Canon RF 28mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens review 

I love my EF 40mm pancake as well, and do wish they'd do a fast-ish 40mm (maybe f/2 like the 22mm for EF-M) pancake for the RF mount.

The problem with a 40mm RF pancake lens is the short flange distance of the mount. A small pancake lens is only really possible if the focal length is similar to the flange distance of the mount. EF had a flange distance of 44mm, while RF has a flange distance of 20mm. So it's very unlikely that we'll get a true pancake lens with a longer focal length than the 28mm that we have.

I was able to get the White pancake 40mm and love it! Great for the price

@@timotheus34 That's not true; you're repeating a very, very incorrect theory dreamt up by youtubers and reddit users who don't know history, let alone lens design. Many systems have had pancake lenses which are entirely different focal lengths to the flange distance; Canon obviously had both 24mm and 40mm which worked on EF-S mount, and even back in the 1960s they had a 19mm pancake lens on the R and FL mount (that's original R, obviously, not the modern RF), and that mount had a flange of 42mm. Fuji X has a flange of 17.7mm, yet they have a 27mm (40mm equivalent0 pancake. m4/3 systems have a flange of 19.25mm, yet have access to pancakes between 14mm and 25mm; and that's only counting autofocus lenses and not including all the manual lenses, where the range of pancake lenses expands to 9-42mm. The idea that pancake lenses need to be near in focal length to the flange distance is absolute nonsense, and even just in the example of this lens, the fact you have a 28mm focal length on a 20mm flange should have tipped you off that flange distance has nothing to do with focal lengths available to pancake designs. What _actually_ dictates pancake focal lengths is the simple fact that the further you stray outside of the 28-50mm range, the larger optics have to be, and the same goes for aperture. There's just no cheating physics, and fitting a 28mm f/2.8 optic into this kind of size is simply a lot easier than fitting, for example, 50mm f/2.8 or 20mm f/1.4. Now there's no mirror and the rear elements can extend further into the body, the range of possible pancake designs has increased, but you still have the problem of balancing cramming everything in vs optical quality vs price. It's not that other focal lengths and aperture combinations aren't "possible", just that it's very hard to convince people to pay enough to make those designs _profitable_ , especially if people will throw a hissy fit if the corners aren't pin-sharp wide-open.

@@timotheus34 really not sure where you got this information from, but it's historically incorrect. There is a comment bellow citing many examples of pancake lenses at various focal lengths. There are currently many full frame pancake lenses available for mirrorless cameras in the 24-40mm range as well. So it's not impossible.

> "It does suffer from focus breathing though, especially in low light" Focus breathing has nothing to do with whether there is a lot or little light. It's an effect where the focal length changes when you refocus and is completely independent of exposure. You can see it in the video - as Christopher refocuses, the image zooms in and out (despite this being a prime lens). It sounds like maybe what you are talking about is _hunting_ , where the lens changes focus frequently trying to "lock on" to a subject, and therefore the focus elements move in and out. That often happens in low light as the AF system has to work harder to find focus. That isn't focus breathing, that's just the lens refocusing. It just happens that since this lens does have focus breathing, _when_ it hunts it _also_ focus breathes. But that's a side note. A lens can physically change shape (focal elements move in and out) without focus breathing (lens changes focal length and therefore image zoom changes). Or, a lens can focus breathe (image zooms in and out with refocusing) without the lens externally lengthening or shortening (usually because the lens has an internally-focusing design). One is about the _image_, the other is about the _mechanics_. They are orthogonal.

m6 has a very sharp 22mm f2.0

Or an M6iii or M7 with more pancake primes like the excellent efm 22mm f2

Canon‘s M system is dead.

@@exkeks that’s too bad. They should revive the M series to compete with the Sony a6xxx series cameras. The M6ii is still one of the best cameras Canon has made. The image quality and compact form factor is unrivaled by any of their other cameras.

@@exkeks dont care it's dead or not as long as i still can use ef glasses and M mount glasses and make beautiful pics, i dont effing care 🤓

In many ways? Come on now.

