• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forums > Back > RF 16mm f/2.8 and RF 100-400mm coming
#21
Well, marketing images are typically CAD renderings.
Editor
opticallimits.com

  Reply
#22
Interesting detail about that 100-400mm lens: at 400mm it has a max. magnification of 0.41x. That is pretty neat.
  Reply
#23
(09-09-2021, 05:20 AM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(09-09-2021, 05:00 AM)Klaus Wrote: 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
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
  Reply
#24
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 Wink

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
Editor
opticallimits.com

  Reply
#25
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.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
  Reply
#26
(09-09-2021, 12:22 PM)Klaus Wrote: 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.
  Reply
#27
(09-09-2021, 05:25 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: 16mm on APS-C makes no sense (26mm)

Well, that's a bold claim, given that several APS-C 16mm primes exist already Wink
Editor
opticallimits.com

  Reply
#28
(09-09-2021, 05:51 PM)mst Wrote:
(09-09-2021, 05:25 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: 16mm on APS-C makes no sense (26mm)

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

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.
  Reply
#29
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.
Editor
opticallimits.com

  Reply
#30
(09-09-2021, 06:03 PM)mst Wrote: 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.
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Away
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)