An affordable must have prime lens for any bag.

I preordered this lens on the day of the announcement and loved it since I got it. It looks so small on my R5, but I actually prefer having this lens in my bag over my 16-35 zoom (in fact I rarely use the zoom these days).

The build is definitely cheaper than L series lenses, but it's really not surprising considering what I paid for it. The front element is tiny and of course, it's not weather-sealed or as typical for Canon budget lenses, doesn't include a hood for it. I would recommend getting one for it instead of protection filters as those would risk causing haze or contrast loss if you shoot directly into the sun as I do and since the front element protrudes, the hood protects it from any accidental bumps.

Great results that fit in any jacket pocket.

Who is this lens for? I would say anyone (who needs a wide-angle) should have this lens especially if you don't want to carry a 16-35 zoom all the time. I actually now have all the STM primes from 16 to 50 and just love how I can fit them all into a small shoulder bag. If you find that your gear is getting bulky and just want to have some flexibility in ranges, then I recommend this lens to toss into any bag. I own two 16-35 zoom lenses, and I never use them anymore.

Now it isn't perfect, but for my style of shooting, I don't find the compromises all that bad. It's a prime lens, so the sharpness equals what my L-zoom produces, but there is some minor softness and distortion towards the edges (mostly due to profile correction). Stopping down corrects most of these issues.

Lightroom correction shows the amount of distortion correction.

Straight out of the camera on JPG, the lens is amazing looking. When I first opened the RAW files in Lightroom I was quite surprised how much vignetting there was, but also equally impressed by how well it was corrected in-camera and JPG output. As of this review, Lightroom now has profiles that support it that correct for the distortion (prior to that I was using the 16-35 profile that did a decent job). Another surprising thing that I found between my 16-35 zoom and this 16mm prime is that it seems that I have far more FOV over the zoom. It's almost like it is closer to a 15mm lens with moustache distortion, and once it is corrected, it equals the 16mm FOV from the zoom. I kind of consider this a bonus. Depending on your subject, you could easily get away with the distortion and gain far more than expected. Just be aware that the image you see on your viewfinder is the corrected profile, so if you want to frame more, you have to guess.

Vignette and Distortion correction, before and after in Adobe Lightroom.

The STM motor is noisier than one might like, but it's not horrible. If you intend on using this for video work on a gimbal (which is so easy to balance and calibrate), you'll want to record your audio separately. The focus distance (13cm) is also surprisingly short which means you can create some really cool unique close-up images with this lens that you wouldn't get from the 16-35mm zoom.

The filter ring is tiny (43mm), and you might need to get a step ring to bring it to something more standard. Because the front element moves, you'll have to be aware of any filter holders that you put onto it as it might be stressful on it. But I have a bunch of older and smaller Cokin P filters that work great on this (I'm certain if I dug out my film-era Cokin-A filters, they would work fine on it too).

Overall, I really like this lens, and it is what it is based on the price. Is it the best 16mm prime lens that you can get? No, but it is definitely the best 16mm lens in its price class that you can throw into a bag, use it on a gimbal, or just for the casual one-time landscape shot you rarely do over owning an expensive 16-35 F/2.8 zoom. This lens is really a 5 star in its class, but I give it 4 overall in what you can get for 16mm lenses. It does really show me that Canon is capable of building compact lenses for its mirrorless offering. I can't help but wonder how difficult it would be for them to have a larger front element, internal focus and just a slightly larger form factor as an F/1.8 weather-sealed L-series prime. One can only hope. For now, love this lens and carry it all the time.

CameraCarl wrote:

Thanks for the review. Just curious: are you considering selling your 16-35 lenses? Or do you plan to keep them for special circumstances?

Still hanging on to at least one of them, the F/2.8. I'm probably going to sell off the F/4 with another camera body I have.

When hiking or personal adventures, I love the primes, but when it comes to working an event, the 16-35 F/2.8 is still a must-have. Just need the jobs to come back to use it again.

I like the 16mm 2.8 a lot.  Weightless, small, great IQ for what it is.  Oh, and cheap.  Match this with the 24-xxx zoom of your choice and you can cover everything.  I keep the 16mm on one camera and the RF 24-105 f4.0L on the other, and that covers everything as far as I am concerned.

I still have (and am keeping) my 17-40 f4.0L but that's more for special occasions when that zoom range is going to be used a lot.  In practice, not many of those occasions come up, but I am keeping it anyway.  I have zero interest in the RF 14-35 f4.0L.  My UWA needs are fully met with what I have.

