Fantastic and fair review! I got this lens a few weeks ago and like you said, despite the flaws, the quality for the value is fantastic. Bring the 50 1.8 and this with you and they share the same filter sizes.
I enjoy using the RF 16mm. It is "fun". I am currently playing with the RF 24mm, which was delivered about a week ago. I am a Philistine and have no problem with software corrected optics. Given sensors are electronic, one might argue that perfectly engineered optics are a an anagolue solution in a digital age. With regard to the 24mm, it is producing images that I like, but don't necessarily love. Who was it who said that about the RF 35mm....? By the way, I agree!.
One other Handy Use for the 16, 35, and 50 Canon RF STM lense is that they work very well in Infrared Photography. Many of the RF lenses have Infrared Hotspots.
Your ending comments are getting something more than 'better'. Its great to finish such great reviews with a noble, touching closure and your nice smile. Cheers!
It's taking me time to get used to shooting this wide, as most of what I've done in the past has been 35-85mm. But come on, a tiny ultrawide at this price is a steal and such a fun little lens. And if you know what you're doing you can get great results with it. I only wish Canon could produce lenses this dinky for other focal lengths, I'd snap them up in a heartbeat.
Pure example of a lens which development was powered by convenience and orientation to genuine value, rather than sterile optical achievements. For those, whom appreciate fair money to performance ratio.
Thanks! The Venus Optics Laowa 15mm f/2 manual focus lens is available for RF mount and has far less distortion, though I think more aberrations at the corners than the 16mm Canon STM. But it’s another choice for those wanting a very wide field of view. But at much higher cost and with no autofocus.
My understanding is that this lens is actually a 14mm fisheye, requiring electronic correction to achieve a 16mm linear JPEG image. The RF 14-35 F/4 and 15-35 F/2.8 are similarly designed as wider lenses uncorrected. I bought the 16mm for vlogging; but since it's unstabilized, you depend on IBIS alone. The resulting image warpiness around the edges is unusable for me. It's good on a tripod though, and for stills.
@Zealadinn as I said, it's fine on a tripod. Not perfect. It had significant focus breathing, which you may have noticed in this video. (Even a number of Canon L lenses do, for that matter.) So, for pieces to camera, don't move around too much.
@@richrollin4867 the extreme barrel disruption of the uncorrected RAW image at 8:06 is basically a fisheye effect. The camera's JPEG correction, or Lightroom's distortion correction, pulls out the rounding at the corners to produce a rectilinear image. That, of course, causes the lateral distortion at the peripheries and corners. The human eye actually sees in a slight fisheye like that uncorrected image. Since the eye only focuses at the center, you make constant mini-scans of the area. The brain thus creates an assemblage with a perception of straight lines that aren't actually seen.
It’s not quite to fisheye levels, but you’re not far off, for sure. And yes, it is significantly wider than 16mm to allow it to be 16mm after correction.
any canon camera with ibis any lens wider than 24mm is unusable for video because of that ibis strength the terrible wobbles just ruin every single video
I like taking landscape, travel and building photographs. I’m very tempted to get this lens, as I find with the kit lens I have (18-45mm) I’m either using it on the 18mm side or I’m finding it not wide enough.
18-45 would mean you have a RF-S camera. So since you only get to use the more central part of the lens you get away from the problems at the edges, yet it's still a little bit wider than what you get today. Sounds good.
Dustin, thanks for another detail lens review which I’ve been waiting for to determine if I should purchase it. Would you please comment or speculate on the application of this lens with the R7 which will the it to approx. 25mm focal length?
Me again Dustin, Was this one of your best reviews of all? This tiny lens may not fit into you standard set of personal preferences about optical and tactile perfection. But you opened the heart to give this little brother a chance - he is not just another lens, he has some rather unique talents to offer. He is teaching me to become a photographer with extended spectrum of skills - and extended fun.
Just got the RF 24-70 and am considering this as a replacement for my 16-35 F4, as I can't justify carrying around two relatively bulky zoom lenses with so much overlap but I do like having the option of going wider than 24mm for landscapes. Reckon this would be a good option?
When I had my 7D I used a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. On the 7D, that was about 17 to 26mm for a full frame camera. I only ever used it at the wide end. I now have the 15-35 f2.8 RF lens, and I likewise use that at the wide end nearly all the time. So I think the lack of a zoom is a very minor issue, if that's what you are worried about.
