Anyone here have any hands-on, real-world experience with the RF 16mm f2.8?
I currently have an R6 with several EF lenses used via adapter. I'm on a budget and looking to put together a decent, lightweight travel outfit. This is what I currently own:
- R6 (and 7dmk2)
- EF 17-40mm f4.0L
- EF 16-35mm f4.0L
- EF 70-200mm f2.8L
- EF 28mm f1.8 USM
- EF 35mm f2.0 IS
- EF 50mm f1.8 STM
- RF 50mm f1.8
- EF 85mm f1.8 USM
- EF 300mm f4.0L
I also own the following which I purchased for the purpose of a travel outfit, but affordable wide angle options under 20mm are scarce to non-existent:
- Sony A7c (full frame, compact body)
- Sony FE 40mm f2.5 G
- Sony FE 28-60 kit lens
- Sony FE 85mm f1.8
- Tamron 24mm f2.8
- Tamron 20-40mm f2.8
- Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2
While my R6 is nowhere near as compact as my A7c, I believe my R6 with a few inexpensive RF primes would weigh about the same as my A7c with my heavier zoom lenses.
The RF 16mm is a pretty decent lens considering the price. It has very extreme barrel distortion when uncorrected, but by default it corrects it in-camera, so you don't see it. As a result of this, the corners are a little soft when corrected, but still OK. If you're shooting landscapes with it, you can turn off the correction and just crop in very slightly (uncorrected it's about a 13mm lens, so plenty of room to crop in a touch), and then even the corners are very sharp. Overall, it's a very good lens considering the price. I'm going to be selling mine, though, just because I have the 14-35mm f/4L now, and that's easy enough to pack in the bag that the 16mm has sat relatively unused since.
I have the RF 16 and the Zeiss ZE 15/2.8. For the price the RF 16 is surprisingly good. First and foremost it is always in the bag as it is so small, where the ZE15 is neither.
Not many thoughts here but I like the RF 16 2.8 STM on my R7. Sorta a double pancake stack. Nice casino and dinner lens and easy on the shoulder or coat pocket.
I had zero experience in UWA work, so I bought the RF 16 to try things out. For its price and my extremely limited purposes and skills, I've been very happy. Some examples (on an RP):
It's a decent lens, but I found 16mm too wide, so I got rid of it. I should add Canon isn't my main system, so I'm aiming to have as few lenses as possible for my Canon kit and the ones I have are either zooms or special.
chicago8c wrote:
I had zero experience in UWA work, so I bought the RF 16 to try things out. For its price and my extremely limited purposes and skills, I've been very happy. Some examples (on an RP):
snegron7 wrote:
Anyone here have any hands-on, real-world experience with the RF 16mm f2.8?
I currently have an R6 with several EF lenses used via adapter. I'm on a budget and looking to put together a decent, lightweight travel outfit. This is what I currently own:
- R6 (and 7dmk2)
- EF 17-40mm f4.0L
- EF 16-35mm f4.0L
- EF 70-200mm f2.8L
- EF 28mm f1.8 USM
- EF 35mm f2.0 IS
- EF 50mm f1.8 STM
- RF 50mm f1.8
- EF 85mm f1.8 USM
- EF 300mm f4.0L
I also own the following which I purchased for the purpose of a travel outfit, but affordable wide angle options under 20mm are scarce to non-existent:
- Sony A7c (full frame, compact body)
- Sony FE 40mm f2.5 G
- Sony FE 28-60 kit lens
- Sony FE 85mm f1.8
- Tamron 24mm f2.8
- Tamron 20-40mm f2.8
- Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2
While my R6 is nowhere near as compact as my A7c, I believe my R6 with a few inexpensive RF primes would weigh about the same as my A7c with my heavier zoom lenses. ...Show more →
I wish they'd just come out with a more conservatively spec'd 18/4 or 20/3.5, at this price point. Then I'd be looking more at RF. I really don't need 2.8 or 16mm on an uwa.
I haven't used the lens. I don't like the enforced cropping and heavy vignetting. That said it's probably not a big deal on a lot of subjects. It looks like ~1.5 stops stopped down actually a smidge more) so I'd have to keep iso a bit low sometimes but probably not bad. Cropping more could probably also help. It would probably deliver nice photos at the end of the day if I could get my head around the compromises made. I looked at the opticallimits test it's not the greatest in the corners. Although I suppose cropping to 18-20mm ff equivalent might crop more of the corners but that's a big crop especially using 20mp. Still, it's a landscape FL for me.
Since you have 7D2 you might look Tokina uwa. I used 11-16 around 16mm on 5D. Although not light or optically perfect either imo. Other aps uwa might be OK on FF. 20mm voightlander very light not perfect optically but looks good.
I like mine. The close MFD is fun. I also have the 15-30 and an adapted Sigma 14-24 Art. For traveling where weight is not a huge concern, and there's a good chance of astrophotography, I'll take the Sigma. For regular traveling when I'm not going to be doing any astro, I'll take the 15-30. Only where weight/size is really at a premium, with a small chance of astro, do I take the 16. Basically, I choose the 15-30 most of the time, but I'll keep the 16 around, and I'm definitely not giving up the Sigma.
