[mst]

Well, marketing images are typically CAD renderings.

[Brightcolours]

Interesting detail about that 100-400mm lens: at 400mm it has a max. magnification of 0.41x. That is pretty neat.

[Klaus]

The more I look at the 16mm, the more it seems photoshopped. But let's see.

You mean: the more it looks exacly like a Canon product shot.

https://www.canonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screenshot-from-2021-09-08-06-30-29.png

[mst]

That's the comparison that CR posted, too, but in higher reolution.

The front element is clearly different. Might still be photoshopped, sure. We'll know next week, I guess

---

Higher resolution image of the RF 16/2.8:

https://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/rf1628stmbig-728x462.png

For comparison, the RF 50/1.8:

https://i1.adis.ws/i/canon/rf50mm-f1.8-stm-slant-product-gallery-04_f69edc7d0de0470789d0417b4b6404fb

[Klaus]

If this is real, it still smells like APS-C.

16mm f/2.8 and a 43mm filter thread?

But I will not complain if it's FF.

[Brightcolours]

If this is real, it still smells like APS-C.

16mm f/2.8 and a 43mm filter thread?

But I will not complain if it's FF.

16mm on APS-C makes no sense (26mm), especially as a 1st APS-C prime. So, no. And there is no APS-C R on the horizon, and the 1st APS-C prime for EF-M did make sense (22mm).
Looking at the small front lens, 43mm might just be right.

[mst]

16mm on APS-C makes no sense (26mm)

Well, that's a bold claim, given that several APS-C 16mm primes exist already

[Brightcolours]

16mm on APS-C makes no sense (26mm)

Well, that's a bold claim, given that several APS-C 16mm primes exist already

16mm on 1.5x crop is 24mm FF equivalent. And they probably were not the 1st primes?
Canon does not have 1.5x crop.... 1.6x 16mm = 25.6mm.

[mst]

I know, the part I quoted sounded like a generic claim though. I agree that an APS-C R camera is not likely (or at least would be a very big surprise) and a 16mm as first lens to go with it would be highly unlikely, too.

[wim]

I know, the part I quoted sounded like a generic claim though. I agree that an APS-C R camera is not likely (or at least would be a very big surprise) and a 16mm as first lens to go with it would be highly unlikely, too.

Personally, I reckon the 16 F/2.8 is effectively the replacement for the old 20 F/2.8. It'll be about the same size, and people who like UWA prefer 16 mm over 20 mm, I certainly do. I got my first 20 mm lens back in 1979, never looked back, just that it wasn't always wide enough ....
Just hoping that it will be quite a bit better optically than that old 20 mm lens.