koenkooi wrote:
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
Hopefully I'll get a chance to test it out this weekend and compare it to my copy of the 17-40mm f4.0L. I got pretty lucky with my 17-40mm, as it is pretty sharp.
The 17-40mm f4.0L is probably one of the most polarizing lenses ever made by Canon; people either loved it or hated it. I ended up getting mine specifically for travel due to its light weight, compact form and build quality. Despite owning the "legendary" Canon EF 16-35mm f4.0L, I purchased the 17-40mm f4.0L when it went on sale a couple of years ago. While the 17-40mm is not as compact on my R6 as it was on my old 6dmk2 (sold my 6dmk2 last year), it is still way more compact than my EF 16-35mm f4.0L. Unfortunately, my EF 16-35mm f4.0L sticks out way too much on my R6 to be practical for travel purposes.
At some point I'll get the RF 15-35mm, but for now I'll just make due with what I have.
The RF 16/2.8 is a bargain and surprisingly good optically, especially at f5.6. However it needs a good profile - Adobe is not so good, instead use Canon’s own DPP (free) or DXO Photolab (v5 or 6) for much better sharpness, especially in the corners. I’ve just done an A3 full frame print of a forest scene taken at 5.6, processed in DXO, and it is sharp right into the corners. DXO also excels at perspective correction when you use this lens for architecture, and you get a slightly wider field of view as a bonus. It’s ideal in a travel combination with a 24-105.
I don't know the reputation of the Tamron, but I'd lean towards the A7c. If you need wider, how about the Rokinon 14mm for <$300. You don't need autofocus on a 14mm.
nputtick wrote:
The RF 16/2.8 is a bargain and surprisingly good optically, especially at f5.6. However it needs a good profile - Adobe is not so good, instead use Canon’s own DPP (free) or DXO Photolab (v5 or 6) for much better sharpness, especially in the corners. I’ve just done an A3 full frame print of a forest scene taken at 5.6, processed in DXO, and it is sharp right into the corners. DXO also excels at perspective correction when you use this lens for architecture, and you get a slightly wider field of view as a bonus. It’s ideal in a travel combination with a 24-105....Show more →
I took that lens to Portugal with my 24-105. Yes for the price it is optically very good and I would also recommend it. 90% of my interests are birding so I really didn't use it as much as I had expected. I'm happy with my 24-105 for urban shooting so I sold the 16.
It is certainly worth the money and rounds off pretty much any lens collection unless you already have one of the zooms that cover the UWA: in EF the 16-35L 2.8 or 4.0IS, in RF the 15-35L or 14-35L. The latter is the lightest and most compact by far, but still a sizable piece of glass. Note that I discount the EF17-40L, it has really past it's time in terms of quality and bulk, as you have the EF 16-35 4.0. And we are not discussing the EF 11-24, superb but not compact or light by any stretch!
I own the RF14-35 and RF70-200 4.0, together they give you all you need for travel photography in a remarkably small package. But being zooms, it still involves some bulk, so for light, compact and less conspicuous situations I also have the option of the RF 16, RF 35 1.8 and RF 85 2.0.
Alternately, if you have one of the RF 24-105 zooms as a single walk-around lens, the 16mm gives you that additional UWA capability with very little additional space or weight.
jay w wrote:
I don't know the reputation of the Tamron, but I'd lean towards the A7c. If you need wider, how about the Rokinon 14mm for <$300. You don't need autofocus on a 14mm.
Thanks! I briefly thought about going with the Rokinon 14mm manual focus, but I really need AF. Pre-focusing doesn't work well with my old eyes!
Rokinon makes an AF 14mm, but I read mixed reviews from many people who received bad copies.
