Oh Yes! I was waiting for this! Thank you. Yes this is the first astro review and edit. I have been checking the youtube vers every day to see it there is one :). Great first look!
I bet it would pair very nicely with a move shoot move mini star tracker stopped down to like F4. Then you could lean up the optical performance, expose for 60 seconds, and have a VERY lightweight setup
Great review! Currently I use the Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L for my astrophotography. Now I wonder if this lens would be a good addition and a added value for astro.
Thank you for the video. I’m new to photography and was considering buying the 16mm and your video is the only I found for astro. It really helped. Thank you
hm i got this lens too. it is okay. the 16-35 f4 is usm is much sharper. but it cost triple the prize. it is usable not more. the corners are soft at 2.8 and f4. for lightroom i used the profile from the 16-35 f2.8 III. i set distortion on 200 and it works.
Yeah, I only bought it as an extra wide lens to vlog with and for a 3rd wide timelapse lens, and for that it seems to be pretty good so far. I'm definitely happy with the size and weight, lol. It certainly won't replace my 16-35 f4 though.
@BrentHall What would you suggest? Samyang 14mm or Canon RF 16mm w.r.t performance or quality. One more question. My budget is limited. What would you suggest? Canon RP or Canon R8?
Unfortunately, I ended up selling the lens a while back. The profile corrections are solid, and the IQ, for me, was fine. the only that I didn't like about the lens for my use was the lack of a manual focus switch. That ended up being a bigger annoyance than I initially thought, so I sold it and now mostly use the RF 24 1.8 or the 24-70 for wide astro these days. I'm tempted to get the 16 again though, now that I've kind of slimmed down my kit for more travel friendly size and weight. The 16 would be perfect for that, barring the manual focus issue I'd still have.
@@djack4125 I mean, it has manual focus, there's just no switch to toggle AF on or off, you have to go into the menu to set it to manual focus, and then you have to remember to turn it back to AF whenever you're done with the astro stuff. I forget a lot, lol so it's kind of annoying for me.
What did you say were the software you used? I couldn’t catch it well. I want to try it out, because I think Lightroom is giving me troubles too with editing astrophotography
I read somewhere that the RF 24-240 lens profile set to 130 works well. Got my RF16 yesterday and tried it, it works a treat. Even produces an image that is slightly wider than the in camera jpeg
In my opinion you should have waited until the Adobe profiles were released. I now have this lens and I don't have anywhere near the corner problems (loss of detail) that you were having. It's a completely different lens when corrected.
Thanks for your knowledge Brent. I have not done any Astro yet, but i am going to give it a go. Going to buy a 24mm f1.8 and or a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 ( more suited to my camera R7 i think) Let me know what you think of my lens choices please. Cheers!
Well I have the RF 24 and I've done an astro video on it as well. If you stop down a bit, it becomes a very decent astro lens, albeit a bit slower, but I don't mind. I used to have that Tokina like 13 years ago, but sold it over a decade ago and have no idea how it would perform on these newer mirrorless bodies.
My thoughts as well. I bought it mostly for video, but will definitely use it on a backup camera for astrolapses and such. For the money, it's definitely proving to be a solid little lens, at least for me. :)
Thanks Brent, have you tried DXO pure raw, it seems to be bang up to date with new lenses, however, I haven’t got that lens yet, it does a really good job with my R5 files as a pre editor. I find canon dpp to be a real pain to use!
DPP might be a pain to you (but you would get used to it) but DPP gives the best results for all of Canons lenses - this is how Canon engineers designed their system. I have been using DPP for all my RAW conversions for 7yrs now, and my images are much sharper.
Really nice vedio! Thank you Brent, it is helpful for me. I want to buy this lens for astrophotograph and wide landscape photography.It is very light and easy to carry.
It would be helpful for you to actually show the results using DPP. I've never understood the hesitancy of TH-cam presenters to actually use the program, one we are all actually paying for, buried in Canon products. There has to be reasons Canon goes through the effort to design the softwear, especially since the best any outside photo editor can only provide an approximation of the actual Canon RAW files.
Right on. There are several TH-cam RF 14-35 reviews that whine about distortion and vignetting without any mention that the lens was designed only to be used with correction. I have to also fault Canon though -- how hard would it have been to call up the right person at Adobe and email them the correction profile a few months ago?
Yeah, I'm sure it would have been helpful to show DPP, but I don't have it and didn't think about it until I was filming the video, so I'm sorry about that. Also in my defense, it wasn't out of hesitancy that I didn't show it, just that I didn't have it or think about it. I did say that you could use it and it would probably be a good solution for the distortion correction for RAW images. All I can do is try my best using what I have, and I certainly know I could always do better.
David, I certainly wasn't whining about it, and I hope that's not how it came across in the video, because I actually understand the physics and why Canon built it the way they did. Personally, I don't have a problem with dealing with the distortion and work-arounds.
@@BrentHall There are times DPP can speed up your editing process, especially in applying the exact corrections Canon has designed specifically for a given lens. Secondly, most photographers don't realize that Canon also has downloadable updates for their lenses, not just their bodies. Possibly one will be added for the new 16 in the future. DPP also allows you to mess a but with the HEIF File Format, something I plan on trying in the very near future, if for no other reason than to see why Canon may have added that option.
