Did you ever tried the second copy to verify if the first was flawed? I see a year and (almost) a half has passed from the original review
Howard
November 28, 2024 12:19 pm
Thanks for once again submitting a detailed review… it seems I will keep my EF-S 10-18mm in my camera bag for my R7, even if I do need to use the RF adapter!
Arnie
November 1, 2024 6:39 am
Any comparison to the RF 14-35 in the corners? Was surprised not to see a review of that on the site.
I still need to test that one, sorry. My expectation is that the 14-35mm f/4 L will be meaningfully better – if not, it really wouldn’t deserve the L label.
Jeffrey
January 15, 2024 9:49 am
I have one , for Webcam, for blogs, pair w rp camera and going up mountain hike awesome. with r5 for a well lit architecture landscape property homes and buildings its awesome. can’t complain.
Glad you like it! It’s a good choice for wide-angle video regardless of its other characteristics.
David
January 12, 2024 10:17 am
I can’t argue with any of the details covered in this review, but I hope the negatives won’t discourage people from picking up this little gem—it’s wonderful in practical use. When I “need” top quality, I grab the Sigma Art 14-24 f/2.8. It’s simply stunning . . . and huge and heavy and expensive. For everything else, the RF 16 is the one. Yes, technically speaking it “should” be a crap lens, but I’m rarely dissatisfied with the results in practice. OK, one place it doesn’t shine: use on the R7. Maybe it’s the pixel density, but images just look pretty blah to me compared to look I get with OG R and R6ii.
P.s., if you want a hood, get the cheapo JJC one from Amazon. Way better than the dumb ring Canon sells.
I’m glad you’re enjoying it, David! I actually did have a fun time using it as well, despite the image quality measurements and so on. Hopefully Canon makes a Mark II that improves the optics but keeps the form factor – I think many of us would buy that in a heartbeat. And thanks for the JJC tip as well!
Dmitry
January 11, 2024 11:13 am
I will duplicate my post on another resource: When Canon announced this lens, I felt a little envious. Nikon didn’t have a complete analogue in its roadmap of lenses. And the closest competitor was too light for me, big and expensive z 20 1.8S. But then there were examples of pictures, tests, and my envy evaporated. Even a relatively low price cannot be an excuse for such poor image quality. In the corners, this lens, even if you set the aperture to f/8, is seriously inferior to Z 14-30 4.0 S even at a wider 14 mm. Canon once again disappoints me with its non-L lens. And if you remember that they closed the way for third-party manufacturers of autofocus objects, then the picture is even sadder, but clearer.
Agreed, the closest Nikon and Sony equivalents are their respective 20mm f/1.8 lenses, but those are significantly more expensive and larger (although both are optically excellent).
The Viltrox 16 1.8 plays in the league of large and heavy lenses. And strictly speaking, I don’t need f/1.8 at 16 mm. I will say more. 4-5.6. Tamron 20 2.8 will suit me quite well. yes, I agree it is an interesting option. I was thinking of buying it and an adapter. But after studying its characteristics and the fact that the adapter degrades sharpness in the corners and there is no profile in the DxO. I gave up the idea. But if a version for the Z bayonet is released, then you can think again.
Kamuran Akkor
January 11, 2024 4:50 am
“Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 is a 16mm lens after the distortion has been fixed” Then distortion is not so bad news, is it? It is so tiny and actually quite good optically if you close the aperture.
It’s really not good optically regardless of aperture. The corners are soft in our lab measurement of the raw file, even at f/8, and distortion corrections only stretch them out further and make them even less sharp.
No one was hoping for this lens to be a success more than me – I love the idea behind it and have been waiting for a lens like this for ages. But there’s no way around it, it’s just not good optically. (You can make it “okay” optically by cropping to about 18mm.)
melgross
January 10, 2024 3:09 pm
It seems strange to me that the low price would be praised, but then, other than the high quality mount, the lens build would be criticized as not being up to the standards of more expensive lenses. Give me a break!
The price is impressive, the product isn’t – I don’t know what else to say. We’ve reviewed several lenses that are the same price or even less expensive, while performing better in the same tests.
Pete A
January 10, 2024 12:59 pm
This (allegedly full-frame) lens has: • entrance pupil diameter ≈ 5.7 mm • body diameter = 69 mm • throat diameter = 54 mm
How on earth can it have an image circle that is too small for the sensor.
The Loch Ness monster is a legend, as is the full-frame coverage of some recent lenses, apparently 😀
I mustn’t be too harsh. I’m sure those who’ve bought one by mistake will be able to tell us that they’ve invented found a use for it, such as faking photos of the Loch Ness monster or the Cottingley Fairies.
Jason Polak
Admin
January 10, 2024 4:52 am
I wonder why they didn’t make it f/4 with better optical performance. It doesn’t seem too bad for the price, and it seems like it would be a better video/vlogging lens due to the lower requirements of video.
Reasons: The RF bayonet for autofocus objects from third-party manufacturers is officially closed. Eat what they give you. Marketing. In fact, this lens should be for crop cameras. But then his sales will be less. Marketing 2. If they made it an “honest” lens for a full frame with good characteristics, then it would turn out to be 18-20 mm and f/4. And this will make it less attractive.
Interestingly, 16×9 video does crop out the worst of the corners, and even at its weakest, it’s acceptable for 4K video (8 megapixels). Maybe video and APS-C sensors were what Canon really had in mind for the lens. Certainly the image quality isn’t up to par for 24+ megapixel full-frame.
