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

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Sorry about the typo, yes it's a 49mm filter thread, not 48mm.

 

[blackcoffee17]

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?

Yes, why not? EF-S lenses were not that big and had the same 44mm mount diameter. They could have used the bigger lens diameter advantage to make slightly brighter lenses. At least match the 5 million year old EF-S 10-22 or the super cheap EF-S 10-18 in brightness.

But instead, they went penny-pinching.

 

[blackcoffee17]

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.

Well, the 18-45 is pretty bad (or only decent). I don't expect miracles here. I like the RF-S cameras, I think they are much better than EF-S or EF-M cameras (except the missing M6 style) but the lenses got a downgrade in image quality/brightness and features.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

Maybe we can split RF-S users into two categories (of course there are more than two, but to simplify things it a bit). Those coming from EF-M world wanting as small as possible lenses (and cameras), and those coming from EF-S maybe wanting smaller/lighter and cheaper "prosumer" lenses and cameras but not wanting to sacrifice anything extra for further compactness.
So far Canon has mostly been satisfying the first group... also when it comes to cameras (While the R7 has never technology than 7DII, R7 still feels mostly like a 90D replacement - maybe even a "cheap" 90D replacement with a "brutal" and noisy shutter).
But Canon has to start somewhere. Hopefully second group will get some products later...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

To me this len's concept appears to be modelled on the EF-S 10-18mm, not the EF-M range of lenses. A lot of the old EF-s lenses are sill "current catalogue", and still selling well for Canon. I'm guessing Canon are looking to reduce the EF-s lens catalogue with RF-s pro-rata lenses.

The EF-s lens isn't particaulrly bright, slightly less for this new RF-s lens at the long end. F4.5 at the wide end isn't too dark. The EF-S 10-18mm was very sharp and a suprisingly capable performer. If some one is looking for a simple, effective, light weight travel / landscape lens on the !.62x crop, then this is a very good choice. Sure, it's not an f2.8. Not every one in the market palce is looking for such an optic. For some (not me specifically) they are looing for a specific price point, size and weight with good capability. These days, the bottom end of the R mount cameras / lenses are curiously competing with smart phones. A lot of smart phones have both 16mm and 35mm full frame equivelent lens.

 

[photophil]

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.

Wouldn't be the first time Canon rehouse a new RF lens in the chassis of a different previous model, such as the 16mm 2.8 / 50mm 1.8 or the 24mm 1.8 / 35mm 1.8.
Every little bit helps with production costs for budget friendly lenses like these ones., I guess

 

[David_B]

Wait and see for image. Is it EF-M 11-22 or EF-S 10-18?

 

[EricN]

Maybe we can split RF-S users into two categories (of course there are more than two, but to simplify things it a bit). Those coming from EF-M world wanting as small as possible lenses (and cameras), and those coming from EF-S maybe wanting smaller/lighter and cheaper "prosumer" lenses and cameras but not wanting to sacrifice anything extra for further compactness.
So far Canon has mostly been satisfying the first group... also when it comes to cameras (While the R7 has never technology than 7DII, R7 still feels mostly like a 90D replacement - maybe even a "cheap" 90D replacement with a "brutal" and noisy shutter).
But Canon has to start somewhere. Hopefully second group will get some products later...

I think the reasoning for Canon not offering lenses closer to what was designed for EF-S (yet) is obvious.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I think the reasoning for Canon not offering lenses closer to what was designed for EF-S (yet) is obvious.

Obvious to you, maybe, but none of us know what Canon’s planners discussed internally. What’s your theory?

 

[Stig Nygaard]

I think the reasoning for Canon not offering lenses closer to what was designed for EF-S (yet) is obvious.

Do you mean because EF-S lenses can still be used on RF-mount via adapter, but EF-M lenses are not compatible in any way?

 

[JESPhoto]

Assuming image quality is good, I would be interested in this lens. I don't do much, if any, astro photography so Fstop isn't that important to me. You're not going to be blowing out the background in a delicious bokeh blur with a 10mm lens. I don't care what a lens looks like. It is a lens not jewelry to carry around. If it produces good quality images without a lot of fringing, aberrations, flare and colors are reproduced nicely, I'll be in the market for it. I am interested in the RF 10-20 that was recently announced. However, this one will most likely come in around 1/4 the cost. I only use wide angle a few times a year anyway. May be the perfect wide to "normal" zoom. I have the 16mm F2.8 and it has been a dandy little lens.