Correct. DPP might be a pain to some, but DPP gives the best results for all of Canons lenses - this is how Canon engineers designed their system. I have been using DPP for all my RAW conversions for 7yrs now, and my images are much sharper. DPP is also integral to my high iso denoising strategy.
The vignetting looks like the same vignetting when one takes a Rokinon/Samyang 16mm and puts it on a FF body. Yet on a crop body, the rok 16 has little vignetting. Has anyone reviewed this on one of the crop sensor R series bodies? I am betting the same results would appear with little to no vignetting since it is "cropped" out. I am curious on this lens because it will take a 2" astro filter perfectly with a 48-43 step down replacing my leftover Rok 16 I have sitting around not being used since I got rid of my crop sensor EF body camera.
I only shoot Jpeg, so can you try some jpeg with that new 16 next time. I have a 24-105 f4 and was thinking rather than get the 16, just shoot at the 24 end of my f4 to see how that goes. When I first got the R6, my plan was to get the 35 f1.8, but I did not get the 35 since the only way to get an R6 back when I got mine was getting the 24-105 f4 kit lens. 35mm was probably not wide enough any ways.
How do you like it compared to the Samyang 14mm? I’m debating whether to keep the Samyang or move to the Canon, since the Samyang will no longer receive firmware updates, and the Canon is also a lot more compact.
hmmm, that's tough. I'm struggling with the same dilemma right now. I like my 14mm. It's got good IQ and is weather-sealed. Lately though, I think the AF has been messing up more often and the lack of any future firmware support (which is all Canon's fault) is making me contemplate selling it and putting the money toward either the 14-35 or 15-35, both of which are way more expensive, but native. I also really dislike the lack of weather-sealing in Canon's non-L RF lenses. It's highly frustrating for me.
Well I edited the images yesterday morning, and just checked again right now and there are no new profile corrections for it, nor any new adobe updates. Sadly, I think it will be a while before we see anything for this lens.
@@BrentHall Adobe did add a few RF lenses in the latest Lightroom Classic CC update, but not the 16mm yet. As a commenter above mentioned, one of the added lenses is the RF 14-35mm f/4, and that profile does seem to work reasonably well for the 16mm. I just wish it didn't take so long to scroll past all the EF lenses to get to that one! (Sidenote: The new masking functionality added to LR is pretty impressive, definitely check that out if you haven't. Might bring you around the the LR fold!)
Hey thanks for the comment Kelly! Yeah, I think it'll be a bit before the 16mm gets its own profile correction, sadly. Also, yeah the new masking is legit, but nothing they do will ever get me to use lightroom! 😅😂😂😂😶
I have the Canon EF 16-35 f/4 IS and an EF IRIX 15mm f/2.3 manual dedicated for astro. The IRIX is pretty good (I like especially the hard infinity clicked stop, so you don't fumble in the dark for focus :-). I was looking at the RF 16 f/2.8 as way to replace both of these lenses, and lighten my load. However, from comments here and in other reviews the RF16 is not that sharp, etc. So I would be keen to know how it measures up to the EF 16-35 f/4 IS for daytime landscape and other photography. The R5 is a beast for resolution and I feel that the EF16-35 f/4 IS maybe near its limits wide open (I was shooting stills of some stalactites and stalagmites in a dark cave and DOF at f/4 even with the IS on ISO 6400 at 16mm with shutter speeds of 1/30 to 1/60 not useably sharp). So I'm looking for an f/2.8 or faster that I can stop down to lets say f/3.4 or f/4 if necessary and be as sharp or ideally sharper than my f/4. I heard from other channels that the R5 is less forgiving to camera shake so one needs more than the reciprocal of the focal length. I'm not a newbie to slow apperture hand held photography and I thought I had it, but clearly my recent experience in the caves has shown me otherwise:-) I wish to avoid third party lenses and bulbous front elements. The RF 14-35 f/4 IS is not much better than the EF 16-35 f/4 IS, and the RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS has an 82mm filter thread and much heavier. The EF 16-35 f/2.8 has no IS. So I'm looking for options. Any ideas welcome. Addendum: I’ve shared the ‘unsharp’ images with the a photographer friend and he believes it is not due to camera shake but sensor heat. Which is an interesting theory. I was only shooting stills no video but his theory goes that because the IS and IBIS were working full time the sensor was staying ‘open’ for longer periods than usual and it may have been causing it to overheat. Just a thought. So unsure if anyone come across such a thing before, I’ll check in the forums and maybe report back if I find anything interesting.
Idk man, sounds like you're pretty rigid in what you need out of a fast, wide lens. If you're not willing or able to deal with the weight, filter size, and price of the 15-35, or the incremental improvements of the 14-35, then I don't really know of any other good quality alternatives. Personally, if I could afford it, I'd have the 15-35 in a heartbeat. I'd also take the 14-35 as a solid replacement for my 16-35 f4, but I can't afford that right now either, lol.
@@BrentHall Tnx for your lights. You think the new f/4 is much sharper/better than the EF one? I’ve also been looking at the EF 16-35 f/2.8 iii but without the IS again it would be a half ass upgrade. Maybe I should pull the trigger on the RF 2.8 as you would advise. I wish canon had a 16mm L-series prime. In the EF it stops at 24mm f/1.4
@@dimitristsagdis7340 Yeah, I do think the new 14-35 is quite a bit better than my ef 16-35. Also, I definitely wasn't advising that you or anyone else should buy any lens over another, I was stating that I would do it if I had the money because it's what I need and want. Everyone's different with their needs and wants. Maybe you should try renting those couple of lenses and see if you like them. I do that a lot, especially with expensive lenses that I don't have access to in my small town.
