Canon Announces the RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM

[Del Paso]

Yeah... I totally said it's unusable for landscapes when I wrote "My biggest gripe about the lens is the horrible vignetting at the wide end; it's bad, really bad, and often leaves 15 mm unusable for landscape scenery with a lot of uniformity like grass fields, or shots with snow."
. I mean... what's a qualifier? Best to just apply the statement to everything like a nice cozy blanket.

I own the lens. It was literally my most shot lens in 2024. It has OVER 3 stops of vignetting in the corners on the wide end. That is massive when everyone else has an offering that is optically just as good (if not better) with better contrast, and MUCH MUCH less vignetting at similar to lower cost.

I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, or makes you question the value of your purchase. Canon can do better.

Who speaks of hurt feelings? Trying to disqualify my point of view?
You don't like this lens, I do, like many really qualified reviewers and pro users.
But if you know better...

 

[PGSanta]

Who speaks of hurt feelings? Trying to disqualify my point of view?
You don't like this lens, I do, like many really qualified reviewers and pro users.
But if you know better...

I never said I didn't like the lens. I said it's the weakest of the RF trinity, and pointed out its most glaring shortcomings relative to others in its class. It is not a good lens for the very specific circumstances I outlined (which you decided meant all landscape, because... who knows why).

Again, an opinion is something that can't be demonstrably proven to be false. If you like the vignetting, and don't think it negatively impacts images (like the snow shots you claim to have taken), that's an opinion. Nobody would argue with you. To each their own. The problem is when you try to suggest the lens doesn't have the issue when in fact it does. It has an extreme amount of vignetting at the wide end; more than any lens in its class offered by the other major brands.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

It's not an opinion... it's fact. The lens has a ton of vignetting on the wide end. You can offer the opinion that the vignetting doesn't bother you, but you're incorrect to suggest that it isn't there.

Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8 L IS USM Review - Page 4 of 6

photographylife.com

Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS Review - DustinAbbott.net

Photographer Dustin Abbott shares a thorough, real world review of the Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM wide angle zoom.

dustinabbott.net

Just check out any review, or your own copy. The lens has massively more vignetting than any in its class. Not enough for me to pass on owning one, but Canon can AND SHOULD do better with this segment. I've got no doubt the mark ii will address the issues, and will be a first hour pre-order for me.

The second review demonstrates the vignetting problem with the test charts quite well and I get what you mean. Yeah, it probably is one thing Canon should consider improving when designing a mkii of this lens. What also struck me though was in real world it is hardly noticeable (review 1). As you mentioned, there are few use-cases (snow) where it is a huge factor, but then again it also works fine in a lot of scenarios.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I was just making the point that not all L-series lenses are created equal. (Side note, the EF 17-40/4L is much older than that, it launched in 2003.)

Well thx for the heads up first. I wasn´t aware it was released in 2003. I did understand your point, but I don´t think it makes sense comparing it to this lens. They are not make equal is one aspect, but technology has made huge leaps in 20 years and so consumer lenses now can be made technically better then former L lenses. I wouldn't compare a 2020 VW Polo Sedan and VW rabbit mkiii (I think there are 1991-1997).

But in that context, it's worth noting that although the new RF 16-28/2.8 is slightly optically better than the RF 15-35/2.8L, the latter is not quite as good as its EF 16-35/2.8L III predecessor.

Really? Is that data from the MFT charts or different test? I didn't know the EFmkiii was a bit better. But it kind of strengthens my theory that this lens could be better and a mkii shouldn't be that far out of reach.

Practically speaking, the RF 15-35/2.8L, RF 14-35/4L and RF 16-28/2.8 (and EF 16-35/2.8L III) are all functionally equivalent from an IQ standpoint (and the RF 10-20/4 is in the same range). All are a meaningful step up from the RF 15-30/4.5-6.3.

I agree with you here. Those are the lenses it should be compared to.

The choice between the various UWA zoom options comes down to the focal length range and aperture you need, size and weight considerations, and of course how much lens you can afford. Having four UWA zoom (and one Ultra-UWA) options from Canon is a very good thing, IMO.

It really is amazing how many choices Canon users have for UWA lenses. And the line-up apparently isn't even complete yet.

Personally, I don't need a wide aperture for my UWA use. I had the EF 16-35/2.8L II and <1% of my shots were wider than f/4. Accordingly, I bought the EF 16-35/4, updated that to the RF 14-35/4 (love the extra 2mm), but don't use the latter as much since I swapped my EF 11-24/4 (which was a big beast to haul, especially when also bringing two TS lenses) for the small, light and optically very good RF 10-20/4.

