame sensor/film (it actually covers it from 14/15mm, but there's too much vignette), so you can use it, without crop (so full mpx count), all zoomed out as it was a 16mm f2.8 prime lens. Lot of Tokina Aps lenses, like the 11-16 and the 12-24, actually cover the entire full frame circle in the second half of their zoom range, so it is a well documented and often used way to have low cost wide angles on FF cameras.

[@kribodie]

@@ritrattoaziendale ah, i get it now

[@FabrizioRodulfo]

My favorite part was when you zoomed into the word "Logos" in your Greek NT. I'm assuming the Gospel of John?

[@lb7144]

Logos & Rhema 😉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/r5_Fg6VjfspjiZYsi=id8a8OUFd5gbjjZs

[@LouisLuzuka]

43mm what a interesting filter thread