If you're shooting stalactites in dark caves, would it be better to use a tripod rather that handhold anyway? If your tripod has no center column it will be more flexible in tight spaces. And yes, a high-resolution sensor will definitely reveal even minor camera shake.
@@JohnDrummondPhoto good points in theory BUT a) in tourist caves no tripods allowed (or you have to get a commercial license which is not my game) and b) your guides and the rest of the group move a lot faster that one can set up a tripod.
So with the new RF 24mm out I would love to see a comparison of RF 16mm vs RF 35mm vs the NEW RF 24mm for astro. Darn Canon :), now they made me think of trading the two (16mm and 35mm) for just the 24mm in the backpack (weight reduction LOL).
Well my rf 24mm tracking says it'll be here on Monday, so I'll definitely be doing some astro with it asap, weather depending... fingers crossed for clear skies. 🙏
Brent - would you say it's better to have this lens on any of the RF series cameras instead of a crop sensor setup? Thinking if you're really going for astro on a budget...
I'm not quite sure what you mean? Personally, I definitely prefer full frame to crop body, but that's just me. I use this with my RP a lot and I think it's a great small, light, and cheap option.
@@BrentHall Thank you! I have a 90d and I'm thinking about moving to the full frame with the "R" as it's looking fairly affordable, and has the larger batteries. The downside is that it does not have an interval timer. The 90d for astro has led to a lot of time dealing with noise, even F2 ISO 3200 15 seconds, not bad, but, not wonderful either...
That's probably too tough of a question for me to answer. Those are 2 vastly different lenses, in price, build quality, optics, and intended usage. Plus I never really liked the original version of the ef 16-35 2,8, so I'd be a bad person to ask, lol.
@UCzzT17GEeEPojZe7FT7skag Hi Brent! I am still on the fence about this one... I would use it for timelapse on the R6. At f/2.8 how much would you say it has to be cropped to be OK? What would be left, like 20 mm? I have the EF16-35/4L but it´s just too slow. I also have the Samyang 24 but I need one more astro lens to do timelapse with two cameras :)
hmmm, I guess that depends on if you're wanting to crop for distortion or coma. The distortion correction in LR and PS has been fine for me since they got the lens profile, but the coma is still present in the corners. Personally I don't think it's too bad, but you may have much higher standards than me for that sort of thing. I've been happy with mine as a 2nd astrolapsing lens, especcially for the price and size.
Thanks for the info regarding the focusing. How do you find it is at focusing on stars in manual mode? I tend to struggle to get really pin sharp focus so would like to hear your thoughts.
I usually zoom in on the LCD and find a bright star, then adjust focus until the star is as pinpointy as possible, and also look for the chromatic aberration around it at that point and then lock it down.
@@davidelliott6610 When the star gets to it's smallest looking point, that's when the CA will appear around it. I just kind of use that as an extra or secondary thing to help with focusing on the stars at night.
great info Brent. Do you expect that the RF 85m f2 would give similar results? the price on these cheaper versions is hard to resist compared to the L versions. TIA
Well I sure hope so! lol Idk yet though because I still haven't taken the 85 out for astro. It's a sharp lens, especially in the center, so I know that part will be fine, but I have yet to see it's coma and corner sharpness for astro. Hopefully soon I'll get out with it and make a video about it.
Thanks Brent! Ordered this lens now. Have r5 and hate to lug Disproportionately large 15-35mm everywhere. Waiting for the 24mm 2.8 which is my personal sweet spot lens. Will use this len like a 24 and crop the heck out of it. Maybe keep it in jpeg too LOL. I just want something small and light to compliment the R5. BTW any significant noise difference between your R5 and R6 for Astro-landscape work? Went to Zion in September and shot the Milky Way. More noise than I had hoped for. I considered renting the R6 with its 20 mg pix sensor. Do you notice a difference or prefer one over the other? Thanks great video appreciate your work
Thanks man, I'm glad the video helped! Yeah, I actually have a video on the R5 vs R6 for astro. The R6 is slightly better (subjectively I'd say ~2/3 stop or so)with high iso noise.
Just curious as to why you don't like light room all that much, I only use it since it's all I need, I'm assuming it can't really handle your heavy work flow.
You could use BBF so you don't need to menu dive to turn of AF... If you have the 16-35mm f4, or indeed f2.8, and don't need a small and light compact lens, it seems like this lens probably isn't worth it.
So, you mentioned 3 lenses. I have a new RP and own only yhe 35mm 1.8. If I purchase a used 16-35 f4 IS USM would that be a good all around lens as well as decent astro ??
I mean, that's what I use. I've always thought the 16-35 f4 is a great all around lens (for wide angle stuff anyway). Yeah it's only f4, but I don't mind it for astro. Like I said in the video, personally, I've gotten great astro images from it. If you can't afford the RF 15-35 (which I can't, lol), then yeah, the 16-35 is a heck of a lens.
