Canon RF 16mm f2.8 IN-DEPTH review: NO-BRAINER for EOS R!

[@cameralabs]

My in-depth review of Canon RF 16mm f2.8 lens! Vs 14-35mm vs 15-35mm Canon RF 16mm f2.8 STM at B&H: bhpho.to/2XfeZxT // WEX UK: tidd.ly/3k9l8Es Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop Gordon’s retro gear channel: kzbin.info Canon RF 16mm f2.8 sample images at www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-16mm-f2-8-stm-review/ Equipment used for producing my videos Sony A6400: amzn.to/3hul53c Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF MacBook Pro 14in (16GB / 1TB): bhpho.to/3HiafJL Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic 00:00 - intro 00:44 - size vs RF 14-35 and RF 15-35 02:30 - design and controls 03:43 - focusing for photos 04:06 - coverage vs RF 14-35 and RF 15-35 05:20 - optical quality vs RF 14-35 and RF 15-35 08:20 - night landscape quality 08:41 - astrophotography quality 09:36 - portrait quality 09:59 - closeup quality and bokeh 10:27 - diffraction sunspike quality 10:42 - video autofocus 11:10 - focus motor noise 13:06 - focus breathing 13:48 - vlogging tests 15:15 - vlogging on EOS R without IBIS 17:02 - lens correction and distortion 20:17 - verdict and sample images As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

[@michpixlondon9555]

Great review! will have a better watch later! My first test with my 16mm RF (on an EOS R) was interesting but I've yet to do much with it...but at that price, why not! The noise of the zoom was only audible when I turned up my volume and you were in the quiet room, after that it was negligible.... I have a 100mm RF f2.8 which is pretty epic, but the cheaper/and for me much lighter STM lenses I think these are also pretty decent, and when you include the difference in price I have to say some are my favourites....I use my 35mm RF all the time in the garden (shielding!)...well done Canon on bringing out these much more affordable, and alot easier to carry(!) lenses! Thanks for doing the reviews! :D will share

[@3VAudioVideo]

Thanks for the astro bit! So far doesn't seem that bad of a lens for that area of photography, especially for the price.

[@kamv8360]

This is by far the best review of this lens that I’ve seen. Including images from the 14 and 15 to 35 was extremely helpful. Haven’t seen anyone else do this and I have no doubt lots of people were curious about how they compared. Thank you for the amazing video. Just ordered the lens…..

[@andrewphillips2520]

Agreed, fantastic review Gordon!!!

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome!

[@derbagger22]

Whenever I need to know exactly what a camera and lens can do I look for Gordon's videos. It's almost criminal that he doesn't get more views. Thanks for another excellent video, Gordon!

[@cameralabs]

@@derbagger22 thanks! I'm not sure why they get so few views either.

[@wingsininventor]

Fantastic all inclusive review. Thank you so much. Subscribed to your channel immediately. R6 + RF 16 lens in the bag. Hobby user. Regards

[@rainermenes5921]

Hi Gordon, thanks for your review. If you want manual focus without going into the menu all the time you can use back button focus. In back button focus mode you can just turn the focus ring at any time and the lens will focus manually. Pressing the back button focus knob "AF on" you have AF. This should work with all EOS R models. I have tested it with the R and R6. The only drawback is you can't use the focus guide or focus peaking but 5x or 10x magnification works.

[@raylander6329]

GREAT FIND, THANK YOU FOR SHARING

[@timelapsefrg]

I don’t understand. Can I use square filters (nisi 100x100) with this lens?

[@mwigle]

Gordon! If your lens is set to AF in the menu and you select 'FOCUS' on the lens, you manually override the AF by half-pressing the shutter button. You do not need to go through the menu, or assign a special button. Just switch from 'CONTROL' to 'FOCUS' and half-press the shutter button. This makes the lens work like any other EF autofocus lens from EOS history.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@esphilee]

Best photogear reviewer in youtube. Candid, concise, comprehensive. Don’t be deceived by the seemingly simple presentation, I can see a lot of thought and effort being put in to the making of these videos.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! There WAS a lot of effort involved, this one took ages!

[@oceanlevel]

Gordon is, to my knowledge, the original KZbin “camera scientist.” Thank you very much Gordon for all your effort over the many years. Your in-depth, comprehensive, and precise explanations are much appreciated!

[@cameralabs]

Thankyou! Yep, I was one of the first, I've been here since 2006!

[@WILDANDSTORY]

Very thorough as always Gordon. I bought the RF 14-35mm f4L lens specifically for making videos for KZbin as it was smaller and lighter than the 15-35mm but then Canon announced this little beauty for my EOS RP. Sold the 14-35mm and I’m very happy with the new 16mm. It does everything I want at a great price and small package for travelling.

[@cameralabs]

Is there anything you miss from the 14-35? I do feel the 16 has somewhat stolen its thunder a bit...

