RF 28 pancake first impressions

[Alastair Norcross]

In a nutshell, this is an amazing lens. It's tiny, light, and affordable (especially in the US). The whole point of this lens is to be tiny and light, so I'm not at all interested in comparisons with other 28mm lenses that will fit my R cameras. Even the smallest of the alternatives is much much bigger than this (especially when taking the adapter into account). I have zero interest in getting any of them. A big plus for the pancake is that it is also very sharp. Another superb RF offering from Canon. Here it is on my R6II:





And here it is in between the two previously smallest RF lenses, which are also tiny and light (and sharp), but not as tiny and light as the pancake:





And here are a few samples:




























Directly into the sun. Almost no flare at all








Happy Bastille Day!

As I said, I'm not in the least bit interested in comparisons with other lenses. This lens is unique, at least for the RF mount, and these pictures are just for information. Please keep quibbles about how this lens compares with other lenses for other threads.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair

anorcross

Keen hobbyist since teaching myself film photography as a teenager in the 70s, using manual SLRs and black and white film. Love photographing people and animals.

anorcross.smugmug.com

Equipment in profile

 

[JustUs7]

I don’t know about the lens, but dinner sure looks good!

I do wish they could transfer that MF-Control-AF switch to all their single ring consumer lenses. Seems so simple. At least they listened.

 

[thunder storm]

amongst the smallest 28mm option it's the sharpest I guess

 

[Fjzk]

Great shots. Looking forward to using it with my RP. I love the 28mm focal length and never had anything this portable available for my cameras.

 

[mojorisn]

Is that a blue R6 II?

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Is that a blue R6 II?

LOL. That’s just the light from my computer screen. I didn’t want to fiddle with white balance for a shot that’s just supposed to illustrate the size of the lens.

 

[mojorisn]

Is that a blue R6 II?

LOL. That’s just the light from my computer screen. I didn’t want to fiddle with white balance for a shot that’s just supposed to illustrate the size of the lens.

I spent 2 hours doing searches for "Blue Canon R6 Mark II"

 

[Barry Krueger]

This is indeed a sharp lens. I have the R6mkii and R8 but wanted to try the 28mm on the R7. Here are a few shots (examples again only). Raw imported into PhotoScapeX and virtually no adjustments, exported to jpg. Very sharp, bokeh OK, contrast/color good.



















--
Barry K. Krueger, Sr.

 

[Canon_Guy]

This is indeed a sharp lens. I have the R6mkii and R8 but wanted to try the 28mm on the R7. Here are a few shots (examples again only). Raw imported into PhotoScapeX and virtually no adjustments, exported to jpg. Very sharp, bokeh OK, contrast/color good.

Thank you for your effort.



But the same here, 4Mpix downsamples from 32Mpix picture say nothing about the lens sharpness itself. Any lens would look sharp after that massive downsample.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Since some people said they didn't like the white balance on some of the shots I posted, I thought I'd go back and reprocess a couple, to show what you get with different settings. First, the shot of the car in the driveway. This is the version I posted first:




This uses the 'as shot' white balance setting, using the camera's AWB W

And this is a version with a custom white balance off the white patch on the car's bumper:




Custom WB off the white patch on the bumper

This version is a lot warmer. The colors are what you see in late afternoon sunshine. But this shot was taken in early morning, when the colors are actually a lot cooler. So the first version is more accurate to how the scene actually looked, even if some people might find the colors in the second version more pleasing. If I was interested in showing a picture I wanted to be pleasing to people, I'd use the second shot. But that wasn't the point of the original post.

Next, here are different versions of one of the indoor shots at the sushi restaurant. First, a version using the camera's AWB W setting:




As shot, AWB W

Next, the version I originally posted, in which I took a custom white balance off the white plate:




Custom WB off plate

Next, one with a custom white balance off the lady's teeth:




Custom WB off tooth

And finally, one with a custom white balance off the lady's eye (the white of the eye, obviously):




Custom WB off eye

Of these, the second one (WB off plate) is the most accurate to how the scene actually looked. Obviously, with mixed lighting, it's hard to get it to look exactly how it did, but the second version comes the closest.

If I were making a version for that couple, I'd see what they preferred. Not everyone likes pictures of themselves that look the way they actually look (most people don't, in fact). But, again, that wasn't the point of the original post. Finally, as an example of shots that definitely look weird and unnatural, by pretty much anyone's standards, here are some from a show I went to over the weekend:













It would be silly of me to try to 'correct' the color casts in these shots. That's just how they looked.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair

anorcross

Keen hobbyist since teaching myself film photography as a teenager in the 70s, using manual SLRs and black and white film. Love photographing people and animals.

anorcross.smugmug.com

Equipment in profile

 

[mnk88]

Thanks for posting some pictures and your thoughts on this lens. I took the leap and purchased one today. I agree with you that it is a very sharp lens. Even at f2.8, things seem very sharp even into the edges. There is a lot of vignetting at f2.8, but it significantly improves by f4. There also seems to be quite a bit of distortion correction with this lens. I cannot turn off distortion correction for this lens on my RP, which isn't a good sign. When I flip between uncorrected and corrected profile corrections in LR, I can see that with correction, the image is cropped and the distortion (looks like barrel) straightens out. Very similar to what I see with my RF 16mm, except the 28mm maintains sharpness into the edges. I'm tempted to return the lens, but I love the compactness of it. On my RP it makes for a great travel lens, which is what I purchased it for. Combined with the 16mm and 50 f1.8, I'd have a very light camera system for travel.