I highly recommend the 16mm 2.8.  Really excellent lens.

SteveinLouisville wrote:

I like the 16mm 2.8 a lot. Weightless, small, great IQ for what it is. Oh, and cheap. Match this with the 24-xxx zoom of your choice and you can cover everything. I keep the 16mm on one camera and the RF 24-105 f4.0L on the other, and that covers everything as far as I am concerned.

I still have (and am keeping) my 17-40 f4.0L but that's more for special occasions when that zoom range is going to be used a lot. In practice, not many of those occasions come up, but I am keeping it anyway. I have zero interest in the RF 14-35 f4.0L. My UWA needs are fully met with what I have.

I highly recommend the 16mm 2.8. Really excellent lens.

I am with Steve here. I am also keeping the EF14-40 f/4L. I have the R35mm f/1.8 and the RF50 f/1.8; but am amazed at the usefulness of the RF16. I expected that it would be "too wide angle" for every day use; but with the corrections in PL5, and by taking care to hold it horizontal, I only rarely have the impression of distortions. It joins the RF35 and RF24-240 as a trio of lenses that I would not be without. They provide amazingly high quality for a truly modest outlay.

David

A snap taken on a walkaround on a rare day that was not totally overcast last week!

View of the Augustinerkirche and the Palais Lobkowitz, where Beethoven's Third (Eroica) Symphony was first performed.

ProDude wrote:

is a shot like that processed in Topaz Sharpen AI. It makes that lens output more like a $2500 prime as it erases any weaknesses in corner sharpness (which that lens tends to have). This way you don't have to ever be concerned about it not being essentially perfect. I don't know if this redo done in Topaz Sharpen AI will translate here with all the annoying compression uploads on this site have to endure, but it's unreal believe me. The increase in detail in the trees to the right of the image is outstanding. Sure resurrects whatever that lens isn't doing.

I find Topaz Sharpen needs to be applied carefully otherwise it causes horrible artefacts in the areas it struggles with (such as the sea here). I find I also feel it tries to oversharpen things at times so needs toning down. That said, it's an mazing piece of software.

I tend to agree with you. It has to be handled with care. I have beta-tested Topaz software for a number of years and love what they do. Great company as well. Amazing support from the crew there. I highly recommend their software.

As for this subject, yes, it works pretty well to sharpen it for the weaknesses in the corners but it does look oversharpened and of course, mixed with compression errors. These days, I also don't get all that worked up over corner sharpness like I used to with most UWA lenses. It has never affected any sales for me. Ironically one of my top-selling prints was done with a 5Dmk2 and an EF 20mm F/2.8 lens which I sell on 6-foot canvases. The edges suffer from strong CA and softness, which at the time I never corrected. Nobody has ever complained, including my fantastic print vendor. 
This compared to things shot back in the past is still quite a bit better than some of those budget lenses. Topaz Sharpen just elevates it further and leaves one with several thousand in the bank to go on a nice trip somewhere.

stevvi wrote:

ProDude wrote:

is a shot like that processed in Topaz Sharpen AI. It makes that lens output more like a $2500 prime as it erases any weaknesses in corner sharpness (which that lens tends to have). This way you don't have to ever be concerned about it not being essentially perfect. I don't know if this redo done in Topaz Sharpen AI will translate here with all the annoying compression uploads on this site have to endure, but it's unreal believe me. The increase in detail in the trees to the right of the image is outstanding. Sure resurrects whatever that lens isn't doing.

I find Topaz Sharpen needs to be applied carefully otherwise it causes horrible artefacts in the areas it struggles with (such as the sea here). I find I also feel it tries to oversharpen things at times so needs toning down. That said, it's an mazing piece of software.

My suspicion is the AI in Topaz cleared up the movement in the swing. The shot was 6 seconds long and there was a very slight breeze that day so things that were a little blurry were due to the breeze. Not surprising, but not unexpected when doing long exposures.

ProDude wrote:

I knew going into this sample that the annoying compression the uploads to Dpreview suffer would mess up my example. As for sharpness all I can say is without the compression the actual file I generated after messing with the settings (which you of course already know need messing with) it rendered an amazingly detailed improvement. Look at the swing alone. it was blurry prior and sharp as could be after. When it comes to landscapes, I prefer sharpness across the ENTIRE frame personally. This program resurrects that corner sharpness in a way I've never seen. It also allows for layer selection in case some of the image is fine but the corners aren't. So I'll stand on what I said even though it's not possible to upload an example without their system messing with it.