[@WILDANDSTORY]

@@cameralabs No, the 16mm is perfect for what I need, a wide angle in the 15-16mm range mainly for video/travel vlogs. I had no idea the 16mm was on the Canon lens roadmap and annoyingly you put your video out just after I bought the 14-35mm thinking it was my only option. The cost of that lens made me baby it and I don’t need a zoom. Paired with my RP and the 35mm & 50mm f1.8, it’s just great for me.

[@RexxReviews]

My last few videos for my channel have been shot using this lens. Video was my major reason. I have been using it with my R5 in crop mode to bring it to what 24mm ish? and love the look.

[@AdrianBacon]

This is on my list of RF lenses to acquire. Looks like a reasonably good deal, though I'd have preferred less optical tradeoffs, even if that meant being a little more expensive.

[@tempest63132]

thank you for including footage from a non-ibis model!! Glad to see us R owners haven't been totally forgotten haha

[@nealrichmond4588]

Thanks Gordon, I especially appreciated the 14-35 and 15-35 shown as comparators. As an early adopter you can imagine the buyers remorse I'd have suffered if the 15-35 didn't produce better corner sharpness/contrast! All that said, given that most of the shots I've taken are at the widest end, I don't consider a prime is at all restrictive, (particularly one with such a small form factor ) and with a 2.8 aperture pretty useful for wide angle shots inside buildings. It seems that Canon are offering up something not usually seen ( a genuine range of choices for wide angle).

[@grooveecard]

Man, if Gordon Laing isn't on Canon's R&D payroll he certainly should be. This review, as always, goes way above and beyond. This should be required viewing for those looking seriously at the 16mm.

[@cameralabs]

Thankyou! They do humour me by asking for feedback, and this time, the MF / AF switch complaint was actually addressed in the new R7 and R10 bodies!

[@hannumikola8715]

I routinely use RF 14-35mm f4 L, RF 70-200mm f4 L, RF 100mm f2.8 L, RF 100-500mm L, and this tiny little RF 16mm f2.8 STM wonder on my R5. Your test routines and final conclusions are the most relevant and accurate I've seen so far. Keep up the good work.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks! Hope you've also seen my 14-35 review!

[@hannumikola8715]

@@cameralabs Sure, and that review is completely in line with my experience too. It's quite uncommon to find a reviewer that you agree with almost everything.

[@Desert-edDave]

3:07 The R7 and R10 are exceptions to this as there is a physical AF/MF focus type selection switch on the camera body which is very convenient vs. having to navigate through the menu system to make the same change.

[@harrisonmudge]

Really appreciated the EOS R demo as currently still rocking the R as a primary and M50 as my B cam. Looking to upgrade to an R6 as my primary at some point in the near future. Thanks for the video.

[@hansweichselbaum2534]

I always check your reviews before buying a lens. The only reliable channel for objective information on cameras and lenses. Thank you!

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@hansweichselbaum2534]

@@cameralabs There are hundreds of camera/lens review videos competing with each other, showing off with quick action shots, blaring rap music, pointless chitchat, bikini models ..... everything but useful, objective information. The thumbs-up vs thumbs-down ratio on your videos says it all.

[@1davidpeter]

Great job, I’m going to get one tomorrow at the Wales and west camera show in Newport, where I just bought my first canon yesterday. The lens might be cheap - but that’s for a lens- it’s also the price of the non discretionary replacement tyres for the back of the car, so even cheap can be a stretch In these times.

[@RicCederholm]

Lightroom updated to now include the RF 16mm f2.8 lens correction profile

[@cameralabs]

Hurrah!

[@BabyBackManiac]

Your reviews are incredibly thorough. Thank you, Gordon

[@Aureas133]

I think the heavy distortion correction is what's causing the difference being larger between 16-15mm than 15-14mm... Normally you'd expect the latter to be a bigger difference. Heavy corrections always comes at the cost of a bit of croppage... So i wonder if this isnt actually more true to a 17mm lens after corrections

[@lepostedejordan]

You're my go-to for photography info, Gordon. Always so professional and informative. Thank you and please keep it up!

[@johnherzel718]

I bought this lens on pre order the day it was announced. It is a perfect fit for my EOS RP and hasn't let me down ever. Like you said, a no brainer. Now if they could just make 28mm f2.8 to match. I would have 3 lenses (including the 50mm f1.8) in a tiny light weight full frame kit. Add the RF100-400 or maybe the 70-200f4 to get the telephoto reach. I would be very happy with that!

[@cameralabs]

Yes, a 28 would be nice, but the 35 is good!

[@omarcaneomedia]

lol you just detailed my exact kit. The 70-200 f4 was the best thing ever for my wedding/event shooting. The 16 is in the mail, looking forward to using it for landscape up in the Arctic. Had the 50 f1.8 since the summer and it's my go-to for portraits and general shooting. Don't see myself needing anything more, until I save for a 500 f4 for wildlife.

[@johnherzel718]

@@omarcaneomedia I recently picked up the RF 35mm f1.8 , also a no brainier. But the 16 and the 50 are so good together with a 70-200 that you should have all 4

[@benjhaisch]

Fantastic coverage as always, Gordon.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, I don't think anyone else has gone into the same detail...

