[toni-a]

Recently I got RF 35mmf1.8 and I am enjoying it a lot, along with 85mmf2.0 and I am absolutely loving them , however I am missing a little bit on the wide end.
Canon 16mmf2.8 would be an obvious choice, but I feel it's too wide.
18 or 20mm would make much more sense, the only option available is 24mm but it  isn't wide enough besides  I don't see myself using a 24mm prime.
I was tempted to get Sigma 20mmf1.4 and use it via adapter especially I found an excellent sample for an excellent price, but it's big and heavy, in that case I can carry my monstrous   Tokina 16-28... any thoughts ?

[wim]

My suggestion would be to go for the Canon RF 16 F/2.8 regardless. For price and performance, and compactness, there isn't really anything else out there.

As to the consideration it may be too wide: IMO there is no such thing as an UWA which is too wide. I have been shooting UWA since around 1978, in conditions where I really needed one, and I found I still wanted a wider angle to capture all I wanted and needed to capture. In addition, if it appears too wide an angle of view, all you need to do is move just 1 step forward, and you're done. With current UWA lenses, you do not need to worry about the IQ anymore as we had to do back in the past, as they all tend to be way better, especially primes, as we ever had even 10 to 15 years ago.

My current favourite is my Samyang 10 F/3.5 XP Premium, which is a 10 mm FF lens, and I use it currently more than any other WA lens I own. The thing to remember though is, especially when you are trying to create nice compositions, is to get really close to your foreground subject, and use different perspectives, like close to the ground, or higher up, bird type perspective, as long as you have a foreground subject close to the camera.

That first UWA I mentioned, was a 20 mm F/4, and it had a lot of fall-off in IQ towards edges and corners, but ion those days we did not know any better. I'd really wanted a 17 mm back then, which, BTW, would still not have been wide enough, but could not afford anyway. Going from 28 mm to 20 mm was already quite a big step back then, plus the price of a monthly salary. A 17 mm actually would have set me back 2.5 monthly salaries in those days.

In short, the Canon RF 16 F/2.8 really is a steal, way faster than anything we had in the past, way way better, and much smaller too. And since you like the RF 35, I reckon you will like the RF 16 even more.

Maybe you need to check out how many pictures you tend to take with your Tokina 16-28 at the short end, in relation to its longer end. That may make your decision a lot easier.

HTH, kindest regards, Wim

[toni-a]

Because of size and weight I rarely carry my tokina 16-28 , except for indoor shooting , I use way more often Canon 10-18 on 7D2 or I even used it on EOSRP as I was shooting for a webpage and resolution didn't matter.
And no I don't use my 10-18 as a 10mm prime.
I am actually covered for the time being, was tempted to get Sigma 20mmf1.4 but weight and size kept me off.
Do you think Canon still has plans for RF 20-40f4 STM pancake ?

[wim]

I haven't heard about the 20-40 pancake for a long time, so who knows?

Canon has been releasing more lenses on a yearly basis for RF than ever before for previous systems, so I guess it still is a possibility.

Even so, I'd suggest, if you do get a chance, do try out the RF 16, you may be surprised.

[toni-a]

I haven't heard about the 20-40 pancake for a long time, so who knows?

Canon has been releasing more lenses on a yearly basis for RF than ever before for previous systems, so I guess it still is a possibility.

Even so, I'd suggest, if you do get a chance, do try out the RF 16, you may be surprised.

Deep inside, I know it's a matter of time before I get the RF 16mmf2.8....

[Rover]

Honestly, I would have advised to switch to another brand before plunging more money into the RF system which to me looks like a dead end (others may disagree) due to the absence of third-party lenses and idiosyncrasitic line-up (at least so far). Well, I guess RF is fine if you have the big money to go all in with L lenses - otherwise it's a bore. Having EF and E mount gear would make the transition relatively painless because EF can be adapted to anything, and E-mount has very rich choices and adaptability (and Nikon Z is even more versatile).

[toni-a]

Honestly, I would have advised to switch to another brand before plunging more money into the RF system which to me looks like a dead end (others may disagree) due to the absence of third-party lenses and idiosyncrasitic line-up (at least so far). Well, I guess RF is fine if you have the big money to go all in with L lenses - otherwise it's a bore. Having EF and E mount gear would make the transition relatively painless because EF can be adapted to anything, and E-mount has very rich choices and adaptability (and Nikon Z is even more versatile).

Surely that applies to someone starting from scratch, but for someone who already  has everything he needs in RF mount, a move  doesn't make sense.
my current lineup 
16-28f2.8 EF 24-105f4 EF 70-300f4-5.6 plus RF 35mmf1.8  EF 50mm f1.4 RF 85mmf2.0 I am really well served.
without mentioning my EFS lenses for 7D2 I still use sometimes when shooting for the WEB where  resolution is irrelevant: 8mm fisheye 10-18 mm 15-85mm 17-55f2.8 and EF  primes I am not using for the moment: 35mmf1.4 50mmf1.8 100mm macro.

[Rover]

Well, that's what I was talking about: you only have the 35 and 85 as native so far, the rest can be adapted to anything. But of course, I'm not trying to push you, just giving my 2 cents. :-)

It's really odd how much set against Canon's fancy new system I've become, despite being a Canon EF user since 2007 (and counting... currently, as I'm riding to an event I'll be shooting, I have one Canon camera in my bag and one Nikon, and three Canon lenses lol). More than that - in EF times, I would've wholeheartedly advised anyone who ever asked about which brand of gear to get, to buy into the Canon EF system).