The Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 IS STM is a fast ultra-wide zoom for their full-frame EOS R mirrorless cameras; note it is not compatible with EOS M or Canon’s DSLRs. Announced in January 2025, it’s actually Canon’s fifth ultra-wide zoom in the native RF mount that’s designed for full-frame bodies. It seamlessly pairs with the earlier 28-70 2.8, and like that model goes for a slightly shorter than traditional range to achieve a lower weight and price point than a typical 16-35 2.8.

At around £1250 at launch, it costs roughly double that of the budget RF 15-30 f4.5-6.3, and below that of the two ultra-wide L zooms. So while it can’t be described as cheap, it does represent a mid-range option in Canon’s native RF catalogue. I briefly tried out an early sample for my hands-on first-looks video below where I also got to compare it with alternatives on either side, but if you’d prefer to read the written highlights, keep scrolling!

Before delving-in, it’s always worth mentioning you could adapt an older Canon EF lens, and bargains can be had on the used market. When shopping for used bodies and lenses, I always check MPB as unlike many private sales they’re very clear on the condition of a product, what it comes with and crucially provide a six month warranty as well as free delivery.

Canon’s not short of ultra-wide zooms in the EF mount, but two classics in the prestigious L-series spring to mind. First, the EF 16-35 f2.8L USM, available in three versions with the latest and greatest Mark III going for around £900 in like new condition from MPB. Or maybe the older Mark II version from around £450? Or if you’re happy to trade a stop in aperture for a lower price and the inclusion of image stabilisation, how about the EF 16-35 f4L IS USM, available from around £400 in excellent condition. Have a browse at the used gear at MPB.com to see what you can find.

Earlier I mentioned how the 16-28 on the left is a natural pairing for the 28-70 on the right. Together they deliver a seamless range from 16-70mm with a bright and constant f2.8 aperture, but side-by-side it’s clear they also share an almost identical size and design. At 77x91mm, the new 16-28 is the same diameter as the 28-70, only 1.2mm shorter and at 445g, it’s in a similar ballpark but 45g lighter. 

Both are retracting designs that need to have their zoom rings twisted to their shortest focal length, at which point their barrels extend by roughly the same amount. Zoom them to their longest focal lengths though and the 16-28 barrel dips back a little while the 28-70’s extends further. Then when you’re done, you can leave them in their extended positions, or twist them back to their retracted storage position to save space.

Here’s another physical comparison with the new 16-28 2.8 in the middle, flanked by the budget 15-30 on the left and the highest-end 15-35 2.8L on the right. At 77x88mm, the 15-30 on the left is very similar in size, albeit a bit lighter at 395g, while the high-end 15-35 on the right is substantially larger at 89x127mm and almost twice the weight at 840g, not to mention almost twice the price too.

For the 15-35, much of its heft is down to the f2.8 aperture across a broader range, but also thanks to managing more aberrations optically than the smaller lenses which have greater reliance on software profiles. Obviously there’s other differences including controls, accessories and overall build, but software profiles do allow smaller, lighter and more affordable lenses. The choice is yours, and don’t forget older EF lenses are also an option for those who prefer more of an optical approach.

The missing lens here is the 14-35 f4L, smaller than the 15-35 at 84x100mm and much closer in weight to the new 16-28 at 540g. I couldn’t source one for a side-by-side here, but in my RF 14-35mm f4L IS review, it revealingly made greater use of lens profiles than the 15-35. Oh and there’s also the 10-20L, but as a much wider lens that’s a different story – again see my Canon RF 10-20mm f4L IS STM review for more details.

As you’ve already seen, the design and controls are identical to the 28-70, starting with two switches: one that sets the control ring to either manual focus or a custom function set in the body, and the second that simply switches the optical image stabiliser on or off.

Next comes a fairly wide ribbed zoom ring which again needs to be initially twisted to extend the barrel for use. Then the throw between 16 and 28mm focal lengths is about 45 degrees.