[@benjhaisch]

@@cameralabs certainly not! Always appreciated.

[@mjpt57]

Just ordered this lens. Some video reviewers were critical of heavy distortion as Lightroom or camera profiles, not sure which, weren't up-to-date at the time. I'm guessing that this has been fixed by Aug 2023? I'm told that it'll be a good lens for streetscapes. I'm travelling from Australia to the UK in September and so I've bought it used off of Ebay. I'm also taking the RF 24-105L f4, so whichever is better for landscapes, streetscapes and so on it'll mean an easy set of camera (R6) and lenses to carry around with me. Thanks again for the reviews Gordon. It's appreciated.

[@cameralabs]

Yes it should be fully supported now

[@matthewhigbee9744]

I picked one up in the pre-order round. It is a fun lens and rounds out my kit nicely. For the money compared to other L series lens it truly is a no brainer. I use it on an R5 so for slightly tighter shots I have lots of room to crop in post. Very interesting how the Raw images are compared to the jpgs.

[@RexxReviews]

For anyone worried you are "losing" MM because of the crop you are not. The warped RAW image is closer to about 14mm so that the corrected image is at 16mm, 06:09 shows an example of this. I hope I end up being wrong but I don't think we will see a Camera RAW/Lightroom profile for this for some time, it took Adobe 1 year to put in a profile for the RF 50mm you mentioned early in the video.

[@cameralabs]

Hmmm, I didn't realise it took so long for them to do a profile for the 50.

[@RexxReviews]

@@cameralabs Yea they JUST added it in the major October update. Almost 1 year after release.

[@metalfatigue]

Thanks, Gordon. This is just my opinon, but this review cuts both ways. We can see the 16mm is essentially as good as the 14-35...or we can see the 14-35 is no better than the 16mm. I really hoped (and expected) that the only difference between the 15-35 and th 14-35 would be speed and price. But it seems, to get the most out of the R5, you need the 15-35, even if you don't need f/2.8 or all that weight. I guess the thing to do is get both the 15-35 and the 16mm--then leave the 15-35 at home because it's too heavy.

[@cameralabs]

Very good analysis!

[@ignacymat]

the distortion looks very cool indeed, i'm really tempted to add this to my TS-E17 for fx shots.

[@Those_Weirdos]

Thank you for consistently using the same actual, real world location for your testing. I'm new to photography beyond my phone, and bought an R50 kit and some additional lenses. Seeing the practical demonstration of the focal lengths and aperture settings is absolutely wonderful in directly comparable shots.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, I think it's worth doing, although it does require more effort

[@MichealSeaghdha]

I bought the Samyang RF 14mm f/2.8 (autofocus) lens before this model was mooted. My old raw converters still don't have a profile for that lens, but the distortion characteristics even without adjustment are miles better than this one, and that clearly also applies to the build quality. Stop down to f/8 and it's excellent as a landscape option and balances very well on my EOS R. On that subject, I find that in general the physically lighter the lens, the less level are my horizons. But for all that, I'm relieved that Canon are offering some affordable lens alternatives and not before time.

[@leanderhoefler7054]

I'm so impressed by this lens, especially comparing sharpness to the 14-35mm, which I consider to be quite excellent on the R5. If I was shooting more landscapes, like I used to I would definitely pick the 15-35mm, but now UWA is more of a rare use case for me and this lens seems perfect for that. Thanks for making such a detailed comparison with the L zooms, that was really helpful!

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome!

[@jamesgordonpatterson1753]

This was a really in depth and excellent review. Thank you very much. I have the EOS R6 and have found the RF lenses lighter and quick to focus. I am slowly replacing my EF lenses. For wide angle, I have the Tamron 15-30mm lens. It's fine, but two dings on it: First, it is HEAVY! Secondly, the canon version of this tamron lens cannot take any filters on the front of the lens. You have to put strips of a filter on the back of the lens. I can't imagine being at a waterfall for instance and taking off the lens to put in a tiny ND sheet on the back of the lens, then putting the lens back in the camera body. Plus, I've done real estate and architecture photography. I've read in other places that I could probably use the 16mm RF in tandem with the 24-240mm RF I have, only missing the 17 to 23 mm range. The price is amazing... for $299 US!

[@davidc6417]

The RF 14-35 f/4 has also significant vignetting (and profile correction) at 14mm, it is not optical perfect. But I like this, and I always used profiles on EF lenses too. If Canon can correct it and make the lenses a lot lighter, this is a good way for me. I saved a lot with using f/4 zooms (70-200 and 14-35) either, my bag is a lot lighter than with my old 5D3. I hope for more affordable lenses though, like a 24mm (in this size). Its great to have showcase lenses like an 28-70 f/2 of course... you can buy it, if you want - but for the most of us this would be just to heavy. I also own the TS-E 17mm and the EF 135 f/2 - and I don't like the rumors of a 14mm tiltshift or an 135 1.4. Yeah yeah, set the amplifier to eleven, i know. These both lenses I will use with the EF adapter on my R5 till the end, because I dont think, canon would make them lighter/better than I already have.. And of course - thanks again Gordon for your reviews!

