Canon RF 10-20mm F4L IS STM Preview/Review Summary

[YuengLinger]

Here's a thought... For their Wonderpana XL system (186mm filters, which is what you'll need for the RF 10-20), Fotodiox has a holder for the Sigma 12-24/2.8 Art. That lens has a specified diameter of just 1.3mm larger than the RF 10-20/4. Looking at the Sigma lens, the focus ring has a slightly larger diameter than the hood, and it's the hood that the Wonderpana filter holder slips over. The existing Sigma 12-24/2.8 holder may actually work just fine with the RF 10-20mm. Perhaps best not to spend the $230 to test it yourself (of course, you could buy and return), but maybe worth a call/email to Fotodiox to inquire.

Thank you, again, neuro. I was happy they wrote back so fast, saying it doesn't fit and they don't yet have one that is in the works. But I'm sure the lens will be popular and some filter company will see an opportunity.

My real concern about the gels is that I'd bend or warp them because I'm clutzy that way; plus, I've always been extra careful when at the beach, because of sand, and I can predict I'd be very reluctant to swap lenses or just add/remove the gel.

Otoh, I'm relaxing a bit with gear, because this will be my first high-end lens with a bulbous front element. (I still have an old Sigma fisheye.) In other words, I'm one of THOSE photographer who uses a UV filter most of the time--unless I'm shooting into strong backlight.

 

[neuroanatomist]

My real concern about the gels is that I'd bend or warp them because I'm clutzy that way; plus, I've always been extra careful when at the beach, because of sand, and I can predict I'd be very reluctant to swap lenses or just add/remove the gel.

The gel material is flexible, it bends but you'd really have to work to crease it. Granted, the cost has gone up a lot (I think a 3x3" piece of 10-stop gel was <$50 when I bought it a decade ago, it's $114 now). I cut one filter piece from that gel and there's enough left to cut three more, and I've traveled with and used that one piece several times – it's pretty tough. The biggest concern is fingerprints, but it's pretty easy to handle by the edges.

 

[MMP]

I pre-ordered and very much hoping it arrives for the upcoming holiday season. While I enjoyed my EF16-35, I often felt like the image could have been significantly better if I could just get a bit wider. 10mm will certainly do the trick.

I'll admit, when I was first reading about this lens, I was excited, but not seriously considering a purchase at launch. At that time, I was bouncing back and forth between buying the RF85L vs the RF135L, so even though a 10-20mm focal length would be fun, it's hard to push-off those two lenses. For $2.3k, the 85 or 135 "feels" more right than an STM ultra-wide angle (more on that below). However, in my skimming, I somehow missed the part about the 10-20 also having IS! The possibilities were rushing through my head when I considered that focal range + IS + IBIS on the R5. After a minimal amount more of meandering, I was in the check-out process.

Now, I'm not thrilled about the STM focus, but it has nothing to do with actual focusing. Durability is what lurks in the back of my mind. I'm probably over-analyzing the importance of this, but that's pretty standard operation for me lol

 

[YuengLinger]

I pre-ordered and very much hoping it arrives for the upcoming holiday season. While I enjoyed my EF16-35, I often felt like the image could have been significantly better if I could just get a bit wider. 10mm will certainly do the trick.

I'll admit, when I was first reading about this lens, I was excited, but not seriously considering a purchase at launch. At that time, I was bouncing back and forth between buying the RF85L vs the RF135L, so even though a 10-20mm focal length would be fun, it's hard to push-off those two lenses. For $2.3k, the 85 or 135 "feels" more right than an STM ultra-wide angle (more on that below). However, in my skimming, I somehow missed the part about the 10-20 also having IS! The possibilities were rushing through my head when I considered that focal range + IS + IBIS on the R5. After a minimal amount more of meandering, I was in the check-out process.

Now, I'm not thrilled about the STM focus, but it has nothing to do with actual focusing. Durability is what lurks in the back of my mind. I'm probably over-analyzing the importance of this, but that's pretty standard operation for me lol

I'm not worried at all about the STM. F4 might sometimes feel slightly slow for dim interiors, blue-hour, and urban nights.

