Corners a little distorted in the shot with the people, but I’d say performance looking pretty good overall!
You can tell when lens correction is off
I think the distortion is more due to its 17mm and the scene is so large, you are going to get stretching there just because of the exaggerated part of the frame-
After using this lens over the weekend in Chicago, its a keeper. Ugly weather to shoot in but the size and useability of it really was great. I thought the IQ of the lens also held up great for video/photo.
Another huge selling point for me is its a 67mm filter thread- I can cover 16-70mm with 2 zooms, and 3 primes (24, 35, 50) all with the same filter thread. Makes swapping an ND filter or mist filter etc simple knowing that day I am going to shoot video.
nightnight wrote:
Sounds like a couple awesome trips!
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 regarding 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.)...Show more →
Very memorable trips indeed! Thanks! Interesting thing was that prior to the Iceland trip I was debating whether to sell my R6II + all my Canon equipment and go 100% with Sony. Thanks to the terrible weather conditions I encounteted and how well my R6II performed under those conditions the entire time, I came back with a newfound respect for the R6II! Even making adjustments in near pitch black darkness, with bellow freezing winds trying to capture images of the Northern Lights, the R6II was amazing! The A7c had to be stored in the van that particular night because it was too complicated to adjust settings for the Northern Lights under those conditions.
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). ...Show more →
For me short range zooms can give best of both worlds. A little bit of zoomability yet giving prime quality. The Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 is a great example. You'll obviously have to give up the compact package. And the 45mm f/1.8 is not a replacement for a 50mm f/1.2. But getting 45mm in your 28mm, yes, that's huge, as 28mm only can be quite limiting sometimes.
I ordered the Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM, and it arrived today. Here's a link to a few images I took today comparing it in size to my RF 16mm f2.8 STM, RF 24mm f1.8 Macro, and RF 28mm f2.8 STM.
I got a chance to take a few test shots today of my new RF 16-28mm f2.8. Here are a few pics compared to my RF 16mm f2.8 STM and my Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 on my A7c.