[@TimFitzwater]

I had ordered this when it was announced and still can't wait to get it. Your review confirmed most of what I assumed. This is going to be an awesome, small lens to carry with me for my non-professional video/photography work(YT & IG). I can see carrying this, the nifty 50 and my R5 with me for bike rides when I need a quick lightweight kit. Shrinking and cropping 45MP images down to smart phone size and I'm not to worried about sharpness!

[@ImagemakerAi]

Why is everyone so hung up on pixel count? 21 years ago I had a point and shoot Fuji model MX2700 camera. It had a 2.7MP sensor and took incredible photos that I still sell reprints of

[@cameralabs]

You may enjoy my retro channel at kzbin.info/door/cHvGNLrx6NndBFFXknUt-Q

[@hedley.bradstone-unbridled]

I have been playing with my RF16mm lens for a week - landscape photography et al, "proper" video and vlogging. I am very pleased with it. I shoot RAW images which currently I edit using Canon's DPP4 software which of course, possesses the lens profile.

[@cameralabs]

You definitely need that profile!

[@guillettoaparicio13]

Are there differences between using DPP4 and affinity/Lightroom in relation to native features?

[@caseybachmeyer]

fantastic detailed review! But i have still one question: After the software did the distortion correction, this is not 16 mm anymore...more 18-20 mm lens? thanks a lot

[@cameralabs]

No, because it was wider than 16 before the correction

[@caseybachmeyer]

@@cameralabs thanks a lot Gordon!

[@jaseer9381]

The level of detail in this review is amazing. Thank you for the very detailed sample analysis comparing them with the more expensive zoom lenses. Great work !

[@cameralabs]

Cheers!

[@BrentTouchstone]

Another great review. I'm waiting on delivery of this one and I'm super excited. I've been shooting the 24mm pancake on my 250D since I broke a Tamron 28-75 for my 6D years ago. The other day I finally replaced that lens, put it on my 6D, packed it up and sent it back. I don't want to carry heavy cameras anymore. I'm so happy I found the tiny Full-Frame RP and these line of tiny RF lenses.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks for watching several of my videos!

[@jasonogbourne5315]

I’d just like to say thank you for yet another thorough and informative review. You manage to encompass useful, real world examples that are relevant to a diverse range of photographic disciplines. I’m now confident that this cost-effective lens will be a handy addition to chuck in the bag. Having an ultra wide-angle so small and light is definitely worth the compromises you’ve highlighted.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, glad it helped!

[@PBALLERAZ]

I tried to preorder one a few months ago and on launch was told the preorder was oversold and I wouldn't receive the lens for months. I'll get one one day.

[@darrenspeak1785]

I do appreciate your real world reviews Gordon. I’ve seen a few reviews from you tubers who have dismissed this lens because of the distortions, but like you say in the video, it’s the end image that matters and it seems for the money this is a very good lens. I have an eos R and I think I will certainly consider this lens. Please tell me your doing a review of the new RF 100-400 ( the cheap one ) as there doesn’t seem to be that many good reviews on you tube at moment and that is a lens I’m very interested in. Cheers and thanks for all your hard work, it is very much appreciated.

[@cameralabs]

Good news, I'm working on the 100-400 as we speak!

[@darrenspeak1785]

@@cameralabs Thank you Gordon, I’m looking forward to viewing that video.

[@shahabh2108]

5:03, that actually shows how the 14-35 f4 is not a real 14mm! Seen that in Dustin Abbot review also. This lens is really a no brainer in Canon RF system specially considering how overpriced the others like that 14-35 f4 zoom lens are. And you will get an extra 14mm fisheye lens for free too! It's biggest weak point is that noisy focus motor which is completely abandoned by even third party manufacturers in mirrorless system at this time. Thanks for the great review!

[@mateombar]

I just bought this lens for my canon eos R100 I had like 2 or 3 days to practice it before I travel to Berlin and I can tell you that this lens is the perfect choice for street photography within a low budget But not only street photography, in fact this lens is very verstaile, you can use it for astro, micro*, portraits, landscape. I mean everything!! Of course you can say that there are better lenses for 3x or 4x more of the price. Im not going to expend all that money, I just wanna have fun with my friends, my gf and family, thats all

[@ckfvideo]

I've been following your website for years and can't believe I have never watched one of your KZbin videos. Frankly I don't know why I didn't purchase this lens sooner, esp given the price. The test with the focus motor noise was useful, and when you are talking in the background I don't think it would be much of an issue. Certainly someone not willing to use a cheap lav mic for their production should have no right to complain.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks for following my website and glad you've found my videos at last!

[@lenf3641]

RF16mm f2.8 is totally right for me, I love it. I pare it with rf50 f1.8 and rf24-105 f4 L on R6 body. This little lens opens up more possibilities and creativities taking photos. I found using my rf24-105 f4 L less especially when traveling. The combination of rf16 and rf50 is all I need when traveling. It maks camera much liter and the camera is not flashy with Canon L lens. And the price is icing on the cake. I think combination of Canon R bodies with RF lenses are much better in terms of image quality than they predecessors.

