Canon RF-S 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM coming first half of 2023

[Dragon]

@Dragon, you convinced me! Today I took advantage of the current sale (and some holiday gift cash) and picked up an RF 800 f/11!

Here is a 100% crop from an R7 image of the electric meter across the street. I took this from the far end of my bedroom through the dirty window. According to Google maps, the distance is about 90 feet (27.4 m). This is hand-held at 1/125 sec (2-2/3 stops slower than 1/800, and the 800's IS is actually rated for four), ISO 1600.

The only post processing I did was to crop it and apply a little bit of dehaze. I also blacked out a few things that looked like an account/serial number or barcode that could identify the account (I don't think the ones on top are customer-related).

Looking forward to giving this lens a workout!

View attachment 207310

In case you haven't tried an unstabilized super tele on the R7, rest assured you got more than 2-2/3 stops of advantage here. Remember the 1/fl rule was for FF film cameras. At around 82 MP FF equivalence on the R7, you need to at least increase the rule to 1/2fl and likely a bit more. OTOH, I have taken decently sharp shots with the 800/R7 combo handheld at as low as 1/30th of a second (and that is realistically around 6 stops), so the combination of the lens IS and the IBIS seems to be delivering handsomely.

 

[axtstern]

I love it how a thread titled RF-S 11-22 gets hijacked to discuss 800mm F11 lenses...

 

[photophil]

Does the RP have the focus ring sensitivity setting the R5 has? That might help reduce the focus throw when set to 'varies with rotation speed'. On RF lenses the focus( r)ing is completely controlled by software, it isn't mechanically coupled like the EF USM lenses were.

Ok, turns out I was wrong! The last time I tried out switching to speed instead of degree was with the RF35, which did not actually do much, but yesterday I tried it out on the 100-400 on a whim and what a gamechanger! This was my only gripe about that lens and now focus is just super sensitive. Absolutely love it!

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I love it how a thread titled RF-S 11-22 gets hijacked to discuss 800mm F11 lenses...

Welcome to the internet.

 

[Dragon]

I love it how a thread titled RF-S 11-22 gets hijacked to discuss 800mm F11 lenses...

Think of it as "supplemented" .

 

[SteveC]

I love it how a thread titled RF-S 11-22 gets hijacked to discuss 800mm F11 lenses...

They both go to 11.

Just not the same way.

 

[Photographix]

Unfortunately, the 11-22mm has not been announced at today's R50 & R8 announcement. When is it likely to be announced?

 

[Dragon]

Unfortunately, the 11-22mm has not been announced at today's R50 & R8 announcement. When is it likely to be announced?

Just after the new 9-400mm f/4-22 RF-s L comes out. .

 

[Doormat]

I still have my M 11-22 along with all my other M lenses. It rarely sees use as I hate having to extend it each time I want to use it. Likewise the 15-45 has the same stupid idea and I’m sure my 28mm macro also has to be extended too? It’s that long since I used any of them, hence I picked up the older discontinued 18-55 is stm….simplicity!!
I hope canon stops doing it.

Having picked up couple of Canon EF-R adapters I’m staying put. I really want a pancake…a fast pancake!!

So I guess I’ll be adapting my EF collection for the foreseeable future.

 

[Dragon]

I still have my M 11-22 along with all my other M lenses. It rarely sees use as I hate having to extend it each time I want to use it. Likewise the 15-45 has the same stupid idea and I’m sure my 28mm macro also has to be extended too? It’s that long since I used any of them, hence I picked up the older discontinued 18-55 is stm….simplicity!!
I hope canon stops doing it.

Having picked up couple of Canon EF-R adapters I’m staying put. I really want a pancake…a fast pancake!!

So I guess I’ll be adapting my EF collection for the foreseeable future.

You don't have to park the lens when you aren't using it. That position is there to make the lens smaller for transport.

 

[padam]

In case you haven't tried an unstabilized super tele on the R7, rest assured you got more than 2-2/3 stops of advantage here. Remember the 1/fl rule was for FF film cameras. At around 82 MP FF equivalence on the R7, you need to at least increase the rule to 1/2fl and likely a bit more. OTOH, I have taken decently sharp shots with the 800/R7 combo handheld at as low as 1/30th of a second (and that is realistically around 6 stops), so the combination of the lens IS and the IBIS seems to be delivering handsomely.

There is no IBIS working when using the 600/11 and 800/11 lenses.
Maybe I need more discipline for this kind of reach, but I find the R7 to overstretch the capabilities of the 800/11.
In cloudy conditions AF seems to struggle (even if it shows that it is tracking, it seems inaccurate at longer distances and I need to use manual focus) while it is working fine on the R6.

 

[Dragon]

There is no IBIS working when using the 600/11 and 800/11 lenses.
Maybe I need more discipline for this kind of reach, but I find the R7 to overstretch the capabilities of the 800/11.
In cloudy conditions AF seems to struggle (even if it shows that it is tracking, it seems inaccurate at longer distances and I need to use manual focus) while it is working fine on the R6.