While I like my A7c, I really like my R6 so much more! The A7c is only as compact as the lens you attach to it. Unfortunately there aren't too many good, compact, affordable AF lenses for Sony. Most lenses dwarf the A7c. I ended up having to buy an extended grip just to balance out the A7c with the larger-sized lenses I have for it. Also, AF tracking on my R6 is miles ahead of the A7c.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "Sony hater"; I like my A7c. However, if I had to do it all over again I would never have purchased it and stuck with Canon exclusively. The A7c looked promising as a compact, FF travel camera. Unfortunately there aren't many lens choices small enough to make it practical.
p.s. As far as Tamron goes, I have had better luck with Tamron lenses than with Sony lenses so far.
snegron7 wrote:
Nice images. No doubt the RF 24-105 is a spectacular lens. What do you do if you need to capture an image that requires a wider angle lens than 24mm?
As a hobby shooter I don't require anything. I shoot for fun and post on forums. Wider than 24 doesn't do much for me from that perspective.
Zenon Char wrote:
As a hobby shooter I don't require anything. I shoot for fun and post on forums. Wider than 24 doesn't do much for me from that perspective.
I too shoot for fun. I like to shoot pictures when I travel. I like to capture images inside cathedrals, small churches, historic buildings, museums, etc. I find my 20-40mm f2.8 is not wide enough to capture the inside of these structures, so I need a wider lens, like a 16mm. No matter how far back you stand to capture an image inside, you are limited as to what you can fit in a 20mm or 24mm image. A 16mm resolves that issue.
I have experience shooting with 16mm focal lengths. I used to use my EF 16-35mm f4.0L and my EF 17-40mm f4.0L on my old 6dmk2 for travel. I currently don't use them on my R6 because they are too long (lengthwise).
snegron7 wrote:
I too shoot for fun. I like to shoot pictures when I travel. I like to capture images inside cathedrals, small churches, historic buildings, museums, etc. I find my 20-40mm f2.8 is not wide enough to capture the inside of these structures, so I need a wider lens, like a 16mm. No matter how far back you stand to capture an image inside, you are limited as to what you can fit in a 20mm or 24mm image. A 16mm resolves that issue.
I have experience shooting with 16mm focal lengths. I used to use my EF 16-35mm f4.0L and my EF 17-40mm f4.0L on my old 6dmk2 for travel. I currently don't use them on my R6 because they are too long (lengthwise). ...Show more →
The RF 16mm is that convenient, compact and affordable lens to add to your UWA abilities. In EF the closest is the EF 14mm L, bulky, heavy and expensive. If you do a lot of such photography the RF 14-35L is a better alternative, remarkably compact, IS included and avoiding lens changes in the whole UWA - WA range. Longer focal lengths can be covered by the 85mm f:2, or either of the RF 24-105 lenses, or the 70-200, depending on how much longer focal lengths matter to your shooting style.
Rivermist wrote:
The RF 16mm is that convenient, compact and affordable lens to add to your UWA abilities. In EF the closest is the EF 14mm L, bulky, heavy and expensive. If you do a lot of such photography the RF 14-35L is a better alternative, remarkably compact, IS included and avoiding lens changes in the whole UWA - WA range. Longer focal lengths can be covered by the 85mm f:2, or either of the RF 24-105 lenses, or the 70-200, depending on how much longer focal lengths matter to your shooting style.
Thanks! I'm seriously contemplating selling off all my Sony gear mainly because of the lack of compact-sized UWA lenses. In terms of weight/size ratio, I feel I'm better off using my R6 with either three small primes or an RF 14-35mm instead of my Sony A7c with larger/heavier lenses.
Of course, with my luck, the moment I sell off my A7c, I'm
sure that Sony, Tamron, Sigma, Viltrox and several other manufacturers will announce some new affordable, compact lens series for FE mount.
snegron7 wrote:
I too shoot for fun. I like to shoot pictures when I travel. I like to capture images inside cathedrals, small churches, historic buildings, museums, etc. I find my 20-40mm f2.8 is not wide enough to capture the inside of these structures, so I need a wider lens, like a 16mm. No matter how far back you stand to capture an image inside, you are limited as to what you can fit in a 20mm or 24mm image. A 16mm resolves that issue.