[@cameralabs]

It's certainly a fun lens!

[@jerryrgzz1571]

I am planning to use the exact same setup, a 24-105 f4 as a general purpose lense, then the 50mm for portraits and the 16mm for landscape and Astro. Perhaps the 70-200 f4 but not sure on that one yet

[@raylander6329]

Gordon has some of the best reviews on the internet. Thank you!!

[@cameralabs]

Thankyou!

[@adamzhang3028]

Great review as always. Got the 16mm lens today. Not as sharp as the 35mm prime for those also considering, but acceptable given its price.

[@stephenartnermusic]

Thanks for this thorough review, Gordon. For video work, would you still recommend this lens over the newer RF 15-30mm IS STM? The latter has IS but has a darker max aperture and is heavier and pricier.

[@cameralabs]

Good question, I've sadly not tested that lens, so can't say, but the if you're unlikely to zoom, then the 16 is a really solid option.

[@stephenartnermusic]

@@cameralabs Thank you!

[@Axonteer]

Hi Gordon :-) Im dissapointed with the quality of the 14-35 f4 for that price. While for "its price" the 16mm seems fairly OK (especially because im a R6 user and dont own a R5 that can peep deep into its corner). In hinsight yes i wish i have gotten an R5 but i could afford a lense and extras for that price difference. As for the zoom, im still using my 16-35 f4 adapted as due to its weight and size, its not much different in hand than it was without the adaptor. (E.g. the 70-200 f2.8 is ii gets super front heavy adapted, thus i got the new one, its also much shorter and lighter, which is great for hiking). As on your questions, for Astro id still use my Samyang EF 14mm f2.8 or my sigma EF 20mm f1.4 (either no coma and a bit darker, or a bit of coma but much brighter) - yet for a landscape or similar photography, i think its a really nice compact and fun option. Thus yes i think especially with lenses that arent 100% perfect in sharpness its vitally important to test its performance in its relative application field to geet a reference of how much that impact actually is. Id wager that using this lense for Street (illegal grey zone in switzerland) or similar, you wouldnt notice the sharpness drop off at all.

[@Giacomo1891]

Hi Gordon, thank you so much for the review. For travel and landscape photos, what do you recommend between this lens or the RF-S 10-18 F 4.5-6.3 to combine with a Canon R50? Thank you

[@cameralabs]

Definitely the zoom for general landscapes. You may want to wait for the Sigma 10-18 f2.8 later this year.

[@Giacomo1891]

@@cameralabsThanks so much for your help! I definitely have my eyes on the Sigma too.

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

That focusing motor is pretty loud, but that is not unique among Canon lenses (even L series in my experience). However, I use a lav mic and wireless transmitter so it's no issue for me.

[@paulmarks7185]

By far the best reviews on KZbin!

[@cameralabs]

Thankyou!

[@barrymiller526]

The best, down to earth, review of this lens that I have seen. Thank you.

[@cameralabs]

You're very welcome!

[@dariuszak1402]

I do interior photography and currently use 17-40mm L lens, which, together with the post processing and my skills has proven successful. I’m however thinking if the 16mm lens would be a good choice to add it to my collection of lens? What’s your opinion on that? Thank you. By the way - Very good and insightful review. 👏👏

[@cameralabs]

16 is only a tad wider than 17 and you'd be switching from L to budget. I'd say it doesn't make sense

[@dariuszak1402]

@@cameralabs I can see that 16mm is performing better in the edges than 17-40mm since it’s a prime lens but then again L is L overall image quality probably must be much better.

[@timelapsefrg]

I don’t understand. Can I use square filters (nisi 100x100) with this lens?

[@GroovBird]

You’re putting the 14-35 next to the 15-35 to show that those lenses don’t have as much distortion, but that 14-35 has the same sort of distortion without corrections applied.

[@cameralabs]

Yes, I still need to investigate the 14-35 further, but it still has the benefits of a zoom, weather sealing, lens hood etc. That said, I'm not finding it as compelling as I initially assumed I would, but again I'm yet to go through all my results from it.

[@georgestiros4392]

THANK YOU.....I shot a few pictures this morning.....loving the lens so far

[@Date08202011]

Gordon mentions that off-center portraiture with this lens may distort how the subject looks... I agree, but why is this the case? With lens correction on, shouldn't barrel/pincushion/etc be corrected, and also shouldn't the lens be focusing on a plane that is parallel to the sensor? Therefore, shouldn't the subject look the same anywhere along that flat plane?

