Canon unveils two new RF lenses - 16mm f2.8 & 100-400mm f5.6-8

**pres589** · 09-14-2021, 06:03 AM

The 16 looks very interesting and the cost...

Canon Launches RF 16mm f/2.8 and 100-400mm f/5.6-8 Lenses | PetaPixel

Still, the proof is in the sample shots, and we probably won't see those for a while.

house · 09-14-2021, 06:24 AM

16mm f/2.8 FF for $300 new... very interesting to see what kind of performance you get for that kind of money with Canon.

**pres589** · 09-14-2021, 06:43 AM

Yeah, that's Samyang manual-focus money. Really curious what the optical quality will be like.

This almost feels like they're going to sell these at a loss just to get more people into the system.

biz-engineer · 09-14-2021, 07:03 AM

Nikon does something similar with a 28 and 40 f2.8 plastic mount low cost primes, similar to Pentax DA L 35 and DA L 50 , but for FF mirroless. What was done with DSLR with the entry level bodies and entry level lenses is being done all over again with mirrorless systems in order to grab as much market share as possible. I never like the entry level gear from canon, too cheap IMO, and the premium RF glass is super expensive. I much prefer Nikon's mid-priced offering.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-14-2021 at 07:11 AM.

**pres589** · 09-14-2021, 07:23 AM

Yeah, I hear you on the general "Canon's cheap glass is not that great" aspect. I like that Nikon came out with that 28mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.0 (that's an 0, it isn't an f2.8) almost-pancake primes. Something from them between 16mm and 20mm, say an f3.5 to keep the quality up and size under control, would be nice for full-frame shooting.

I would prefer a Nikon as well over a Canon based only on emotion which should be taken with large grains of salt.

reh321 · 09-14-2021, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by pres589

Yeah, I hear you on the general "Canon's cheap glass is not that great" aspect. I like that Nikon came out with that 28mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.0 (that's an 0, it isn't an f2.8) almost-pancake primes. Something from them between 16mm and 20mm, say an f3.5 to keep the quality up and size under control, would be nice for full-frame shooting.

I would prefer a Nikon as well over a Canon based only on emotion which should be taken with large grains of salt.

I used several inexpensive Canon lenses, but never something I considered to be truly “cheap” …. but I did have trouble with their truly cheap bodies.

KiloHotelphoto · 09-14-2021, 07:41 PM

This 16 2.8 is small and cheap enough I may pick one up to just keep in my bag. I shoot wildlife but often when I'm out looking for animals I see some great landscapes. I picked up the 50 1.8 for that reason and the 16 could be good for when I need really wide.

I'm just shooting landscape snapshots so I'm not spending money on the L glass for that.

biz-engineer · 09-14-2021, 09:55 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by KiloHotelphoto

This 16 2.8 is small and cheap enough I may pick one up to just keep in my bag.

Every time I bought a product for its low price rather than because I needed it, it ended up being a waste of money. It's a typical business model of offering something at a "low risk" price, price being the only compelling aspect of the product, a lot of people buy it and then it's never used. I now tend to avoid these traps since a cheap product that I never use is more expensive than an expensive product that I use on a regular basis. It's amazing the amount of electronic gadgets being sold, a short stop at the local waste management firm show how much electronic products end-up in the waste containers, not quite environment friendly.

KiloHotelphoto · 09-14-2021, 11:28 PM

Well I could buy a 15-35 2.8 for $2399 but for a lens I will only use a handful of times a year $299 for a 16mm 2.8 makes more sense. I bought a 50mm 1.8 in January and have only taken one shot with it so far. It was $199 if I would've bought the 50mm 1.2 for $2299 that would be a waste of money.

They are so small and cheap you throw them in the bag and if you need them you got them. Sure I could just use my phone but I would like something with a little better quality. Next week I'll be in the greater Yellowstone area and then in November I'm going to Botswana. I'll want to take some landscape shots but I don't have enough room in my bag for the higher quality wide angle lenses. These small cheap lenses are perfect for me.

biz-engineer · 09-15-2021, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by KiloHotelphoto

I bought a 50mm 1.8 in January and have only taken one shot with it so far. It was $199 if I would've bought the 50mm 1.2 for $2299 that would be a waste of money.

The problem I see with Canon RF lenses is that there is a large gap between the entry level and the premium products. The premium RF lenses are superb and also the most expensive on the market, then for the same RF cameras Canon offers products 10 times cheaper. So where is the product range for the enthusiast photographer who can't afford the professional gear but expect more than entry level quality?

**pres589** · 09-15-2021, 06:42 AM

I think that kind of gap, where there's low-cost "entry level" glass, and then L or * or whatever glass at the top end with nothing between the two, is going to be more and more common in years to come.