I´ll stick to my 14-35mm F4 L as well. Love the 14mm and it is pretty light weight and tack sharp at every setting. When I had the 15-35mm I only took pics at F2.8 for night skies and city pics at night. Other than that, there is I think just one pic taken with 2.8.
If the 16-28mm had been available at the time of my purchase, I´d might have considered otherwise, but given my need and wants, I´d probably stick with the F4 and hope for a fast prime (which I still do)

 

[Del Paso]

I never said I didn't like the lens. I said it's the weakest of the RF trinity, and pointed out its most glaring shortcomings relative to others in its class. It is not a good lens for the very specific circumstances I outlined (which you decided meant all landscape, because... who knows why).

Again, an opinion is something that can't be demonstrably proven to be false. If you like the vignetting, and don't think it negatively impacts images (like the snow shots you claim to have taken), that's an opinion. Nobody would argue with you. To each their own. The problem is when you try to suggest the lens doesn't have the issue when in fact it does. It has an extreme amount of vignetting at the wide end; more than any lens in its class offered by the other major brands.

Sorry, but I never take landscape pictures with an UWA wide open...
At f/8, vignetting, corrected is 0,66 EV, uncorrected 2,36 EV.
And I don't "pretend" to have taken snow pictures.
Therefore, since I dislike personal insults, I prefer to quit.

 

[AJ]

I´ll stick to my 14-35mm F4 L as well. Love the 14mm and it is pretty light weight and tack sharp at every setting. When I had the 15-35mm I only took pics at F2.8 for night skies and city pics at night. Other than that, there is I think just one pic taken with 2.8.
If the 16-28mm had been available at the time of my purchase, I´d might have considered otherwise, but given my need and wants, I´d probably stick with the F4 and hope for a fast prime (which I still do)

^^this. 14-35 is an awesome range and this lens performs. It's quite lightweight too, which is a huge bonus.
FWIW we now do have a fast prime: the 24/1.4
Wider than 24 mm would be nice for astro. Of course you can always shoot a grid and stitch for astro (which is what I do).

 

[Moritz_RD02]

My most used lens as well. That said, I don't love the lens, I love the focal range. It's our best option in the RF system, and yes complaining about it is splitting hairs, though I didn't really complain about it so much as highlight that it is the weakest of the trinity lenses available to us. Again though, Canon can do better, and I firmly believe will do significantly better when this lens is updated.

Good point and I agree, in case of the trinity lenses it very well might be the odd one. It's still a great lens that I enjoy every time I use it. And as shown: vignetting isn't as bad if you're lucky. I keep vignetting correction off by default, only on the 10-20 I sometimes dabble with the settings in Lightroom.

I don't mean to sound too preachy (because I do also pixel peep and do froth about newer lenses ...) but every single time I visit my archive I always think to myself: You did all of that with (in this day and age!) "subpar" gear. I bought the 5DII at the time the Mark III came around I never really had the money for the good or "better" stuff as a student. I made by with a loaned EF 20-35 from my editorial office back in the day, later with the by some as "unusable" touted 17-40L. And you know what? A picture I took on a road trip with the 20-35 is pretty much my favorite of all the images I ever took, the 17-40 made a picture that firmly hangs on my parents wall at 50" or so diagonally. Even though by any modern metric (even back in the day) both lenses were shit, lacking contrast and not resolving anything in the corners, really. And yet ... ;-)

 

[PGSanta]

Sorry, but I never take landscape pictures with an UWA wide open...
At f/8, vignetting, corrected is 0,66 EV, uncorrected 2,36 EV.
And I don't "pretend" to have taken snow pictures.
Therefore, since I dislike personal insults, I prefer to quit.

I really don't care how you use your gear. Plenty of people would like to use a 2.8 lens wide open, or close to it (indoor architecture comes to mind), and this lens has problems at even relatively narrow apertures. Dustin Abbott documents vignetting of over 3 stops at f/11, roughly 5 at f/2.8. This is a problem, and a weakness of the lens; pointing that out doesn't mean I'm not going to use it, or I don't enjoy using the lens. I do want Canon to address the issues in the next version though.

Since you'd like to "quit" this I won't reply any further after this, but I would point out that this is now the second time you've misrepresented something I wrote in a reply. I never stated you "pretended" to do anything, I wrote you "claimed" to have taken snow shots that didn't exhibit the vignetting. I wrote that not as an insult, but to suggest maybe you should post them, because the lens has very real limitations/flaws/character (depending on how you see it).

 

[Exploreshootshare]

^^this. 14-35 is an awesome range and this lens performs. It's quite lightweight too, which is a huge bonus.

Yes, I absolutely love it. One of the reasons I´d rather have this one and add fast prime instead of opting for the f2.8 and skip a prime.

FWIW we now do have a fast prime: the 24/1.4
Wider than 24 mm would be nice for astro. Of course you can always shoot a grid and stitch for astro (which is what I do).