[@cameralabs]

With any wide angle, the image becomes distorted towards the edges

[@rrrteee8405]

Gordon, I'm a big fan of your work. I bought a kindle version of your book.... and then a real printed hardcover version because I wanted to see big, printed images. FWIW, I find the hardcover version to be superior. May I ask some advice? I have owned the RF 16 for a few years. helluva little lens. I love to shoot landscape photos. I looked at the 3 lenses u mentioned here quite a bit. I cannot imagine that I would need the wide aperture on the 15-35. I am leaning toward purchasing the 14-35 but wonder if I will see a significant improvement in photo quality over the prime that I now own. Next January I hope to photograph the NaPali coast from the sea. I have done this twice and both results have been ....good. I want to create a really excellent image. Am thinking of perhaps a few photos at 14 mm stitched together.... or maybe quite a few photos at 35 mm stitched together. I'm a serious amateur with enough discretionary income to buy either of these zooms... just undecided if I really want to spend that extra money for the 15-35

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, I've answered your other comment

[@jukkakakkonen756]

Set the AF-ON button work as AF-OFF and then pressing that you can use manual focusing without going through menus.

[@cameralabs]

Yes, but that's not practical for presetting a manual distance under magnification for astro work.

[@mcmillanvideos]

Great review, thank you. One question... When you compare side-by-side (at 20' mark) - Uncorrected is clearly wider. I can see the sun and trees get cropped in the corrected version. So, it's clearly cropped, maybe 2mm, making it an 18mm. Or, are you saying it's really 14 and you're getting the 16 you paid for post-correction?

[@cameralabs]

It's a bit of an existential question, since most lenses actually vary a little from their quoted focal length. One 16 is rarely the same as another 16, especially if one of them is a zoom. All I can do is show you the coverage next to other lenses and say this one is a bit wider or a bit less wide than that one. Yes, the corrections do crop the image a bit but since they're supposed to be applied, my understanding is you're left with essentially 16 AFTER corrections, so before corrections, it'll be a bit wider still.

[@mcmillanvideos]

Thanks for the explanation. @@cameralabs I've been debating between this 16mm lens and the 15-30mm to cover my wide shots. I don't shoot wide often, but when I do, I don't like the distortion. The 16 seems to have less 'wonkiness' to the distortion as it moves through the outer third of the frame borders. The 15-30 seems to have a hockey-stick shaped distortion that looks odd to me... from what I see in your (and other) reviews, the 16 does a better job to my eye... and then it's lighter, brighter, and cheaper.. so the only thing I'd give up is a little flexibility before changing lenses. I have a 24-240, a 100/2.8, and a 600/11 for my R8 and each has its purposes. Thanks again for your response and your review!

[@YoussefHallouly]

Hi Gordon, so you loose alot of focal lenght when correcting the RAW images with picture profile, as well as JPG and video with lens correction is that correct? the 16mm more looks like a 18mm or 20mm

[@cameralabs]

No, the lens is 16 AFTER correction.

[@YoussefHallouly]

@@cameralabs ohh really ok thanks!

[@paparotzzi7262]

Thank you for these videos, Gordon. Very straight forward with the information I want to see. I have the RF 35 and 16. Just ordered my RF 85 f2 to replace my EF f1.8 that I recently dropped to the floor and messed up the AF/MF switch. After watching you review of the RF50 f/1.8, I have actually decided it would be worth the purchase, even though I already have the EF STM version. Even where you said that there was little or know difference, the images and video samples still seemed to favor the RF version. Going to try and buy you a coffee....

[@cameralabs]

Cheers!

[@Realwildshots]

Is it worth to buy it for a none full frame Canon R50? I just bought the RF 50mm 1.8! Thank you!

[@cameralabs]

If you want a 25mm equivalent, yes.

[@joepverhaeg]

I'm still thinking about this lens. Sharpness is not that important to me, but I have the RF 35 f/1.8 and the RF 85 f/2 and these two lenses have a certain “look” in terms of color and contrast on my Canon RP. Does the RF 16 have the same look? or is the image flatter like my RF 24-105 f/7.1?

[@cameralabs]

I'd say more like the 24-105

[@joepverhaeg]

@@cameralabs thank you for your advise, I’ll appreciate it. 🙏🏻

[@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 😢😢

[@footballasmr5579]

this looks way better on the R, the R5 suffers from wobbeling, the digital IS on the R is great! can you tell me weather the eos rp has the same digital stabilization system options as the R? and if there is any noticeable difference in 1080p video between the two cameras? I think and RP with this lens would be great for vlogging

[@cameralabs]

I recall the RP has the same 1080 options as the R

[@velaz081]

I need help, which lens it’s better for video? RF 16mm 2.8 or the RF 50mm 1.8?? Thanks in advance

[@cameralabs]

Do you want a wide or a standard?

[@emilymielke9712]

I don’t recall if you reviewed the Samyang/Rokinon RF 14mm, but if so, how do you like this lens compared to the Samyang 14mm? I’m debating whether to keep the Samyang or move to the Canon, since the Samyang will no longer receive firmware updates, and the Canon is also a lot more compact. I know the focal length is slightly different, but for my purposes, both would work.Thanks!

[@cameralabs]

Samyang refuse to send me lenses to test, so no.