Honestly it probably makes a lot of sense for Canon, and let 3rd parties fill in the gaps.

beholder3 · 09-15-2021, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

The problem I see with Canon RF lenses is that there is a large gap between the entry level and the premium products. The premium RF lenses are superb and also the most expensive on the market, then for the same RF cameras Canon offers products 10 times cheaper. So where is the product range for the enthusiast photographer who can't afford the professional gear but expect more than entry level quality?

With Canon having a 100% perfect mount conversion (Sony never came close to that and even Nikon for some reason stumbled with their adapters) all their EF mount lenses are "native" to RF with zero downsides versus using them on EF.

So basically they can just add new style stuff on top of their EF lineup after having offered some core F2.8 replacements.

If you want to go value on RF you buy an RP, maybe an 24-105 and add used Canon OEM EF glass.

The "budget" people usually only need a standard zoom 24-105 , a tele zoom 100-400 and one fast prime 50/1.8 or 85/2. Anything else is more forum dweller stuff. Add a 16mm for UWA and a used EF 150-600.

If you want only the newest pixelpeeper stuff: open the wallet.

KiloHotelphoto · 09-15-2021, 03:07 PM

Yea Canon started with the two extremes for the RF glass, high quality high price and lesser quality low price.

Lots of people complain about no middle ground for RF yet, eventually they will come. But like beholder mentioned the EF-RF adapter works great even with third party lenses. I rented the Tokina 50 1.4 Opera lens for a week to use on the R5, it's really nice. With the limited third party RF lenses now Ricoh and Tokina should look into producing RF lenses and Nikon Z mount lenses and get them out before Sigma and Tamron. If they put out the Pentax 85 and 50 1.4 branded as Tokina for those systems I think they could make some money.

house · 09-15-2021, 11:13 PM

Canon seem to really emphasize that you have to enable corrections. I wonder if we're looking at a new record in vignette and distortion?

beholder3 · 09-15-2021, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by house

Canon seem to really emphasize that you have to enable corrections. I wonder if we're looking at a new record in vignette and distortion?

The tele lens probably has little, the uwa certainly a lot.

If you look at current models, like https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s/3 (and that is a full stop slower) such strong software corrections seem to be getting the norm.

For <$800 lenses a lot more acceptable than for high price items, IMHO.

09-14-2021, 06:03 AM	#1
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	Canon unveils two new RF lenses - 16mm f2.8 & 100-400mm f5.6-8 The 16 looks very interesting and the cost... Canon Launches RF 16mm f/2.8 and 100-400mm f/5.6-8 Lenses \| PetaPixel Still, the proof is in the sample shots, and we probably won't see those for a while.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Canon R5 under development plus 9 news RF lenses in 2020	surfar	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	349	04-09-2021 04:22 AM
Pentax A 400mm F5.6 vs Pentax FA*400mm F5.6	Driline	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	03-25-2021 01:35 PM
Sony Unveils Its New G Master Line of Flagship Lenses	Sliver-Surfer	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	174	04-07-2016 02:14 AM
RF-600TX replaces RF-602TX in Yongnuo RF-602 Kits	adr1an	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	4	02-18-2015 10:14 AM

09-14-2021, 06:24 AM	#2
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	16mm f/2.8 FF for $300 new... very interesting to see what kind of performance you get for that kind of money with Canon.

09-14-2021, 06:43 AM	#3
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529 Original Poster	Yeah, that's Samyang manual-focus money. Really curious what the optical quality will be like. This almost feels like they're going to sell these at a loss just to get more people into the system.

09-14-2021, 07:03 AM	#4
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,232	Nikon does something similar with a 28 and 40 f2.8 plastic mount low cost primes, similar to Pentax DA L 35 and DA L 50 , but for FF mirroless. What was done with DSLR with the entry level bodies and entry level lenses is being done all over again with mirrorless systems in order to grab as much market share as possible. I never like the entry level gear from canon, too cheap IMO, and the premium RF glass is super expensive. I much prefer Nikon's mid-priced offering. Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-14-2021 at 07:11 AM.

09-14-2021, 07:23 AM	#5
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529 Original Poster	Yeah, I hear you on the general "Canon's cheap glass is not that great" aspect. I like that Nikon came out with that 28mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.0 (that's an 0, it isn't an f2.8) almost-pancake primes. Something from them between 16mm and 20mm, say an f3.5 to keep the quality up and size under control, would be nice for full-frame shooting. I would prefer a Nikon as well over a Canon based only on emotion which should be taken with large grains of salt.

09-14-2021, 06:34 PM	#6
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by pres589 Yeah, I hear you on the general "Canon's cheap glass is not that great" aspect. I like that Nikon came out with that 28mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.0 (that's an 0, it isn't an f2.8) almost-pancake primes. Something from them between 16mm and 20mm, say an f3.5 to keep the quality up and size under control, would be nice for full-frame shooting. I would prefer a Nikon as well over a Canon based only on emotion which should be taken with large grains of salt. I used several inexpensive Canon lenses, but never something I considered to be truly “cheap” …. but I did have trouble with their truly cheap bodies.