And finally at the end is a smooth, free spinning RF control ring. Again this can be set for manual focus or custom adjustments, although I’m not a fan of using a smooth ring for the latter. RF control rings work much better for settings when they’re the clicked versions as found on L lenses that have separate manual focusing rings.

Meanwhile like the RF 28-70, there’s a 67mm filter thread and a bayonet for mounting an optional lens hood accessory. Yep, as a non-L lens, you need to buy your own hood. It’s always been like that with Canon but I call them out on it every time as I still think it’s mean. On the plus side though, like the 28-70 before it, the 16-28 is weather-sealed including a rubber grommet at the mount. This is a classy feature that many mid-range lenses are lacking.

Ok, now for my tests which were made using an early sample of the lens mounted on an EOS R8 body. Like most new mirrorless lenses, the RF 16-28 uses a software profile to correct geometric distortion, and it’s not designed to be used without it. This is applied automatically to all JPEGs out of camera, and in the lens aberration menu you can see it’s greyed out.

You’ll also see Peripheral Illumination Correction enabled by default, which compensates for darkening in the corners due to vignetting. Like all vignetting correction, this can increase noise in the extreme corners, but it’s an optional setting if you prefer to ignore or correct it later. Since the lens is only designed to be used with the profile, that’s how I’m testing it here. If you shoot in RAW though, you can turn it off to see the distortion before correction, and as you’d expect for the physical size, spec and price, it’s quite a substantial difference. Note the design is delivering a 16-28 range after compensation though.

I know some people prefer a pure optical approach and it’s certainly true digital manipulation can introduce its own artefacts, but I’d argue the end result is what counts so I’m reviewing these lenses as they’re designed to be used. And note you don’t lose advertised coverage with the profile, what you end up with is 16-28 after the correction. Ultimately if you prefer more of an optical solution to aberrations, go for the heftier and pricier L models, or adapt an older EF design. But even then be aware some of Canon’s best optics still employ profiles to perfect the image albeit to a lesser degree, including the 15-35 2.8L.

So let’s start with the range which takes you from ultra-wide 16mm, to more of a standard wide at 28mm. This may miss out on the longer 35 reach of traditional ultra-wide zooms, but if you pair it with a general-purpose lens that starts at 24 or 28, there’ll be no gaps.

For comparison in coverage here’s the 16-28 at 16mm, and now for the 15-30 STM at 15mm where it’s capturing a slightly wider field of view, and finally for the 15-35 2.8L again at 15mm, but a tad wider still.  All from the same tripod, and all with profiles enabled.

And at the long-end, here’s the 16-28 at 28mm, followed by the 15-30 STM at 30mm where the view is a bit tighter, and finally the 15-35 2.8L at 35mm where the difference is more noticeable. So as expected, the 15-35L has the greatest range at both ends, but in practice the 16-28 and 15-30 STM are pretty close.

Now for focusing with the lens at 16 f2.8 on the EOS R8 body using a single AF area in the middle, where the racking is smooth and average in speed. And at 28mm f2.8 again the focusing is smooth, and the speed similar. I’d say the 15-35L is quicker at focusing for still photos, but I didn’t feel held back when shooting with the 16-28. And now for a video version filmed with the R8 at 28mm f2.8 where the focus-pull is smooth.

How about portraits and presentations? Here’s the 16-28 at 16mm f2.8 allowing you to capture a huge field of view and easy full body compositions at close range. If you can get close, you may enjoy some separation with the background, but obviously beware of potential distortions. And now at 28mm f2.8 for more of a typical environmental portrait. This time there’s less distortion and greater separation from the background. Certainly more than you’d get with the 15-30 STM, and ideal for presentations.

Finally for the focus section of this review, a look at focus breathing, starting at 16mm and manually focusing from infinity to the closest distance and back again where the view broaden as the focusing gets closer. Likewise at 28mm, where you can see the same effect. As you focus closer, the view broadens due to focus breathing. This isn’t a big issue for photography, but may become distracting for video.