[@Andy_Thomas]

I'm a bit confused. I shoot raw and do my post-processing in Luminar. Do we have to wait for Skylum (and Adobe, etc., depending on whose software we use) to send out updates with the relevant lens profile before I can start using it to shoot raw?

[@hedley.bradstone-unbridled]

Canon's DPP4 software has the lens profile so in the interim it can be used to process RAW images while everyone waits for Adobe (and everyone else) to get up to speed.

[@chaos2kProductions]

Do you think this would be a good replacement for the ef 16-35 2.8 version 1. I'd love the ef 15-35 but it's 7x the price in Canada

[@cameralabs]

If you're happy with only having 16mm, and are ok with the geometric corrections in-camera, then yes!

[@recmydream]

Dear Gordon i have a question. wich lens be better in low light: f1.4 with no ios OR f2.8 with ios? Thats a really tough question fro me. maybe you already answered this questions in other video Ill be appreciate for your consideration of course this to examples lead to the photo with your hands for example you could have the same focal length, but all over your settings will be different for this 2 examples in my experience almost impossible to have a clean pictures if getting lower when 1/60 per second on the lens without ios But if you are use good ios you can shoot in four times lower (1/15 for example) and thats very different story of course I hope im not bowered you Thanks again

[@cameralabs]

Generally speaking, stabilisation should be good for 3 to 6 stops of compensation depending on the system, the conditions and the user. The difference between f1.4 and f2.8 is only two stops, so in terms of being able to handhold a steady result, an f2.8 lens with IS will beat an f1.4 lens without.

[@recmydream]

@@cameralabs Much obliged!

[@sdhute]

The protruding lenses are a deal breaker for me. I've not seen another MFG do this on all budget type lenses.

[@pdel7007]

Fantastic review. I wasn't aware just how much digital compensation could go on before I see the images. Thanks for all the info in such an easy to watch video.

[@rudyreimer302]

Another great review! Thanks for the comparisons to the 14-35 and 15-35. I have all three (yeah I like wide angle lenses)and the 16mm is great and is a no brainer. Time to buy you a coffee!

[@cameralabs]

Cheers Rudy, much appreciated! What do you like about each of the lenses?

[@codypelissier]

What would you estimate the focal range to be after it applies those corrections? I know that myself already having a 24-70 2.8 wouldn't see as much a benefit in getting this lens if it ends up cropping to at least say 20mm.

[@cameralabs]

It's 16 AFTER corrections

[@DRFMedia]

When is this released in the Uk? Everywhere just saying pre order this lens … just wish this lens had weather sealing … would be great for landscapes but not in the rain …. Which is pretty much all the time in Scotland 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@cameralabs]

Hopefully before Christmas!

[@LE672AJ]

Strange as it may seem, this lens may be what pushes me over the top to dive into the RF system. At least I can bring my EF gear along for the ride haha

[@cameralabs]

I believe you. It's the kind of lens that will attract people to the system.

[@MrPsylocibine]

Hi Gordon, thanks for the review. Maybe you could give us a video on how to configurate the lenes corrections in the raw mode?

[@billpeters9266]

Looks like one for my R6. Thanks for review! Awaiting your review of the new RF 15-30 lens also.

[@cameralabs]

I'm doing the new 24 first, but will then get onto the 15-30!

[@grumblewoof4721]

Interesting that it looks to be a similar price to the Samyang 14mm f2.8 AF RF lens but smaller. How do the compare side by side ?

[@cameralabs]

No idea, Samyang refuse to send their lenses for review.

[@dmene77]

Great stuff Gordon! Always spot on! I have been using this badboy on my surfing kit, Aquatech Edge housing + EOS R5 + PD-85 dome and RF16mm) feels good and the quality is great! Keep your hard work going!

[@blakeparry1983]

great review, picked one up today to pair with my 50 1.8/samyang 84 1.4. Carting around the 14mm 2.8 with its bulbous front end just wasnt suitable for a small messenger bag - this is cheap/small/light enough to just chuck in the bag

[@cameralabs]

Exactly!

[@Sqeezy3]

I love my Sony camera and lenses, but do I really want to have this lens. Sigma has the 17mm f4, but i want something faster.

[@jacobcherry990]

With the distortion correction on would it be ok for Archetural video interiors, so tired of lugging round zooms on gimbal for walk throughs?

[@cameralabs]

I think so, but all my results are here so you tell me if it looks good enough for what you want? Obviously models like the 15-35 2.8 achieve the same distortion levels without correction, but are way bigger, heavier and more expensive. I'd say for the money of the 16 it's worth a punt, and just return or sell it if it doesn't meet your expectations.

[@okaro6595]

Setting the switch to MF enables manual focus after you have pressed the shutter half way. The marking is confusing. With back button focus it should focus manually.

[@cameralabs]

Generally when I'm manually focusing, I want to preset it to an exact point, such as for astro, then using the timer to trigger the shutter, so half-pressing the shutter at the same time isn't a practical way to do it. For what i want to do anyway!

[@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?

[@cameralabs]

It starts wider than 16 without correction, so becomes roughly 16 with correction. It's designed to be used with correction, so that's how they measure the spec.

