Canon RF 16-28 f/2.8 non-L

[Kayaker72]

Just announced. New toy!

And I do not mean to belittle this lens. The specss and MTFs look great.

What may be interesting to me the most is that it seems Canon has quietly populated an upper-mid tier set of non-L lenses. Specifically, the RF 16-28 f2.8, RF 28-70 f/2.8 and the RF 100-400 for zooms. For primes, Canon has always had some nice non-L primes (EF 24 f/2.8, 85 f/1.8, etc) but they certainly have carried that forward with a nice population range from the 16 f/2.8 (I own, nice lens), 24, 28, 35, 50, and 85 mm variants.

But the zooms, they are making me think back to the EFs 17-55 f/2.8. I opted for focal length range and the EFs 15-85, but both were optically great non-L lenses.

Anyway, new lens. Specs and MTFs look great. I can see a lot of advanced amateurs (even a few others) going this route.

[DavidEccleston]

Yeah, the MTFs are like the L lenses, but lower build quality (plastic vs. metal, worse coatings) and lower focus quality (high-end STM instead of USM), exactly like the 28-70mm f/2.8. I imagine it will do well with non-pro photographers.

If sharp enough, perhaps it can replace your wide angle 2.8 primes, giving you extra versatility without a lens swap.

[alex]

Anyway, new lens. Specs and MTFs look great. I can see a lot of advanced amateurs (even a few others) going this route.

Yeah, that might be me. I currently have the 14-35 f/4 and the kit 24-105 f/4. They are both great, but I do wish for more light. When the recent non-L 28-70 was announced, I was interested, and now with this one I might just have a good general purpose kit going. I'll wait to see the review.

I adored my EF-S 17-55 when I was using my 70D, although it did break once and require repair. A screw on the inside of the barrel backed out and would bind up against the inner barrel and prevent zooming. I paid over $200 to have it fixed about 3 years ago, and gave the lens to my son to use. Well, the same thing happened again. Kind of disappointing.

[neuroanatomist]

I like the direction Canon is headed with these two newest non-L 'prosumer' lenses. Very good IQ (Canon says 'L-series quality') and weather sealing, constant aperture zooms at f/2.8, and costing just over $1K. I wonder if they'll complete the trinity and launch a 70-xxx/2.8 non-L.

[Tounis]

I didn't take the RF 28-70 f/2.8 off my camera more than a few times since I got it. It is now my favorite lens by far. If Canon was to launch a telephoto zoom of the same quality, I'd probably get it and sell my prime lenses. This 16-28 isn't for me, as I already have the RF 15-30 and don't use it enough to justify a more expensive lens.

[alex]

Ok the lens image quality comparisons just got posted, and when I look at this lens vs the 14-35 f/4, it's crazy. The color fringing on the L lens is so much worse. And it's not more sharp, either. Makes me wonder if I'm interpreting the results correctly.

[DavidEccleston]

Well, the peripheral area at 24mm looks quite a bit softer, even if you drop the new lens to the matching f/4. At 16, 20, and 28 though, yeah, not a significant difference in sharpness. They're not shot with the same body either R5II vs R5, so who knows what to make of it. The 15-35mm is also shot w/ R5.

I'm waiting on the James Reader shoot-out video, assuming one's coming, since his 28-70 comparison video was one of the most thorough comparisons I've ever seen. Not waiting too impatiently though, as I'm not sure I need such a wide lens... I rarely use the EF-S 10-18, and this is basically the full-frame version with a faster aperture.