|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on April 07, 2023 Pros: Economical, bright and compact. Cons: To have sharpness at the edges you must close the diaphragm by at least 2 stops. Opinion: Some time ago I sold the 16-35 f/4 L IS because, in fact, I used it very little. A real best buy, unbeatable for quality / price ratio. With the 24-105 I did and I do almost everything and that's why I sold the 16-35. Either I brought him or I carried 24-105. Passed from the 6DII to the EOS R, I still felt the lack of a super wide-angle focal length that this fantastic 16mm has given me back and that given its compactness, now I always carry with me. It certainly does not shine like the 16-35, but it still gives good satisfaction, especially if you do not have professional and mounted needs, it is almost like not having given it its featherweight. Given its overall characteristics, including flaws, for me it deserves a nice 9 thanks to its portability. If it doesn't fit in my bag because maybe I put something else in it, then I put it in my pocket and it's always with me. |
 | sent on January 02, 2023 Pros: Very compact, f2.8, excellent flare resistance, economical. Cons: No IS, no zoom, drop in quality at the edges, vignetting, distortion. Opinion: To evaluate it I made a double comparison with the EF 16-35L f4 is on the R: first framing a building in front of mine, then medium / far MAF, then framing my kitchen, maf at short distances. From the comparisons made I found that: at f 2.8 it is quite sharp in the center and loses a lot at the edges, mostly for short distances; At F4 the 16ino in the center is sharp almost at zoom levels, but while at the edges the zoom remains perfect as in the center, the small fixed loses some quality in long-distance photos and loses a lot for short distances; At F11 both are very sharp in the center almost indistinctly, at the edges for long distances the fixed almost recovers the quality of the zoom, while for Maf at short distances it continues to have a drop at the edges. To sum up: compared to the EF 16-35L IS loses the stabilizer and the flexibility of the zoom but gains an aperture at f 2.8, even if at TA it remains little usable due to the drop in sharpness at the edges and the strong vignetting. For closed-aperture landscape photos I think the difference with the big zoom is minimal. and resists better to flare, for those of interior architecture instead you have to settle since for short distances the edges drop. Finally, checking a raw without lens profile you notice a wider-angle shot of a 16mm with a strong distortion at the edges (almost fisheye), activating the lens profile is stretched and cropped until it becomes a 16. In my opinion it could be this correction via software to ruin the yield at the edges .. the price to pay to have a pancake! |
  | sent on November 11, 2022 Pros: Everything, how much it costs Cons: Sometimes in low light it struggles to hook the MAF Opinion: I believe that when reviewing a lens it is always necessary to keep in mind the quality / price ratio. For this reason I do not dwell either to sing the praises of this but neither to denigrate it by comparing it with lenses of another planet. When you can carry around a wide angle pushed that fits in the pocket of the jacket and costs 300 euros you can only be grateful to those who made you meet. Canon in the past has done so many miracles that it has gradually left behind and is not doing new ones; Well this 16ino is an exception and his job does it well. |
  | sent on November 10, 2022 Pros: Ultra-compact size, featherweight, widely satisfactory optical performance (shooting in JPEG with all in-camera corrections activated) with effective distortion correction, beautiful colors, very short focusing distance, very advantageous quality/price ratio Cons: The autofocus has focus hunting phenomena and is slightly noisy, there is no internal MAF, edges a bit soft to TA Opinion: Only very few shots taken so far, so I report my first impressions. The build quality is practically the same as the RF 35 mm macro, all plastic but very well made. I confirm the note of "Chebeltempo" about the graft on the camera body, actually harder than the other lenses I own; It seems to be a fact of mechanical tolerance with respect to the bayonet flange. The negligible weight makes it a perfect travel companion. The ring on the body that manages the customized functions has a continuous operation and not jerky. Super-wide-angle focal length in my opinion optimal, it is not excessively pushed as a 12 or a 14 mm, and at the same time gives a nice breath more than a 20 and a 24 for all those circumstances, for example indoors, where space is limited and you need a wide angle of view to make everything that interests you stay in the frame. Autofocus: I expected something more, despite having read from the reviews that it is certainly not the strength of the lens. MAF is quite fast, but often subject to focus hunting. I have an EOS R and the situation does not improve by changing the type of focus point. A few too many indecisions, especially when lowering the contrast or lighting starts to run low. Far from the behavior of my 28 mm Canon with USM motor... Furthermore, the fact that it does not have the internal MAF is another negative point, but we must consider that at this price there is some compromise. Now let's talk about nice things: the automatic correction of distortion in the room on JPG files is really prodigious. It works perfectly! A little less perfect the correction of the vignetting, but nothing to worry about. The minimum focusing distance is incredibly small. No centering problem, and I think no one has it with such a simple optical scheme and such small lenses. The optical yield of the lens is high and constant in the center of the frame. The lens is very sharp already at TA, shows a very slight improvement at f / 4 and remains nice sharp even at f / 11, with differences between the various imperceptible apertures. Situation a bit different at the edge. At f/2.8 the extreme angles are a bit soft, but which ultra-wide angle of this focal length (and this price range) does not suffer from such a problem? Closing the situation improves in a rather visible way passing to f / 4 and to a lesser extent closing f / 5.6, aperture at which the optical yield of the lens is higher. Beautiful colors. The incisiveness is very good, even excellent I would say, but not record-breaking: the aforementioned Canon 28 mm f / 2.8 IS USM is a span above, even if the comparison is not really correct as it should be compared to a similar focal length lens. Speaking instead of chromatic aberration, the software corrects it perfectly and by eye I have not noticed any color fringe at the end of the frame so far. The overall judgment on this perspective is still very good, I am satisfied with the purchase. I reserve the right to do further tests to evaluate for example the resistance to flare, bokeh and more ... |