[@George-id1ui]

@@cameralabs Oo, OK that makes sense, tnx.

[@philip799]

That's been really useful to see it compared to 2 quality L lenses, and I'm surprised at how well the 16mm is holding out compared to them. It's convinced me to go for one for a travel lens. Another video from an astrophotographer also convinced me it's surprisingly good here too, in spite of the issue of quite a bit of chromatic aberration; it seems this is fairly easily corrected. Thanks for doing this detailed video.

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome!

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

I have the Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L IS which I have been using on DSLRs and the R5. I got some raws from the 16 f/2.8 and I was not impressed with its sharpness and overall IQ compared to my f/4 so although the small size/light weight form is attractive I will not be looking into adding this lens to my kit. I do hope there is an equivalent L prime lens out soon

[@cameralabs]

I'm sure there will be, but it will be larger and more expensive

[@Technologyadvisor1]

another option is the EF 16-35mm using the adapter. for me the distortion is terrible.

[@vincevinnyp9224]

I am not a Canon user but I am very jealous of this lens. A compact lightweight just in case UWA that is, good enough is a great idea.

[@cameralabs]

exactly

[@pkpanda1108]

what is focus speed in the video? i have bought the rf 35mm f1.8 but the focus is ridiculously slow

[@PavlosPapageorgiou]

3:04 You can set the AF menu page 5 last item Electronic full-time MF ON, and then the camera will always respond to the focus ring. But you have to be in Continuous AF DISABLE , or ONE SHOT AF so that the camera won't immediately try to autofocus over you.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks for the tip!

[@TechnologyHive]

Hello. Will this work okei with the R10? I do mostly KZbin videos at 4K.

[@cameralabs]

Yes, although like all lenses on the R10, the cropped sensor means you'll need to multiply this by 1.6x. So 16mm becomes 25.6mm. If you want wider, get either the Canon or the Sigma 10-18 lenses.

[@TechnologyHive]

@cameralabs Ah. I already have the kit lense 18-45mm. I made the wrong purchase then if I want a wider angle. Thanks for the reply.

[@TechnologyHive]

@cameralabs BTW I just bought the 10-18mm out of impulse 🙂. $500 gone just like that 😆. Oh well, I need it, though.

[@dubment]

May be a little of topic but I have to ask about the oddly large number of red pixels on the R6 long exposures...

[@cameralabs]

Yes I wondered about those too. There's a lot in the skies right now, with all the satellites leaving trails, so not sure if all of them were hot pixels or not. I didn't have LE NR enabled though.

[@dubment]

@@cameralabs Thought that it was mostly a crop sensor thing when doing long exposures at high iso, usually that's when pixel become hot and stuck, being solved with a reboot\sensor clean... as for LE NR, I cant remember if it did any good since it takes a second exposure that basically doubles the time where pixels can get stuck...

[@paulmorris4759]

Another great review, thanks! Have you had a chance to play around with peripheral illumination correction while shooting video in one of the C-Log variants? Canon warns against excessive noise in the corners and suggests disabling peripheral illumination correction, but I haven't had a chance to test it.

[@cameralabs]

Good question and sadly no I haven't.

[@kenneth6102]

The RF16 is a great lens, but is it enough to go Canon when A7IV and A7C both out perform the R6 and R at their respective price points? The RF16f2.8, RF35f1.8, RF50f1.8 and RF85f2 are probably the only lenses I would ever wish for but they don't have a compelling hybrid camera body to go with it. Since you convinced me to go A7IV in your previous videos, I can only hope that Sony puts out a budget prime at that focal length soon.

[@RicCederholm]

A7IV out perform the R6?? Definately not in FPS which is something the R6 outperforms the A7IV on. I guess to each their own and depends on what one values most in a camera (which for me FPS is huge)

[@kenneth6102]

@@RicCederholm I did say as a 'hybrid camera'. I totally think Canon R6 is the superior photography camera, by a long shot.

[@tekguyphoto]

I have the R6 and I am looking at the new Sony A7-4. The Canon is great and keeping it for every day photography but need more pixels and a better zoom lens for wildlife. Sony 33mpix and the Sony 200-600 combo should be amazing. I had the R6 since it came out and I just need more cropping capability. The R5 ia too pricey even if i trade in my R6 i still need another 2500. So i might as well keep the -R6 and get the Sony for 2500.

[@jensfrankjakob]

Should I sell my EF 16-35mm F4L IS and get the RF 16mm f2.8 instead (having a EOS R6)? What do you think?

[@cameralabs]

Do you need the zoom capability? Or the IS? Or the weather sealing? or hood? or MF switch?

[@PlanetFrosty]

Very nice review. Is Canon going to introduce correction for focus breathing?

[@cameralabs]

No idea

[@okaro6595]

Fixed lens cameras have entirely relied on the corrections for over ten years. If I load my G9 X Mark II raws on Photoshop Elements there is not even an option to see the uncorrected image. Maybe full version could do that.

[@cameralabs]

I know, it's more common than people think.