Thanks Tim! That's tough, probably because I don't actually own what I think would be the best astro rf lenses right now. Overall, if I had the money I'd go with the 15-35 and/or 24-70. My samyang rf 14mm is pretty decent.
It was a nice small, light combo on my R7 while I had it. I never did any videos about though, but it worked quite well. Just keep in mind that with the crop it's more like a 25mm, so not nearly as wide as a full frame.
@BrentHall thanks. I currently have the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC HSM Art Series lens which is awesome. But it's so big and heavy to lug around when I travel. Hence I was considering getting the RF16mm cause it's so compact, and inexpensive
Thanks Mark! Yeah, I'll definitely do more with it. I don't mind the work arounds, and the center sharpness, contrast, and detail is fine for me personally.
Wow I have gotten so many reviews of this lens on my TH-cam feed lately. While I appreciate the information, I have to suspect many of these reviews are paid for by Canon in some way.
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but mine certainly wasn't sponsored. I have zero affiliation with Canon. They don't even know I exist. I bought this lens with my own money.
Well I pre-ordered it just like everyone else, and my bank account was charged in full when it shipped through Amazon 3 days ago. So I can't speak for anyone else, but for personally, it's certainly not a "marketing sleaze" for me. I bought it as an extra lens to help me film my TH-cam videos and as an extra wide timelapse lens, with ZERO intentions of marketing it to anyone.
@@BrentHall I ask as Adorama shows this lens on "backorder" and B&H shows it to be "released in limited quantity - request stock alert." Just checked Amazon and there are some 3rd party lenses, but not the Canon. So I think you may have scored from center court!🎆
@@edruttledge342 Yeah, it seems to be a pretty hot lens right now. Which is not surprising, as it's canon's first and only wide, fast, and affordable prime for the RF mount. Not to mention the global shipping and manufacturing issues right now, it's no wonder things are hard to find. I definitely got lucky, though I did pre-order it pretty much as soon as it was available a few moths back.
Hey Dude, first off thank you for your videos. Helpful indeed, just one gripe.... You talk too much, alot of drivel, tighten it up and stay on point. Keep it concise, all these little personal anecdotes just waste your viewers time... We clicked to hear about the 16mm 2.8 performance in astro. Nothing else.
Sorry. Can't please everyone, you know. Some people want the info as fast as possible, and some people enjoy a bit of entertainment, b roll, or personal side because they like the person. I get people from all sides commenting what I should do all the time, to be more concise, more informative, or more entertaining, more storytelling, add more personal "drivel", etc. After a good 6 years or so on here, I just figured I'd try being myself, though I know it's not for everyone, and maybe I could grow more or faster or whatever, but I'm good now, just being me. I've fully accepted that I talk a lot. 😅😄🙃 thanks for stopping by anyway and I hope you find a channel out there with the kind of videos you'll enjoy more.
Shot Milky Way this past weekend with the 16mm, very happy with the results. Thank you again for the in-depth video. 😊
Oh Yes! I was waiting for this! Thank you. Yes this is the first astro review and edit. I have been checking the youtube vers every day to see it there is one :). Great first look!
Thanks man, I'm glad you liked it!
Yes, you're right, it's worth buying, especially for astro. I'm going to buy it for my h-alpha RP.
Adobe Lightroom updated to now include the RF 16mm f2.8 lens correction profile
I bet it would pair very nicely with a move shoot move mini star tracker stopped down to like F4. Then you could lean up the optical performance, expose for 60 seconds, and have a VERY lightweight setup
Yeah, that would definitely be a good lightweight combo.
Absolutely useable. Thanks for your demonstration and tips.
Great review! Currently I use the Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L for my astrophotography. Now I wonder if this lens would be a good addition and a added value for astro.
Thank her
Thank you for the video. I’m new to photography and was considering buying the 16mm and your video is the only I found for astro. It really helped. Thank you
You're welcome, I'm glad it helped!
hm i got this lens too. it is okay. the 16-35 f4 is usm is much sharper. but it cost triple the prize. it is usable not more. the corners are soft at 2.8 and f4.
for lightroom i used the profile from the 16-35 f2.8 III. i set distortion on 200 and it works.
Yeah, I only bought it as an extra wide lens to vlog with and for a 3rd wide timelapse lens, and for that it seems to be pretty good so far. I'm definitely happy with the size and weight, lol. It certainly won't replace my 16-35 f4 though.
I own this lens and have had good luck with astro. i am wondering if you have tried the RF 15-35 2.8?
@BrentHall What would you suggest? Samyang 14mm or Canon RF 16mm w.r.t performance or quality. One more question. My budget is limited. What would you suggest? Canon RP or Canon R8?
Now the profile corrections are available for the 15mm. Would be great to have a follow-up review. Great job, Brent!
Unfortunately, I ended up selling the lens a while back. The profile corrections are solid, and the IQ, for me, was fine. the only that I didn't like about the lens for my use was the lack of a manual focus switch. That ended up being a bigger annoyance than I initially thought, so I sold it and now mostly use the RF 24 1.8 or the 24-70 for wide astro these days. I'm tempted to get the 16 again though, now that I've kind of slimmed down my kit for more travel friendly size and weight. The 16 would be perfect for that, barring the manual focus issue I'd still have.
