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

[Richard CN]

I missed this patent. In my defence, I looked at it and went.. meh, Canon doing ANOTHER Ultrawide? At the time, this was before the now likely trinity of f/2.8's IS STMs were forming, so I can be forgiven (maybe) for that judgment call.

Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM Patent Discussion - Canon Rumors

I missed this patent. In my defence, I looked at it and went.. meh, Canon doing ANOTHER Ultrawide? At the time, this was before the now likely trinity of f/2.8’s IS STMs were forming, so I can be forgiven (maybe) for that judgment call. After some looking around because I did remember the RF...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Thx for the article and the explanation! I´m all in on lens correction in camera in order to have lighter lenses

But I must ask: have you found a patent describing a similar lens with the zoom range between 70-180ist mm? Now that you know what you're looking, you might know ahead of time

 

[vikingar]

I missed this patent. In my defence, I looked at it and went.. meh, Canon doing ANOTHER Ultrawide? At the time, this was before the now likely trinity of f/2.8's IS STMs were forming, so I can be forgiven (maybe) for that judgment call.

Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM Patent Discussion - Canon Rumors

I missed this patent. In my defence, I looked at it and went.. meh, Canon doing ANOTHER Ultrawide? At the time, this was before the now likely trinity of f/2.8’s IS STMs were forming, so I can be forgiven (maybe) for that judgment call. After some looking around because I did remember the RF...

www.canonrumors.com

I wonder how much one could stretch the image circle until it's no longer considered a full frame lens. Clearly not all the way to APS-C size. I wonder how much they could shrink the circle until you'd really start to notice in MTF charts.

 

[UpstateNYPhotog]

And €1319 Netherlands MRSP. Not so far from the excellent 14-35 f/4L IS. The 2.8 with this focal length seems more of an indoor event lens. Edit: and maybe an astro option?

Yes, indoor event lens. I've ordered one for really tight small theater work. I also do work at chamber music events and student displays. Life in higher ed photography. This is exactly what I need. Didn't want to drop all the $$$ for a 15-35.

 

[Tmjc.wolf]

I missed this patent. In my defence, I looked at it and went.. meh, Canon doing ANOTHER Ultrawide? At the time, this was before the now likely trinity of f/2.8's IS STMs were forming, so I can be forgiven (maybe) for that judgment call.

Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM Patent Discussion - Canon Rumors

I missed this patent. In my defence, I looked at it and went.. meh, Canon doing ANOTHER Ultrawide? At the time, this was before the now likely trinity of f/2.8’s IS STMs were forming, so I can be forgiven (maybe) for that judgment call. After some looking around because I did remember the RF...

www.canonrumors.com

Thanks for the addition! Now I'd be interested in comparisons of the image height of other FF lenses that rely on digital corrections.... Like the 16mm 2.8 or 14-35mm f4 L.

 

[VegasCameraGuy]

The lens is a one-time purchase, and the difference between my RF 15-35 f/2.8L is not worth the likely loss in image quality. Buying a lower-quality lens will mean that every picture you take from now on will be slightly less sharp than if you had bought an L lens instead.

 

[PGSanta]

Interesting opinion. I´d like to know why exactly you're disappointed in this lens. I owned the lens for quite a while and actually loved the pics it produced. Handling is great and it is well built. The only thing I didn't like was the weight. When the RF 14-35mm F4 came out I opted for a wider lens, with better magnification, 300 gr lighter and a lot cheaper. All reasons you can´t blame the 15-35mm F2.8 for.

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks for the addition! Now I'd be interested in comparisons of the image height of other FF lenses that rely on digital corrections.... Like the 16mm 2.8 or 14-35mm f4 L.

The RF 16/2.8 has an image height of 18.2 mm. That was enough short of FF that CR initially called it an APS-C lens:

Patent: Canon RF APS-C pancake prime lens optical formulas - Canon Rumors

It looks like Canon will be bringing one or more RF-S prime lenses for the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10. One of the most requested RF-S lenses is unsurprisingly a pancake lens. Keith at Northlight Images uncovered a patent at the USPTO with what looks to be RF-S pancake optical formulas. None...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[neuroanatomist]

The lens is a one-time purchase, and the difference between my RF 15-35 f/2.8L is not worth the likely loss in image quality. Buying a lower-quality lens will mean that every picture you take from now on will be slightly less sharp than if you had bought an L lens instead.

Depends on the L lens. I suspect every picture taken with the RF 16-28/2.8 will be significantly more sharp than if you had used the EF 17-40/4L.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Depends on the L lens. I suspect every picture taken with the RF 16-28/2.8 will be significantly more sharp than if you had used the EF 17-40/4L.

Yeah, that´s a greeeeeat comparison. A 13-year old lens from an older mount which hasn't seen any new lenses since at least five years now...

The lens is a one-time purchase, and the difference between my RF 15-35 f/2.8L is not worth the likely loss in image quality. Buying a lower-quality lens will mean that every picture you take from now on will be slightly less sharp than if you had bought an L lens instead.

Although I can´t backup your claim since I obviously haven't used the new lens before, the 15-35mm F2.8 L should be the lens to compare the new RF 16-28mm F2.8 to.

 

[Del Paso]

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.

