Canon announces the Canon RF 10-20mm f/4L IS STM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
My main use for the 14-35/4 is urban travel shooting, and IMO it’s a great lens for that. When I look at my usage data with the 14-35/4, 52% of my shots are between 14-20mm and 48% are between 21-35mm.
For me, the 10-20/4 would be much more of a niche lens for when I need as wide as possible…and for that, I already have the EF 11-24/4. The weight of the 10-20/4 (barely more than the 14-35/4 !!!) is a very nice feature, and that makes the lens somewhat tempting as I might be inclined to bring it on trips where I would not take the massive EF 11-24/4. OTOH, the easy use of filters is an advantage of the adapted EF lens.
Definitely not a preorder for me. Maybe at some point. It will mainly depend on what sacrifices (if any) Canon to make on IQ to bring the weight and size down. The MTFs of the 11-24 are only very slightly better, which bodes well for the 10-20.
Upvote
0
It means there’s a gel filter slot on the mount. You can cut gelatin filters to fit it, I did that for the 11-24 with a 10-stop ND gel.
If you want to go that route, Google “Kodak Wratten 96” - they make gels from 1 to 13.3 stops. If you need it, I can dig it out and share a printable PDF template to cut them so they fit the gel slot on Canon lenses.
Upvote
0
Kodak makes a wide range of gels, mostly for color correction, not really needed for a digital camera. NDs are the ones you’ll probably want to use, but they also have them for IR.
KODAK WRATTEN 2 Filters
A leading global manufacturer focused on commercial print and advanced materials & chemicals. We believe in the power of technology and science to enhance…
www.kodak.com
Upvote
0
If anyone is interested, this lens was included in a patent that published in Jan 2023.
Regarding IS, the RF 10-20mm delivers 6 stops with cooperative control and 5 stops on its own. That would be useful with the R8 and other bodies that lack IBIS. Given the short focal length, IBIS alone would be very effective – I find that to be the case with my EF 11-24/4 on my R3.
Regarding IS, the RF 10-20mm delivers 6 stops with cooperative control and 5 stops on its own. That would be useful with the R8 and other bodies that lack IBIS. Given the short focal length, IBIS alone would be very effective – I find that to be the case with my EF 11-24/4 on my R3.
Upvote
0
Yes and agreed.
The patent indicates an image height of 19.4mm, so it doesn’t fill the frame before distortion correction is applied.
Upvote
0
Takes practice. For me, the key is having something in the foreground. Many of the shots I've liked at 11mm (on FF) are standing next to something vertical and looking up. I made that point with images in another thread recently, so I won't repost them here. For landscapes at 10-11mm, there needs to be something interesting at your feet (no, the legs of your tripod are not interesting,I wish I could get to grips with ultrawide angle composition, but I never have. I guess it stops me coveting this lens though
).
Upvote
0
Yeah, that's usually true. I've experimented ever since iPhones included an ultrawide, but more often than not, I just prefer the look of a longer focal length; partly it's that I'm rarely in picturesque-enough settings, but also I think I personally prefer the lack of obvious distortion with a narrower FOV (which probably explains why the times I do like a wider shot are most often eg skies or treescapes where it's less apparent); I've had the RF 16mm for like a year but hardly ever feel like using it. Maybe a zoom would encourage more creativity though.Takes practice. For me, the key is having something in the foreground. Many of the shots I've liked at 11mm (on FF) are standing next to something vertical and looking up. I made that point with images in another thread recently, so I won't repost them here. For landscapes at 10-11mm, there needs to be something interesting at your feet (no, the legs of your tripod are not interesting,
Upvote
0
Using a CPL on a ultra wide lens is in most cases not the best of all ideas.
Upvote
0
Depends on why you want to use it. Blue skies will be uneven, yes. But a CPL has other uses, e.g. cutting reflections from water or glass, and those work well on UWA lenses (the reflected light is already partially polarized). Also worth noting that even for landscapes there are post-processing techniques to even out the 'polarizer sky' while maintaining the improvement in contrast and saturation of the ground features that the CPL delivers.
At least, on lenses other than the 10-20mm, for now. Fotodiox has 186mm round filters, and NiSi has 180mm square filters, both of them had holders for the EF 11-24, so probably one or both will develop one for the RF 10-20/4. However, NiSi discontinued their 180mm square polarizer (they still make them in smaller sizes but the 180mm would be needed for 10mm on FF).
Upvote
0
I often use my 14-35mm for urban travel. Although I don't have an exact statistic (only made one for the 2019 New Zealand trip) most shots with my wide-angle lenses are between 14-20/22mm and then again a lot of pics at 35mm. I tend to pair the 14-35mm with the 70-200mm for urban city travels. So swapping the 14-35mm for a 10-20mm would make me bring three lenses and add weight.
Furthermore, I absolutely love the fact the 14-35mm takes front filters and shares the 77mm thread with the 24-105mm, 70-200mm and 100-500mm.
But I could still be tempted at one point in the future given a great price point or when looking a photographic experience. For example getting the entire rotunda in one pic in places like the capitol or in churches or chapels or such. We will wait and see. At the moment, I'm just curious about this lens that I'll probably rent it for a couple of days.
Upvote
0
I use PhotoStatistica (Mac), and I find that being able to check my shooting history helps me make informed buying decisions. For example, when the EF 16-35/4L IS came out, it was a choice between the f/2.8 aperture on the lens I had and IS on the new one. I looked ay my usage data for the 16-35/2.8L II, and only 1% of my shots were wider than f/4...made it an easy decision to swap them out.
Yes, that makes combinations of those lenses great for travel!
Upvote
0
I own the 11-24mm. It’s a good lens but it is big and heavy. I’m amazed they made it smaller and lighter and cheaper. My EF lens has probably gone down in value overnight. I have the RF adapter with drop in filters. It’s great for this lens and gives it an advantage over an RF version. I don’t like the outsize filter kits - huge and expensive. Yes tempting but I think I will be able to avoid it. The RF 14-35mm would be a much more useful lens for me. Filters will fit and 14mm is wide enough for most things.
Upvote
0
It would be nice if the three RF-S lenses that CR expects to be announced this year are actually announced this year. I'm pessimistic, but hope that I am wrong.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