Yes, that lens and the RF24mm F1.8 (depends on my budget) are on my mind. I don´t really use the 24mm focal length that much, so I´d hesitate buying the expensive L version. You can buy a used copy of the F1.8 for about 450-480 €, while I haven't seen any used copies of the f1.4 for sale. Buying a new F1.4 would mean spending 1.800 €....probably not going to happen.

I used the 20mm in New Zealand (sold it afterwards cause of the weight, getting rid of the adapter and hoping for native RF mount option) and I really liked the focal range. Not too much foreground in the picture, yet wide enough for landscapes and some amateur astro shots.

Stitching is always an option but of course it means more work in post. I don't really enjoy post-processing, so I´d rather like to get right during the shot, if possible. Also, one day I´d like to try a star trail image. I guess stitching is not an option there. But also 20mm might not be an option as well Let´s see what Canon has in the cards the next few months. Or maybe Sigma will surprise us with FF RF lenses (which I honestly doubt for 2025).

 

[AJ]

Yes, I absolutely love it. One of the reasons I´d rather have this one and add fast prime instead of opting for the f2.8 and skip a prime.

Yes, that lens and the RF24mm F1.8 (depends on my budget) are on my mind. I don´t really use the 24mm focal length that much, so I´d hesitate buying the expensive L version. You can buy a used copy of the F1.8 for about 450-480 €, while I haven't seen any used copies of the f1.4 for sale. Buying a new F1.4 would mean spending 1.800 €....probably not going to happen.

I used the 20mm in New Zealand (sold it afterwards cause of the weight, getting rid of the adapter and hoping for native RF mount option) and I really liked the focal range. Not too much foreground in the picture, yet wide enough for landscapes and some amateur astro shots.

Stitching is always an option but of course it means more work in post. I don't really enjoy post-processing, so I´d rather like to get right during the shot, if possible. Also, one day I´d like to try a star trail image. I guess stitching is not an option there. But also 20mm might not be an option as well Let´s see what Canon has in the cards the next few months. Or maybe Sigma will surprise us with FF RF lenses (which I honestly doubt for 2025).

I have the 24/1.8. It's a good lens for handheld cityscapes at night, but for stars it needs to be stopped down to f/4 to reduce coma and astigmatism. I haven't used this lens much since I got it and I'm thinking of selling.
If you want to try Milky Way shots you can always rent a 24/1.4
Your 14-35/4 will do great for star trails.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have the 24/1.8. It's a good lens for handheld cityscapes at night, but for stars it needs to be stopped down to f/4 to reduce coma and astigmatism. I haven't used this lens much since I got it and I'm thinking of selling.

I also have the 24/1.8, bought mainly as a lens for indoor use when traveling. I recently bought the 24/1.4L. The latter is very good for night skies. I suspect I’ll keep the slower lens to serve the same purpose, it’s a lot smaller and lighter than its L-series cousin.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I have the 24/1.8. It's a good lens for handheld cityscapes at night, but for stars it needs to be stopped down to f/4 to reduce coma and astigmatism. I haven't used this lens much since I got it and I'm thinking of selling.

Good to know. Thx for sharing. Do you happen to know whether the 35mm F1.8 or the 24mm f1.8 is better for stars in terms of coma and astigmatism?

If you want to try Milky Way shots you can always rent a 24/1.4

I might opt for it. I don´t like renting that much because it slowly eats up a lot of money... I usually try buy a used copy, use it for while and sell it for the same price. It usually works...give or take a few bucks.

But renting in order to take night sky pics is a bit tricky. The places I know and use for renting, you usually have to order the lens about two-three weeks ahead of time. If you do so and the weather doesn't line up, you kind spend your money for nothing. If you wait and see, often the lens isn't available anymore.

Your 14-35/4 will do great for star trails.

That´s a pleasant surprise

 

[David - Sydney]

^^this. 14-35 is an awesome range and this lens performs. It's quite lightweight too, which is a huge bonus.
FWIW we now do have a fast prime: the 24/1.4
Wider than 24 mm would be nice for astro. Of course you can always shoot a grid and stitch for astro (which is what I do).

stitching is great these days when it stitches well but a pain when you need to add control points and it still doesn't stitch nicely :-(

 

[David - Sydney]

If you want to try Milky Way shots you can always rent a 24/1.4

Where renting is possible or at a reasonable rate which isn't the case for me unfortunately

Your 14-35/4 will do great for star trails.