On the R7 it is a small 15-16mm to team with the 18-150 + tele. On the R5 I can easily crop into a 24 mm FOV making it an effective 15-24 zoom to team with my 24-105 f4 + tele. Also it focuses close and at f2.8 can make an OK night sky lens when the opportunity arrises. I also have the 14-35 f4 but the 16 is handy for when I have to have everything on my back.
AmbientMike wrote:
I wish they'd just come out with a more conservatively spec'd 18/4 or 20/3.5, at this price point. Then I'd be looking more at RF. I really don't need 2.8 or 16mm on an uwa.
I haven't used the lens. I don't like the enforced cropping and heavy vignetting. That said it's probably not a big deal on a lot of subjects. It looks like ~1.5 stops stopped down actually a smidge more) so I'd have to keep iso a bit low sometimes but probably not bad. Cropping more could probably also help. It would probably deliver nice photos at the end of the day if I could get my head around the compromises made. I looked at the opticallimits test it's not the greatest in the corners. Although I suppose cropping to 18-20mm ff equivalent might crop more of the corners but that's a big crop especially using 20mp. Still, it's a landscape FL for me.
Since you have 7D2 you might look Tokina uwa. I used 11-16 around 16mm on 5D. Although not light or optically perfect either imo. Other aps uwa might be OK on FF. 20mm voightlander very light not perfect optically but looks good. ...Show more →
Thanks for the heads up on trying the Tokina 11-16 on full frame
I also have the Tokina 11-16 crop lens I never thought about trying on my R5 , I don’t have anything wide at all on full frame as I haven’t shot landscape for quite a long time and couldn’t justify the cost of a wide angle lens
My views are:
- For the price and IQ and size and weight everyone should have one
- At f8 its really good
- On the R5 it is 45mpx 16mm ff mode and 18mpx 24mm apsc mode - fantastic for hiking
- When I am hiking - I take either 15-30 or 16 plus 24-105
Yeah, the 15-30 is also a factor to consider. That one hasn't been tested much, although I would expect the usual combo (off the charts distortion and vignetting uncorrected, softer corners at the wider focal length when corrected). The only real question is how bad it is (and how apparent it is in actual shooting).
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Yeah, the 15-30 is also a factor to consider. That one hasn't been tested much, although I would expect the usual combo (off the charts distortion and vignetting uncorrected, softer corners at the wider focal length when corrected). The only real question is how bad it is (and how apparent it is in actual shooting).
The 15-30 is quite good - better than low price 24-105 or 16 for iq and distortion. Weakest but okay at 15 corners.
see 3:50 (okay 15 corners good elsewere) 6;00 (strong barrel but okay vignette at 15) and 7 flare (good) of
. he recommends
I think it is quite good - better than the old 17-40, and very light. The biggest downside is that it's not fast. But ,weight vs fast - I like it as an option. And relatively for a bargain lens, its great.
So, my RF 16mm f2.8 STM arrived today. It looks like the RF 50mm f1.8, but it's much heavier. The AF works nice and fast on my R6. In terms of corner sharpness, I would say it shows a bit of distortion that makes it appear to be not as tack sharp as the center. Overall it seems pretty decent. I think it will work well for its intended purpose; as part of a lightweight travel kit.
The travel kit will be one of the following combinations/options from the body/lenses I currently own:
Option # 1:
- R6
- RF 16mm f2.8 STM
- EF 28mm f1.8 USM
- EF 85mm f1.8 USM
Or
Option # 2:
- R6
- EF 17-40mm f4.0L
- EF 85mm f1.8 USM
Or
Option # 3:
- Sony A7c
- Tamron 20-40mm f2.8
- Sony 85mm f1.8
Again, I own the above equipment, so I am trying not to buy any more equipment for now (saving money for travel due increased air fares lately).
The last two times I traveled I took my Sony A7c with Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 and Sony 85mm f1.8. I was ok with the results, except I really wished I had a wider lens than the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8. After spending way too much time "doing my homework" trying to find affordable 16mm primes for Sony, I decided to get the inexpensive RF 16mm f2.8 STM for my R6. There really aren't any affordable (reliable) 16mm options for Sony. Samyang/Rokinon makes an AF 14mm f2.8 and an AF 18mm f2.8 for Sony FE (full frame), but reviews are split down the middle; way too many people complain of sample variations, so I didn't want to risk it. My next choice was to spend circa $1,000 for either a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 or Sigma 16-28mm f2.8. Going with the Canon RF 16mm was my best option.
My copy of the RF16 is so much sharper at f/2.8 than my copy of the EF17-40L at f/4.0, that cropping the RF16 to 40mm still has more detail across the frame than the 17-40@40mm. This is on an R5, so there are more pixels available to 'waste'.
I did get the RF15-30 STM since I like the results of a properly composed shot better. Which is a different way of saying that I suck at framing for cropping when using an uncropped view
