Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Review | Fun, Flawed, and Useful

Want to support this channel? Use these affiliate links to shop at:

=============================
Table of Contents:
=============================
0:00​ - Intro
3:06 - Build and Handling
8:00 - Autofocus
9:45 - Image Quality Breakdown
18:00 - Conclusion and Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Keywords: Canon 16mm F2.8 STM, 16mm, RF 16, RF 16mm, Canon RF 50mm Review, STM, F2.8, RF, F/2.8, Canon RF 16 Review, Canon EOS R5, EOS, R5, EOS R5, Canon EOS R6, EOS R6 Review, mirrorless, full frame, EOS R5 Review, Canon R5 Review, Canon EOS R5 Review, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Focus, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, 45Mpx, 45MP, Canon, letthelightin

[danial]

The level of technical detail and effort put into this thorough and unbiased review is so rare for Youtube, and thus very much appreciated. Thank you

[acouragefann]

"Doors are far less likely to be offended than what people are"
Words to live by - and as usual a very useful and detailed review. Thanks a lot.

[michaelschneider]

One other Handy Use for the 16, 35, and 50 Canon RF STM lense is that they work very well in Infrared Photography. Many of the RF lenses have Infrared Hotspots.

[Arraos]

Thank you for this detailed overview!
Unbiased, non-sponsored by Canon/Sony/Fuji and showing big flaws. Thank you!


(Even after one year it is very helpfull! - In comparison to some reviews e.g. of new fuji cameras and their "keeping up with Sony" auto focus problem).

[curlsbynat]

Hi, Dustin I would definitely use it for vlogging, and the 35mm for photos.

[erkkisiekkinen]

Thank You again for an excellent review, I bought my copy, I am gonna use it with my R6 mark ll and my new small R50, where it is 24mm eqw. lens ..

[luisa]

Can you do the 24 next? It's weird that there are no pro reviews on it.

[dougsmit]

A question that I feel will come up: The new R7 and R10 bodies are criticized for their kit lenses bottoming out at 18mm. Should you have discussed how many of the faults mentioned for the 16 become less problematic on APS-C? Bloggers might love the light weight of the 16 on the R10. I'm not sure the 16mm is enough under 18mm to make it appealing. I did not buy the 16 because I already have a 16-35 that fills that need except that the thing weighs a ton. I'm not a Blogger so there is no problem. I wonder how bad things get if I added a 'Speed Booster' to the big zoom. I wonder if Canon will see the market for a wider, lighter RF-S version of the 16mm design. If I were doing it I'd compromise on a 12mm but I'm not in the camera business. Astro/people distortion? Something as wide as 16mm will by the laws of physics have problems with round spots going oval. For some landscape shots the obvious answer is fisheye. At some point we have to consider that rectilinear is more of an option than a matter of 'right'. Do you recall the old days when we were taught to have people on the edge of a long group turn toward the center even though we were shooting with a 24mm? Do you remember when 21mm was considered a super-wide? Good, fair review of a lens I don't need but am glad exists for the people who understand just what they are asking. Miracles may come in 2023 (but I doubt it).

[dimitristsagdis]

How would you rate the IQ of this RF lens compared to the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS at 16mm. E.g. when the RF is f/2.8 and at f/4 does it look as sharp as the EF at 16mm, better or worst? I appreciate the one stop difference when shooting the RF at f/2.8 but then you loose the IS of the EF.

[filibertkraxner]

Thanks for this great, thorough, review! I was considering this little lens for my R5 system, just in case I really need something wider than 28mm. But since the AF is pretty sluggish (and the corners pretty bad), I'm probably better off with my GFX 50R and the 30mm on that one. I don't think I'd be happy with all of the 'bagage' this lens comes with, never mind the low weight and cost.