These are camera/lens reviews, not travelogs.

Agree

@Kandid I did, and I have checked sample gallery to create my own opinion based on real images ;)

@toomix, why do you expect something special from a $300 lens? When this lens costed say $500 you could have a point, but this lens is sharp in the center wide open (very nice for vloggers), it is sharp enough in the corners when stopped down.
With a 16mm FF lens motion blur isn't really a thing to worry about, especially when your camera has IS.. And under a lort of conditions the shutter speed at f/5.6 is fast enough to capture most moving objects without (to much) motion blur.
Remember this is a $300 compact and light weight lens, it has to make compromises!

Don't know what is the fascination with those normal 50mm lenses. They have been around for 200 years and people keep using them to produce the same looking photos.
/s

so you don't buy anything other than perfect distortion free 35mm lenses?

I argue, and you don't... nobody cares about your medal collection, especially in your drawing department. I made a valid point, you confusing drawing and composing with your eyes vs using a lens, and you just bounce it back puffing up and saying "you don't know who you're speaking with". Ok :D

@ Georgescanvas I have been drawing and painting all my life, I have a degree in architecture, a masters in engineering and I have been a semi-pro photographer for 30 years. Now that we have credentials out of the way, YOU ARE WRONG. The fascination is that this is photography not painting. Also based on your comment about only perfection is good enough for you, (vomit), why are you here? The lens is $300! This lens is obviously for people who enjoy life.

@Jack Jones photo-
Are you as heavy handed in your temperament as you are with the caps lock button?

But keystoning is natural looking. What is unnatural is straight lines when evidently looking at an object from below (or above).

kodacolor200:
No need to be high not to have bottom heavy pictures at all. That is part of what I wrote above: to know how to use UWA. It is not for everybody.
The naturalness of properly used UWA is not in the perspective but in the angle of view and the resulting "as if I was there" feel.

@kolyy - if you see keystoning when looking down or up at subject, you might want to get that checked out.

"tilt your lens for that “being there look”" ???
No tilting needed for "being there look".

You not preferring UWA is very fine for me, each of us likes something else and it is normal. Just please do not try to make statements about matter you are not familiar with and do not like.

Then you are either very tall ( to avoid bottom heavy imagery) without keystoning or we have different ideas regarding natural perspectives.

FYI I’m very familiar with the use of UWA and I know how to use them very well. .hence I know the draw backs all too well and exactly why I don’t like them.. My initial comment comes from experience not lack of skill.

You might have a love of UWA but I can assure you, you are not making natural looking images. We simply do not see in such exaggerated perspectives and i can pick it a mile off. Another reason I dislike UWA,

@kolyy I have a doctorate in fine art and photographic works in national collections. I understand perspective:

I don’t correct UWA keystoning. I shoot to omit it, and I do this to create a more natural perspective.

As per my original post. . I’m not interested in cliche compositions that need such exaggeration to imply perspective or create a visual dynamic. It looks lazy and amateurish and rarely as exciting as the photographer believes it to be.

Maybe take a look at some high end architectural photography. You will see that everything you mentioned as to what makes an image “natural” or gives the viewer some “visual clues” is not present. It’s avoided at all costs.

@kolyy using an UWA to communicate as you have described is a great way of exaggerating. And that’s all it does. And it’s this exaggeration that looks unnatural. There is nothing stopping you communicating scale with a more natural 28mm perspective. The 28mm perspective is an angle of view that is wide to point that correlates best with how we actually view the world. Even 24mm is UW territory and an exaggerated perspective.

"The 28mm perspective is an angle of view that is wide to point that correlates best with how we actually view the world."
What a nonsense. Take a sit and look in front of you. Then take a picture from the same spot with 28mm lens. Look at it and look again on the scene. Do you really see same ANGLE OF VIEW :-D?

Together with your "tilt your lens for that “being there look”" you clearly show that the practical knowledge of that topic is close to zero. Whatever claims you post about it.

Sorry....

kodacolor200: And my background is in physics, so I think I can judge very well that your idea that only compositions with straight lines look natural has nothing to do with how things look in reality. Reality is not "lazy and amateurish".