 

[koenkooi]

Maybe we can split RF-S users into two categories (of course there are more than two, but to simplify things it a bit). Those coming from EF-M world wanting as small as possible lenses (and cameras), and those coming from EF-S maybe wanting smaller/lighter and cheaper "prosumer" lenses and cameras but not wanting to sacrifice anything extra for further compactness.
So far Canon has mostly been satisfying the first group... also when it comes to cameras [...]

I beg to differ: there have been no EVF-less R bodies, which is where the M series shone (and is still shining bright). No M/M2, M200 or M6II style bodies. Apart from the R90R7 all the RF-S bodies have been larger than strictly necessary.

 

[scyrene]

Maybe we can split RF-S users into two categories (of course there are more than two, but to simplify things it a bit). Those coming from EF-M world wanting as small as possible lenses (and cameras), and those coming from EF-S maybe wanting smaller/lighter and cheaper "prosumer" lenses and cameras but not wanting to sacrifice anything extra for further compactness.
So far Canon has mostly been satisfying the first group... also when it comes to cameras (While the R7 has never technology than 7DII, R7 still feels mostly like a 90D replacement - maybe even a "cheap" 90D replacement with a "brutal" and noisy shutter).
But Canon has to start somewhere. Hopefully second group will get some products later...

EF-S didn't much cater for prosumers. You had to buy EF if you wanted higher quality/more specialised optics. I expect the same will be true for the R bodies.

 

[DhlcadR6]

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).

Those who are going for the looks instead should have went for Fuji /a7C/Zf toys... And imho the telephoto lens from Canon still beats everyone else.

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

Please don't tell me you are shooting landscapes at f2.8. Or those video-centric keyboard warriors that claims they can't shoot with anything less than f2.8.

 

[DhlcadR6]

EF-S didn't much cater for prosumers. You had to buy EF if you wanted higher quality/more specialised optics. I expect the same will be true for the R bodies.

It make sense though. It creates the gap for 3rd parties, and other than UWA, using FF L lenses on RF-S bodies is not a problem.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Wouldn't be the first time Canon rehouse a new RF lens in the chassis of a different previous model, such as the 16mm 2.8 / 50mm 1.8 or the 24mm 1.8 / 35mm 1.8.
Every little bit helps with production costs for budget friendly lenses like these ones., I guess

Canon lenses don't really have a common chassis. Every component attaches to each other so the whole becomes the structure. Even the body shell is effectively floating.
The only EF to RF converted lenses that I am aware of are the EF 400mm f2.8 L IS III, into the RF version and also mated to a 2x TC to make the RF800mm f5.6 LIS) and the EF 600mm f4 L IS III into the RF version and like the 400, mated to a 2x TC to make a RF 1200mm f8 L IS.
All of the other lenses I'm aware of are literally a clean sheet of paper approach with their own optical formula. Some of the motors and aperture assemblies are shared where appropriate.

 

[AJ]

Please don't tell me you are shooting landscapes at f2.8. Or those video-centric keyboard warriors that claims they can't shoot with anything less than f2.8.

Sometimes f/2.8 comes in handy when shooting wideangle. Here is one of my recent images.




Aurora is another situation where 10 mm and f/2.8 comes in handy (I live in Canada).

 

[photophil]

Canon lenses don't really have a common chassis. Every component attaches to each other so the whole becomes the structure. Even the body shell is effectively floating.
The only EF to RF converted lenses that I am aware of are the EF 400mm f2.8 L IS III, into the RF version and also mated to a 2x TC to make the RF800mm f5.6 LIS) and the EF 600mm f4 L IS III into the RF version and like the 400, mated to a 2x TC to make a RF 1200mm f8 L IS.
All of the other lenses I'm aware of are literally a clean sheet of paper approach with their own optical formula. Some of the motors and aperture assemblies are shared where appropriate.

I meant they are using RF chassis designs for multiple lenses:
RF 50mm 1.8 and RF 16mm 2.8
RF 35mm 1.8 and RF 24mm 1.8
and now possibly RF-S 18-45mm and RF-S 10-18mm, which, given the other two pairs, would not be unreasonable

 

[blackcoffee17]

Those who are going for the looks instead should have went for Fuji /a7C/Zf toys... And imho the telephoto lens from Canon still beats everyone else.

Please don't tell me you are shooting landscapes at f2.8. Or those video-centric keyboard warriors that claims they can't shoot with anything less than f2.8.

There are many situations apart from video when a bright aperture is useful in a wide angle lens. For example: nighscapes, landscapes with the milky way, aurora photography, low light action shots (sports), etc.

 

[Del Paso]

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).

You're absolutely right!
Just jump ship, Apple is waiting for you!