OMG Lack of manual focus would be a big issue for astro. Thanks again.@@BrentHall
@@djack4125 I mean, it has manual focus, there's just no switch to toggle AF on or off, you have to go into the menu to set it to manual focus, and then you have to remember to turn it back to AF whenever you're done with the astro stuff. I forget a lot, lol so it's kind of annoying for me.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying. Keep up the great videos!@@BrentHall
Great little lens for the price and for the size. Thank you 🙏 showing the true potential that can be done with it.
What did you say were the software you used? I couldn’t catch it well. I want to try it out, because I think Lightroom is giving me troubles too with editing astrophotography
Lightroom has lens corrections for the RF14/35 F4 which would likely work pretty well for the 16mm lens for the moment.
Interesting. I'll check it out and see how it does.
@@BrentHall Let me know how it goes Brent
I read somewhere that the RF 24-240 lens profile set to 130 works well. Got my RF16 yesterday and tried it, it works a treat. Even produces an image that is slightly wider than the in camera jpeg
@@bestpix100 The 24/105 f4/7.1 also does a good job.
Pretty impressive on the edit. If you could do a video on that, or if you already have, please point me in the right direction.
Myself have had some cracking shots using my old canon 15mm wide angle for astro but would have to use a lens adaptor to use on the RF cam
In my opinion you should have waited until the Adobe profiles were released. I now have this lens and I don't have anywhere near the corner problems (loss of detail) that you were having. It's a completely different lens when corrected.
Thanks for your knowledge Brent. I have not done any Astro yet, but i am going to give it a go. Going to buy a 24mm f1.8 and or a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 ( more suited to my camera R7 i think) Let me know what you think of my lens choices please. Cheers!
Well I have the RF 24 and I've done an astro video on it as well. If you stop down a bit, it becomes a very decent astro lens, albeit a bit slower, but I don't mind. I used to have that Tokina like 13 years ago, but sold it over a decade ago and have no idea how it would perform on these newer mirrorless bodies.
I didn't get this lens FOR astro-- but nice to know it's not too bad with a little bit of a crop
My thoughts as well. I bought it mostly for video, but will definitely use it on a backup camera for astrolapses and such. For the money, it's definitely proving to be a solid little lens, at least for me. :)
This lens is an incredible selfie lens. Used it last Frid night at an outdoor dark event. Works fantastic for selfies with my gf.
Thank you. This video is very interesting and good. I'm planning to get this lens
Yo if you’re still using Bridge you should check out Photo Mechanic for sorting and selecting your files. It’s so much faster than Bridge.
I'm on a tight budget and I used your video to make my lens purchase, thank you!
You're welcome, I'm glad the video helped!
Now there is correction to rf16mm in adobe. Do you think it's better to buy another lens for canon R? e.g. iris 15?
Thanks Brent, have you tried DXO pure raw, it seems to be bang up to date with new lenses, however, I haven’t got that lens yet, it does a really good job with my R5 files as a pre editor. I find canon dpp to be a real pain to use!
DPP might be a pain to you (but you would get used to it) but DPP gives the best results for all of Canons lenses - this is how Canon engineers designed their system. I have been using DPP for all my RAW conversions for 7yrs now, and my images are much sharper.
Love your Strat! Great collection! :)
Many thanks! It's definitely my pride and joy 😁🎸
Really nice vedio! Thank you Brent, it is helpful for me. I want to buy this lens for astrophotograph and wide landscape photography.It is very light and easy to carry.
I picked the lens up used for a song. The lens didn't come with a lens hood, but I see plenty of cheap after market ones. Is one recommended?
It would be helpful for you to actually show the results using DPP. I've never understood the hesitancy of TH-cam presenters to actually use the program, one we are all actually paying for, buried in Canon products.
There has to be reasons Canon goes through the effort to design the softwear, especially since the best any outside photo editor can only provide an approximation of the actual Canon RAW files.
Right on. There are several TH-cam RF 14-35 reviews that whine about distortion and vignetting without any mention that the lens was designed only to be used with correction. I have to also fault Canon though -- how hard would it have been to call up the right person at Adobe and email them the correction profile a few months ago?
Yeah, I'm sure it would have been helpful to show DPP, but I don't have it and didn't think about it until I was filming the video, so I'm sorry about that. Also in my defense, it wasn't out of hesitancy that I didn't show it, just that I didn't have it or think about it. I did say that you could use it and it would probably be a good solution for the distortion correction for RAW images. All I can do is try my best using what I have, and I certainly know I could always do better.
David, I certainly wasn't whining about it, and I hope that's not how it came across in the video, because I actually understand the physics and why Canon built it the way they did. Personally, I don't have a problem with dealing with the distortion and work-arounds.
@@BrentHall There are times DPP can speed up your editing process, especially in applying the exact corrections Canon has designed specifically for a given lens. Secondly, most photographers don't realize that Canon also has downloadable updates for their lenses, not just their bodies. Possibly one will be added for the new 16 in the future. DPP also allows you to mess a but with the HEIF File Format, something I plan on trying in the very near future, if for no other reason than to see why Canon may have added that option.
Correct. DPP might be a pain to some, but DPP gives the best results for all of Canons lenses - this is how Canon engineers designed their system. I have been using DPP for all my RAW conversions for 7yrs now, and my images are much sharper. DPP is also integral to my high iso denoising strategy.