The only way to truly omit keystoning is taking the image from a centered position, which can be approximated by shooting from long distance. If you omit it by shooting perpendicular and crop away part of the image, then it's essentially the same as correcting it digitally - in both ways you manipulate the perspective in such a way, that it seems that the image was taken from a different position than it really was. If you dislike any other perspective than this single one, your choice, but it is no way the only correct or natural one, and it certainly robs the image from information about relative position and size relations.

@canonguy & kolyy - now you are just misrepresenting what I am saying.

If you don’t understand that 16mm or UWA are exaggerated and therefore unnatural perspectives, I cannot help you.

No I don’t see exactly as 28mm, but it’s a far more natural representation of what I am actually looking right now. VS seeing a room double the size with peripheral vision in focus that is stretched and exaggerated at the extremes.

Not sure what world of physics you com from Kolyy but if you feel 16mm of stretched distortion is a better representation of how we see perspective in reality” it’s not a brand I’m subscribing to.

It’s common knowledge that UWA create a distorted, exaggerated and therefore unnatural looking perspective and I’m not the first photographer to state a dislike for UWA for this very reason. It has nothing to do with misunderstanding.

kodacolor200:
You just keep on confirming what is obvious.

Me: "The naturalness of properly used UWA is not in the perspective but in the angle of view and the resulting "as if I was there" feel."
You: "If you don’t understand that 16mm or UWA are exaggerated and therefore unnatural perspectives"

:-D

With this 28mm you still mess up and mix perspective and the angle of view. Two different things, although in some connection. And you are also very wrong in your claim "28mm perspective ... correlates best with how we actually view the world.". It is about 50mm, not 28mm.

So again, firstly please take your time to understand these basics and only then try to make any statements. Basically all you wrote about UWA is wrong.

I have only stated an aesthetic preference relating to the use UWA lenses and a dislike for how UWA’s impact perspective. UWA lenses deliberately and by their very design go beyond natural angles of view. An angle of view that has severe impacts on perspective . A look I clearly stated I don’t like. how can I be wrong?

As for 28mm correlating to natural perspective, yes it’s long established 28mm through to 90mm correlates with natural viewing perspectives. The classic trinity is 28,50,90. For example 28 when viewing a subject within context, 50 when focusing on the entire subject, 90 for a close up of the subject.

Now that we have the basics of what I was actually referring to, which was an aesthetic preference and a dislike for very obvious visual signature that UWA cannot escape due to its actual physical design and characteristics. Understand that this is not a right or wrong argument. It’s not through lack of understanding or inability to use UWA, it’s a preference.

kodacolor200: I can understand that the UWA perspective might seem exaggerated, but I can't agree it is unnatural. The human eye has a very wide field of view, but most of it is peripheral vision, where all that "distorted" perspective is hidden, so one does not generally notice it. You assume those line are parallel, because your brain knows they are parallel in reality, but it's obvious it is impossible to see them as parallel, as closer objects are inevitably larger in the field of view than distant ones of the same size. If you take a picture of it, it might seems exaggerated, as you now plainly see what you don't pay attention to normally. But it is there, the camera just records the image on a flat surface.

I respect that you might not like that perspective and want to avoid it. But there are only two ways it can be done (I am aware of):
- not to take pictures of it at all. That's seems your solution. 28mm will limit your angle of view and thus limit how close you can get to an object. This is a valid artistic choice, but I don't see anything unnatural in trying to take pictures from a closer distance.
- take an image in a specific way and/or manipulate it digitally, so that lines are parallel in the final pictures. This will lead to an impression, that the image was taken from a different position (further away, more central). But even that is just a chimera, as all the details in the image were taken at an angle (some parts might even be missing, some will be superfluous), so there is actually no place from which such an image could be seen. So once again, while I can respect this as a valid artistic choice, there is nothing natural about it.

The problem isn't the focal length or the fov. The problem your inability to put ultrawide fov to good use, a lack of creative vision. Photography is an art itself, and art does not necessarily need to follow what the real human eye sees. There is no such thing as useless focal lengths. Even fisheyes have their use.

