It’s perfect for budget top down game review shooter like me. Cheap, lightweight (using weak tripod with horizontal bar) and 16mm (wide and closeup) 2.8 (no fancy light) auto focus
What a great lens! This tiny lens will make it into very narrow spaces (together with the bodies' swiveling screen) to get very special perspectives. 2 years ago the 35 1.8 Macro opened a new dimension of creativity to me shooting nature really low & close. The 16mm will put this to a new level. I do not expect this lens as an easy to use lens, but a lens providing never seen composition in full frame photography. I have ordered and can't wait to get my fingers onto this lens.
How are you finding it? I picked one up the other day and overall I'm pretty pleased, there are compromises re the corners etc but so far I'm thinking it's pretty good for £300 and very handy.
@@tinysteelorchestra It is a nice lens giving great fun to shoot with. Very handy to go into narrow spaces to get strong perspectives. For a classical landscape done on a tripod in eye level etc. a 15-35 2.8 is the better option - for nearly ten times the money ....
I have the Eos 5Dmk3 great camera but with a 50mm Sigma art lens a very good combination, the total weight is an arm killer. I like to carry my camera when on landscape walks especially along our local riverside. So I decided to buy the R7 with a 50 and 16mm lens. What a difference in weight I found straight out of the box. The great advantage of the R7 with the 16mm lens plus the camera's built-in IBIS and high megapixel sensor does a remarkable job allowing the photos to be reframed in lightroom to something close to my full-frame camera. In most of my photos, the difference is hard to pick until a very close inspection is made. If you are doing walks with your camera held in one hand for quick action in streets and local landscapes. I recommend an R7 and a 16mm lens.
landscape photographers with a 16mm lens? To me this is best used for wedding receptions where vignetting and distortion around the edges is actually really good. The Canon 15-35 is the closest imho but i find that lens to be not sharp, so this tiny lens is a good and cheaper alternative that, when people bang against it on the dance floor, is not a big deal. However for landscapes I would suggest looking elsewhere.
I'm using rf16mm f2.8 on my R6 and I love it. I pare it with rf50 f1.4 and rf24-105 f4 L. rf16mm opens up a lot more possibilities and creativity for me. BTW, photos from my R6 comes out without distortion and vignetting(turn lens corrections to 'ON')
I am using 16mm for my Apsc R7 body so the corners just can forget. It's a fantastic lens considering the price point. But I would like to know how well 24-105 L will perform in R7 body. I'd that is good then I think RF 24-105L can be considered as general purpose lense. Where as night photography may be a challenging one. Request your comments on this (especially for R7 APS-C )
Interesting. Most of the other reviews I've watched report significant chromatic abberation with this lens, but on this test there's barely any. I wonder how much variation there is between copies then.
This lens relies upon lens correction by design. This happens in-camera if shooting jpeg. However, if I shoot Raw, it seems that I need to use post-processing software that supports Canons lens profile for this lens. As far as I can tell, this is limited to Canon DPP4 and Adobe LR/PS. Is this correct, or am I missing something?
I should have stayed with Nikon. The RF lenses are too few and too damn expensive. I jumped the gun when moving from my Nikon lens line up with the D810 and D4s. The Canon ML cameras caught my eye and I foolishly did not research the Canon lenses. I may have to bite the bullet and invest in an adaptor to use with the R5 and purchase older Canon lenses with weather sealing and with no loss in image quality. I will be honest I am very new to Canon and have shot for 20 years plus with Nikon. After 4 weeks I am not impressed. The R5 is a super camera but not enough quality glass. Maybe in the near future but the price has to come down for the RF lenses. I for one miss the internal zooming of the Nikon lenses and hope the the few Canon lenses I do own last as long as my Nikons had. My Nikon 50mm D, 24mm and 35 mm and the Nikon 16-35 f/4 are great lenses. My mistake.....Back to the drawing board to find some good, well built and quality productive Canon lenses. Not ready to jump back to Nikon but my toes are getting wet.
