RF 16/2.8 a no-brainer?

Texchappy wrote:

Can someone point to/discuss a good comparison of the 16 STM VS the two uwa zooms?

Here you can check compare the IQ.

There are also reviews of 16/2.8 and 15-35/2.8 . I would not go for any f/4 lens if astrophoto is involved.

My subjective approach is that I would not (and did not) choose either of them. 16/2.8 has too many compromises for me and 15-35 is too expensive considering its IQ.

From the fixed lens there is fairly good Sigma 14/1.4, but it is quite expensive. I went for Sigma 14-24/2.8 which has an impressive IQ for a very reasonable price. But it is biiig and heavy. It is always something for something.

I think you should get it, it’s fun to use, I’ve only had it a short while though and only used it for landscapes.  I really like the 100-400 too. These were with the 16mm

Texchappy wrote:

I’m not coming from having used Canon so I don’t have a war chest of EF mount lenses. I have a t4i that has been my wife’s primary camera for the mast decade. I don’t think that it would be worth adapting either of the EFs lenses (18-135 or 55-250). The 85/1,8 might be a candidate but it doesn’t bear on this discussion.

Right now, then, the 24mm end of the 24-105L will be the widest I have. So I am looking at something wider than 24 to do nature and I want to try Astro landscape stuff. Can someone point to/discuss a good comparison of the 16 STM VS the two uwa zooms?

I haven’t tried either of the L UWA zooms, but, if it’s good for anything, the RF 16mm performs better than the 10-18mm IS STM at the same f-stops, and the venerable, manual Tokina 17mm f/3.5 RMC (known for being the cheapest decent ultra wide available). It’s not better than the EF 17-40mm f/4 L, at least not in overall resolution (the RF prime is sharper in the broad center region, though the zoom sucks less in the corners), but I hate how the 17-40mm renders, so I still prefer the 16mm.

I find that, already by f/5.6, the results from the prime are good enough for what I do. No, it probably won’t work for astro. But on the R6, it’s good for landscapes and some architecture shots.

For the Astro stuff?

Markr041 wrote:

quiquae wrote:

The biggest problem with this lens is the difficulty in actually getting your hands on a copy! As of last month today, Canon Japan is quoting a delivery period of six months.

Edit: Just checked Canon's web site, the supply constraint has not improved.

I ordered one from BestBuy (USA) last Friday and it was delivered on Monday.

Canon USA lists it as "in Stock."

So, in the USA this is not "the biggest problem."

That’s really interesting—it suggests the Canon lens shortage problem may not just be due to semiconductor availability, as many speculated. In this case, it may well be the lack of cargo ship spacw to Japan (RF 16mm is probably made in Malaysia or something).

Yes ..it's a great lens. Cheap, compact and does a decent job. You'll need to correct some stuff in post but I like it.

And I put my name on it for when my R6 gets there next week. If nothing else it will get me to a better/more expensive option later. We’ll probably use it to practice Astro nightscapes that my wife is interested in trying.

I am looking for a budget UWA lens for my Canon RP and might get this prime lens to complement my 24-105 and EF70-300 USM if the rumored FF 18-45 is not out within the next few months. Guess I will wait until September, when Canon has historically made announcements…perhaps it comes as a kit for the APSC R…who knows

lenarufus wrote:

I think you should get it, it’s fun to use, I’ve only had it a short while though and only used it for landscapes. I really like the 100-400 too. These were with the 16mm

Looks great! Thanks for sharing, for my humble landscape photography this is good enough, I am just waiting to see if the consumer level 18-45 comes out this year…otherwise I will pull the trigger on this 16mm