RF 16/2.8 a no-brainer?

Just ordered an R6 kit with the 24-105/4. I’ll probably get the RF 100-400 immediately or soon after. Looking at the lineup and reviews., it seems like getting the 16/2.8 is pretty much a no-brainer.  Is it?

(coming from the Fuji X cameras for the last decade)

It depends on what you take pictures of and what other lenses you might buy.   I have several RF lenses but no 16mm yet since I have the RF15-35.   I do have the RF 35 and RF50f1.8 which are similar compact lenses.

I recently picked up the RF 16 and it's a fun little lens for a lot less money than the other a lot more expensive zooms. It might not be optically perfect but i consider it good enough since you can correct most of those optical issues and the rest of them don't really bother me that much.

It's small light compact size is a big advantage compared to the other zooms.

/ Magnus

Yes, it is a no- brainer because it is small, light and fun to use. IQ is really good, with the exception of the outer corners being slightly soft. Worth the money for sure.

I had it for a while, but I finally decided against FF due to bulk and weight.

As mentioned, RF 16/2.8 is small, lightweight and cheap. These are its biggest assets. It has fairly good yet not great optical quality, strong barrel distortion and CA. If you could live with these, the overall price/performance value is great with this lens.

If you post process in Lightroom with corrections applied lens is wider then 16mm when compered to camera jpg. I do not have different uva but it's closer to 15mm I think.

STM motor with such wide lens is no issue, apart for horrible noises it makes.

I'm causal UVA user and for me it's sharp enough, due to small size and weight I didn't mind to carry it all day in my backpack.

I took it for my last trip few days ago and took hundred fotos with it as complementary lens to 24-105L.

24-105L with 16mm makes great travel kit.

Just out of curiosity, can you handheld this with an R6 and used it as a selfie ? or will the distortion makes it too wacky 🤔

For $299 it is, indeed, a no brainer.

Sittatunga wrote:

siLvErStoRm wrote:

Just out of curiosity, can you handheld this with an R6 and used it as a selfie ? or will the distortion makes it too wacky 🤔

The distortion will come from having the camera within arm's reach of your head. It will be only slightly worse than doing a selfie with a phone, except that you can possibly include a bigger group of your friends or of people or places you want to impress your friends with. There is no other distortion if you output jpg from your camera or a RAW converter with a decent lens profile for it.

Thanks, i just might give this lens a try, and maybe a solid gorilla pod might do the trick.

CameraCarl wrote:

The RF 16mm is only the second non-L lens that I have bought in the last 20 years and I can't believe how much fun it is to use. Some may dismiss it for being an STM lens, or for being less than "L" level sharp, but I find it great for the kind of photography I do. I am even tempted to leave my EF 16-35mm lens at home most trips.

I feel the same way about the RF 35f1.8 and RF 50f1.8.    Neither lens is without faults but they perform well in many cases and are small and light to bright along on trips.

For how inexpensive it is and how little I use UWA, I would have considered it over the Sigma 14-24mm Art I have if it existed when I bought the Sigma. I know the Sigma is better, but it's large and sometimes I just don't take it with me for that reason.

rmexpress22 wrote:

For how inexpensive it is and how little I use UWA, I would have considered it over the Sigma 14-24mm Art I have if it existed when I bought the Sigma. I know the Sigma is better, but it's large and sometimes I just don't take it with me for that reason.

RF 16/2.8 and Sigma 14-24/2.8 are very hard to compare. Both are from a very different worlds in basicaly all possible meanings:

- 14 mm vs 16 mm widest angle

- zoom vs fixed

- weather sealed vs unsealed

- metal body vs plastic

- Sigma made to be excellent, Canon made to be cheap

- Sigma much better at 16mm f/2.8 than Canon although Sigma is a zoom: much sharper off the centre and in the corners, much less vigneting, aberrations free vs a lot of aberration on Canon

Sigma is even much sharper, less vignetting and less aberrating at f/2.8 than Canon at f/8!

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1573&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1182&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

But of course, the absolute superiority of IQ, build and features have their trade off in the size, weight and price of Sigma. Although its price/performance ratio is much better than with RF 15-35/2.8.

Texchappy wrote:

Just ordered an R6 kit with the 24-105/4. I’ll probably get the RF 100-400 immediately or soon after. Looking at the lineup and reviews., it seems like getting the 16/2.8 is pretty much a no-brainer. Is it?

(coming from the Fuji X cameras for the last decade)

Yes it is. For $300 too!

I bought the 14-35 f4 and returned it because it was pretty soft at the 35mm end. I ended up buying the 16mm and I'm perfectly happy. This is not a common focal length for me to use, but when I need it, it is always there in the camera bag.

pretty much everyone with an R camera should have this lens.
Its always in my bag (usually with my samyang 85mm 1.4 for my "day to day" kit)
Love it for video on a gimbal too

lonewolf1983 wrote:

Love it for video on a gimbal too

How is it as a video lens?  (tripod and/or handheld cage).  Pros/cons?

Thx,

R2