Canon 16mm f/2.8 STM (One Big MEH) | Round Glass Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- I started this video telling you that I hate the Canon 16mm f/2.8 STM. I also let you know I would try to be fair. This is your invitation to let me know if I succeeded. This lens does have some things that I really like:
1- It’s small and it’s light, and not enough lenses today are either of those.
2- It handles exactly like the 50mm STM, and not enough lens makers consider uniformity of design across their lens lineups.
3- It’s an ultrawide full frame lens with a good maximum aperture.
4- The technical performance in the APS-C image area is commendably good.
The Canon 16mm f/2.8 STM does seem like a lens that was primarily intended as a wide-angle option for the Canon APS-C shooter. It does absolutely collapse in terms of performance, especially with that unforgivably strong close-focus vignette, on full frame and I could only recommend it on full frame for users who are comfortable with the tradeoffs in exchange for the good color and contrast performance. On that last point, yes, the colors on this lens do pop and it works quite well for landscapes.
Ultimately, what this lens offers for the price is, I think, generally fair as long as your expectations are tempered like shiny chocolate. As part of a hiking or travel kit, this lens could have a highly useful slot, and maybe that’s enough.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @davidhancock
David Hancock's Amazon Author Page with Links to Select Camera Manual eBooks:
www.amazon.com/David-Hancock/...
Video Index:
0:00 - Intro
0:11 - Canon EOS RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Round Glass Review
1:41 - Canon EOS RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Specifications
2:22 - Canon EOS RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Tips & Tricks
4:02 - Canon EOS RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Seidel Analysis
5:21 - Canon EOS RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Lens Diagram
5:48 - Canon EOS RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Video Use
6:32 - Canon EOS RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Strengths & Weaknesses
9:03 - Canon EOS RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Review
References:
www.handprint.com/ASTRO/ae4.html
www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf16...
My Instagram:
/ davidhancock
"Suffer City Blues" by Suffer City used under active license from Epidemic Sound at the time of this video's upload. - Jak na to + styl
This lens performance reminds me full-frame compatibility tests, made by Pentax community: some lenses at first glance had fullframe image circle, but in reallity they never got really sharp out of APS-C zone. The main difference here, that it is officially fullframe and they tried to hide design problems with digital corrections, that is much cheaper and casuals won`t see then as EVF displays already corrected image. Tests of RF 24-240 and RF 24-50 looks even worth. And I`ll not be surprized to see something alike in tests of RF 10-24/4.
Btw, I have fish-eye zoom with same black corners at MFD at wide end. Is it common issue or it is just coincidence?
Oh, it is NOT a coincidence. Stay tuned next week for the 28mm lens showdown. Beyond the issue here with lens optical performance relying on software corrections, I've now used seven or eight different Canon RF lenses and five of them have had an issue where the lens locks at closest focus and I have to physically push the front of the lens back in to get it focusing again.
Distortion and light falloff aside, how do the corrected images - either JPEGs straight from camera and/or RAWs processed with Lightroom (with applied corrections) - look like in the end? Most of the images in the video look like they have no corrections applied.
Good eye. I did not use any in-camera corrections, nor post-processing, at all. As a rule in these reviews, I don't use any lens corrections. My goal is to show how the lens performs on its own. Lens corrections, in theory, would have different results by camera or post-processing software (in practice, the results may be moot as the differences aren't likely to be widely noticeable on most viewing media.) Using either in-camera or post-processing-based lens corrections would rectify most of the performance issues.
@@DavidHancock Fair enough. It's poorly designed that's for sure but for amateurs on a budget it's probably good enough and I don't think there's anything else (from any brand) that comes close to this price. I'd be happy with one as I am with the equally cheap and poorly designed RF 24-105 STM (not the L version).
@@DavidHancockI think that’s the intended use: With in-camera corrections, because every RF body will have that.
@@thenexthobby I completely agree and Canon seems to use in-camera corrections in lieu of lens performance for, at minimum, their wide-angle lenses. (Their 50mm 1.8 performed stunningly without in-camera corrections.) But they also seem to be the only maker relying so heavily on software to adjust how lenses perform. I haven't seen lenses from other makers relying on software like Canon. Ultimately, when it comes to reviewing lenses across makers, I don't think it's okay for me to use lens corrections on one make and ignore them on others, especially when the other makers' lenses don't need them, or don't need them to the same degree (next week's 28mm showdown video will illustrate this pretty well.)
If a lens needs to be heavily warped with software, then you don't actually have anywhere like your camera's resolution you paid for and will have micro artifacts introduced. If you're just going to use software to invent a nice photo, or don't care about fine detail, why not start with a 18-55 $40 kit lens off ebay that can also be used on EF cameras, instead of this?