D
Deleted member 393686
Guest
Too bad this thread, which was just an announcement about the 11-22 mm, turned into a dish of soup about irrelevant lenses and more.
Upvote
0
Relevance is in the eye of the beholder and everyone was still talking about RF lenses. Besides, this was a rumor (more like a non-rumor), not a forum question on the 11-22. The EF-M 11-22 is a fine little lens, but that is not a guarantee that it will be ported to R. We could see a 10-22 or a 9-18 or who knows what, but likely something wide will show up for RF-s in the next year. In the meantime, enjoy your R10 and maybe pick up an RF 16mm f/2.8. It is very good in crop mode.Too bad this thread, which was just an announcement about the 11-22 mm, turned into a dish of soup about irrelevant lenses and more.
Well, i cannot find tests on a aps-c camera, so i will stick to my ef-s copy for now. But, thanks for the tip!Relevance is in the eye of the beholder and everyone was still talking about RF lenses. Besides, this was a rumor (more like a non-rumor), not a forum question on the 11-22. The EF-M 11-22 is a fine little lens, but that is not a guarantee that it will be ported to R. We could see a 10-22 or a 9-18 or who knows what, but likely something wide will show up for RF-s in the next year. In the meantime, enjoy your R10 and maybe pick up an RF 16mm f/2.8. It is very good in crop mode.
The analysis of the RF 16/2.8 by opticallimits on FF can be interpolated to the APS-C borders and you can see the bad aspects are mainly outside the edges https://opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1136-canonrf16f28 It's very sharp on the R5 in the centre and near centre and good at the APS-edges.Well, i cannot find tests on a aps-c camera, so i will stick to my ef-s copy for now. But, thanks for the tip!
The analysis of the RF 16/2.8 by opticallimits on FF can be interpolated to the APS-C borders and you can see the bad aspects are mainly outside the edges https://opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1136-canonrf16f28 It's very sharp on the R5 in the centre and near centre and good at the APS-edges.Well, i cannot find tests on a aps-c camera, so i will stick to my ef-s copy for now. But, thanks for the tip!
The 15-85 is probably the best all around lens in the EF-s line, but it isn't all that small and light, particularly on an R10 or R50. The RF-S 18-150 has pretty close to the same IQ in a MUCH smaller package. It just doesn't include the wide end. It will be interesting to see what Canon does for the wide end of RF-s. With such an abundance of blogging, it is almost certain they will do something, particlarly given how good the video is on all these cameras compared to anything from the EF-s era.I’m surprised no one mentions the 15-85 that was a kit lens in the Canon 7D which was the closest to the FF 24-105 equivalent. It was the ideal travel lens, yet sharp for a non L Lens and almost all users loved it. I won’t be moving to RF7 until it comes out as it is 90% of the time my main lens. 15 mm on APS-C is 24 mm equivalent and for me a huge difference with all lenses that only start at 18 which is 29 mm equivalent. I could go FF but I’m trying to lighten my gear so APS-C and it’s specific lenses are better for that reason. Otherwise might move to Fuji with its 16-80 or any other brand with travel lenses in mind. But would be a pity for me being with Canon since 1975 !!
Is there any news about the RF-s 11-24? I hope that WHEN it is released it won't heavily lean on correction software!Canon will likely release at least three RF-S lenses in 2023, a couple of them will likely be based on their EF-M counterparts. One of the lenses we’re told that will launch in the first half of 2023 is an RF-S 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. The EF-M version was a favourite of EOS M shooters
See full article...
Except the EF-M 18-150, which was directly ported to RF-S.However everyone just assumes it's easy to port EF-M to RF-S, when so far Canon redesigns the lenses
The EF-M 18-150 was next to the last M lens introduced (just before the 32mm f/1.4) in 2016, so it is possible that it was designed with RF-s in mind. If so, that could mean that we might see the 32mm come across as well, but "might" is the operative word. OTOH, the EF-M 11-22 is a much larger and heavier lens than the RF-s 10-18, so the redesign may have been just a size and cost issue since small size is clearly a goal for RF-s lenses. The M lenses are tiny compared to what we were used to in SLR world, but they are all pretty much the same size. In contrast, the RF-s lenses seem to be as small as it is possible to make them even at the expense of limiting the range as with the 10-18 and 18-45. When you compare the 18-150 with an EF-s 18-135, you have to think it isn't going to get much smaller. The RF-s 55-210 is kind of the odd duck in that theory in that it doesn't seem to have either a size or performance improvement over the EF-m 55-200, but maybe being a candidate for 2 lens kits, the objective was purely cost. All clearly speculation.Except the EF-M 18-150, which was directly ported to RF-S.
55-200 is just recycling the traditional EF-S 55-200 production line imo. But seriously though why would anyone get that lens when RF 100-400 is so superiorThe EF-M 18-150 was next to the last M lens introduced (just before the 32mm f/1.4) in 2016, so it is possible that it was designed with RF-s in mind. If so, that could mean that we might see the 32mm come across as well, but "might" is the operative word. OTOH, the EF-M 11-22 is a much larger and heavier lens than the RF-s 10-18, so the redesign may have been just a size and cost issue since small size is clearly a goal for RF-s lenses. The M lenses are tiny compared to what we were used to in SLR world, but they are all pretty much the same size. In contrast, the RF-s lenses seem to be as small as it is possible to make them even at the expense of limiting the range as with the 10-18 and 18-45. When you compare the 18-150 with an EF-s 18-135, you have to think it isn't going to get much smaller. The RF-s 55-210 is kind of the odd duck in that theory in that it doesn't seem to have either a size or performance improvement over the EF-m 55-200, but maybe being a candidate for 2 lens kits, the objective was purely cost. All clearly speculation.
That shows the EF-s version, not the RF-s. The RF-s is 150g vs 220g of the EF-M. At full extension the EF-M is 84mm and the RF-s is 69mm.@Dragon: "...OTOH, the EF-M 11-22 is a much larger and heavier lens than the RF-s 10-18, so the redesign may have been just a size and cost issue since small size is clearly a goal for RF-s lenses.... "
Are you sure about that?
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...Images.aspx?Lens=967&LensComp2=0&LensComp=950
My bad. I agree about term 'much'. I find the 11-22 very small and light. But that's probably because I also have EF lenses. They are indeed much largerThat shows the EF-s version, not the RF-s. The RF-s is 150g vs 220g of the EF-M. At full extension the EF-M is 84mm and the RF-s is 69mm.
I wouldn’t use ‘much’ to describe the differences between lenses that are both relatively small and light, but the difference is a lot more than I thought.