A question that I feel will come up: The new R7 and R10 bodies are criticized for their kit lenses bottoming out at 18mm. Should you have discussed how many of the faults mentioned for the 16 become less problematic on APS-C? Bloggers might love the light weight of the 16 on the R10. I'm not sure the 16mm is enough under 18mm to make it appealing. I did not buy the 16 because I already have a 16-35 that fills that need except that the thing weighs a ton. I'm not a Blogger so there is no problem. I wonder how bad things get if I added a 'Speed Booster' to the big zoom. I wonder if Canon will see the market for a wider, lighter RF-S version of the 16mm design. If I were doing it I'd compromise on a 12mm but I'm not in the camera business. Astro/people distortion? Something as wide as 16mm will by the laws of physics have problems with round spots going oval. For some landscape shots the obvious answer is fisheye. At some point we have to consider that rectilinear is more of an option than a matter of 'right'. Do you recall the old days when we were taught to have people on the edge of a long group turn toward the center even though we were shooting with a 24mm? Do you remember when 21mm was considered a super-wide? Good, fair review of a lens I don't need but am glad exists for the people who understand just what they are asking. Miracles may come in 2023 (but I doubt it).
Thank you for well detailed review Dustin. ♥️ I wanna hear your thoughts about Canon closing their RF mount to third party lens manufacturer. Watching from Philippines.
Thank you for giving your thoughts about this recent news. Unfortunately, I recently upgraded my camera body from 6DMark2 to EOS-R. Most of RF-L lenses are more expensive than my camera body. I'm one of the Canon users who's planning to change camera anytime soon. :(
@@joliver4083 tbh you can't get wrong with EOS R with EF lens you have. It may not look great on specs. But Canon gears as usual are comfortable to use regardless of cheap or L grade
10:33 The more I look at this photo the more the linear objects in this photo ( door, the wall, the floorboards, the fence) really show an unnatural perspective. Very wide in the foreground to narrow at the back fence
Thank you Dustin for this review! I do own this little boy since early springtime. This little boy is nothing less great fun to use! Take it at it strengths, there are many! It is a great teacher expanding your skills in wide angle photography. The missing AF/MF switch is no issue as long as you set up your body for back button AF. Just the lack time on the "focus" ring is a pain, better to select something you can throw your AF onto.
Thanks for the great and honest review Dustin. I was a long-term user of 5D, who switched to Sony a few years ago. And now I found myself missing Canon colour! Having seen your review of the RF16 and 50mm, I am thinking of buying a RP. Do you think the RP has similar colour science to 5D? Many thanks!
I don’t think it is as special, no. Canon color is nice, for sure, but I feel like the gap in recent Sony bodies and recent Canon bodies isn’t nearly as big.
Both RF16 &RF50 are great to shoot with. I shoot them with the EOS R, I love it. Why not thinking about taking the R (used or a great offer) at this time of its lifespan? The R offers some decent advantages over the RP, the sensor is the tensor of the 5DM4, same color science, ... If you ever think to shoot fast action: never think about any of both.
It does have correction in body. I always show uncorrected RAW results as a part of my examination of optical properties because I am testing the actual lens performance. I also showed the corrected results.
Thinking of replacing my 16-35 2.8 v1 with this as I find the version 1 very soft on the r5. What are tour thoughts? I'd love the rf 15-35 but it's 5x the price in Canada
Rectilinear ultrawide angle lenses are just not ideal for group shots. Better to use a fisheye (specif. Samyang's) if you don't want stretched faces for off-center subjects.
Good review, as always. I am planning to get this lens, because is cheap, small and sharp. However this is not a L lens. Would you recommend this one, or the 17-40 L on a Canon RP, using the adaptor? I have a 6D too so I can use the 17-40 on both cameras.
The 17-40mm is a weaker lens optically, so I would have a hard time recommending it over this lens. The EF 16-35L IS is a solid choice if you are looking at lenses to to adapt.
My set of experiences answering your questions: - Glad I sold the 17-40 years ago after some decent use while traveling Norway (IQ made me not happy) ... - Glad I own the RF16mm, what a fun to be used. It supports a very different shooting "style" and I am very happy with the results. Shoot it open, steep perspectives, little things of interest, set things/persons in relation to the surrounding scenery, ... Both lenses are very different in talents. So you can use the 17-40 on your 6D and the RF16 on the RP.
@@peterebel7899 Thanks for your post. I have decided to buy RF16 soon. As for zoom, I got an EF10-18 for my APS-C camera and sold the 6D. I use a cropped camera for everyday shooting and an EOS RP for more serious photos.
Thanks for this great, thorough, review! I was considering this little lens for my R5 system, just in case I really need something wider than 28mm. But since the AF is pretty sluggish (and the corners pretty bad), I'm probably better off with my GFX 50R and the 30mm on that one. I don't think I'd be happy with all of the 'bagage' this lens comes with, never mind the low weight and cost.
If your R5 is a second body to your GFX you might find this thing, if nothing else, fun. The distortion and vignette let's you do some pretty dramatic and creative stuff without much fuss. Maybe grab one if they come up on sale.
@@Jasruler Good suggestion: it just went on sale and I ordered one. Good enough is good enough, right? Have a shoot coming up where I need the super wide angle. At least, now I'm still making money, lol.
The Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 was a good option before Canon closed the door on it. Some of the best (affordable) options are going to be EF mount lenses used via adapter. The Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 G2 is a good such option. The Samyang 14mm F2.4 SP lens is a good option, too.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Hi Dustin, love your work. What do you mean by Canon closing the door on Samyang AF 14mm F2.8? (I have the EF mount version and am hoping to use it on a Canon R5)
@@jamesmc3261 Canon went after companies making RF mount autofocus lenses saying they were infringing on Canon's patents. Canon is sending cease and desist letters to third party lens manufacturers to make only OEM lenses an option for native RF.
@@bodinian Thanks. Bit of a shame Canon is doing that. Explains why there are not too many non Canon RF mount lenses. Makes Sony more appealing when making the switch to mirrorless. Thanks for the heads up.
Thanks for this review, highly appreciated. I own a Canon R7 and a Canon RF 16mm f2.8 lens. When I try to focus, only Manual focus mode works. Nothing more. I change to my RF 35 mm and the R7 focus without problems. But once I put the RF 16 back, no auto focus, only manual. I put the RF 16 in my R6mkII and it focuses automatically. What could be happening? I just installed the latest 1.3 version of the firmware in my camera with no luck. Please help!
How would you rate the IQ of this RF lens compared to the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS at 16mm. E.g. when the RF is f/2.8 and at f/4 does it look as sharp as the EF at 16mm, better or worst? I appreciate the one stop difference when shooting the RF at f/2.8 but then you loose the IS of the EF.
I understand this is a full frame lens. But why no one talks about how this lens performs in aps-c camera? It might be 24mm equivalent and I wish someone covers it
A little confused why a prime lens - which only has a single focal length - has SO MUCH distortion and vignette at its one and only focal length. Why would they do that? It requires so much compensation. All in the name of size? That's what a cell phone or G5X or something is for....
I think the combination of having good profile corrections and the desire for compact size is what drives that. Also, Canon has seemed to make some engineering choices where they design a lens that is extra wide before correction and is the stated focal length after correction.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Isn't the distortion of objects near the stated focal length a real issue? What good is sharpness when the image is distorted after correction? I don't get it.
@@iancurrie8844 All ultrawide rectilinear lenses will have dramatically stretched perspective in the corners, by definition. Now, the RF 16mm f/2.8 additionally has some wonkiness on top of that due to its small, light, cheap optical design which results in more complex distortion than typical. But that is totally fine IF you aren't putting important details (e.g. people) in the corners. So it's all about knowing what this lens is good at and what it is not so good at, and using it accordingly. To me this lens makes a great little addition to a camera bag in combination with a normal zoom, e.g. the 24-105 f/4L. Then you get the option of switching to an ultrawide shot "for free" when inspiration strikes, without a big space and weight penalty.
Price should have been somewhere around 150. There is nothing great about this lens. It’s not a bad lens when you have the only wide angle lens but the lens sharpness wide open is really questionable. May be I got the bad copy. Do not spend yours bucks on this without doing research.
I just sold this lens as it required way too much image corrections to be straight, and with these applied the sharpness in the corners were a bit too soft for me. It's a great lens for maybe R6 and below, but for R5 it just did not fit I think. Also I didn't like the sun star this creates. I just bought the RF 15-35 F2.8L instead, not comparable at all and the price is no way near matching. But I love landscape photography, so I decided to up the game to something proper for my R5. I would still recommend this 16mm for everything except high megapixels cameras and for those wanna try out ultra wide or for vlogging as its light.
@@DustinAbbottTWI for sure not bad for its price tag. Overall I hope they'll start producing some mid-range glass soon for the less critical work/pure fun (and opens up for competitors)
The more expensive lens from the same manufacturer tends to be better quality. If money were no obstacle I'd have the RF f/2.8 Trinity and the RF 100-500 telephoto. For the hobbyists with standard pocket depth, something like this lens could do the trick.
Those are some fisheye kind of bulges slash distortion Dustin. Much like my Rokinon 12 though I have no clue why no matter how flawed these small pancake type lenses are, to me, they just always appeal. Some secret soul talking I suspect;)
@Zealadinn Seems this was not an issue with EF, lots of people expected and wanted new Tamron and sigma lens to come to RF. They can compete with features instead, no one would by 3rd party lens if Canon did not cripple hammer bugdet line, or had good middle line. Not everyone can afford L. If you want to buy crap lens for a price of good one made by 3rd then go ahead.
These cheaper RF primes build quality are good enough. Not using metal doesn't equal to bad. STM is too slow for video. But for stills it's alright. I don't get your hate towards this lens. With this size and price there's no competition. The competition is either heavier&bigger, cost a bit more, or it's a APS-C lens.
I have 35 STM and 85 STM, build is pretty decent, autofocus is not slow in all senses and it's spot on precise, price (i bought them both used) is competitive even brand new, and optically they are pretty amazing from my perspective, i only find the 85 STM too prone to contrast loss when shooting portraits against the sun, other than that i'm pretty happy with both lenses.