Did you ever tried the second copy to verify if the first was flawed? I see a year and (almost) a half has passed from the original review
Thanks for once again submitting a detailed review… it seems I will keep my EF-S 10-18mm in my camera bag for my R7, even if I do need to use the RF adapter!
Any comparison to the RF 14-35 in the corners? Was surprised not to see a review of that on the site.
I still need to test that one, sorry. My expectation is that the 14-35mm f/4 L will be meaningfully better – if not, it really wouldn’t deserve the L label.
I have one , for Webcam, for blogs, pair w rp camera and going up mountain hike awesome. with r5 for a well lit architecture landscape property homes and buildings its awesome. can’t complain.
Glad you like it! It’s a good choice for wide-angle video regardless of its other characteristics.
I can’t argue with any of the details covered in this review, but I hope the negatives won’t discourage people from picking up this little gem—it’s wonderful in practical use. When I “need” top quality, I grab the Sigma Art 14-24 f/2.8. It’s simply stunning . . . and huge and heavy and expensive. For everything else, the RF 16 is the one. Yes, technically speaking it “should” be a crap lens, but I’m rarely dissatisfied with the results in practice. OK, one place it doesn’t shine: use on the R7. Maybe it’s the pixel density, but images just look pretty blah to me compared to look I get with OG R and R6ii.
P.s., if you want a hood, get the cheapo JJC one from Amazon. Way better than the dumb ring Canon sells.
I’m glad you’re enjoying it, David! I actually did have a fun time using it as well, despite the image quality measurements and so on. Hopefully Canon makes a Mark II that improves the optics but keeps the form factor – I think many of us would buy that in a heartbeat. And thanks for the JJC tip as well!
I will duplicate my post on another resource:
When Canon announced this lens, I felt a little envious. Nikon didn’t have a complete analogue in its roadmap of lenses. And the closest competitor was too light for me, big and expensive z 20 1.8S. But then there were examples of pictures, tests, and my envy evaporated. Even a relatively low price cannot be an excuse for such poor image quality.
In the corners, this lens, even if you set the aperture to f/8, is seriously inferior to Z 14-30 4.0 S even at a wider 14 mm.
Canon once again disappoints me with its non-L lens. And if you remember that they closed the way for third-party manufacturers of autofocus objects, then the picture is even sadder, but clearer.
Agreed, the closest Nikon and Sony equivalents are their respective 20mm f/1.8 lenses, but those are significantly more expensive and larger (although both are optically excellent).
Sony users have the Viltrox 16 1.8 and Tamron 20 2.8, both cheap and excellent performace. Hopefully, the Nikon Z can have that soon….
The Viltrox 16 1.8 plays in the league of large and heavy lenses. And strictly speaking, I don’t need f/1.8 at 16 mm. I will say more. 4-5.6.
Tamron 20 2.8 will suit me quite well. yes, I agree it is an interesting option. I was thinking of buying it and an adapter. But after studying its characteristics and the fact that the adapter degrades sharpness in the corners and there is no profile in the DxO. I gave up the idea. But if a version for the Z bayonet is released, then you can think again.
“Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 is a 16mm lens after the distortion has been fixed”
Then distortion is not so bad news, is it? It is so tiny and actually quite good optically if you close the aperture.
1222 in the corner at f/8 for a fixed focal length lens is a shame. The old Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 SLR has 1600 at f/8.
The old Tikona lens (which I still.have on F Mount) is a beast. It is a beast. Big and heavy beast.
It’s really not good optically regardless of aperture. The corners are soft in our lab measurement of the raw file, even at f/8, and distortion corrections only stretch them out further and make them even less sharp.
No one was hoping for this lens to be a success more than me – I love the idea behind it and have been waiting for a lens like this for ages. But there’s no way around it, it’s just not good optically. (You can make it “okay” optically by cropping to about 18mm.)
It seems strange to me that the low price would be praised, but then, other than the high quality mount, the lens build would be criticized as not being up to the standards of more expensive lenses. Give me a break!
The price is impressive, the product isn’t – I don’t know what else to say. We’ve reviewed several lenses that are the same price or even less expensive, while performing better in the same tests.
This (allegedly full-frame) lens has:
• entrance pupil diameter ≈ 5.7 mm
• body diameter = 69 mm
• throat diameter = 54 mm
How on earth can it have an image circle that is too small for the sensor.
It’s yet another mystery of the world, alongside the Loch Ness monster and why my shower is never quite the right temperature.
The Loch Ness monster is a legend, as is the full-frame coverage of some recent lenses, apparently 😀
I mustn’t be too harsh. I’m sure those who’ve bought one
by mistakewill be able to tell us that they’veinventedfound a use for it, such as faking photos of the Loch Ness monster or the Cottingley Fairies.I wonder why they didn’t make it f/4 with better optical performance. It doesn’t seem too bad for the price, and it seems like it would be a better video/vlogging lens due to the lower requirements of video.
Reasons:
The RF bayonet for autofocus objects from third-party manufacturers is officially closed. Eat what they give you.
Marketing. In fact, this lens should be for crop cameras. But then his sales will be less.
Marketing 2. If they made it an “honest” lens for a full frame with good characteristics, then it would turn out to be 18-20 mm and f/4. And this will make it less attractive.
I was wondering the same thing Jason. If they made it F4 it would have been smaller and lighter as well and better optically.
Interestingly, 16×9 video does crop out the worst of the corners, and even at its weakest, it’s acceptable for 4K video (8 megapixels). Maybe video and APS-C sensors were what Canon really had in mind for the lens. Certainly the image quality isn’t up to par for 24+ megapixel full-frame.