The vignetting looks like the same vignetting when one takes a Rokinon/Samyang 16mm and puts it on a FF body. Yet on a crop body, the rok 16 has little vignetting. Has anyone reviewed this on one of the crop sensor R series bodies? I am betting the same results would appear with little to no vignetting since it is "cropped" out. I am curious on this lens because it will take a 2" astro filter perfectly with a 48-43 step down replacing my leftover Rok 16 I have sitting around not being used since I got rid of my crop sensor EF body camera.
I only shoot Jpeg, so can you try some jpeg with that new 16 next time. I have a 24-105 f4 and was thinking rather than get the 16, just shoot at the 24 end of my f4 to see how that goes. When I first got the R6, my plan was to get the 35 f1.8, but I did not get the 35 since the only way to get an R6 back when I got mine was getting the 24-105 f4 kit lens. 35mm was probably not wide enough any ways.
How do you like it compared to the Samyang 14mm? I’m debating whether to keep the Samyang or move to the Canon, since the Samyang will no longer receive firmware updates, and the Canon is also a lot more compact.
hmmm, that's tough. I'm struggling with the same dilemma right now. I like my 14mm. It's got good IQ and is weather-sealed. Lately though, I think the AF has been messing up more often and the lack of any future firmware support (which is all Canon's fault) is making me contemplate selling it and putting the money toward either the 14-35 or 15-35, both of which are way more expensive, but native. I also really dislike the lack of weather-sealing in Canon's non-L RF lenses. It's highly frustrating for me.
I think Lightroom finally added profiles for canon raw files. It was recently - 3 or 4 days ago
Well I edited the images yesterday morning, and just checked again right now and there are no new profile corrections for it, nor any new adobe updates. Sadly, I think it will be a while before we see anything for this lens.
@@BrentHall Adobe did add a few RF lenses in the latest Lightroom Classic CC update, but not the 16mm yet. As a commenter above mentioned, one of the added lenses is the RF 14-35mm f/4, and that profile does seem to work reasonably well for the 16mm. I just wish it didn't take so long to scroll past all the EF lenses to get to that one! (Sidenote: The new masking functionality added to LR is pretty impressive, definitely check that out if you haven't. Might bring you around the the LR fold!)
Hey thanks for the comment Kelly! Yeah, I think it'll be a bit before the 16mm gets its own profile correction, sadly. Also, yeah the new masking is legit, but nothing they do will ever get me to use lightroom! 😅😂😂😂😶
it looks good。 thanks for your test.
Given the price, this seems to be a very decent lens!
Yeah, for the price, it does seem pretty nice.
I have the Canon EF 16-35 f/4 IS and an EF IRIX 15mm f/2.3 manual dedicated for astro. The IRIX is pretty good (I like especially the hard infinity clicked stop, so you don't fumble in the dark for focus :-). I was looking at the RF 16 f/2.8 as way to replace both of these lenses, and lighten my load. However, from comments here and in other reviews the RF16 is not that sharp, etc. So I would be keen to know how it measures up to the EF 16-35 f/4 IS for daytime landscape and other photography. The R5 is a beast for resolution and I feel that the EF16-35 f/4 IS maybe near its limits wide open (I was shooting stills of some stalactites and stalagmites in a dark cave and DOF at f/4 even with the IS on ISO 6400 at 16mm with shutter speeds of 1/30 to 1/60 not useably sharp). So I'm looking for an f/2.8 or faster that I can stop down to lets say f/3.4 or f/4 if necessary and be as sharp or ideally sharper than my f/4. I heard from other channels that the R5 is less forgiving to camera shake so one needs more than the reciprocal of the focal length. I'm not a newbie to slow apperture hand held photography and I thought I had it, but clearly my recent experience in the caves has shown me otherwise:-) I wish to avoid third party lenses and bulbous front elements. The RF 14-35 f/4 IS is not much better than the EF 16-35 f/4 IS, and the RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS has an 82mm filter thread and much heavier. The EF 16-35 f/2.8 has no IS. So I'm looking for options. Any ideas welcome.
Addendum: I’ve shared the ‘unsharp’ images with the a photographer friend and he believes it is not due to camera shake but sensor heat. Which is an interesting theory. I was only shooting stills no video but his theory goes that because the IS and IBIS were working full time the sensor was staying ‘open’ for longer periods than usual and it may have been causing it to overheat. Just a thought. So unsure if anyone come across such a thing before, I’ll check in the forums and maybe report back if I find anything interesting.
Idk man, sounds like you're pretty rigid in what you need out of a fast, wide lens. If you're not willing or able to deal with the weight, filter size, and price of the 15-35, or the incremental improvements of the 14-35, then I don't really know of any other good quality alternatives. Personally, if I could afford it, I'd have the 15-35 in a heartbeat. I'd also take the 14-35 as a solid replacement for my 16-35 f4, but I can't afford that right now either, lol.
@@BrentHall Tnx for your lights. You think the new f/4 is much sharper/better than the EF one? I’ve also been looking at the EF 16-35 f/2.8 iii but without the IS again it would be a half ass upgrade. Maybe I should pull the trigger on the RF 2.8 as you would advise. I wish canon had a 16mm L-series prime. In the EF it stops at 24mm f/1.4
@@dimitristsagdis7340 Yeah, I do think the new 14-35 is quite a bit better than my ef 16-35. Also, I definitely wasn't advising that you or anyone else should buy any lens over another, I was stating that I would do it if I had the money because it's what I need and want. Everyone's different with their needs and wants. Maybe you should try renting those couple of lenses and see if you like them. I do that a lot, especially with expensive lenses that I don't have access to in my small town.