@EXkurigane - cutting off your nose to spite your face much mate lol... Re-read your comment and if you are lost on the contradictions and complete irony of your statement... Art is simply a reflection of your self-awareness and a personal expression of how we like to interpret our little worlds. There is no right or wrong and my personal dislike of UWA lenses has nothing with an inability but prefernce.

Seeing as you decided to make this personal. Here is some feedback for you.

That you make such sweeping statements based on zero knowledge about me or my practice, simply paints you as a complete and utter arseclown.

Maybe stay in your lane. You go along and photograph your little toys and I'll continue to make art.

kodacolor200:
Ok, so once again: I have no problem with your aesthetics preferrences which do not favour UWA. That is normal that everyone likes smthng else. I already wrote it clearly, please read more carefully.

What I commented are wrong / untrue statements you wrote about UWA which suggest your knowledge of very basics can be improved. Again, please see my previous posts where I quote your untrue statements and explain why is it wrong.

@canon_guy. Yet everything you have written in your condescending tone says otherwise. It's quite clear that you are taking issue with my visual preferences as it doesn't fit yours. This reads clearer than anything else you believe you are saying here.

I read your rather vague airy statements and you have clearly said very little regarding UWA."naturalness" and "being there" is hardly mind-blowing insight. In fact, you have misquoted and misrepresented what I have written, more than you have said anything yourself.

Your misplaced arrogance assumes some special knowledge or understanding of UWA properties that I have yet to discover in 2 decades of professional practice and teaching. Having taken and viewed 1000's of UWA shots in a professional paid context, I can assure you, you have said nothing nor proven anything I have said is incorrect.

All I have read from your defensive tone is that you really like UWA's and you fancy yourself pretty handy at shooting them. I don't care.

kodacolor200:
There are couple of ways how posters can to disgrace and discredit themselves. Hopeless ad hominem attacks which ungainly mask inability to use relevant topic related arguments are by far the most effective. Congrats.

I did quote technically wrong statements you made about the very basics of optics and explained you why you are wrong.

For you it is a reason for personal attacks... Each to his own....

There's nothing contradictory about my opinion. If the focal length is useless, the lenses wouldn't even exist. Ultrawide is a must have in another's kit. Learn how to use.

kodacolor200:
I really like people like you. Hardly you could confirm my previous post more :-). The more they dig the worse they stand.

Starting with "Before you start pointing the finger..." followed by 2nd post fully dedicated to me as a person and zero on the topic or any argument. Very nice :-).

If someone feels personally offended by a general and very true statement "UWA are not meant for people who just can't use it. For me UWA is very welcomed and often used lens in cities, nature, events... Feels so natural when used properly." then such a person has some severe issues.

Purely technically wrong statements like
"28mm perspective ... correlates best with how we actually view the world."
and
"you need to tilt your lens for that “being there look”"
together with messing up perspective with FoV only demonstrate lack of technical background and understanding the basic principles of optics.

If it is then followed by the demonstration of the lack of text understanding:

Me: "The naturalness of properly used UWA is not in the perspective but in the angle of view and the resulting "as if I was there" feel."
You: "If you don’t understand that 16mm or UWA are exaggerated and therefore unnatural perspectives"

then the picture is somehow drawn fully.

Which is BTW only reassured by the last paragraph where you assume I would like to convince you.... Why would I do that? Where did I write I would like to convince you to like UWA?
In fact I wrote the complete opposite :-D:
"You not preferring UWA is very fine for me, each of us likes something else and it is normal."

So if you feel that much offended by me correcting your many technically wrong statements then just (as I already wrote too) do not try to make statements about matter you are not familiar with and do not like.

It is pure logic, no emotions.
I never understood why some people feel so offended by not knowing something. Instead of learning they start to fight. Wow.

Please be my guest with the urge to have the final word :-) .

kodacolor200: I'll suggest you a couple of simple exercises. First, look at some UWA pictures, e.g. from the gallery here, from a very close distance, in order to replicate the angle of view. So, for example, for a 16mm lens displayed 36cm wide, try to look at it from a 16cm distance, straight at the center. Do you still see that exaggerated perspective, converging verticals and stretched corners? You shouldn't, as you are looking at the exact replica of the scene as you would see it in reality. So the only reason the UWA perspective seems exaggerated is because you look at it from too far away (or display it too small).