Cannot confirm, absolutely not!
I respect your opinion, but it's not mine at all...
PS: I used it often (very often ) in the snow at 15mm in the Austrian Alps and definitely love this lens. And no, I'm not snow blind .

 

[Exploreshootshare]

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,

thx for explaining your complaints. I personally cannot second those obvservations. Yes, vignetting is present at 15mm to some degree, but it can cleaned up in post in my experience. I definitely never had "unusable landscape images" due to vignetting of this lens.

but I think Canon could easily do better relatively speaking.

I do believe though Canon could make a better offering as of now. As I stated several times, the RF 100-500mm is where Canon really started creating newly designed lenses for the RF mount. All lenses before were based on old DSLR design. At least, a mkii could be lighter thx to the smaller IS unit.

 

[PGSanta]

thx for explaining your complaints. I personally cannot second those obvservations. Yes, vignetting is present at 15mm to some degree, but it can cleaned up in post in my experience. I definitely never had "unusable landscape images" due to vignetting of this lens.

I do believe though Canon could make a better offering as of now. As I stated several times, the RF 100-500mm is where Canon really started creating newly designed lenses for the RF mount. All lenses before were based on old DSLR design. At least, a mkii could be lighter thx to the smaller IS unit.

I'm not sure why you can't, they are very well documented, and a very real issue with the lens at 15-18mm. I'm not entirely opposed to the look, but when shooting something like a rolling hill, a field, or a snowy scene the vignetting is very, very noticeable (I promise it's on yours as well), and is incredibly difficult to account for in post without being noticeable. I am willing to concede that the vast majority of shots that even I take aren't impacted much by the vignetting, but the point is Canon can, and should do better when the competition is simply offering better lenses in the class.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah, that´s a greeeeeat comparison. A 13-year old lens from an older mount which hasn't seen any new lenses since at least five years now...

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.) 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[PGSanta]

Cannot confirm, absolutely not!
I respect your opinion, but it's not mine at all...
PS: I used it often (very often ) in the snow at 15mm in the Austrian Alps and definitely love this lens. And no, I'm not snow blind .

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.

 

[Del Paso]

thx for explaining your complaints. I personally cannot second those obvservations. Yes, vignetting is present at 15mm to some degree, but it can cleaned up in post in my experience. I definitely never had "unusable landscape images" due to vignetting of this lens.

I do believe though Canon could make a better offering as of now. As I stated several times, the RF 100-500mm is where Canon really started creating newly designed lenses for the RF mount. All lenses before were based on old DSLR design. At least, a mkii could be lighter thx to the smaller IS unit.

Agreed!
But do not forget that it seems much easier to design an excellent telezoom than a n UWA zoom.
I absolutely love my RF 15-35. Unusable for landscapes? What a joke.
Ever read Gordon Laing's Brian's and OpticalLimits' reviews?

 

[Del Paso]

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.

Still your opinion, I use mine with excellent results for landscapes. At 15mm, sharp, contrasty. vignetting correction active, without any issues.
Strangely, Gordon Laing, TDP's Brian and OpticalLimits seem very satisfied with this lens. And they are not the only ones...
Maybe you're more demanding ???
And where did I say there's no vignetting?

 

[PGSanta]

Agreed!
But do not forget that it seems much easier to design an excellent telezoom than a n UWA zoom.
I absolutely love my RF 15-35. Unusable for landscapes? What a joke.
Ever read Gordon Laing's Brian's and OpticalLimits' reviews?

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.

 

[Moritz_RD02]

Oh boy - yes, the RF15-35L vignettes heavily. But if you're lucky the exposure's on your side anyway (all shots at 15 mm f/2.8).

It's easily my most used lens - even though I own the (excellent!) RF10-20L which is kind of king of vignetting at 10mm. Would I take a version with less vignetting? Sure. But I can only use what I got anyway. And for the fact that you can sometimes get it for less than 2k€ in Germany at certain electronic discounters (... and even less after cash back) I'd never consider any alternatives. It's a great lens, albeit a flawed one. But that holds true to any Canon Wide-Angle Zoom I've ever used (17-40L, 16-35/4L, 20-35, 16-35L II...).

Get out more and have fun with the lenses you got And one more point: Gear is so incredibly good these days, I honestly don't get what we're arguing about. The old Minolta 28/2.8 I sort of inherited from my dad is god awful in every metric but vignetting and still was his go-to lens back in the 80s/90s and mine in the early 2000s.

 

[PGSanta]

Oh boy - yes, the RF15-35L vignettes heavily. But if you're lucky the exposure's on your side anyway (all shots at 15 mm f/2.8).

It's easily my most used lens - even though I own the (excellent!) RF10-20L which is kind of king of vignetting at 10mm. Would I take a version with less vignetting? Sure. But I can only use what I got anyway. And for the fact that you can sometimes get it for less than 2k€ in Germany at certain electronic discounters (... and even less after cash back) I'd never consider any alternatives. It's a great lens, albeit a flawed one. But that holds true to any Canon Wide-Angle Zoom I've ever used (17-40L, 16-35/4L, 20-35, 16-35L II...).

Get out more and have fun with the lenses you got And one more point: Gear is so incredibly good these days, I honestly don't get what we're arguing about. The old Minolta 28/2.8 I sort of inherited from my dad is god awful in every metric but vignetting and still was his go-to lens back in the 80s/90s and mine in the early 2000s.

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.