Here is the unannounced Canon RF-S 10-18 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

[TheKingPrawn]

Meh? I'll still have to stick with my adapted Tokina for Milky Way shots since this is slow. I wouldn't throw it away if someone gave it to me, but I wouldn't mind something faster. The EF-S was a solid performer, so I expect this to be at least as good, when the sun is out.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I agree, all RF-S lenses are ugly with that super cheap look and oversized mount area.

Would you rather the lenses have the same diameter as the mount all along the barrel? I do think the EF-M lenses have a nice look, and one that’s consistent across all eight.

But personally, I don’t see the point in making a lens bigger and heavier than it needs to be just for aesthetics. There’s already a big camera box on the back end, what does it matter if the lens barrel widens just before the mount?

 

[chasingrealness]

I’m glad this seems to be a lens that will make a lot of people happy so that canon can use that money to invest in R&D for lenses that I’m interested in.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But then where is the advantage when a phone fits in your pocket? Maybe one way to fight smartphones would be to offer substantially better image quality even with the cheapest kit lens.

In bright light with a slow-moving or static subject, there's not much of an advantage at all. Nor does FF have an advantage over APS-C, in those circumstances. If that's all you shoot, just use your smartphone and be happy.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Hmm, not for me, that’s for sure.

 

[EricN]

Of, the sarcasm! Well done, clap yourself! I don't want it to look expensive, I want it to look better than a £5 Chinese toy. Somehow Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Signa all can design good looking APS-C lenses.

Why do you think I'm sarcastic? Do you not believe a person could use that idea? I assure you, it's possible and one gram of 23 karat gold would increase the value about £90. Certainly, real gold couldn't be confused for a £5 Chinese toy, could it?
Anyway, isn't "good looking" looking subjective? I noticed you didn't mention ZEISS or Leica, so you don't think they are designing good looking lenses either?

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I like it. 10 is better than 11 in a UWA, IMO. I wish it were a little faster since most of my use for it is indoors, but it’s only 1/3 stop slower than the EF-S 10-18 at the long end (and no adapter necessary).

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I agree, all RF-S lenses are ugly with that super cheap look and oversized mount area.

I don’t disagree, but when forced to choose, I’d rather have impressive looking images than gear.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Canon really doesn't know how to make attractive lenses anymore, but at least its small (while incredibly slow) at this point the iphone aperture in some cases is actually better (despite a tiny sensor).

“Attractive” is subjective. Canon lenses have gone through several “looks” over the years, and I’m sure the look of the RF-S lenses was chosen very deliberately to convey certain attributes. I believe designers call it “design language.”

One thought is that Canon wants the RF-S lenses to look small, even diminutive. That way, they can appeal to customers who want to move up from a cell phone, but might be intimidated by a larger body and lenses.

 

[EricN]

“Attractive” is subjective. Canon lenses have gone through several “looks” over the years, and I’m sure the look of the RF-S lenses was chosen very deliberately to convey certain attributes. I believe designers call it “design language.”

One thought is that Canon wants the RF-S lenses to look small, even diminutive. That way, they can appeal to customers who want to move up from a cell phone, but might be intimidated by a larger body and lenses.

I would bet if we could interview whoever makes these decisions at Canon, they would probably give that as the primary reason. That probably isn't something most of us care about for our own needs, but the smaller amount of materials give weight savings and cut costs are additional factors which should be important to those of us who want APS-C and are not eager to find excuses to be negative about Canon.

 

[Skux]

Better late than never. I'm just glad Canon finally has a wide angle/vlogging lens for RF-S.

 

[sanj]

Good job Canon Rumors. With the reporting...

 

[AJ]

f/4.5-6.3. Yawn. Sigma just released a 10-18 mm f/2.8 lens.

 

[Richard CR]

Hopefully the optics are good, if so, this is a homerun and going to get alot of those on the EOS-M fence to hop off and unto the RF-S mount.

The EF-M 11-22 was the original reason that I purchased an EOS-M camera, and this lens would be the reason I'd purchase an RF-S camera, even though i really dislike the ergonomic decisions Canon has made with the RF-S cameras.

 

[sanj]

Canon is steadily building lenses for their crop cameras. That is great. They also now provide very light full frame camera and light lenses. I, personally, prefer that route. The only reason for me to get crop system is the size and weight reduction.

 

[Richard CR]

f/4.5-6.3. Yawn. Sigma just released a 10-18 mm f/2.8 lens.

and this lens should be smaller, lighter, and have smaller filters as well.

 

[Maximilian]

Oh, my... *yawn*
I already missed 36 posts of the usual way.

To those not happy with Canon product line choices:
Yes, everything could be better, smaller and as a free gift.
Best to go to the imaging brand that offers all that...

 

[Crossfire]

Anyone else notice similarities between this and the RF 18-45? Both 4.5-6.3, 49mm thread, similar external design. Front lens element looks nearly (if not) the same. The pictures look too real/gritty to be a render, but could it be someone taking some shotty photos of the 18-45 and meticulously changing the numbering? I\'m more than keen for an UWA for RF-S, but it seems a bit of a stretch to get the FF UWA announced last week and then an RF-S UWA soon after, though it is well and truly due for both systems.

Edit: Upon further inspection, the front surface of the two lenses are different. Hopefully this lens has some availability at launch, rather than being put on the short supply list.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

This lens is tiny! How amazing! An effective 16-24mm which is smaller than an RF nifty fifty! That front element looks like a mobile phone optic!

 

[Traveler]

Well done! 10 mm and compact size.