 | sent on November 06, 2022 Pros: weight, size, price Cons: Image quality not at the top but that's okay Opinion: After years of 16-35, bought for landscaping, and used less and less for work (I also have the 17 TSE), I decided to take this 16 RF enticed by the price and especially by the size. If in fact before I thought well whether to take the 16-35 with me, especially on the road, now with this the problem does not arise, it is always with me and I do not even notice it. Compared in the field with the 16-35 is obviously inferior in quality, but for the average use of my work photographs (which go on sites or social) it is not a problem at all. The newly opened raws make you cry, but with a click the smile returns. It's plastic, ok, but such a small lens hardly slams it somewhere or if it falls, it's very light and it's all in one block so I don't think it's easier to break than a classic zoom 16-35 L series. Still to be tried in strong backlights but my opinion is more than positive! I recently took it on a trip to London (a dry day) along with the 50 RF and RP (I also have the R6) and it gave me joys. |
 | sent on June 16, 2022 Pros: Sharpness, 16mm, Aperture 2.8, Minimum AF distance, Dimensions, Weight, Cost Cons: Non-tropicalized, Sharpness at the edges Opinion: An optics certainly not perfect, but knowing how to exploit its talents, it gives you magnificent shots! Due to its size and weight, it always finds space in the backpack or even in the pocket, when you are in narrow environments or want to get a particular shot, it never disappoints you. Tropicalization would have been welcome, but for the paltry cost it has, that's okay. Do not expect an optics for sharp panoramas from angle to angle, for that go on the L series, but if you take advantage of the center of the frame, isolating the background is the top! |
 | sent on March 26, 2022 Pros: Weight, AF, dimensions, sharpness, absence of flare, neutral color rendering Cons: Plastic, distortion poorly managed by lightroom Opinion: Much better than my wildest hopes, superior to all the Samyang and similar tried. Unfortunately at close range the barrel deformation is marked even after the correction in the lightroom. However, it is necessary to intervene manually. I do not find any flare, I find it very bright in the rendering while not distorting the colors, sharp but not "digital". Very satisfied. Unfortunately a bit 'too much plastic and hood not standard. |
 | sent on March 11, 2022 Pros: weight, dimensions, cost, focal length, aperture, construction, yield* Cons: front element movement during focus, yield* Opinion: If you buy this lens, you do it for its pros: weight, size, cost, focal length and aperture that really allow something unique until now. I took the lens on the first day available for purchase, not in pre-order, after seeing the first reviews. I was therefore aware of its strengths and weaknesses. The construction, contrary to what was noted by another reviewer, in my opinion is of an excellent level for the band in which it is placed. The control ring is fluid and well rubbed, it seems almost mechanically coupled to the lenses, the barrel is made of plastic but without various creaks from poorly assembled lenses, the bayonet is made of metal and pairs solidly to my R6. If the merits are absolutely easy to evaluate (I have never taken a UWA for size, weight and price since I make a fairly limited use of it), the cons are a little more delicate to treat: the lens optically has a fairly accentuated barrel distortion, as well as a strong vignetting (further emphasized by shooting at a distance of reduced maf), using canon software these defects will never be visible, even on the raw, but with third-party software (LR, PS, C1 ...) they are shown in all their non-splendor! What is the "good news" in all this? That contrary to what happened in the past, the focal length is calculated on the correct image, so a distorted raw shot has an effective focal length of 13-14mm. Positive or negative? I am all in all happy with this fact: if I make a Milky Way, I don't care about the distortion and I'm happy to have an even wider angle of view, if I take a picture of architecture, the incorrect shot I don't even go to look at it! And I still have in my hand a perfectly linear 16mm shot, without distortion (the correction, whether optical or digital changes little ...). Rather I like less the movement of the external lenses during focusing: in practice the length declared by the house is almost always unreachable, when it is mounted -even infinitely- the front element protrudes a few millimeters, at close distances of mafrge of over 1cm; when it is off the lens returns completely, but then the cap is mounted which is about half a cm thick. It is not a drama, we would miss it, but when you take the measures for the icu could be misleading, that's all... Summing up, for me it is an absolutely successful goal, which I would definitely buy again! Before it came out I couldn't wait for samyang to make his 18 available for RF (which hasn't arrived yet...), but now I have this 16, smaller and wider! Clearly, those who make extensive and exclusive use of a UWA, can NOT hope that this 16ino can be his definitive lens, comparisons with the L series have been seen and for certain things they can also be similar, but at 360 degrees this 16 (obviously and rightly) is not on the same level! |
