|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
OpticalLimits has recently reviewed the Canon RF 10-20mm f/4L IS STM. This was an impressive optic when Canon released it in October 2023, and we had predicted it would be a strong performer based on its MTF. You can read all about that right here.
Key Features
- Full-Frame RF Mount
- f/4 to f/22
- Fast Ultra-Wide Zoom
- High-Speed STM Autofocus System
- Optical Image Stabilizer
- Programable Control Ring
- One Super UD and Three UD Elements
- Air Sphere and SWC Coatings
- Weather-Sealed Construction
OpticalLimits weighs their scoring for non-corrected lenses, so the lens takes a bit of a hit because it relies on digital correction. Optical limits gave it a 7.5/10 and had this to say;
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
It's a Canon L lens so it's no surprise that the Canon RF 10-20mm f/4L IS STM comes with a good portion of greatness … and a steep price tag. Its zoom range is more than just exotic – it is unique (at the time of this review) while still providing impressive image quality that easily matches prime lenses in this range. It's very sharp across the image frame at 14mm and 20mm, and it's no slouch either at 10mm (for such a lens this wide).
https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf/canon-rf-10-20mm-f-4-l-is-stm-review/
Read the full review here.
Do not love the hood design...
My biggest gripe with it it's not a fault of the lens per se: as a photographer, I find that it's difficult for me to use it successfully at 10mm. Not a matter of quality, just a matter of finding a composition that works at 10mm. I find myself using it much more at 20mm.
It's finally available to rent here, and I'll have one next week. I'm terrible with ultra wide lenses, but it's an intriguing package.
Jack
Currently own the RF 14-35mm (and selling my RF 15-35mm) and strongly thinking about replacing the 14-35 with the 10-20. For walk-around, the 20-35mm range is useful to have, and worry I'd want to switch lenses more. Anyone else own both or switched from a more classic wide zoom to 'just' the 10-20?
OTOH, a RF 10-20, 24-105, and 70-200 f4L kit is a seriously impressive range for a fairly light amount of weight...
Well this begs the question, how much does the image suffer in order to stretch the view...and how much is Canon using this tech with other lenses?
right now as I write this, I don't really believe in buying lenses that rely on fake image stitching to show a full view. my view might change later, but seeing that we use third party tools, lack of compatibility with this type of image rebuilding seems like a detriment. I was disappointed to hear that the 24 to 105 2.8 uses this feature if I'm not mistaken.
Canon has invested a lot in this kind of image manipulation at the endpoint, and I don't agree with that direction.
But who knows let's see where this road goes.
yes, composition is the hardest for the SUWA lenses (super ultra wide angle)
why is this? Not that I'm doubting you, but I'm curious on the theory surrounding this.
Keep in mind that some lenses are wider than advertised, so the RAW from the 14-35 at 14mm is more like 13mm, after correction it is the advertised 14mm, but it cut off the sides during processing.
The bottom line is that there's no free lunch. Distortion can be corrected in the lens or in software, neither one is inherently better but the latter allows lenses to be smaller and lighter.
The RF 14-35/4 at 14mm is just as sharp in the corners as the EF 11-24/4 at the same focal length, and at that focal length the 11-24 has essentially zero barrel distortion. That shows the image is not suffering, at all.
Good that you're keeping an open mind, at least.
Logic dictates that canon will be doing a lot of this moving forward (since they have very actively been using this feature), so it will likely be harder to avoid anyways. My first concern was that is this a feature that would work better in the amazingly awful DPP as opposed to LR. Hopefully it is/will be as seamless to 3rd party apps.
When the first info was being shared here about canon pursuing this tech, it was also around the time of their plastic lenses being introduced (generally speaking, maybe, dont quote me)...so a a whole it looked like ways to simply save some cash (consumers perspective).
Plastic elements are generally cheaper to produce (note that not all plastic elements are created equal), and they're also lighter than an equivalent glass element would be. For example, with aspheric lenses there are ground/polished glass, moulded glass, and moulded plastic, and that's the order of production cost.
'Forcing' digital correction of distortion is about more than saving cash, it enables lenses that would not be possible without it. There's no way the RF 10-20/4 would be as small and lights it is if it was more fully corrected with lens elements. It's optically as good as the 11-24, it's wider, and it's not only smaller and lighter, it's much cheaper. Similarly, the Rf 14-35/4 could not have kept its 77mm filter diameter without requiring digital distortion correction.
Personally, I can live with waiting a few months for dxo and adobe to catch up. Recent lenses have had profiles available when the first units started shipping to customers.
The 200mm macro I desire likely won’t need correction 🙂
Now imagine Canon would make 10mm and 14mm Prime lenses without AF and IS - they could perhaps be superior in IQ without being too large and expensive and most correction done optical. But people want to have the easy-to-use zoom-lenses.