I like the RF 16mm a lot, but it does have more distortion before camera correction of JPEGs and video, which is why the 16-35mm seems to be wider no matter what the distance to subject, as the in-camera software correction is cropping all the edges very slightly. Some photo editing software which can handle RAW photo files, will show wider images if Lens correction is switched off, though there will be significant distortion at the edges. As to whether this is bothersome is of course entirely at the photographer's will of what they want to convey.
I was thinking about getting the 16mm prime to have in addition to the 16-35f4 to use exclusively for video so that I would have a lighter setup on my gimbal - anyone have any thoughts on this or have tried both on a gimbal? It's for real estate/architecture
You will get more use with the EF 16-35 f/4 than you will with the RF16mm for real estate video on a gimbal, so just get the EF 16-35 with RF to EF adapter and you will be satisfied. The only con is the weight of the lens. f/2.8 vs f/4 will not be an issue since you usually want more depth of field for real estate. If you have an RF Canon camera, also consider the RF 14-35mm, which I think is the best Canon lens for video real estate use.
@@VideoGizmology So a RF 16 2.8 for astrophotography will be worse than my Canon EF 16-35L F2.8? I desperately need a better wide angle prime, i guess the only way is using dedicated manual focus astrophotography lenses? They are also "cheap" since the mostly dont have any electronic in them. I dont care much about disortion, all i really care about is chromatic abberation and sharpness into the corners at open or nearly open aperture!
4:00 the corners look pretty sharp too, thank you sir
Good comparison! You could make the files of the photos available so that we could compare the sharpness of the two in the corners of the image.
Thanks for making this, i've always curious about such prime vs zoom.
I like the RF 16mm a lot, but it does have more distortion before camera correction of JPEGs and video, which is why the 16-35mm seems to be wider no matter what the distance to subject, as the in-camera software correction is cropping all the edges very slightly. Some photo editing software which can handle RAW photo files, will show wider images if Lens correction is switched off, though there will be significant distortion at the edges. As to whether this is bothersome is of course entirely at the photographer's will of what they want to convey.
the prime has compulsory geometrical aberation correction in software. don't expect distortion there.
I was thinking about getting the 16mm prime to have in addition to the 16-35f4 to use exclusively for video so that I would have a lighter setup on my gimbal - anyone have any thoughts on this or have tried both on a gimbal? It's for real estate/architecture
You will get more use with the EF 16-35 f/4 than you will with the RF16mm for real estate video on a gimbal, so just get the EF 16-35 with RF to EF adapter and you will be satisfied. The only con is the weight of the lens. f/2.8 vs f/4 will not be an issue since you usually want more depth of field for real estate. If you have an RF Canon camera, also consider the RF 14-35mm, which I think is the best Canon lens for video real estate use.
@@VideoGizmology thats what I have. Im talking about getting the 16mm in addition to be lighter on the gimbal
thanks for the comparison ...I got both,,,,,I think EF16-35 F4, still can performs better ....
Hey someone lives in San Diego!
There's focus breathing. The L is wider at distance, the prime is wider closer up.
Very "deep" breathing, about +- 1 or 2 mm (that is very essential for wide angle)
Very useful, thank you
Amazing..16 2.8 sharper
the 16mm 2.8 is not as good as the 16-35f4. the edges are not as sharp even at 5.6. it has much coma and distortion. I sold my 16mm 2.8
I agree. There is a reason why the 16-35mm is 3x the cost as the 16mm. Huge price difference.
@@VideoGizmology So a RF 16 2.8 for astrophotography will be worse than my Canon EF 16-35L F2.8?
I desperately need a better wide angle prime, i guess the only way is using dedicated manual focus astrophotography lenses? They are also "cheap" since the mostly dont have any electronic in them.
I dont care much about disortion, all i really care about is chromatic abberation and sharpness into the corners at open or nearly open aperture!