I'm looking into getting the Canon RF 16-28 F2.8 IS STM. However, I currently own 3 prime lenses in this focal range: Canon RF 16mm f2.8 STM, RF 24mm f1.8 Macro, and RF 28mm f2.8 STM.
Other than consolidating my 3-lens setup into a single zoom lens setup, is the Canon RF 16-28 F2.8 IS STM really that much better optically than my 3 primes (lens corrections included)?
snegron7 wrote:
20 hours, 170+ views, yet still no response. Awesome. I had a theory and now I've proven it. Thanks "everyone".
HAHA-
I am considering replacing my 15-35 with this just due to size-
Optically- it looks like a pretty nice optic. I would 100% replace your 16 and 28 with it but the 24 I could see a use case for the closer focusing and stop plus faster.
My use case would be more for video but would use it for other areas as well-
Comparing them optically- The primes should outperform the zoom everytime but I haven’t used any of them except for the 28. I doubt in practical application, they are that noticeable though-
I would say jump in with both feet and report back
I would keep the 24 for the extra 1.3 stops of light
The 28 should be similar to the zoom or better (with zooms it’s easier to lose in the copy variation lottery, like the videos author with his 15-35…)
The thing is, 16 and 28 are so tiny and cheap, that maybe it is worth to for example keep the 16 and something like 28-70? And 24 for when going low light?
I am considering replacing my 15-35 with this just due to size-
Optically- it looks like a pretty nice optic. I would 100% replace your 16 and 28 with it but the 24 I could see a use case for the closer focusing and stop plus faster.
My use case would be more for video but would use it for other areas as well-
Comparing them optically- The primes should outperform the zoom everytime but I haven’t used any of them except for the 28. I doubt in practical application, they are that noticeable though-
I would say jump in with both feet and report back
I would keep the 24 for the extra 1.3 stops of light
The 28 should be similar to the zoom or better (with zooms it’s easier to lose in the copy variation lottery, like the videos author with his 15-35…)
The thing is, 16 and 28 are so tiny and cheap, that maybe it is worth to for example keep the 16 and something like 28-70? And 24 for when going low light?
Thanks for the video link! You are correct regarding the tiny size of the 16 and the 28. My biggest reason for wanting to "consolidate " these focal lengths into one single zoom lens is for the sake of convenience. Last November I took them on a trip to Iceland. It was so cold that I shot everything with the 24mm. It was too cold and inconvenient to change lenses. If I do end up getting the RF 16-28mm f2.8, I would still keep my 3 little primes for whenever I need to shoot as lightweight as possible.
snegron7 wrote:
20 hours, 170+ views, yet still no response. Awesome. I had a theory and now I've proven it. Thanks "everyone".
The theory being most of us don't own the Canon RF 16-28 F2.8 IS STM and all those primes? If so, you are correct!
I own all three of those primes, but not the RF 16-28 F2.8 IS STM, so I only have second hand knowledge of the zoom from a handful of reviews. The reviews are varied on assessment of optical quality. Maybe Canon is struggling with QC?
However, I can say I found the RF 16 2.8 and RF 28 2.8 underwhelming optically. Not horrid, but the weak corner performance and lack of close focus ability relegated them to emergency backup duty in the bottom of my bag. I should trade them in at MBP for something more useful. Now, the RF 24 1.8 Macro IS STM is a real gem: fast aperture, sharp, .5X macro and effective IS. Great lens for flowers, docs and art work when you're struggling in tight spaces—killer on a copy stand. I wouldn't be happy with only 0.11x on the RF 16-28 F2.8 IS STM.
Gochugogi wrote:
The theory being most of us don't own the Canon RF 16-28 F2.8 IS STM and all those primes? If so, you are correct!
I own all three of those primes, but not the RF 16-28 F2.8 IS STM, so I only have second hand knowledge of the zoom from a handful of reviews. The reviews are varied on assessment of optical quality. Maybe Canon is struggling with QC?
However, I can say I found the RF 16 2.8 and RF 28 2.8 underwhelming optically. Not horrid, but the weak corner performance and lack of close focus ability relegated them to emergency backup duty in the bottom of my bag. I should trade them in at MBP for something more useful. Now, the RF 24 1.8 Macro IS STM is a real gem: fast aperture, sharp, .5X macro and effective IS. Great lens for flowers, docs and art work when you're struggling in tight spaces—killer on a copy stand. I wouldn't be happy with only 0.11x on the RF 16-28 F2.8 IS STM....Show more →
I too have been reading reviews about the RF 16-28mm f2.8 that seem to be all over the place; some either love it or hate it. Somewhat similar to the reviews I've read about the RF 14-35mm f4.0L, but most reviews are positive.
I currently have 3.5 camera outfits I use:
- Canon R6II with RF 16mm f2.8 STM, RF 24mm f1.8, RF 28mm f2.8, RF 35mm f1.8, RF 50mm f1.8, also several EF lenses with adapters.
- Sony A7c with Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, 20-40mm f2.8 and 28-200mm f2.8/5.6.
