I've been really excited about this one since it was announced, and I've actually had it on pre-order since then. When they originally announced it, it actually surprised me because I didn't really expect Canon to bring out something like this, at least not now. As you know from the title, this is the 16 2.8 STM for the RF mount. It's an affordable, compact, and lightweight ultra-wide-angle lens, and it comes in at around 300 US dollars. Previously, if you wanted an affordable ultra-wide-angle lens, you would have to adapt it from the EF mount, which is something that I actually did. So, I do own the Tamron 17 to 35 2.8 to f4, and I use that with the EF to RF adapter. The reason that I was so excited about this lens is that it pretty much makes it possible now to capture ultra-wide-angle photos and video with a lens that can actually fit in your pocket. It seems like it would be the perfect lens to put

on a lightweight gimbal setup to capture really nice wide-angle video shots. I know a lot of people have been interested in this one as a vlogging lens as well, so it totally makes sense. It's lightweight, it's small, it's super wide-angle, it's got that STM motor in it. So, paired up with something like the RP, this could make a really compact, lightweight vlogging setup that you can pretty much take anywhere with you. One notable feature of the 16 millimeter is that it has a ridiculously close minimum focusing distance, and that makes it kind of an interesting lens. Now, I was actually able to focus the lens just centimeters away from the front element. So, when I found that out, I was really excited to try it out, go out, and take some macro photos with an ultra-wide lens. I know what you're thinking, this lens has scored a lot of points on paper, but what is the image quality actually like? And this is where it gets really interesting, because I think that this aspect of the lens, the image quality

itself will either make or break this lens depending on who you are and what you shoot. Immediately upon grabbing this little guy out of the box, I realize that it's almost exactly the same. In fact, if you put it side by side with the 50 millimeter 1.8, I don't think I could really tell the difference, especially if you scratched off that little focal length marker there. They are super similar, so you can see they're exactly the same barrel size, almost the same height. They've both got the same barrel design, so that same single switch to switch between focus and control ring, and then that same single ring. Yeah, obviously it's used for the control ring or the focus ring. You can have it set up however you like, and yeah, they are the same weight for all intents and purposes. And I think that makes these two lenses a really good combo for a gimbal setup. So you could go from shooting 50 millimeters on a gimbal, switch up the lens, and you wouldn't even have to you

know rebalance the gimbal or anything like that. You could pretty much just continue shooting, which I think is really interesting. And they both have the exact same filter size, which means these two lenses could share filters. And so, obviously, that means they have the exact same lens cap. One thing that I did notice as a difference between these two lenses is that the focus ring on the 16 is a lot smoother to turn. It feels a lot more dampened. I'm not sure if that is to do with a higher build quality or not. Also, the 16 millimeter does not have a weather sealing gasket on the mount. Probably not the kind of lens I would want to take into compromising weather conditions. Um, so yeah. [Music] Uh. [Music] So. [Music] Oh. [Applause] [Music] So where do I even start with this lens and the image quality? I think, first of all, this lens really confused me. I loaded the raw files into Lightroom. My first impression was these

files don't look anything like what they looked like on the screen of my R6, and that is because when you're shooting with this lens, and when you're looking at the images, the camera is applying some very, very serious lens corrections. And when you take the raw file into Lightroom, because Adobe doesn't have a camera profile to correct the files, they look wildly different. The distortion is out of control, the corners are almost completely dark because of the vignetting, and when you do brighten those corners up, they are extremely soft. So what I did, I went back to the camera because I didn't shoot raw and JPEG. I actually processed all of the raws to JPEG within the camera, and that applied all of those relevant lens corrections for the 16mm f/2.8. So as you can see, switching between the raw and the processed JPEG, you can see the amount of corrections that are going on with this lens. So right away, this actually causes quite a big problem with this lens because the camera profile

just isn't there, and the camera profile for the 50 1.8 STM is still not in the latest version of Lightroom, despite this lens being, I think, more than a year old now. So, potentially, if you buy this lens, you might have to deal with having very, very compromised raw files for more than a year from now. If you know, going off the 50 millimeter profile still not being in Lightroom now, how long is it going to take for this one to come into Lightroom as well? When I was checking out the JPEGs, they actually look really good. There's very minimal distortion. It's very, very sharp in the center, and the corners aren't super dark. They've been brightened up, thanks to those corrections. And when I tried this lens out as a macro lens, taking photos of objects really, really close to the lens in the raw file, the corners are actually black, and there's no way to recover any detail from the corners. Now, when you preview the raw