@@livejames9374 No, they're right. Full frame 28mm lenses are rarely very good, unless you jump up to something really big like the Sigma Art. 28mm is my favourite focal length, but for the last ~40 years manufacturers have largely ignored it. The second-best 28 (after the Sigma) since the introduction of autofocus has been the Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS which came out in 2012, but even that has optics which are totally unremarkable by the standards of any 24mm or 35mm lens, fairly slow and jittery focus, and it's twice the size of this despite being the same focal length and aperture. 28mm is a perfect focal length to get the most out of IBIS, so removing IS from the lens isn't a noticeable sacrifice... all-in-all, this is an unusually good lens by 28mm standards. The focus breathing is the only downside which isn't totally negligible; I _wish_ other 28s could be criticised so lightly.

I've got it with my R50.... It's quite a fun combo

China has taken that market over

When a small home didn't cost a million?

You can miss it because people were better people, but lens are more expensive becauese they are better, have electronics and AF and IS, and we average earnings are much higher

@@pawebaran3601 No they are more expensive because they are simply overpriced due to monopoly. Not to mention the debt-driven economy which is about to collapse.

@@CZOVAnd because they wasted money by developing the RF mount. The EF mount was perfectly capable, just removing the mirror with EVF would've done the trick.

The R8 is pretty much the spiritual successor to the RP, and it’s an R6 II without ibis

40 is no longer a pancake once booster is used.

That's an interesting idea! I no longer have my speed booster though

I run this setup with my R50... Highly recommended despite increase in flaring

@@christopherfrost ah darn! Maybe a speedbooster comparison between Metabones, Viltrox, and Canon could happen someday then!

Sure :-)

The point is that this is a tiny pancake lens for 300$ vs. a 2000$ zoom lens. It is small, light, and sharp. What's not to like?

I'm in a very similar situation. I wanted the 24mm. Especially for doing video work but if the 28mm is cheaper I think I would get it. For the price and performance it seems a good deal. The 16mm is too wide. 35mm is just almost too small.

@@ElevenAce So guys, what do you get, 24 1.8 or 28 2.8 ? I have same problem too, deciding what to get..

@@ElevenAce If you are doing video work....why not get RF 16mm and turn on all the digital IS so it will crop to 24mm equiv. view. And the RF 28mm with the croping digital IS will be around 33~40mm

Yeah, not sure what Canon's logic is when deciding which lens gets plastic mount.

​@@todanrg3I think plastic mount is used to reduce weight, not cost

@@GungKrisna12 Then would have been justified with this lens.

​@@todanrg3it's light enough already, anyway... 120g is about the same weight as their RF/EF mount adapter.

What do you want to do with the lens?, and what's your camera?, and what's your needs?, sorry for these questions, I asked these questions to help you to choose the right lens, I'm sorry if that bothered you.

The 28mm is even better

1.8 stm lenses are all trash. Nikon, Panasonic, and Sony all have way better 1.8 lenses. It's either spend $2000+ on. 1.2 RF lens or these cheap toy 1.8 primes. I will sell my Canon gear if they don't get their shit together.

Hey 👋🏻 I have the RF35mm and wondered about your comment, in what ways is the 28mm better? I might sell my RF35mm to get one…

​@@wolfiemedia the 28 is smaller, lighter and has afurther focal length. I have more fun with it in the city. But the quality from the 35 is better.

@@Iron_Acker ok thanks! Oh, did you miss the IS in the 35mm? 28mm doesn’t have this, right?

@@wolfiemedia my R6II has an IBIS, therefore the IS isn't so important for me. But the RF 35mm 1.8 IS Macro STM has IS, the 28 not. With the "macro" function the 35 is more versatile. But the minimum distance from 0,23m at the 28 is quite OK. Also the open aperture from 2.8 against 1.8 is different. But 2.8 is enough for me for a city trip.

@@Iron_Acker thank you 🙏🏻 (I only have the R50, so no IS).

Flare is more often lauded in images than not these days, you'd be surprised

@@benjidoerr There can be a time and a place for flare but when it kills most of the contrast and colour in the image it’s far from ideal.

@@JasondePlater That's still personal preference. I still think you'd be surprised how many people like washed-out, low contrast images from lens flaring, because it gives analog, which is highly desired by many these days.

I think thats the glass

I have the 16mm and there's a lot of distortion, it's nice if it's what you're looking for but it's just that I wish I knew there would be that much before I bought it

@@philipbraun Basically I take a lot of landscape and travel photography. I always want a wide angle to get all the scenery in the frame, to match what I can see. That’s why I’ve considered the 16mm lens. I’ve never tried that lens though.