 | sent on February 21, 2022 Pros: Compact and lightweight, quite sharp, price. Cons: Exaggerated distortion, in some circumstances raw unusable. Opinion: Probably it could not have been done better given the size, but a lens of this kind can only be used in the open countryside. As soon as you try to shoot between the houses or near a light pole the raw becomes unusable. Vertical lines turn into arches. I had not happened something so obvious even with the worst of zooms. This unfortunately obscures the positive aspects of this lens. So ok until you are satisfied with the jpegs baked by the camera but you do not have to expect anything else. |
 | sent on February 20, 2022 Pros: Lightweight and compact Cons: Cost-saving construction, digital correction Opinion: More or less everything has been said about this goal. Its strong point is its compactness and also its extreme lightness. I took it after giving away the 16-35 ef f4 that with the adapter on r became a pea a little uncomfortable. It is a very fun, walking goal, given the extreme lightness. Sorry it has to be corrected heavily digitally, but to have a 16 f2.8 of this size on full frame is probably an inevitable price to pay. The front ring of the lens can be set for fire control or custom, with a special selector (I adjust the aperture). For now, apart from the inevitably saving construction, I do not find it to have insurmountable defects. I would say it's a great buy. Forgot... In my specimen the graft on the camera body is a bit hard compared to the other rf lenses I own. |
 | sent on February 15, 2022 Pros: Overall dimensions - weight - final optical quality - price Cons: Bundled hood absence - ring with alternative focus/custom function - "raw" optical quality - no tropicalization Opinion: I bought this little one despite already having the excellent RF 15-35/2.8 L IS: I wanted to have a very short focal length without necessarily weighing myself down with the professional zoom, reserving the use of the latter to the outputs dedicated specifically to the genres in which the superwide is a must. The small fixed instead weighs very little, fits in the pocket and allows you to have an ultra-short focal length if it is useful or necessary. The thing works well, I often went out with the 35/1.8, the 85/2 and that's it. But sometimes you need something really short, for a shot of architecture or an extreme perspective rendering, and it is very convenient to take this 16mm out of your pocket that weighs about one and a half hectograms. I say right away that the final yield is absolutely satisfactory and I do not regret the purchase. Just know that a raw shot of 15-35/2.8 is already fine as it is, while the 16/2.8 has both a strong and very evident barrel distortion as well as an equally remarkable fall of light at the edges. It is evident that this lens was designed taking into account the inevitable strong post-shot corrections, and not to provide an impeccable image "on its own". But it is there, it works and if it were not so it would have weight, size and cost much greater than those it presents (and which are the reason for my purchase). I develop the raw with Canon DPP, and the final result is more than convincing: sharp to the edges, distortion almost absent, ditto for the CLB, does not suffer the backlight even pushed; even the chromatic aberrations are perfectly corrected by the proprietary sw. So I got what I wanted, and I'm just happy with this pocket superwide. The cons are written above; for the hood, Canon will be happy to know that I bought a Chinese one on Amazon for € 15, so you can save the construction and sale at an absurd price of the original hood; it would not have weighed on me to pay 20 € more the lens provided complete with hood, but if the enlightened men of marketing see it. The unique bezel that manages, through a selector, the alternation between manual focus and customized function (I use it as a diaphragm ring) is another point that does not excite me, but that does not affect my extremely positive judgment on this optics. |
 | sent on February 13, 2022 Pros: Dimensions, lightness, price Cons: nobody Opinion: I am really satisfied with this small 16 mm from Canon. A really light and small lens with a really excellent value for money. The problems are there but for what it costs every defect is put in the background. A TA is quite sharp and produces a normal vignetting on the edges, distortion is present but from a personal point of view it is not annoying and even pleasant. With the introduction of the correction profile in lightroom and camera raw the problem disappears but honestly for me the distortion or central convex is not a problem at all. I highly recommend it, it is a perspective that in its kit is really convenient. |
 | sent on November 13, 2021 Pros: Compact, lightweight, minimum focusing distance Cons: Maybe the price for those who take it on day one (like me) Opinion: Spoiler immediately that I would buy it again a hundred times, very satisfied. It's not the perfect lens, but it's tiny, lightweight, and it costs just the right. It focuses very closely and in this case you can see the black corners. For me it is not a problem since I often used apsc lenses on FF without removing the crop factor, so at the same price as the Tokina 11-16 I have an equally bright but much more portable lens. It is quite sharp already from the whole opening, if closed it produces a beautiful stellona and has a nice barrel distortion. Personally I prefer it to ultra-correct lenses such as the EF 14 f2.8 which is certainly more suitable for architecture, but I happened to use it in some weddings and I don't even like it a little for how it stretches the edges. This 16mm instead splits in a more pleasant way, on the edges it looks like a fisheye but in the center it is quite correct. It is the perfect lens to be carried always with you, in pairs at 35 STM it almost accompanies itself. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
