Some RF 16 snowy landscapes

I took my R with 16 on a late afternoon walk around a local lake yesterday. The DXO profile for the lens is really good. At F11, it's sharp pretty much edge to edge. There is a little purple fringing in the extreme corners, but these are actually the parts of the image that are wider than 16mm. DXO allows you to use more of the image than the LR profile. Also, the purple fringing is easily corrected with one click. Here are some of the images:

Nice sunstar. The sun was about to go down behind the mountains

The lake was partially frozen

The high winds that fanned the flames of the awful fires here a few days ago really did a number on a lot of trees

If you open it up to F2.8, you can get a bit of background blur

And here are 100% crops from the top left corner of one of the shots, first with standard lens corrections:

You can see some purple fringing on the left (that's the part of the image that is wider than 16mm)

And this is after one click on the 'auto' button of the 'size' in the 'other chromatic aberrations' panel in PL5. That click increased the size from 4 to 8.

And here's the whole image (web-sized) from which those crops are taken:

The more I use this lens, the more impressed I am with it. $299 for a small, light, sharp ultra wide lens is really quite remarkable. I know a lot of people like to complain about Canon's cheap RF lenses (or maybe it's really a few people who complain a lot), but the more I use them (I have all four), the more misguided all these complaints seem to me.

How is the coma wide open when used for Astro?  The 35 f/1.8 is bad.

I really like the RF 16mm the more I use it.   It is essentially weightless, and the photos are excellent.  I use it mostly for landscapes, as is pretty common, but it can produce some interesting interior shots of a room.  One I shot the other day, mostly to check out how well my Neewer flash worked with the RP and this lens.  Flash bounced off the ceiling, diffuser panel was used on the flash head.  The usual adjust to taste in Lightroom.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

I took my R with 16 on a late afternoon walk around a local lake yesterday. The DXO profile for the lens is really good. At F11, it's sharp pretty much edge to edge. There is a little purple fringing in the extreme corners, but these are actually the parts of the image that are wider than 16mm. DXO allows you to use more of the image than the LR profile. Also, the purple fringing is easily corrected with one click. Here are some of the images:

Nice sunstar. The sun was about to go down behind the mountains

The lake was partially frozen

The high winds that fanned the flames of the awful fires here a few days ago really did a number on a lot of trees

If you open it up to F2.8, you can get a bit of background blur

And here are 100% crops from the top left corner of one of the shots, first with standard lens corrections:

You can see some purple fringing on the left (that's the part of the image that is wider than 16mm)

And this is after one click on the 'auto' button of the 'size' in the 'other chromatic aberrations' panel in PL5. That click increased the size from 4 to 8.

And here's the whole image (web-sized) from which those crops are taken:

The more I use this lens, the more impressed I am with it. $299 for a small, light, sharp ultra wide lens is really quite remarkable. I know a lot of people like to complain about Canon's cheap RF lenses (or maybe it's really a few people who complain a lot), but the more I use them (I have all four), the more misguided all these complaints seem to me.

Can I make a friendly suggestion? These are nice shots but maybe back off on the sharpening. They look really "Crispy"...

Dan W wrote:

Can I make a friendly suggestion? These are nice shots but maybe back off on the sharpening. They look really "Crispy"...

I know what you mean, but I actually didn't add any sharpening, beyond what DXO does for its standard lens correction. No unsharp mask at all. I've found that the DXO lens corrections are enough for sharpness. I did add some microcontrast, though, which is, I think, Photolab's equivalent of Lightroom's clarity. Perhaps that's what you're seeing?

Here's a comparison of one of the images I posted, and a reprocessed version with less microcontrast:

This is the same as I originally posted

This has a lower microcontrast setting

Is the second one more to your taste? Of course, conditions themselves were pretty crispy. Frozen lakes will always look at least a bit crispy.

JustUs7 wrote:

How is the coma wide open when used for Astro? The 35 f/1.8 is bad.

I haven't checked, I'm afraid. I don't do Astro. I would be interested to hear from others, just in case I get the urge to try it out.

SteveinLouisville wrote:

I really like the RF 16mm the more I use it. It is essentially weightless, and the photos are excellent. I use it mostly for landscapes, as is pretty common, but it can produce some interesting interior shots of a room. One I shot the other day, mostly to check out how well my Neewer flash worked with the RP and this lens. Flash bounced off the ceiling, diffuser panel was used on the flash head. The usual adjust to taste in Lightroom.

Nice shot. The Hello Fresh box and plastic pet/child barrier are wonderfully anachronistic in a room that seems to be otherwise right out of the 50's, or even earlier.

Gearsnobbery is a big problem, not only in this forum but also in the facebook groups.

The only problem the RF 16, 35, 50 and 85 share is that they don't have the red ring and are affordable, that makes people mad, especially people using cameras from a gaming console manufacturer which don't even have access to affordable glass from their OEM.

I concur with those who are happy with the RF16, and the RF35. I dont use the RF50 much, but I have no complaints about it. I am currently trying to figure out what I would do with an RF85.

I get excellent results from these lenses and would recommend them unreservedly to all. I do not understand at all why people would have any reason to complain about them.

David

I did some initial testing and this lens along with DxO PL4 turns into a roughly 14.5mm lens.

That eliminates the need for me to consider 14-35mm lens.

This for me is really the best RF lens Canon have released so far. (With the caveat that one has access to DxO PL)

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Nice sunstar. The sun was about to go down behind the mountains

Nice shot!

cocoanud wrote:

I did some initial testing and this lens along with DxO PL4 turns into a roughly 14.5mm lens.

That eliminates the need for me to consider 14-35mm lens.