- OM Systems OM-5 with Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 and several Olylmpus & Panasonic lenses.
- Ricoh GRIII Street Edition. (This is my ".5 outfit" I was referring to)
While my Sony outfit is my main travel kit combined with my OM-5, the R6II is much more comfortable to shoot with. The GRIII is the only camera I'd like to sell in the near future because it's not as good as my OM-5.
While I use my R6II for wildlife and all around shooting, I've only taken it with me for travel once (Iceland, November of last year while my kid used my A7c outfit). It felt great in my hand and was very responsive for all-day use! I like the idea of using it as my main travel camera. The RF 16-28mm f2.8 seems like a good idea, but I'd hate to waste money on it if it doesn't produce images at least as good as my inexpensive primes.
I am one of the watchers cause I'm looking for the same answer
I did have a play with it this morning as I swung by a shop for a different reason but no images. It handled well apart from the odd opposite twist to lock. Weight was great. I'm in no hurry, so just going to chill for a few months to see what the reviews & images show on quality.
If you intend to stay with the (nowadays) low resolution bodies it just might work out fine with the zoom. But you have The Canon Straight Flush of Light Wides! Very nice hand, hard to beat optically.
Robin Smith wrote:
Why would someone have all 3 primes and the zoom in question at the same time? I’m surprised you’re surprised you got few answers.
Maybe someone HAS USED all of the lenses I mentioned? Let's try to think outside the box for a change. Just because you personally in your own, limited experience haven't had the chance of using multiple lenses doesn't mean others share your experience. Also, if you don't have an answer to the original topic, why would you bother responding and complaining?
Some years ago, Roger Cicala (founder of LensRentals and all around optics wizard) made the assertion that even very cheap primes outperformed pro zooms at equivalent apertures and focal lengths when comparing resolution; e.g., a Canon 50 1.8 at 2.8 would beat the pro level 24-70 2.8 at 50mm and f/2.8. This inherently makes sense to me, given the enormous number of corrections and confounds you're introducing into a system when you try to design a lens that's great at a range of focal lengths vs. one specific focal length. (Roger is also brilliant and has tested more lenses since the mid-2000s than any of us could hope to do in 50 lifetimes, so I take him at his word).
With that said, resolution is not everything, and "better" can be quantified in a million different ways -- for me personally, I typically prioritize size and weight over absolute sharpness, so I would say my X100V is "better" than my R5 II in most circumstances. I think it's pretty inarguable that zooms are more convenient than primes if you need a bunch of different focal lengths, and there may also be some characteristics of the particular zoom you mention that you find more appealing than the equivalent characteristics on the aforementioned primes. As with everything in photography, I think it comes down to tradeoffs -- what's most important to you?
nightnight wrote:
Some years ago, Roger Cicala (founder of LensRentals and all around optics wizard) made the assertion that even very cheap primes outperformed pro zooms at equivalent apertures and focal lengths when comparing resolution; e.g., a Canon 50 1.8 at 2.8 would beat the pro level 24-70 2.8 at 50mm and f/2.8. This inherently makes sense to me, given the enormous number of corrections and confounds you're introducing into a system when you try to design a lens that's great at a range of focal lengths vs. one specific focal length. (Roger is also brilliant and has tested more lenses since the mid-2000s than any of us could hope to do in 50 lifetimes, so I take him at his word).
With that said, resolution is not everything, and "better" can be quantified in a million different ways -- for me personally, I typically prioritize size and weight over absolute sharpness, so I would say my X100V is "better" than my R5 II in most circumstances. I think it's pretty inarguable that zooms are more convenient than primes if you need a bunch of different focal lengths, and there may also be some characteristics of the particular zoom you mention that you find more appealing than the equivalent characteristics on the aforementioned primes. As with everything in photography, I think it comes down to tradeoffs -- what's most important to you?...Show more →
Thanks!! Initially, when I purchased my R6II, I was using it with adapted EF lenses. I decided on buying several small, inexpensive primes for lighter weight/better IQ (contrast, sharpness, etc.). I still have my older, heavier EF zooms.
My main travel outfit, however, has been my Sony A7c with 3 zoom lenses. While it's a nice setup, the R6II feels so much better and is much more responsive. AF tracking on the A7c is better (much more precise) than the R6II, but the images SOOC look better from the R6II than from the A7c.
Under perfect weather conditions and with plenty of time to spare, I prefer shooting with primes. However, weather and time are two luxuries that are not ideal during travel. So, shooting with a couple of zooms is the most practical choice for travel photography for me.
I could simply continue with my current dual setep (A7c for travel, R6II for everything else), but again, I really like my R6II.
snegron7 wrote:
Under perfect weather conditions and with plenty of time to spare, I prefer shooting with primes. However, weather and time are two luxuries that are not ideal during travel. So, shooting with a couple of zooms is the most practical choice for travel photography for me.
