Has anyone used both Canon RF 16mm STM and RF 15-30mm STM lenses?

[JoeSchmoe007]

Has anyone used both Canon RF 16mm STM and RF 15-30mm STM lenses? Is there a significant picture quality difference at 16mm at the same f-stop values?

 

[koenkooi]

Has anyone used both Canon RF 16mm STM and RF 15-30mm STM lenses? Is there a significant picture quality difference at 16mm at the same f-stop values?

The RF16mm is quite sharp in the center portion at f/2.8 already, the RF15-30 is "OK" wide-open. The corner quality depends heavily on the focus distance. Both lenses beat the EF17-40L in that regard

When I have enough room, I bring the 15-30, being able to zoom beats cropping in post. But the RF16 gets used when I want to bring more than a smartphone camera, but don't want it to take up space in the bag.

 

[Tom Conelly]

There's nothing special about my photos compared to what I often see in this forum ... but I have Flickr albums for both lenses that might give you a sense of what to expect.

15-30mm STM

16mm

 

[tkbslc]

Has anyone used both Canon RF 16mm STM and RF 15-30mm STM lenses? Is there a significant picture quality difference at 16mm at the same f-stop values?

According to TDP sample crops, not much difference in sharpness. 16mm still has quite a bit of CA even stopped down, and 15mm has a lot vignetting until you get to f8.

Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Neither is particularly amazing.

I think if you want a truly great budget UWA, I'd adapt the Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di OSD. It's nearly as good at 17mm f2.8 as the 15-30 is at 15mm f8

Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[JoeSchmoe007]

There's nothing special about my photos compared to what I often see in this forum ... but I have Flickr albums for both lenses that might give you a sense of what to expect.

15-30mm STM

16mm

Thank you! I am now thinking of buying 15-30mm based on your album.

 

[axlotl]

Has anyone used both Canon RF 16mm STM and RF 15-30mm STM lenses? Is there a significant picture quality difference at 16mm at the same f-stop values?

HI, I have both. The 16mm is very sharp in the center right from f2.8. The corners are soft at f2.8 but improve to f5.6 never getting really sharp though. The question is whether this matters. For many uses the 16mm is excellent because the lack of critical corner sharpness does not matter.

The 15-30 has a more even distribution of sharpness across the frame, not quite as good as the 16mm inn the center but better around the periphery.

Both lenses exhibit peripheral shading and both are prone to color fringing especially in areas of high contrasy such as foliage against a hot sky. These issues are correctable in Photoshop without much difficulty.

The 16mm is smaller, lighter and less expensive and lacks a stabiliser.

You can't go wrong with either lens, just be aware of and work with the characteristics of each.

It really comes down to deciding whether you want a zoom or a prime.

At this stage of development of the RF mount I would be very wary of non-Canon autofocus lenses. I have read many reports of them not focussing reliably. Maybe in due course Canon will work out some kind of negotiated settlement with Tamron, Sigma etc but it has not happened yet for the RF mount.

Andrew

 

[thunder storm]

Has anyone used both Canon RF 16mm STM and RF 15-30mm STM lenses? Is there a significant picture quality difference at 16mm at the same f-stop values?

According to TDP sample crops, not much difference in sharpness. 16mm still has quite a bit of CA even stopped down, and 15mm has a lot vignetting until you get to f8.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Neither is particularly amazing.

I think if you want a truly great budget UWA, I'd adapt the Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di OSD. It's nearly as good at 17mm f2.8 as the 15-30 is at 15mm f8

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I have that Tamron, and I love it on my R5. At some focal lengths it needs to be stopped down a bit, and these wide angle zooms are never great at 35mm, but beside that it delivers great sharpness at a very low price. I can use it with the drop in filter as well, and I can use it on Sony bodies via MC-11.

The lens has no IS though, which isn't a problem when your body has IBIS. If you don't have IBIS the Canon RF lens has an advantage.

 

[thunder storm]

At this stage of development of the RF mount I would be very wary of non-Canon autofocus lenses. I have read many

Many? I know about a Samyang wide angle RF prime on the... R6II? The Samyang 85mm f/1.4 had some problems on the R5 and R6, but after a firmware update it was fixed. After all there aren't a whole lot third party RF AF lenses anyway.

reports of them not focussing reliably.

I think the risk is reduced for adapted EF lenses. The Tamron 17-35mm works fine on the R and the R5. It has a mechanically coupled focus ring, and manually focusing for wide angle lenses isn't a big deal.

Maybe in due course Canon will work out some kind of negotiated settlement with Tamron, Sigma etc but it has not happened yet for the RF mount.

I got an A7IV next to my R5 to shoot the glass I want. To me it's perfectly clear what direction Canon goes with that RF mount, and I'm sick of those games. The R-mount bodies are great for shooting (third party) EF glass. And that's where I leave it.

Andrew

 

[Photato]

• If money is no object get both. Both have different use cases.
• If you can afford only one, get the 15-30 now and optionally get the RF16 later or viceversa.
• If you are short of money get the RF16.