 

[scyrene]

"Interesting" comments on DPR:
- Should have been an f2,8
-Too expensive
-Why not a 10mm prime which could be cropped to 20mm while offering as good or a better optical quality instead of a zoom?
Highly qualified...
DPR whiners are so inventive!

If they thought f/4 was too expensive, how would they cope with f/2.8?!

 

[Del Paso]

If they thought f/4 was too expensive, how would they cope with f/2.8?!

By whining even louder!

 

[YuengLinger]

Regarding the aperture, B&H has a decent short article about UWA lenses. Not only would f/2.8 cost more, but the size would be a negative, and the optical issues more challenging.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/the-advantages-of-high-end-ultra-wide-angle-lenses-for-landscape

 

[MMP]

I'm not worried at all about the STM. F4 might sometimes feel slightly slow for dim interiors, blue-hour, and urban nights.

Agreed. I admit "Why not f/2.8?" was one of my early, but very brief thoughts. It probably would not be a good idea for several reasons. I understand stabilization is not a substitute for aperture, but I think the inclusion of IS will certainly minimize the number of times you end up wishing you had a brighter lens. ISO performance seems to keep getting better, so there's that as well.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I understand stabilization is not a substitute for aperture

It certainly is handheld.
A stop is a stop.
For a still subject, placing the camera on a tripod only requires a longer exposure.
It only really matters for video and moving subjects.

 

[YuengLinger]

It certainly is handheld.
A stop is a stop.
For a still subject, placing the camera on a tripod only requires a longer exposure.
It only really matters for video and moving subjects.

If I ever considered Milky Way photos, would it matter? I do like the IDEA of f/2.8 for night shots on the streets, but, then again, a 10-20mm wouldn't be my first choice. And I can't ever remember using my 15-35mm at f/2.8 at night.

But I'm not the only photographer, I'm guessing, to come up with all kinds of improbable scenarios to find fault with a piece of gear.

 

[MMP]

It certainly is handheld.
A stop is a stop.
For a still subject, placing the camera on a tripod only requires a longer exposure.
It only really matters for video and moving subjects.

This is why I say it is not a substitute. I'm not sure how it will interact with astrophotography, but I can see this lens being widely sought after by anyone shooting video. Video parameters are a bit more rigid and the wider aperture could have a significant impact on ISO where a slower shutter speed may not be possible due to framerate.

I'm completely dismissing the DOF differences because I don't know it matters in any practical way for this focal range.

 

[YuengLinger]

The gel material is flexible, it bends but you'd really have to work to crease it. Granted, the cost has gone up a lot (I think a 3x3" piece of 10-stop gel was <$50 when I bought it a decade ago, it's $114 now). I cut one filter piece from that gel and there's enough left to cut three more, and I've traveled with and used that one piece several times – it's pretty tough. The biggest concern is fingerprints, but it's pretty easy to handle by the edges.

Alright, B&H should give you a commission! I don't think anything else will be available for quite some time, and there's a pier at incoming tide that's just calling my name. When I've taken enough shots with the filters on, I'll just trudge back to the parking lot and change lenses--or remove the filter--in the dry, sandless safety of my car.

And then there's the driftwood forest...

 

[basketballfreak6]

If I ever considered Milky Way photos, would it matter? I do like the IDEA of f/2.8 for night shots on the streets, but, then again, a 10-20mm wouldn't be my first choice. And I can't ever remember using my 15-35mm at f/2.8 at night.

But I'm not the only photographer, I'm guessing, to come up with all kinds of improbable scenarios to find fault with a piece of gear.

I wouldn't be looking at f/4 lenses if you want to get serious about shooting the Milky Way, unless you can get it on a tracker.