The R7 has a bit over twice the linear resolution of the R6 (about 82 MP FF equiv vs 20 MP), so, yes perfect focus is more difficult with the R7. That is not to say the focus system doesn't work as well, but rather that you are shooting for a higher bar, so not as easy. Scale the R7 shots to 8 MP and compare them with an 8 MP crop from the R6 for an equal comparison. The 800/11 works best with the R7 if you have a steady hand as that gives the AF the best chance to get a good reading. I have found a few scenes (situations) where the R7/800 combo just didn't want to focus correctly (usually in a backlit scene), but it is not that common even with the 1.4 TC. At least the MF switch is handy for those situations where you need it.

 

[padam]

An 8MP APS-C crop that is in focus is still better than a 32MP one that is not. It is simply unable to precisely focus even though tracking seems to recognise and follow the subject. Hopefully there will be a lot more light in the coming days to find out if it's the lesser light sensitivity of the R7 sensor with the f/11 aperture that's causing the problem (it really did not have a lot of light and contrast to work with today, to be fair) or it is something else but of course equiv. 1280mm is not exactly a forgiving focal length for handheld shooting, that's for sure.
I probably need a decent tripod to properly test this out.

 

[Doormat]

An 8MP APS-C crop that is in focus is still better than a 32MP one that is not. It is simply unable to precisely focus even though tracking seems to recognise and follow the subject. Hopefully there will be a lot more light in the coming days to find out if it's the lesser light sensitivity of the R7 sensor with the f/11 aperture that's causing the problem

In the past before mirrorless arrived, if someone had told me canon would be building f11 consumer lenses in the future - I would have thought they were stupid.

We seem to be going backwards here not forward.

F11 !!, 50mm 6.3 !! dear god!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

In the past before mirrorless arrived, if someone had told me canon would be building f11 consumer lenses in the future - I would have thought they were stupid.

We seem to be going backwards here not forward.

What if someone had told you that Canon would be building 600mm and 800mm lenses costing less than $1000 that still delivered great image quality?

Is that backwards, too?

 

[padam]

F11 !!, 50mm 6.3 !! dear god!!

I'd like to have that Nikon 800/6.3, but it costs 6x more than the Canon 800/11 (and it only lets in about 3.3x more light, focuses 1m closer, etc.)

 

[Dragon]

An 8MP APS-C crop that is in focus is still better than a 32MP one that is not. It is simply unable to precisely focus even though tracking seems to recognise and follow the subject. Hopefully there will be a lot more light in the coming days to find out if it's the lesser light sensitivity of the R7 sensor with the f/11 aperture that's causing the problem (it really did not have a lot of light and contrast to work with today, to be fair) or it is something else but of course equiv. 1280mm is not exactly a forgiving focal length for handheld shooting, that's for sure.
I probably need a decent tripod to properly test this out.

It seems you didn't quite understand what I suggested. Take a shot in crop mode with the R8. Repeat the shot with the R7 with the same lens and then scale it to 8 MP (same as the R8 in crop mode). I think you will find the result is at least as good and probably quite a bit better at least for the vast majority of cases. There are very few lenses around that will be pixel sharp on the R7 sensor due to the tight pixel pitch. At f/11, the 800 is well into diffraction limiting on the R7 (DLA starts at f/5.2), so there is no reason to expect pixel sharp images and given that DPAF works at a pixel level, it is certain to struggle a bit at that fine pitch. That is why you need to keep the R7/800 combo as stable as possible when focusing if you want the sharpest possible images. Physics, and all that. If you want pixel sharp images from the R7, get an RF 85 f/1.2 as that is one of the VERY few lenses that will give you that result. BTW, I also have the EF 800 f/5.6 L, and it is only marginally sharper than the 800 f/11 and the bokeh isn't as smooth, not to mention that it weighs over 10 lbs.

 

[SteveC]

What if someone had told you that Canon would be building 600mm and 800mm lenses costing less than $1000 that still delivered great image quality?

Is that backwards, too?

Well anyone who heard that and didn't expect something to give would have been foolish. (And you can't even make it worse; the aperture is not adjustable. ) But that's beside your point, I know.

Clearly the lenses have been a success despite the...minimal and unadjustable aperture.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well anyone who heard that and didn't expect something to give would have been foolish. (And you can't even make it worse; the aperture is not adjustable. ) But that's beside your point, I know.

Clearly the lenses have been a success despite the...minimal and unadjustable aperture.

Indeed. Which once again shows that Canon knows the market better than anyone here.

 

[Dragon]

Indeed. Which once again shows that Canon knows the market better than anyone here.

They made a decision for portabilty and price and it was a good one. An 800 f/8 would have been considerably bigger and heavier and would go for at least $2k. At f/11 on the current lens, there is really no point in having an adjustable aperture and the round fixed aperture makes very nice bokeh plus they didn't skimp in the IQ department. I keep the 800 on the R7 so I can grab it quickly and that has netted many shots that I would never had the time to set up the EF800 f/5.6 L for. As they say, "size matters"