Photography Life

PL provides various digital photography news, reviews, articles, tips, tutorials and guides to photographers of all levels

  • Lens Reviews
  • Camera Reviews
  • Tutorials
  • Compare Cameras
  • Forum
    • Sign Up
    • Login
  • About
  • Search
Home → Reviews → Cameras and Lenses → Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Review

Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Review

By Spencer Cox 32 Comments
Last Updated On May 21, 2025

«»

Table of Contents

  • Overview and Build Quality
  • Optical Performance
  • Verdict
  • Reader Comments
Looking for even more exclusive content?

On Photography Life, you already get world-class articles with no advertising every day for free. As a Member, you'll get even more:

Silver ($5/mo)
  • Exclusive articles
  • Monthly Q&A chat
  • Early lens test results
  • "Creative Landscape Photography" eBook
Gold ($12/mo)
  • All that, PLUS:
  • Online workshops
  • Monthly photo critiques
  • Vote on our next lens reviews
 
Click Here to Join Today
 
Disclosures, Terms and Conditions and Support Options
guest

guest

32 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TWIKI
TWIKI
June 18, 2025 2:24 pm

> we’ve tested other sub-$300 lenses before that don’t
> have the same compromises as this one.

And how many of them were ultra-ultra wides?

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  TWIKI
June 18, 2025 2:35 pm

The Rokinon/Samyang/etc. 14mm lenses are under $300, and if you include APS-C lenses, there are a lot more.

0
Reply
Marco
Marco
May 4, 2025 12:57 pm

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

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Marco
June 18, 2025 2:31 pm

Yes, I’ve added it to the review. No better or worse than the original copy.

0
Reply
Howard
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!

0
Reply
Arnie
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.

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Arnie
November 1, 2024 5:39 pm

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.

0
Reply
Jeffrey
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.

1
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Jeffrey
January 18, 2024 1:00 pm

Glad you like it! It’s a good choice for wide-angle video regardless of its other characteristics.

0
Reply
David
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.

4
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  David
January 12, 2024 10:20 am

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!

2
Reply
Dmitry
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.

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Dmitry
January 11, 2024 12:40 pm

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).

2
Reply
Zhang
Zhang
Reply to  Spencer Cox
January 13, 2024 12:44 am

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….

0
Reply
Dmitry
Dmitry
Reply to  Zhang
January 13, 2024 1:31 am

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.

0
Reply
Kamuran Akkor
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.

0
Reply
Dmitry
Dmitry
Reply to  Kamuran Akkor
January 11, 2024 6:46 am

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.

0
Reply
Kamuran Akkor
Kamuran Akkor
Reply to  Dmitry
January 12, 2024 4:38 pm

The old Tikona lens (which I still.have on F Mount) is a beast. It is a beast. Big and heavy beast.

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Kamuran Akkor
January 11, 2024 9:39 am

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.)

1
Reply
melgross
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!

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  melgross
January 10, 2024 3:40 pm

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.

2
Reply
Pete A
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.

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Pete A
January 10, 2024 2:09 pm

It’s yet another mystery of the world, alongside the Loch Ness monster and why my shower is never quite the right temperature.

2
Reply
Pete A
Pete A
Reply to  Spencer Cox
January 10, 2024 4:22 pm

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.

0
Reply

Learn

  • Beginner Photography
  • Landscape Photography
  • Wildlife Photography
  • Portraiture
  • Post-Processing
  • Advanced Tutorials
Photography Life on Patreon

Reviews

  • Camera Reviews
  • Lens Reviews
  • Other Gear Reviews
  • Best Cameras and Lenses

Photography Tutorials

Photography Basics
Landscape Photography
Wildlife Photography
Macro Photography
Composition & Creativity
Black & White Photography
Night Sky Photography
Portrait Photography
Street Photography
Photography Videos

Unique Gift Ideas

Best Gifts for Photographers

Site Menu

  • About Us
  • Beginner Photography
  • Lens Database
  • Lens Index
  • Photo Spots
  • Search
  • Forum

Reviews

  • Reviews Archive
  • Camera Reviews
  • Lens Reviews
  • Other Gear Reviews

More

  • Contact Us
  • Workshops
  • Support Us
  • Submit Content

Copyright © 2025 · Photography Life

You are going to send email to

Move Comment