 

[EricN]

Waiting for the lens, naturally I'm rewatching the first wave of marketing videos. This time around I did catch Rudy Winston, at 2:07, attribute at least some of the RF 10-20mm's compactness to the STM AF drive. He also describes STM as "proven."

I've already staked out half a dozen locations to bring the lens, but I am having second thoughts about the Kodak gels. Yes, my daughter could cut them for me, which would solve my problem with anything arts-and-crafty, but then I'd have to fiddle with them on location--unless I planned to just leave them in until coming back home.

For now I'm waiting for some other filter solution, while also considering just keeping my adequate 15-35mm for ND filter convenience. Always trade-offs with photography, and very often expensive!

If only you could use a lens from an older mount and use an adapter designed to accept filters with convenience

 

[EricN]

Alright, B&H should give you a commission! I don't think anything else will be available for quite some time, and there's a pier at incoming tide that's just calling my name. When I've taken enough shots with the filters on, I'll just trudge back to the parking lot and change lenses--or remove the filter--in the dry, sandless safety of my car.

And then there's the driftwood forest...

driftwood forest sounds great for this lens!

 

[EricN]

I wouldn't be looking at f/4 lenses if you want to get serious about shooting the Milky Way, unless you can get it on a tracker.

You're not wrong, but hasn't canon's widest lenses traditionally not been fantastic for astrophotography regarding coma?

 

[basketballfreak6]

You're not wrong, but hasn't canon's widest lenses traditionally not been fantastic for astrophotography regarding coma?

For sure. Canon's UW's IMHO were never really great for astro; I considered the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 when I was looking at getting a RF UW but decided against it due to how bad vignetting was wide open, ended up with the 14-35mm f/4 instead and kept on with the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 adapted.

To my surprise my RF 28-70mm f/2 works gangbusters wide open though...if you're happy with 28mm and don't need wider.

Really hoping for RF third party to finally happen...that Sigma 14mm f/1.4 looks tasty AF lol.

 

[neuroanatomist]

To my surprise my RF 28-70mm f/2 works gangbusters wide open though...if you're happy with 28mm and don't need wider.

That’s good to know, thanks!

 

[basketballfreak6]

That’s good to know, thanks!

Yea that 28-70 really is Canon's unicorn lens aye...I had no idea how good it is for just about everything you throw at it when I bought it; got it at a stupidly good price too.

Don't really have much MW shots with it but here's one I took I think over a year ago...

Glasshouse Milky Way by Tony, on Flickr

 

[EricN]

For sure. Canon's UW's IMHO were never really great for astro; I considered the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 when I was looking at getting a RF UW but decided against it due to how bad vignetting was wide open, ended up with the 14-35mm f/4 instead and kept on with the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 adapted.

To my surprise my RF 28-70mm f/2 works gangbusters wide open though...if you're happy with 28mm and don't need wider.

Really hoping for RF third party to finally happen...that Sigma 14mm f/1.4 looks tasty AF lol.

I've been extremely satisfied my RF 28-70mm f/2 L, also. Unfortunately, I have never been to a place that is suitable for astrophotography because of light and air pollution. I could take a trip just for that, but it's not really my interest.

Canon made two ef14mm 2.8 L lenses and surprising the RF 16mm f/2.8 is comparable enough to the EF14mm 2.8 L ii after correction. I suspect that Canon will produce a 14mm f/1.4 L of course it's likely to be heavier and more expensive, but also better quality overall than the Sigma. Whether they solve the coma problem is my question... The biggest problem with the sigma 14mm f/1.4 is it has that funny distortion (yes, I know it's easily corrected beyond what our eyes can notice, but for me I'm a strange kind of person who likes to not use any correction, if possible. For example some lenses when uncorrected yield a slightly wider, but useable image). The LAOWA 15mm f/4 1:1 Macro's not autofocus but it is macro. I'm kind of hoping canon would give a 14mm macro capabilities, but I think it's slim possibility and between 25 and 50% is more realistic. That's just my thinking anyway...

anyway, I'm looking forward to what people will post here about the 10-20mm after they've used it