09-14-2021, 07:41 PM	#7
KiloHotelphoto Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Glen Mills, PA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,030	This 16 2.8 is small and cheap enough I may pick one up to just keep in my bag. I shoot wildlife but often when I'm out looking for animals I see some great landscapes. I picked up the 50 1.8 for that reason and the 16 could be good for when I need really wide. I'm just shooting landscape snapshots so I'm not spending money on the L glass for that.

09-14-2021, 09:55 PM - 1 Like	#8
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,232	Originally posted by KiloHotelphoto This 16 2.8 is small and cheap enough I may pick one up to just keep in my bag. Every time I bought a product for its low price rather than because I needed it, it ended up being a waste of money. It's a typical business model of offering something at a "low risk" price, price being the only compelling aspect of the product, a lot of people buy it and then it's never used. I now tend to avoid these traps since a cheap product that I never use is more expensive than an expensive product that I use on a regular basis. It's amazing the amount of electronic gadgets being sold, a short stop at the local waste management firm show how much electronic products end-up in the waste containers, not quite environment friendly.

09-14-2021, 11:28 PM	#9
KiloHotelphoto Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Glen Mills, PA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,030	Well I could buy a 15-35 2.8 for $2399 but for a lens I will only use a handful of times a year $299 for a 16mm 2.8 makes more sense. I bought a 50mm 1.8 in January and have only taken one shot with it so far. It was $199 if I would've bought the 50mm 1.2 for $2299 that would be a waste of money. They are so small and cheap you throw them in the bag and if you need them you got them. Sure I could just use my phone but I would like something with a little better quality. Next week I'll be in the greater Yellowstone area and then in November I'm going to Botswana. I'll want to take some landscape shots but I don't have enough room in my bag for the higher quality wide angle lenses. These small cheap lenses are perfect for me.

09-15-2021, 03:15 AM	#10
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,232	Originally posted by KiloHotelphoto I bought a 50mm 1.8 in January and have only taken one shot with it so far. It was $199 if I would've bought the 50mm 1.2 for $2299 that would be a waste of money. The problem I see with Canon RF lenses is that there is a large gap between the entry level and the premium products. The premium RF lenses are superb and also the most expensive on the market, then for the same RF cameras Canon offers products 10 times cheaper. So where is the product range for the enthusiast photographer who can't afford the professional gear but expect more than entry level quality?

09-15-2021, 06:42 AM	#11
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529 Original Poster	I think that kind of gap, where there's low-cost "entry level" glass, and then L or * or whatever glass at the top end with nothing between the two, is going to be more and more common in years to come. Honestly it probably makes a lot of sense for Canon, and let 3rd parties fill in the gaps.

09-15-2021, 08:04 AM	#12
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by biz-engineer The problem I see with Canon RF lenses is that there is a large gap between the entry level and the premium products. The premium RF lenses are superb and also the most expensive on the market, then for the same RF cameras Canon offers products 10 times cheaper. So where is the product range for the enthusiast photographer who can't afford the professional gear but expect more than entry level quality? With Canon having a 100% perfect mount conversion (Sony never came close to that and even Nikon for some reason stumbled with their adapters) all their EF mount lenses are "native" to RF with zero downsides versus using them on EF. So basically they can just add new style stuff on top of their EF lineup after having offered some core F2.8 replacements. If you want to go value on RF you buy an RP, maybe an 24-105 and add used Canon OEM EF glass. The "budget" people usually only need a standard zoom 24-105 , a tele zoom 100-400 and one fast prime 50/1.8 or 85/2. Anything else is more forum dweller stuff. Add a 16mm for UWA and a used EF 150-600. If you want only the newest pixelpeeper stuff: open the wallet.

09-15-2021, 03:07 PM	#13
KiloHotelphoto Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Glen Mills, PA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,030	Yea Canon started with the two extremes for the RF glass, high quality high price and lesser quality low price. Lots of people complain about no middle ground for RF yet, eventually they will come. But like beholder mentioned the EF-RF adapter works great even with third party lenses. I rented the Tokina 50 1.4 Opera lens for a week to use on the R5, it's really nice. With the limited third party RF lenses now Ricoh and Tokina should look into producing RF lenses and Nikon Z mount lenses and get them out before Sigma and Tamron. If they put out the Pentax 85 and 50 1.4 branded as Tokina for those systems I think they could make some money.

09-15-2021, 11:13 PM	#14
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	Canon seem to really emphasize that you have to enable corrections. I wonder if we're looking at a new record in vignette and distortion?

09-15-2021, 11:47 PM	#15
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by house Canon seem to really emphasize that you have to enable corrections. I wonder if we're looking at a new record in vignette and distortion? The tele lens probably has little, the uwa certainly a lot. If you look at current models, like https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s/3 (and that is a full stop slower) such strong software corrections seem to be getting the norm. For <$800 lenses a lot more acceptable than for high price items, IMHO.