This for me is really the best RF lens Canon have released so far. (With the caveat that one has access to DxO PL)

Yes, to all that. The thing that amazes me is that I expected that such a wide angle lens as the RF16 would give results "like a wide angle lens", i.e. with distortion of perspective. There was a time when I almost overbalanced and fell on the floor when I looked through a 24mm lens, but the RF16 manages to look so natural.

David

davidwien wrote:

There was a time when I almost overbalanced and fell on the floor when I looked through a 24mm lens

One of the many advantages of EVF over OVF

Got rid of OVFs starting with Oly E-M1and using 7-14 lens was never a problem. Even though the vertical axis on m43 is noticeably taller than 3:2 of FF.

Using the Sigma 10-15mm on my D90 prior to Oly E-M1 I remember the drama (even though D90 OVF was one of the better ones)

cocoanud wrote:

davidwien wrote:

There was a time when I almost overbalanced and fell on the floor when I looked through a 24mm lens

One of the many advantages of EVF over OVF

Got rid of OVFs starting with Oly E-M1and using 7-14 lens was never a problem. Even though the vertical axis on m43 is noticeably taller than 3:2 of FF.

Using the Sigma 10-15mm on my D90 prior to Oly E-M1 I remember the drama (even though D90 OVF was one of the better ones)

I assume this is because you can’t show the “corrected” lens through an OVF, but the EVF gives you all the distortion correction?

JustUs7 wrote:

I assume this is because you can’t show the “corrected” lens through an OVF, but the EVF gives you all the distortion correction?

I think yes. And another issue is that only the most expensive DSLRs have the best OVFs. Most others had a less than 1.0 magnification and less than 100% coverage.

Even the Canon 1dx III is 0.75x magnification (but 100% coverage).

That miniaturisation coupled with uncorrected UWA makes the OVF quite trippy.

EDIT: In fact without the miniaturisation it will be quite cumbersome to frame the image with the OVF. Will have to move the eye a lot.

I started off in DSLRs with the Olympus 4/3rds E-500 and that had a tiny tunnel like pentamirror OVF.

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Nice sunstar. The sun was about to go down behind the mountains

Nice shot!

+1 The one I was going to select as well! 

R2

Dan W wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

I took my R with 16 on a late afternoon walk around a local lake yesterday. The DXO profile for the lens is really good. At F11, it's sharp pretty much edge to edge. There is a little purple fringing in the extreme corners, but these are actually the parts of the image that are wider than 16mm. DXO allows you to use more of the image than the LR profile. Also, the purple fringing is easily corrected with one click. Here are some of the images:

Nice sunstar. The sun was about to go down behind the mountains

The lake was partially frozen

The high winds that fanned the flames of the awful fires here a few days ago really did a number on a lot of trees

If you open it up to F2.8, you can get a bit of background blur

And here are 100% crops from the top left corner of one of the shots, first with standard lens corrections:

You can see some purple fringing on the left (that's the part of the image that is wider than 16mm)

And this is after one click on the 'auto' button of the 'size' in the 'other chromatic aberrations' panel in PL5. That click increased the size from 4 to 8.

And here's the whole image (web-sized) from which those crops are taken:

The more I use this lens, the more impressed I am with it. $299 for a small, light, sharp ultra wide lens is really quite remarkable. I know a lot of people like to complain about Canon's cheap RF lenses (or maybe it's really a few people who complain a lot), but the more I use them (I have all four), the more misguided all these complaints seem to me.

Can I make a friendly suggestion? These are nice shots but maybe back off on the sharpening. They look really "Crispy"...

Agreed, the haloing is very obvious and offputting. Looks very similar to someone applying sharpening with a VERY high radius.

I generally don't touch things like microcontrast in PL5 for that reason - LR does a better job.

bigshledge wrote:

Dan W wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

I took my R with 16 on a late afternoon walk around a local lake yesterday. The DXO profile for the lens is really good. At F11, it's sharp pretty much edge to edge. There is a little purple fringing in the extreme corners, but these are actually the parts of the image that are wider than 16mm. DXO allows you to use more of the image than the LR profile. Also, the purple fringing is easily corrected with one click. Here are some of the images:

Nice sunstar. The sun was about to go down behind the mountains

The lake was partially frozen

The high winds that fanned the flames of the awful fires here a few days ago really did a number on a lot of trees

If you open it up to F2.8, you can get a bit of background blur

And here are 100% crops from the top left corner of one of the shots, first with standard lens corrections:

You can see some purple fringing on the left (that's the part of the image that is wider than 16mm)

And this is after one click on the 'auto' button of the 'size' in the 'other chromatic aberrations' panel in PL5. That click increased the size from 4 to 8.

And here's the whole image (web-sized) from which those crops are taken:

The more I use this lens, the more impressed I am with it. $299 for a small, light, sharp ultra wide lens is really quite remarkable. I know a lot of people like to complain about Canon's cheap RF lenses (or maybe it's really a few people who complain a lot), but the more I use them (I have all four), the more misguided all these complaints seem to me.

Can I make a friendly suggestion? These are nice shots but maybe back off on the sharpening. They look really "Crispy"...

Agreed, the haloing is very obvious and offputting. Looks very similar to someone applying sharpening with a VERY high radius.

I generally don't touch things like microcontrast in PL5 for that reason - LR does a better job.

OK, so what do you think about the reprocessed version with less microcontrast? I’m still getting the hang of the differences between LR and PL5.

I mean it should be obvious, don't go overboard with such sliders if they're going to bring in very obvious haloing like that. Just makes things look overly cooked.

Testing it myself, the effect doesn't really kick in unless you wack it beyond 25. I personally wouldn't touch it IMO.