Canon RF16 vs EF16-35 F4

[shaoo11]

Hello everyone,

maybe silly, maybe not. But was anybody able to compare these two lenses? I always wanted to have a 16mm prime lens because I don't really need the zoom ability. Now I have the old EF 16-35 F4 L. Great lens for landscape but heavy in the backpack. The newer RF16 has F2.8 and is very small. But could it be a replacement for the good old L wide angle zoom?

Bye!

[rs-eos]

Not a direct comparison, but Ken Rockwell has a RF 16mm Review along with an older EF 16-35mm Review that you could reference.   You won't be getting the same "L" quality (EF version appears to be weather-sealed, includes the hood).

If you'll always be at 16mm though, the wider aperture and lower weight could be very nice to have.

[shadowsports]

Like Ricky said, you are not going to get L quality results from an entry level lens.   If you don't mind moving in and out (step forward / step back) to compose your shot, the 16 prime will give you a lightweight alternative with 1 stop more available light. I prefer zooms, but buy what fits your needs and budget.

[ebiggs1]

" I always wanted to have a 16mm prime lens ..."

Sounds like the answer and enough reason to go buy it. You really don't need any further discussion about it. I know it has been a good enough reason for me! 😁