beside the jpeg, you can actually see that the camera is cropping in quite substantially to solve the problem of those extremely dark corners. Now, the vignetting does improve as you stop down, so I did a test shooting this brick wall so you could see the distortion and you could see the fall-off of sharpness into the corners. So, I started at 2.8 and went to f4, then 5.6, f8, and finally f11. Now, as I said, you are seeing an already corrected image while you're shooting, so when you get the raw photo into your photo editor of choice and you don't have those profile corrections, you're going to have to crop in and you're going to have to solve for that extreme distortion, and then you're also going to have to correct for the vignetting. So, it is a lot of work to get the images from this lens looking decent if you're using the raw file. Hopefully, Adobe does an update for the lens corrections sometime soon, but until then

we've got to deal with this problem ourselves. Sharpness in the center from 2.8 is really, really good. It isn't till you move into the corners that you get to see that very tragic image quality because of the soft corners and the really great image quality in the center. I can actually see this lens being a really great option for an APS-C camera. Now, Canon don't actually make an RF APS-C camera yet, but I think that they might in the future. And when that comes around, I guess this would be a really nice 24-millimeter equivalent. If you hold your arm out long enough, it could be a decent vlogging lens, given that it has that STM motor in it. And I think it will be a great lens on APS-C because you're only using that center crop of the image and you're cutting out all that garbage on the corners. Focusing speed and accuracy really great with this lens. I actually have no complaints there. It focused really, really fast. It's just like the 51-8, the 35-1.8, and 85-F2.

All of those lenses focus really fast, really accurately, and this lens is no exception to that. So, is it any good as a video lens? Shooting video on my R6, it actually looked really good. The slight cropping in 4K recording seemed to get rid of any of those corner issues, and I think there definitely is some lens corrections going on inside the camera when you're shooting video. [Music] The image looks pretty good with these test shots on the gimbal, but what about the 16 as a vlogging lens? All right, so you guys are now seeing vlog footage from 16 2.8, and one of the major things that I wanted to check out with this lens is if it has that same wobble problem that a lot of Canon lenses have with the in-body image stabilization. So, this is just with the in-body stabilization turned on, and I'm gonna turn on the digital stabilization now so you can see what that looks like. Now, this is with the digital stabilization added in.

let's see what that looks like. All right, and now this is without any stabilization on at all. So if you're not a fan of those like warpy-looking corners in the footage, you could potentially stabilize this footage in post, and maybe it'll look better. [Music] All right, and now this is without any stabilization on at all. So if you're not a fan of those like warpy-looking corners in the footage, you could potentially stabilize this footage in post, and maybe it'll look better. Also, the focusing is silent on the 16-millimeter thanks to that STM lens. You're not really getting much audio feedback when the lens is focusing backwards and forwards. So honestly, I am pretty disappointed by this lens, but I guess for the size and weight, the price of this thing, you can't really hate it for having some optical imperfections. There is a lot of work to do in terms of correcting this lens if you don't have a profile for it, so that is a big downside.

In my opinion, I wish that it was just a little bit easier to correct in post, and that the corners were a little bit sharper. So, for that reason, I will be sticking with my Tamron 17 to 35 for now. I think at some time in the future, if you do own an APS-C RF camera, this lens might be a really, really great option for you. But I don't really see this as a professional full-frame lens at this moment in time. I've made raw files available for anyone who's a member of the channel, so if you want to check out the raw files from this lens and pretty much any review I do on this channel, there's a join button down below this video. You'll get access to plenty more perks, and it's a great way to just support me on this channel to make more videos for you guys. Thanks, guys, for watching. I hope you enjoyed this one. Hit that subscribe button down below if you haven't already, and I'll see you guys in

Canon RF 16mm 2.8 Review + Test Footage

My name is Mitch Lally and I'm an Australian filmmaker and photographer. My work has taken me all around the world and I'm extremely lucky to make a living doing what I love. I want to share what I've learned, my techniques, ideas and tips that help me to create value for others through my work so that you might be able to also do the same.