@@notmenotme614 I am far from being professional but for landscape and travel pics, as long as you don't want to do close up I wouldn't hesitate à second. It's, as far as I am concern, for portrait and close up that it's not ideal

cracking lenses the 22f2..but i left the M when it became apparent that there would be no M5mkii..but very happy with the R6 .. the R50 is hardly any bigger than the M5...but i do miss the 11-22

I have the m6mk2. its great. The only thing I dont love is the small buffer (oh and the viewfinder taking up the hotshoe.) Ive used the R6 a fair bit for work, its great. But unless I need to shoot action, (I never do really) Ill stick with the m62 (as an owner).. If I need full frame (for low light or shallow dof) I just pull out an old 6d or even a 5d mk1)

@@sharpskilz Yes i need the low light and the shallow DOF hence the R6.. i used to run FF (5Dmk1,,still have) and a travel cam but with the exspens of the R6 that was 3 times my self imposed budget the traval cam got sold ..but i can see myself getting a R50 which is the same size as the M5

Yeah understood. I reallly love the m62 for all its quirks. @@77appyi

No weather sealing. Slow stm motor. Canon makes trash stm lenses or Great expensive L Lenses.

Have you seen how much Nikon's 26mm/28mm costs? And tbh I don't use lens hood with small lens, and stills shooters aren't concern with noisy STM motors. Only videographers complain non-stop on this matter.

You mean Canon RF to Sony E mount? There is none and it is not possible to make one because of the flange distance difference.

@@quikee9195 There is 2mm to play with. Flange back distance is not the issue. The throat diameter might be a problem though. It would depend upon the size of the rear lens element.

@@bradl2636 you're right there is 2mm difference - Nikon to Sony E is 2mm also and you have the adapters for those. But as you say Sony E mount has a smaller diameter, which is exploited by the Nikon Z mount adapters, but adapting Canon RF lenses for Sony E is the other way around (small hole, big mount), which means you have much less space available.

@@quikee9195 Yes it seems so. This might explain why (fortunately) many APS-C lenses work fine on Sony full frame cameras. The 10-18mm f4 OSS works great from 13-18mm (for example). So I guess Canon RF is a no-go - not a big loss I suppose.

From a recent a6700 owner Who had rf mount. I see no point in it. Rf is just super costly. (Sigma 16 and 30 being far better than rf.

🦔

Canon hasn’t really crippled any of their bodies since mirrorless

I agree that it's a little boring...but it's definitely useful.

The Nikon 28 is better in almost every category Chris reviews… less focus breathing, faster af motor, sharper across the frame wide open, less distortion and vignette, practically no flare. So if that’s poor optically, then what do you call this? The 26mm is even better.

@@livejames9374 you must have lived in a different world. That plastic thing can't hold a candle when it comes to CA Longitudinal or Lateral once you open the raw file uncorrected. Corner or edge resolution is poorer than Canon RF28.

@@frankluo230 pull up Christopher’s reviews for both and compare. Everything I said is true according to what he showed. Criticizing a plastic mount is an interesting approach since the canon lens has plastic elements. 😀

Agreed.

Haha but that is for nearly all canon lenses and bodies

Haha ok…you don’t have to get it then…Not sure how it could be improved? Different colour? Give it extra weight with a big no purpose glass element on the front? It’s a pancake lens after all.

For me, that's a cute lens for bringing along with. Plus no more get bumped in tourist season is a bonus 👍

Yeah, pancake lens looks like a pancake lens, more news at 8. I've been critical of Canon's recent lower budget releases myself, but this one is perfectly solid.

Not going to fit inside a pancake lens body...

It could be a decent option for apsc cameras, some are under $500

Your logic is that those of us who spend quite a bit of money on a full frame R5 would rather leave this camera at home when traveling light or taking pictures on the street? Is it better for us to spend 5 times more money to get an additional Fuji X100V with much worse image quality than this combination?

All kinds of hobbyists who enjoy travel or street photography might want to buy a more expensive camera. And all kinds of professional photographers might want an inexpensive pancake lens for when they're on holiday or just shooting casually out and about. And also, there less much expensive EOS R cameras on the market than that, particularly if you're buying second-hand