Hello people, the new Canon RF 16-28 mm 2.8 is small (99.1 mm), light and reviews says it is very sharp.

Minimum focus distance is just 0.20 m (vs Canon RF 15-35 mm 2.8 that is 0.28 m).

What do you guys think of it underwater? Anyone tried?

I'm curious about this new setup (since Canon doesn't have a new RF fisheye yet).

Cheers!

Hummm When you change to focal you also change the lenght of the lense... :(

18 minutes ago, CaolIla said:

Hummm When you change to focal you also change the lenght of the lense... :(

In an inner zoom or inner focus design the entrance pupil will just hop around like crazy without you beeing aware of it.

So "Yes", but that view on the optical performance behind a dome is kinda outdated, old-schoolish.

It's not a big issue with many of the recent Canon RF lens designs, which have an extending tubus.
Actually many of the non-L Canon lenses without a red ring perform much better than their L-Series siblings.

Note that surface lens reviews (especially of very expensive lenses) don't tell you much about the optical performance behind an underwater dome.

@stillviking pointed out correctly the most important feature: MFD = 20 cm looks promising.

I am waiting for that lens to appear on optical bench hub to have a closer look.

1 hour ago, CaolIla said:

Hummm When you change to focal you also change the lenght of the lense... :(

Hi,

But this also happens with many others zoom lens that we use underwater isn’t it?

34 minutes ago, canislupus said:

Hi,

But this also happens with many others zoom lens that we use underwater isn’t it?

Not the case on my lenses that i use underwater the RF10-20 and the RF100.
Ok the rf14-34move a little bit but since I have the 10-20 ...

18 minutes ago, CaolIla said:

Not the case on my lenses that i use underwater the RF10-20 and the RF100.
Ok the rf14-34move a little bit but since I have the 10-20 ...

I was thinking in the ones I use, Tokina 10-17, and sometimes Sigma 17-70 ☺️

Actually many of the non-L Canon lenses without a red ring perform much better than their L-Series siblings.

I've never tested, but I've read that this new Canon 16-28 2.8 is shaper than the Canon 15-35 2.8 L and new Canon 28-70 2.8 is shaper than Canon 24-70 2.8. Can this be possible?

I would love to someone test it underwater, even if we just use it at 16 mm!

6 hours ago, CaolIla said:

Hummm When you change to focal you also change the lenght of the lense... :(

If that is the extent of the length change of the lens, behind any sort of dome I can't see that being a big issue, The sharpness might deteriorate a small amount, but there's no shortage of lens that zoom like this. In any case the usual situation as I understand it is that the manufacturer will test the lens at its widest which is where positioning is most important. Even internal zoom lens may move the entrance pupil around a bit.

In fact, this new Canon RF lens retracts when zooming from 16mm to 28mm.

At 16mm:

Edited May 27May 27 by stillviking

Mhhh,... the new RF 16-28 is not on Optical Bench Hub yet.

But I can tell you from testing and owning it, that the RF 15-30 IS STM is still the queen.
It moves it's entrance pupil by just 5,67mm while retracting backwards by 8,68mm when zooming from 15 to 30mm focal length.

The physical retraction on any lens is usually just a minor issue, as long as it will not hit your front dome.

It rarely does with wide angle zoom lenses.

The inner zooms also move their entrance pupil, they are just hiding the obvious from you.