If you're shooting stalactites in dark caves, would it be better to use a tripod rather that handhold anyway? If your tripod has no center column it will be more flexible in tight spaces. And yes, a high-resolution sensor will definitely reveal even minor camera shake.
@@JohnDrummondPhoto good points in theory BUT a) in tourist caves no tripods allowed (or you have to get a commercial license which is not my game) and b) your guides and the rest of the group move a lot faster that one can set up a tripod.
So with the new RF 24mm out I would love to see a comparison of RF 16mm vs RF 35mm vs the NEW RF 24mm for astro. Darn Canon :), now they made me think of trading the two (16mm and 35mm) for just the 24mm in the backpack (weight reduction LOL).
Well my rf 24mm tracking says it'll be here on Monday, so I'll definitely be doing some astro with it asap, weather depending... fingers crossed for clear skies. 🙏
@@BrentHall Awesome, can't wait for your feedback on it. NM skies are amazing! In Ontario we get blacked out by mosquitos alone LOL.
Thanks for the video!
You're welcome, thanks for watching!
Brent - would you say it's better to have this lens on any of the RF series cameras instead of a crop sensor setup? Thinking if you're really going for astro on a budget...
I'm not quite sure what you mean? Personally, I definitely prefer full frame to crop body, but that's just me. I use this with my RP a lot and I think it's a great small, light, and cheap option.
@@BrentHall Thank you! I have a 90d and I'm thinking about moving to the full frame with the "R" as it's looking fairly affordable, and has the larger batteries. The downside is that it does not have an interval timer. The 90d for astro has led to a lot of time dealing with noise, even F2 ISO 3200 15 seconds, not bad, but, not wonderful either...
Thanks for the first look!
You bet man, thanks for watching!
Would this be a good replacement for the ef 16-35 2.8 version 1. The rf 15-35 is 7x the price in Canada
That's probably too tough of a question for me to answer. Those are 2 vastly different lenses, in price, build quality, optics, and intended usage. Plus I never really liked the original version of the ef 16-35 2,8, so I'd be a bad person to ask, lol.
Great review! Thank you.
You're welcome, thanks for watching!
@UCzzT17GEeEPojZe7FT7skag Hi Brent! I am still on the fence about this one... I would use it for timelapse on the R6. At f/2.8 how much would you say it has to be cropped to be OK? What would be left, like 20 mm? I have the EF16-35/4L but it´s just too slow. I also have the Samyang 24 but I need one more astro lens to do timelapse with two cameras :)
hmmm, I guess that depends on if you're wanting to crop for distortion or coma. The distortion correction in LR and PS has been fine for me since they got the lens profile, but the coma is still present in the corners. Personally I don't think it's too bad, but you may have much higher standards than me for that sort of thing. I've been happy with mine as a 2nd astrolapsing lens, especcially for the price and size.
That teacup at 4:22 seconds!!! Where'd you get it friend?
A local artist friend of mine made it.
Thanks for the info regarding the focusing. How do you find it is at focusing on stars in manual mode? I tend to struggle to get really pin sharp focus so would like to hear your thoughts.
I usually zoom in on the LCD and find a bright star, then adjust focus until the star is as pinpointy as possible, and also look for the chromatic aberration around it at that point and then lock it down.
@@BrentHall so do I understand it you set focus when the CA is at a minimum? I think this will definitely be a test of my eyesight!
@@davidelliott6610 When the star gets to it's smallest looking point, that's when the CA will appear around it. I just kind of use that as an extra or secondary thing to help with focusing on the stars at night.
It looks like an R6 you were using. Have you tried the R5 with astro? Ty.
th-cam.com/video/DRrxekalKbw/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=BrentHall
great info Brent. Do you expect that the RF 85m f2 would give similar results? the price on these cheaper versions is hard to resist compared to the L versions. TIA
Well I sure hope so! lol Idk yet though because I still haven't taken the 85 out for astro. It's a sharp lens, especially in the center, so I know that part will be fine, but I have yet to see it's coma and corner sharpness for astro. Hopefully soon I'll get out with it and make a video about it.
@@BrentHall looking forward to it!
The 35 f1.8 and the 85 f2 optically are in a different league to the other STM rf lenses.
Thanks Brent! Ordered this lens now. Have r5 and hate to lug Disproportionately large 15-35mm everywhere. Waiting for the 24mm 2.8 which is my personal sweet spot lens. Will use this len like a 24 and crop the heck out of it. Maybe keep it in jpeg too LOL. I just want something small and light to compliment the R5. BTW any significant noise difference between your R5 and R6 for Astro-landscape work? Went to Zion in September and shot the Milky Way. More noise than I had hoped for. I considered renting the R6 with its 20 mg pix sensor. Do you notice a difference or prefer one over the other? Thanks great video appreciate your work
Thanks man, I'm glad the video helped! Yeah, I actually have a video on the R5 vs R6 for astro. The R6 is slightly better (subjectively I'd say ~2/3 stop or so)with high iso noise.
oh the 24mm is out now 👀
Hey Brent, great video. Do you know if Sony's 16mm f2.8 would perform like this one? I'm talking about the lens that is worth aroun 250 dollars.