 

[Franz Kerschbaum]

"I'm tempted to return the lens" Why? You say many positive things and then you want to get rid of it? Must be a misunderstanding.

 

[PicPocket]

I cannot turn off distortion correction for this lens on my RP, which isn't a good sign.

It would only be a bad sign if the corrected images end up being worse than older 28mm f/2.8 lenses, either in corner sharpness or FOV.

As it happens, optician corrections are no magic bullet, specifically at this price point. It is possible to end up with undistorted soft corners on optically corrected lenses with no choice of going back to the the original projection that the optics tried to correct for

 

[mnk88]

"I'm tempted to return the lens" Why? You say many positive things and then you want to get rid of it? Must be a misunderstanding.

No misunderstanding. There's a lot of vignetting with this lens at f2.8. More than any other lens I've used. Although it improves significantly at f4, it never really goes away. I can still see it at f8 in uncorrected RAW images. I also would prefer less barrel distortion. It is impressive to me that the lens is as sharp as it is into the corners after the distortion correction is applied. I guess it comes down to: am I willing to accept these flaws and their digital corrections to have a really small, lightweight, sharp lens for travel?

 

[hexonxonx]

Can you post a few unedited pics straight out of the camera using this lens?

I'm starting to think that I don't want this lens.

 

[charisgratia]

"I'm tempted to return the lens" Why? You say many positive things and then you want to get rid of it? Must be a misunderstanding.

No misunderstanding. There's a lot of vignetting with this lens at f2.8. More than any other lens I've used. Although it improves significantly at f4, it never really goes away. I can still see it at f8 in uncorrected RAW images. I also would prefer less barrel distortion. It is impressive to me that the lens is as sharp as it is into the corners after the distortion correction is applied. I guess it comes down to: am I willing to accept these flaws and their digital corrections to have a really small, lightweight, sharp lens for travel?

I love this little lens. Since Lightroom imports the files with profile corrections enabled, I don't have to look at how bad it is uncorrected. But if I turn off corrections, it's like a little less extreme version of the 16mm with that lens' corrections turned off. I have both. Just keep profile corrections enabled in Lightroom (or whichever software used) and enjoy.

 

[JustUs7]

Can you post a few unedited pics straight out of the camera using this lens?

I'm starting to think that I don't want this lens.

If you’re a purist who wants optical perfection, it’s best to stay always from the wide / ultra-wide end of consumer grade Mirrorless lenses. If you want affordable glass, light weight, and a really good final image - it’s a great value.

 

[Fjzk]

Can you post a few unedited pics straight out of the camera using this lens?

I'm starting to think that I don't want this lens.

If you’re a purist who wants optical perfection, it’s best to stay always from the wide / ultra-wide end of consumer grade Mirrorless lenses. If you want affordable glass, light weight, and a really good final image - it’s a great value.

Yep…one can’t have it all: low price, small size and optical perfection…let the software do it its trick and be happy.

--
All-in-One zoom and just PureRaw it!
https://vero.co/fjzk

 

[mnk88]

Can you post a few unedited pics straight out of the camera using this lens?

I'm starting to think that I don't want this lens.

I can post some pictures. They aren't unedited though. I have applied changes to the images using the develop module in LR, as I do with all my images. For these images, contrast +6, highlights -20, shadows +20, whites +15, blacks -6, sharpening masking 39, color NR 12, luminance NR 5. All of these images have "remove chromatic aberration" on.

Here's f2.8 with "enable profile corrections" off.



Here's f2.8 with "enable profile corrections" on.



Here's f4 with "enable profile corrections" off.



Here's f4 with "enable profile corrections" on.

 

[PicPocket]

"I'm tempted to return the lens" Why? You say many positive things and then you want to get rid of it? Must be a misunderstanding.

No misunderstanding. There's a lot of vignetting with this lens at f2.8. More than any other lens I've used. Although it improves significantly at f4, it never really goes away. I can still see it at f8 in uncorrected RAW images. I also would prefer less barrel distortion. It is impressive to me that the lens is as sharp as it is into the corners after the distortion correction is applied. I guess it comes down to: am I willing to accept these flaws and their digital corrections to have a really small, lightweight, sharp lens for travel?

There is no useful reason to use the uncorrected image really, just like we never take out correcting elements from an optically corrected lens. Well, except for that one being cumbersome in comparison