I definitely sympathize with this. Have you ever tried traveling with just one body and one single prime lens? I ran the same calculus as you on focal lengths, convenience, weather, etc. for a couple years before I got frustrated and went on a weekend trip with just my old D810 and a 50 1.8. I ended up having more fun photographing than I had on any trip prior. Nowadays, I switch things up trip to trip, but 95% of the time I'm traveling with one body and one lens. I definitely "miss" shots I would otherwise get -- certainly, I've been in circumstances where I've only had a 35 and definitely would have benefited from a 70-200 -- but I find the convenience factor always outweighs the "what ifs." It also allows me to get creative, because how else are you going to get cool photos from a baseball game, or a concert, or a zoo, or whatever, if all you have is a film point and shoot, or an R6 with a 28mm pancake? (Sometimes I think about it as if someone put me on assignment to shoot whatever my trip is supposed to be, but they only gave me that one camera and lens, expecting me to produce something cool.)
nightnight wrote:
I definitely sympathize with this. Have you ever tried traveling with just one body and one single prime lens? I ran the same calculus as you on focal lengths, convenience, weather, etc. for a couple years before I got frustrated and went on a weekend trip with just my old D810 and a 50 1.8. I ended up having more fun photographing than I had on any trip prior. Nowadays, I switch things up trip to trip, but 95% of the time I'm traveling with one body and one lens. I definitely "miss" shots I would otherwise get -- certainly, I've been in circumstances where I've only had a 35 and definitely would have benefited from a 70-200 -- but I find the convenience factor always outweighs the "what ifs." It also allows me to get creative, because how else are you going to get cool photos from a baseball game, or a concert, or a zoo, or whatever, if all you have is a film point and shoot, or an R6 with a 28mm pancake? (Sometimes I think about it as if someone put me on assignment to shoot whatever my trip is supposed to be, but they only gave me that one camera and lens, expecting me to produce something cool.)...Show more →
Good points! I actually have gone on vacation twice in my life with just a camera and one prime lens (sort of).
1. Years ago I took a road trip from Florida to northern New Mexico. I packed my camera bags in the trunk of my vehicle dreaming about the wonderful images I would come back with. Halfway there I stopped overnight in eastern Texas. A tornado warning came up near my hotel, so I grabbed one of my camera bags to get a shot of the tornado. Come to find out that my camera bags were empty except for one with a D200 and a 24mm prime lens!! I had left all my equipment home except for that backup camera! Too far/too late to turn back home, I had no choice but to continue the entire trip with that one camera an prime lens. I did come back with some amazing images from Taos, NM, but there were several hundred missed opportunities.
2. November of last year I flew to Iceland with my kid. I took my R6II with several primes, while my kid borrowed my Sony A7c outfit. Due to the extreme cold, wind, rainy conditions, the only lens I used the entire time there was a Canon RF 24mm f1.8. It wasn't by choice, but more so by necessity. I wish I had used the RF 16mm I brought along to grab several shots I missed! I would've been perfectly content had I used a 16-28mm zoom lens during that trip. On a side note, the R6II body felt great in the extreme cold, whereas the A7c was like holding a block of steel ice!
Also sounds like you are absolutely someone who should go with the 16-28! I really, truly believe that when it comes to travel, nothing trumps convenience, but "convenience" means different things to different people. Having looked at quite a few 16-28 reviews, it seems like a wonderful lens on all technical fronts, and it sounds like it would be the most convenient option for you.
(On a side note, I've drawn the same conclusions on ergonomics and overall "body feel" regarding the RF system. I tried other systems, but nothing matches Canon's ergos and reliability in tough situations, so I feel like I'll always have at least one of their bodies on my shelf.)
nightnight wrote:
I definitely sympathize with this. Have you ever tried traveling with just one body and one single prime lens? I ran the same calculus as you on focal lengths, convenience, weather, etc. for a couple years before I got frustrated and went on a weekend trip with just my old D810 and a 50 1.8. I ended up having more fun photographing than I had on any trip prior. Nowadays, I switch things up trip to trip, but 95% of the time I'm traveling with one body and one lens. I definitely "miss" shots I would otherwise get -- certainly, I've been in circumstances where I've only had a 35 and definitely would have benefited from a 70-200 -- but I find the convenience factor always outweighs the "what ifs." It also allows me to get creative, because how else are you going to get cool photos from a baseball game, or a concert, or a zoo, or whatever, if all you have is a film point and shoot, or an R6 with a 28mm pancake? (Sometimes I think about it as if someone put me on assignment to shoot whatever my trip is supposed to be, but they only gave me that one camera and lens, expecting me to produce something cool.)...Show more →
I hate zoom lenses ( I know I just bought one) -
I was just in Chicago for St Patrick's day weekend- I used my Canon with 16-28 or 28-70 during the day running around, capturing video, dealing with a 70- degree day on Friday then Snowing on Sunday- Zoom was just the right tool to run around with for the day.
At night, I either carried my M11m with 24 Lux or 50 Lux- I always prefer a prime lens, mainly because I like controlling aperture and I know the framing perfectly. I can take a picture and focus in most cases without even looking at the camera.
I own Canon RF primes but mainly use them for video or where I need Flash/Weather sealing.