I have no idea. I've never used a Sony, so I couldn't say how it compares to that.
Thanks, have you managed to stack anything yet? I'm wondering how raw stacks would work with the distortion around the edges?
No, I haven't done any stacking with this one yet. Hopefully I'll be getting out for more astro with it this spring summer.
@@BrentHall I'll query with the siril Devs as to how it would work especially with extreme distortion. They understand the sums.
Just curious as to why you don't like light room all that much, I only use it since it's all I need, I'm assuming it can't really handle your heavy work flow.
Yeah, I think it's fine for a lot of people, but it just doesn't suit my workflow. I much prefer bridge/camera raw and photoshop combo.
@@BrentHall what do you think of the new masking tool? It's the only reason why i considered Photoshop but now i don't need to buy it either.
You could use BBF so you don't need to menu dive to turn of AF...
If you have the 16-35mm f4, or indeed f2.8, and don't need a small and light compact lens, it seems like this lens probably isn't worth it.
whats BBF can you please explain?
@@goddioscuri3058 Back Button Focus, if you search it there are lots of tutorials how to set it up.
Do you prefer this lens or the 24mm 1.8?
The 24
So, you mentioned 3 lenses. I have a new RP and own only yhe 35mm 1.8. If I purchase a used 16-35 f4 IS USM would that be a good all around lens as well as decent astro ??
I mean, that's what I use. I've always thought the 16-35 f4 is a great all around lens (for wide angle stuff anyway). Yeah it's only f4, but I don't mind it for astro. Like I said in the video, personally, I've gotten great astro images from it. If you can't afford the RF 15-35 (which I can't, lol), then yeah, the 16-35 is a heck of a lens.
Have you tried the rf 14-35?
Hi Brent! Thanks for the great video. What's you #1 astro lens of choice for Canon R-System?
Thanks Tim! That's tough, probably because I don't actually own what I think would be the best astro rf lenses right now. Overall, if I had the money I'd go with the 15-35 and/or 24-70. My samyang rf 14mm is pretty decent.
@@BrentHall thanks for the reply!
Irix 15mm f/2.4
Hmm, considering getting this lens to pair with my R7.
Has anyone tried this combo out yet?
It was a nice small, light combo on my R7 while I had it. I never did any videos about though, but it worked quite well. Just keep in mind that with the crop it's more like a 25mm, so not nearly as wide as a full frame.
@BrentHall thanks. I currently have the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC HSM Art Series lens which is awesome. But it's so big and heavy to lug around when I travel.
Hence I was considering getting the RF16mm cause it's so compact, and inexpensive
another great video, i have this lens on order, not done any astro, but will now :)
Thanks Mark! Yeah, I'll definitely do more with it. I don't mind the work arounds, and the center sharpness, contrast, and detail is fine for me personally.
Looks good for the price
Wow I have gotten so many reviews of this lens on my TH-cam feed lately. While I appreciate the information, I have to suspect many of these reviews are paid for by Canon in some way.
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but mine certainly wasn't sponsored. I have zero affiliation with Canon. They don't even know I exist. I bought this lens with my own money.
is this lens actually available ... or only marketing sleaze ... pending actual availability?
It is! In Europe at least...
Well I pre-ordered it just like everyone else, and my bank account was charged in full when it shipped through Amazon 3 days ago. So I can't speak for anyone else, but for personally, it's certainly not a "marketing sleaze" for me. I bought it as an extra lens to help me film my TH-cam videos and as an extra wide timelapse lens, with ZERO intentions of marketing it to anyone.
@@BrentHall I ask as Adorama shows this lens on "backorder" and B&H shows it to be "released in limited quantity - request stock alert." Just checked Amazon and there are some 3rd party lenses, but not the Canon. So I think you may have scored from center court!🎆
@@edruttledge342 Yeah, it seems to be a pretty hot lens right now. Which is not surprising, as it's canon's first and only wide, fast, and affordable prime for the RF mount. Not to mention the global shipping and manufacturing issues right now, it's no wonder things are hard to find. I definitely got lucky, though I did pre-order it pretty much as soon as it was available a few moths back.
I walked into a store and bought mine 2 weeks ago.
how on earth would we notice that its wider than 16 just by looking at an astro photo lol
Hey Dude, first off thank you for your videos. Helpful indeed, just one gripe.... You talk too much, alot of drivel, tighten it up and stay on point. Keep it concise, all these little personal anecdotes just waste your viewers time... We clicked to hear about the 16mm 2.8 performance in astro. Nothing else.
Sorry. Can't please everyone, you know. Some people want the info as fast as possible, and some people enjoy a bit of entertainment, b roll, or personal side because they like the person. I get people from all sides commenting what I should do all the time, to be more concise, more informative, or more entertaining, more storytelling, add more personal "drivel", etc. After a good 6 years or so on here, I just figured I'd try being myself, though I know it's not for everyone, and maybe I could grow more or faster or whatever, but I'm good now, just being me. I've fully accepted that I talk a lot. 😅😄🙃 thanks for stopping by anyway and I hope you find a channel out there with the kind of videos you'll enjoy more.
Anyone ever said you and Tom Hardy look kinda alike.
Nope, that's definitely a first! 😅😁