A second one - try to look down into a corner of the room, ideally with some vertical lines. Do you see the converging verticals and stretched corners? If not, try to take a sheet of paper and draw down what you see faithfully, centered on the rooms's corner, keeping straight lines straight and parallel on the paper with reality. Do you now see that exaggerated perspective on the paper? You should, as what you should have arrived to is the rectilinear projection, the same as projected by the lens in the your camera. Maybe now you will notice those converging verticals, they are everywhere around you.

And you enjoy talking from up above to the poor amateur peasants who don't think perspective distortion is vomit. But please do it somewhere else, not here, because your comment is 100% pointless, useless, negative to everyone here. You add nothing constructive. You don't like it, so what? Why would anyone care except you pouring vomit on some of their tastes?
Enjoy. Not here.

Yet I’m the one giving lectures from my “hay throne”….This is a public forum and its open for all to express views and opinions, positive or negative. If you found the comment pointless, Ok…yet you have stopped and considered the what, why and how you find something enjoyable and taken the time to express your own personal convictions as an emotional response.

My initial comment was not a personal barb at you. I threw something out there. An opinion of a subpar gallery taken with a subpar lens, that demonstrates three things I was making a point on. UWA - especially cheap UWA, make for crappy images. They are difficult for many to work with because of the exaggerated distortion is not only difficult to control in complex compositions. To a trained eye, this exaggeration also exposes ill considered and sloppy approaches to image making. This gallery is ample demonstration of these points.

”This $300 lens is inferior to another, much larger $1350 lens”

Ok then, now I don’t want it either.

Wait, maybe I do.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better.

Dmitry, are you really comparing a $1350 486 grams heavy, 85mm long 89mm diameter, F4 lens with a $280, 165grams heavy, 69mmling, 40mm diameter, f2.8 lens?
This sounds a lot like: Oh look my $2500 camera takes better pictures then your cellphone camera, that costed $400!
I would be shocked if it was the other way around! And I think that everybody with a working brain would be shocked then. On the other hand, maybe in low light this lens can give you sharper pictures then your expensive lens as you can use lower ISO settings for your camera.I think that this lens in the right hands can make beautiful pictures, your lens in the wrong lens will give you only garbage.

Dmitry, what do you try to say with this comment? Do you want to show that you have no clue at all?
I was thought, when I started photography that reviews are great to compare lenses, but that you must know how to read reviews.
One of the things that was told that when you compare two lenses that both must be (roughly) the same focal length and that you must compare them at the same aperture, when it comes to sharpness, They also warned that you can only compare lenses when reviewed by the same person, as everybody has their own way of measuring things...
And now you compare a zoom lens at f2.8 with a prime lens at f8 and surprise surprise, the prime lens (that only costs $300) better in the corners!
But compared at f8 the zoom is even doing better then the prime!
And at f2.8 both lenses the Zoom lens is better in the corners...
And all these numbers have nothing to do with the 16mm Canon lens. As soon as Nikon has such a lens you can start to compare!

Revisão impecável! Parece-me que a Canon faz essas lentes para forçar seus clientes a comprar a mais cara. Ela proíbe cartas de outros fabricantes e propositadamente faz lentes baratas e ruins para forçar os clientes a comprar a versão superfaturada para que ela possa ganhar muito dinheiro vendendo algumas lentes caras.

For shooting brickwalls for sure.

Welcome Oktacore - a member for 2 days and already getting stuck into Canon’s ‘little gem’ - quoting the independent professional reviewer in the video here👍

Well well, I see my comment has offended some professional brand supporters here. Actually you have a point. I love Chris and Jordan and have been following them since their days at the camera store, and I did sound kind of aggressive to them. My apologies to Chris but I still think he made a misjudgement here. I think the lens is probably a defective copy.
Now do you have something to say about image quality or will you keep looking for trolls everywhere ?