I have experience shooting with 16mm focal lengths. I used to use my EF 16-35mm f4.0L and my EF 17-40mm f4.0L on my old 6dmk2 for travel. I currently don't use them on my R6 because they are too long (lengthwise). ...Show more →
That I understand. Cathedrals, etc you benefit with a wider lens.
Rivermist wrote:
The RF 16mm is that convenient, compact and affordable lens to add to your UWA abilities. In EF the closest is the EF 14mm L, bulky, heavy and expensive. If you do a lot of such photography the RF 14-35L is a better alternative, remarkably compact, IS included and avoiding lens changes in the whole UWA - WA range. Longer focal lengths can be covered by the 85mm f:2, or either of the RF 24-105 lenses, or the 70-200, depending on how much longer focal lengths matter to your shooting style.
Yes it is. I have nothing negative to say about that lens performance and price.
Scott Stoness wrote:
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
What do you think about the 15-30 vs the 16 in terms of IQ? I just purchased the 15-30 (and own the 16 since before), but have not had time to shoot much with it yet. I'm hoping it will be just as sharp as the 16mm at every focal length. Then I will be very happy with my purchase (it costs almost 3x as much and is twice the size of the 16 after all, while also being much slower/darker...so I do have quite high expectations when it comes to IQ).
snegron7 wrote:
Thanks! I'm seriously contemplating selling off all my Sony gear mainly because of the lack of compact-sized UWA lenses. In terms of weight/size ratio, I feel I'm better off using my R6 with either three small primes or an RF 14-35mm instead of my Sony A7c with larger/heavier lenses.
Of course, with my luck, the moment I sell off my A7c, I'm
sure that Sony, Tamron, Sigma, Viltrox and several other manufacturers will announce some new affordable, compact lens series for FE mount.
The new Sony 16-35/4 is reported to be compact and good (as in, better than the previous Zeiss 16-35/4, and smaller too). But heavily auto-corrected (like most lenses are today, for better or worse).
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
The new Sony 16-35/4 is reported to be compact and good (as in, better than the previous Zeiss 16-35/4, and smaller too). But heavily auto-corrected (like most lenses are today, for better or worse).
During my sesrch for UWA's, I did some reading on the PZ 16-35mm f4. While the focal length is exactly what I'm looking for, three things kept me from buying it; 1. The heavy corrections. 2. The PZ zoom function. 3. The fact that it is f4 and not f2.8.
What's confusing/frustrating for me is why haven't Sony released an FE 16mm f2.8G? They have 3 compact primes that seem to have been made with A7c in mind; FE 24mm f2.8G, FE 40mm f2.5G and FE 50mm f2.5G. I have the 40mm, and it works very well. It seems like the roadmap for lens designs for Sony full frame is mostly focusing on longer, telephoto lenses. Canon still has the leading edge in the UWA market.
Sony had a 16mm f/2.8, but it was for APS-C. And it was awful.
Anyway, the software corrections are a given at this point, unfortunately; the 16-35 PZ has 9% of barrel distortion at 16mm uncorrected; the Canon 16mm has 10%, and God only knows how much the Canon 15-30 got (Photozone has not yet tested it). I guess none of these lenses are meant to be ever used without at least the distortion correction.
“Unfortunately, my EF 16-35mm f4.0L sticks out way too much on my R6 to be practical for travel purposes.”
Please explain. I’ve traveled a bit - UK, Italy, Jamaica, Aruba, Mexico - and I’m confused as to why a couple of additional inches on an R6 “sticks out way too much”.
How is this a problem?
I currently travel with an R5, RF 16, RF 24-240, and an RF 100-500. I’m mindful of people around me when using the 100-500. But I don’t experience any packing or crowd issues using a standard size zoom.