My tips for star trails:
Anything ultra wide is great for star trails on a tripod. I haven't tried my RF14-35/4 yet but have used my Samsung 14/2.8 and my EF8-15/4 many times with good results.
Don't feel that you need to be wide open for star trails.
To retain the colour of the stars rather than blowing them out to white, use a lower ISO eg ISO 400-800.
Another trick is to slightly defocus the stars but maintaining the foreground sharpness. This will widen the star's width and blur gaps between exposures.
I use PS to blend but also StarStax.
Use a USB lens heater and a USB power bank to get as many shots as possible.
My RP is plenty good enough and have also used my goPro 9 for timelapse and star trails as well.
Wind is your enemy so protect/weight the tripod as much as possible

Lincoln does some nice ones.
https://www.lincolnharrison.com/

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Where renting is possible or at a reasonable rate which isn't the case for me unfortunately

My tips for star trails:
Anything ultra wide is great for star trails on a tripod. I haven't tried my RF14-35/4 yet but have used my Samsung 14/2.8 and my EF8-15/4 many times with good results.
Don't feel that you need to be wide open for star trails.
To retain the colour of the stars rather than blowing them out to white, use a lower ISO eg ISO 400-800.
Another trick is to slightly defocus the stars but maintaining the foreground sharpness. This will widen the star's width and blur gaps between exposures.
I use PS to blend but also StarStax.
Use a USB lens heater and a USB power bank to get as many shots as possible.
My RP is plenty good enough and have also used my goPro 9 for timelapse and star trails as well.
Wind is your enemy so protect/weight the tripod as much as possible

Lincoln does some nice ones.
https://www.lincolnharrison.com/

Thx! I took a screenshot of theses tips I also bookmarked Lincoln. I´ll look in later.
I´d like to try a star trail this spring/ summer when we're on holiday in the Bavarian alps.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

My biggest gripe about the lens is the horrible vignetting at the wide end; it's bad, really bad, and often leaves 15 mm unusable for landscape scenery with a lot of uniformity like grass fields, or shots with snow. My secondary gripe is I feel the lens lacks contrast relative to the performance of the competition; it's much less of an issue for me than the vignetting, but I think Canon could easily do better relatively speaking.

So you do a lot of landsacpes wide open at f2.8 do you? I tend to find that I need to stop down to f8-f16 for a deep depth of field and by that aperture, things like optical vignetting (not mechanical) are usually resolved 3 stops from wide open. So by f8 it should be noticable.
I've used Canon f2.8 16-35mm L lenses a lot for landscape and they all optically vignette by a lot wide open. I think the EF mk III was even worse than this non L 16-28mm.

 

[candyman]

So you do a lot of landsacpes wide open at f2.8 do you? I tend to find that I need to stop down to f8-f16 for a deep depth of field and by that aperture, things like optical vignetting (not mechanical) are usually resolved 3 stops from wide open. So by f8 it should be noticable.
I've used Canon f2.8 16-35mm L lenses a lot for landscape and they all optically vignette by a lot wide open. I think the EF mk III was even worse than this non L 16-28mm.

I generally use f/8 to 11/13 for landscape photography. With f/2.8 with an FF sensor, your near limit is approximately 2 meters (if you focus at 5 meters) and far limit infinity. But 2.8 is often not the sharpest focal length of a lens. This is usually between 5.6 and 8. The f/2.8 is not my preference. This is different with night photography.

 

[PGSanta]

So you do a lot of landsacpes wide open at f2.8 do you? I tend to find that I need to stop down to f8-f16 for a deep depth of field and by that aperture, things like optical vignetting (not mechanical) are usually resolved 3 stops from wide open. So by f8 it should be noticable.
I've used Canon f2.8 16-35mm L lenses a lot for landscape and they all optically vignette by a lot wide open. I think the EF mk III was even worse than this non L 16-28mm.

I don't, but the lens exhibits a high degree of vignetting at even f/8; that's beside the point as I specifically mentioned the niche cases where the vignetting can create significant problems... you even quoted them, but decided to ignore them and act as if I said all landscapes. Read for comprehension.

Again, there are plenty of use cases for sub f/8 with this lens, and no the EF version does not exhibit the same degree of vignetting through the aperture range.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

... you even quoted them, but decided to ignore them and act as if I said all landscapes. Read for comprehension.

Again, there are plenty of use cases for sub f/8 with this lens, and no the EF version does not exhibit the same degree of vignetting through the aperture range.

I think you are confusing my post with some one elses, so I'll let your rudeness slide. I asked you a simple question and I didn't choose to ignor anything.
Go look me up GMCPHOTOGRAPHICS.co.uk and decide for yourself if I know a bit about landscape photography.

 

[P-visie]

Asobinet has patent applications for wide angle zooms:

• 16-30mm f2.8
• 15-35mm f2.8
• 14-28mm f2.8

All require software corrections to fill the corners of a FF sensor. The lenses can be used with the electronic zoom adapter and are constant length, so probably hybrid lenses for video and photo.
Google translated link

Asobinet als has a patent applications for a fish eye lens with additional rear lens adapter for distortion correction.
Google translated link.