But Canon now offers focus breathing compensation on recent bodies, so on the left you can see a focus pull at 28mm without correction, and on the right with compensation enabled in the menus. Like all digital breathing compensation, there’s a variable crop applied to maintain the coverage, but it works well in practice if you prefer to avoid the effect in videos.

Ok next for a look at the optical quality on a distant subject, and it’s a building view as I’ve not yet been able to test the lens on the seafront in Brighton. Let’s start at 16mm f2.8, and taking a closer look in the middle shows good detail as you’d hope. I didn’t see any benefit in sharpness when stopping-down further here. Heading into the far corner of the 2.8 sample shows details remain well-corrected and crisp right into the extremes. Yes there’s a profile applied here for geometry, but I’d say the end result is looking good here and again there’s little to no benefit to stopping down.

Just briefly, let’s compare the far corner quality against the 15-35 2.8L in the middle and the 15-30 STM on the right, each at their widest focal length and maximum apertures. Note they’re showing slightly different parts of the building due to their different focal lengths. I’d say the 15-35L is looking a fraction crisper here, and both the 2.8 lenses are sharper in the extremes than the budget 15-30 STM on the right even at its more modest maximum aperture. But none are looking terrible.

Next for the 16-28 at 28mm f2.8, and again let’s zoom-in for a closer look in the middle. Here the details look crips and as before there’s little to no benefit to stopping-down further. So let’s head into the far corner again where pixel-peepers may spot a fractional loss in contrast and ultimate sharpness, but it’s very subtle and I’d say this early sample is performing very well here. Meanwhile stopping down can bring minor improvements, but the lens is performing well out of the gate.

Let’s do another side-by-side comparison, again with the caveat that each lens is showing a different part of the building at their maximum focal lengths. Interestingly in this test, the 15-35L in the middle is actually a little less defined than the 16-28 on the left, while the budget 15-30 STM on the right is a little worse still. This was only a brief test with an early sample of the new lens though, so I’ll leave a more detailed analysis to when I get hold of a final sample for a longer period, and can do my usual tests.

So finally for this first-looks review, a quick look at the potential for bokeh, which may be greater than you’d expect, so long as you can exploit the close focusing capabilities. I took some shots at 28mm f2.8 from the minimum focusing distance of 20cm, where it’s possible to deliver some blurring in the background, even if the lights were only a desk-width away.

At the minimum focusing distance and the lens set to the 28mm focal length, I captured around 120mm across the frame, in turn allowing for some attractive results. Ultra-wide lenses may not be your natural choice for closeups, but you can enjoy some drama with them at close range, and it’s a fun aspect of the lens.

Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 IS STM verdict so far

And that’s all the tests I have for you. My time with the new RF 16-28 2.8 was fairly brief so far, but it certainly delivered some impressive results, sharp into the corners and capable of greater separation than the budget 15-30 thanks to the brighter and constant aperture. And bonus points for having both weather sealing and optical image stabilisation.

It’s a similar proposition to the previous 28-70 2.8, using a slightly shorter than traditional range to hit a lower price point and less hefty barrel, and again featuring IS and sealing. And while I would have been happier had it squeezed in under a grand in price, it does at least provide some middle ground between the budget 15-30 STM and the high-end L models, plus there’s still a wealth of older EF lenses you can adapt including third party options. Indeed you could bag a used EF 16-35 2.8L for roughly three quarters the price.

That said, I do feel Canon has nothing to fear from native third party alternatives as the inclusion of full weather sealing and optical IS allow both the RF 16-28 and 28-70 to stand out against Sigma and Tamron’s options. So come on, let’s open the mount and give us the choice please!

Ultimately though the Canon 16-28 and 28-70 provide an attractive mid-range pairing, covering ultra-wide to short telephoto with a constant 2.8 aperture. I wonder if there’ll be a mid-range telephoto zoom, like a 70-150 2.8 to complete a more affordable trinity?