News Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM Announced

[Tim Mayo]

Canon has announced the RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM, a fast wide-angle full-frame zoom with a slightly more budget friendly price tag of $1,149.00 in the US or £1,249.00 in the UK.

The lens is constructed from 16 elements in 13 groups, with 2 aspherical lenses and 4 UD elements. At its long end, it has a minimum focusing distance of 0.2m (7.9"). The lens is weather sealed to provide some protection against dust and moisture.

A lead-screw type stepper motor is used for focusing and it also features optical image stabilization, rated for 5.5 stops of compensation at the center of the lens, or up to 8 stops when paired with a camera body.

The lens weighs around 445g (15.7oz) and is 91mm (3.6") long when retracted. It uses 67mm filters and can be paired with an EW-73E lens hood which is sold separately.

Pre-orders are already available at B&H Photo and other official Canon retailers.

 

[esheato]

I just bought the RF 15-30 f/8 trillion a few months ago....booooo!

 

[Chris Summers]

I miss Rudy Winston! There was something so reassuring in his voice as he told you about new gear.

 

[MikeZ]

I do agree. Comfort in his knowledge and reassurance in his delivery.

 

[esheato]

I'm pretty sure he's back as a consultant. I bookmarked this the other day.

Rudy Winston Auto Focus Part II

 

[David Stallard]

I'm pretty sure he's back as a consultant. I bookmarked this the other day.

Rudy Winston Auto Focus Part II

Yep - back as a consultant / ambassador - very knowledgeable and an easy listen

 

[Dean Wilson]

I probably won't replace my RF15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM
...even though the new lens is less expensive.

 

[StevenAunan]

My EF 17-40mm f4 L just died and it's in for a warranty replacement from MPB. I'd like to ask them if I can pay the difference for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM, but is there a compelling reason to spend an additional $600 for the RF 16-28mm?

 

[Dean Wilson]

My EF 17-40mm f4 L just died and it's in for a warranty replacement from MPB. I'd like to ask them if I can pay the difference for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM, but is there a compelling reason to spend an additional $600 for the RF 16-28mm?

I don't own EF glass, but you are going from an F4 to an F2.8 and the RF has IS, lighter weight, smaller filter (67mm), better quality and sharpness, faster smoother autofocus. But you know that with your current RF glass.

You have my permission

 

[StevenAunan]

the RF has IS, lighter weight, smaller filter (67mm), better quality and sharpness, faster smoother autofocus.

You have my permission

Ha ha! Thanks. I'm saving up for the RF 200-800 right now, because my elderly father wants to take a family cruise to Alaska and I figure that's the lens I need. I think I'll just let MPB replace my EF 17-40 and then start saving for the RF 16-28. Because you're right.

 

[Only RF]

That is a nice range. I had the RF 16 2.8 at one time. Good optics for the price.

 

[BasilFawlty]

I know this is a bit of an old post, but I just ran across it. Last year (late 2025) I was debating with myself which ultra-wide zoom lens I wanted to get as I had wide-angle gap in my kit and wanted something wider for certain landscape and architecture scenarios. The widest lens I had at the time was the RF 24-105 f/4. I considered several options, from the very expensive RF 10-20mm f/4 to the much less expensive (used) EF 17-35mm. This RF 16-28 f/2.8 was one of the main contenders of the many lenses I considered.

In the end, I opted for the RF 14-35 f/4.0 for the following reasons:
1. It had a very good wide-zoom range of 21mm (the 16-28 only has a 12mm range)
2. It was an "L" lens and relatively light weight and compact (only very slightly heavier than the 16-28)
3. It has a USM motor vs the STM motor for faster focusing
4. It had one of the best minimum focus distances (7.9") of the lenses I looked at ( only the much lower-end RF 15-30 f/4.5-6.3 had a better min focus distance)
5. It had a 77mm filter size. I know that may not be a big deal, but as most of my filters are 77mm to fit most of my other lenses, it was just a nice added benefit)

Of the 10 RF and EF lenses I considered, the RF 16-28 was probably the strongest competition to the RF 14-35 for me. Of course the main advantage of the RF 16-28 over the 14-35 is the larger f/2.8 aperture. If I ever find I need something ultra wide with a brighter aperture, I'd probably get the 16mm f/2.8 prime as an inexpensive gap filler.

For anyone who might be shopping for an ultra wide zoom, I've attached a .pdf of a spreadsheet I made comparing several options.

 

[Archibald]

Thanks for the analysis. It will be useful if/when I decide to get a wide angle lens for my FF body.