Lol "kandid" calling the kettle black, as if we didn't know he operates as a Canon spokesperson on here 👍🤮🤡

Ahh I see - when i repeat myself I REALLY repeat myself.......🤪

Yeah the heavy CA is a dead give away, especially at F8. Image 4 shows way too much purple fringing for a modern lens, even at this price level. It affects about 30% towards the edges of the image. Every bright highlight gets a pink clone of itself.

And photo number 6 is never sharp anywhere. It's like there is a element loose inside the lens. This can't be good. That's a quality controle issue.

@ jonby - agreed. This test lens DPRreview has seems pretty bad. Something is not up to spec. Check the sample images at OpticalLimit's review. Much better. The lens obviously isn't L quality, but its it certainly shows that it's much more capable than what this particular copy is delivering.

They really point out how strong the native barrel distortion is too. The lens is almost a fisheye before corrections. This will certainly take its toll on edge/corner resolution. But the end results is still decent. It's not far off what Canon's older L series 16-35 f2.8 zooms were at 16mm, which ain't great but not bad either.

It was a good joke but is getting overplayed and boring.

I still enjoy it. I personally hope they continue using it and enough youtubers copy them. that it will one day become an official measurement of camera weight.

Sure, make it an R50 Rally

Oh, this is just claiming nonsenses. here is no way that this lens has sharp corners at 16mm. I wa using it. What you showed was cropped as hell.
This lens has that severe distortion that after its correction all the "details" have to be stretched so much that even if it was sharp before warping (as it is not) this is blurred after the stretch.

Don(t try to make this crappy lens any better than it is. The Sigma 14-24/2.8 is clearly sharper in corners at f/2.8 than this RF at f/8!

I don’t see this as a big problem , just don’t turn it off and you will never notice it

I agree it's worth discussing out of academic interest and for those niche use cases that'll be impacted by it, but for the majority of people getting an UWA this small it's really a non-issue so I kinda disagree that it should be a point of emphasis on *every* review.

It's usually pretty obvious in more empirical lab based reviews/tests (ie not DPRTV). This is just how things are with mirrorless and small wide angles, correcting geometry in software allows them to improve optical corrections for other aspects and/or help make it smaller.

While I usually only care about the final result, I agree that this should be included - the "stretching" of pixels to correct the distortion will limit how much the lens gets sharper when stopping down.

Yes, but modern sensors have such a potential that they can stand quite a lot of manipulation and show nice "final result". But what's behind that "final result" is still important to some photographers.
Like, shooting outside the studio, I always keep in mind stocks requirements. So final result from pretty corrected lens and final result that looks kinda nice, but it hides a 1.5x pixel stretch and a 2 stop vignetting correction - that's a big difference for me because I will continue push this image in the editor. And there's never too much IQ potential for stock photography. We're always on the edge. I once consulted some pretty experienced magazine/ad guy about shutterstock and he had a reject with the picture he took on D810 iso64 due to "noise".
Yes, with this lens you have a nice "final result", but in a more smartphone sense. For undemanding users its fine. But for such users everything is fine, they put 5 stars on BH under the worst lenses and write "I'm just happy with it".

Depite all the gushing about the price, even DPR is telling you straight up that it's soft in the corners unless you stop down a lot. Whether this is caused by extreme in-camera correction or something else is kind of beside the point. It's the results that matter.

Still not a bad option on APS-C tbh, ~26/2.8 isn't as exciting but it can still be pretty useful at this size, I love having my FF 24/2.8 as a far smaller option to my 20/1.8 & 17-28/2.8.

Any fast FF UWA is likely to feel oversized on APS-C and be pretty pricey, and Canon is unlikely to make dedicated wide primes for APS-C... Even those won't be very small, eg Sigma 16/1.4.

UWA prime for crop not likely. But an RF zoom similar to the ef-m 11-22 should make its way. Will have a slower aperture of course. So yes a 25mm f2.8 on crop is not too shabby.

It's not just about the chart, you need to zoom in to show the results way more. I have never been able discern anything in your lens tests. Take a look how Dustin Abbott or Christopher Frost do it, way more useful.