Canon RF-S 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM coming first half of 2023

[Poto7]

Canon is not ashamed to release this? all brands creating clearer products and at least 2.8 for the most part. the worst thing is that they continue to launch their brick cameras at 680-720mg, we live in 2023 and we are already in the era of portability.

 

[Jethro]

Canon is not ashamed to release this? all brands creating clearer products and at least 2.8 for the most part. the worst thing is that they continue to launch their brick cameras at 680-720mg, we live in 2023 and we are already in the era of portability.

There's a view that a 680 mg camera body is pretty light even by modern standards ...

Presuming that your rant was meant to refer to 'grams', well, the R10 is only 420gm, and even the prosumer R7 is 612gm, so to be kind you seem misinformed.

Great first post, by the way.

 

[photophil]

Canon is not ashamed to release this? all brands creating clearer products and at least 2.8 for the most part. the worst thing is that they continue to launch their brick cameras at 680-720mg, we live in 2023 and we are already in the era of portability.

If you want lighter gear, you have to accept some tradeoffs such as slower lenses and smaller sensors. And even then a fully-featured APS-C camera such as the X-H2 is a mere 20 grams lighter than the 680 gram R6.

And speaking of Fuji, their XF 10-24mm would probably be the closest lens to the rumored 11-22mm. The XF however is an f/4 lens coming in at 385 grams compared to the 220 grams of the EF-M 11-22mm that seems to be the predecessor of the new RF lens. f/4 is not exactly fast and a f/2.8 zoom lens would be significantly heavier and bulkier than that.

But either way, you should rejoice — if CR is accurate, we will be getting two small, light RF cameras in a couple of weeks and a tiny, comparatively fast, prime pancake to boot (RF-s 22mm f/2).

 

[NKD]

I have done a full circle with my camera bodies. 2010 Purchased the 60D & the EFS 10-22mm. Later moved to FF.
Now have the R7 & was regretting selling the EFS lens. BUT this looks like a great little travel & hopefully vlogging lens!
I recall the older EFS being around 700$ AUD new when prices dropped in ~2019. Higher near $900+ when purchased near release

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Canon is not ashamed to release this? all brands creating clearer products and at least 2.8 for the most part. the worst thing is that they continue to launch their brick cameras at 680-720mg, we live in 2023 and we are already in the era of portability.

I'm not sure I understand this post. You seem to be simultaneously complaining that the cameras are too big, and the lenses aren't big enough (wider max aperture = bigger lens).

I doubt anybody in these forums can say for sure what Canon's overall APS-C strategy is, but it looks to me like they are going after two distinct segments:

1) Enthusiast wildlife/bird and action/sports photographers, who want high pixel density and like fast focusing, long focal length lenses, of which Canon has plenty of great options to choose from. These are the 7DII/90D/R7 buyers

2) Consumers who want something more capable than their phones, don't hang out in online photography forums or geek out over specs, and are sensitive to price, size, and weight. These are the M and Digital Rebel/xxxD/xxxxD buyers.

Enthusiasts who want fast, high quality wide and normal lenses don't appear to be a priority for Canon at this time. Check out Sony or Fuji if that's where your interests lie.

I know I've said this before, but I really believe that if your photography frequently needs wide FOV and shallow DOF, APS-C is not the best tool for you.

Another reason for fast lenses, of course, is to allow shorter exposures in low light (which is why these lenses are called "fast" in the first place). My opinion is that Canon believes they have this covered with their advances in low noise at high ISO.

Remember also that some of the most highly regarded Canon EF-S zooms, like the 10-22 USM (2004), 17-55 f/2.8 USM (2006), and 15-85 USM (2009) were released during the 00's, when overall ILC sales were still climbing sharply, and there was still a big price difference between APS-C and FF DSLRs. Once the market did finally peak, it was probably almost 10x as big as it is today.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Remember also that some of the most highly regarded Canon EF-S zooms, like the 10-22 USM (2004), 17-55 f/2.8 USM (2006), and 15-85 USM (2009) were released during the 00's, when overall ILC sales were still climbing sharply, and there was still a big price difference between APS-C and FF DSLRs. Once the market did finally peak, it was probably almost 10x as big as it is today.

In that context, it's worth noting that the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and 15-85/3.5-5.6 were never updated, and the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 was 'updated' as the 10-18/4.5-5.6 (reduced range, slower, and cheaper construction...but a lower price to go with those sacrifices). It seems that Canon sees insufficient demand for 'highly regarded' APS-C zoom lenses.

 

[Dragon]

In that context, it's worth noting that the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and 15-85/3.5-5.6 were never updated, and the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 was 'updated' as the 10-18/4.5-5.6 (reduced range, slower, and cheaper construction...but a lower price to go with those sacrifices). It seems that Canon sees insufficient demand for 'highly regarded' APS-C zoom lenses.

That makes market sense, given the likely distribution of the majority of APS-s buyers. The 18-135 became the catch-all general-purpose lens on the higher end rebels and it got updated twice as did the 55-250 (the 18-55 was updated 4 times), so you can easily see where the volume of sales was (kit lenses). That said, I am very fond of my 15-85 as it is likely the sharpest of all the EF-s zooms and it is happy on mirrorless bodies. The 18-150 (M and R) is clearly the successor to the 18-135 family and IQ-wise, it is at least as good as the best of the latter and has more reach, albeit a third of a stop slower. The best part is that it is just over half the weight of the EF-s 18-135s in either M or R format. I think we will see the 11-22 and the 22 pancake in R format. I would guess that we won't see the 55-200 given the price point and size of the 100-400 FF lens. The 32mm f/1.4 M lens is thing of beauty considering its IQ and size but hard to tell if it will make it across to R, given the 35mm f/1.8 FF is only a couple of ounces heavier, but it would be very welcome. Small and light is clearly "in" for casual photography and even at the high end, many lenses are shrinking in both size and weight so the distribution of new lenses is kind of hard to call. Who would have guessed the 600 and 800 f/11 before they popped on the scene. I have both and they are incredibly useful. I also have an EF 800 f/5.6 L and it is an amazing piece of glass, but the f/11 is close enough that for 90% of usage it wins the day simply because it is so maneuverable.

 

[TonyG]

In that context, it's worth noting that the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and 15-85/3.5-5.6 were never updated, and the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 was 'updated' as the 10-18/4.5-5.6 (reduced range, slower, and cheaper construction...but a lower price to go with those sacrifices). It seems that Canon sees insufficient demand for 'highly regarded' APS-C zoom lenses.

The 15-85 was a great little lens. It was my second lens that I purchased and got rid of my kit lens back when I had my first DSLR, the 7D mk1.
The EF lenses seemed more expensive for me back then and trying to get a "general purpose" zoom range for apsc from EF lenses was a lot more tricky than just getting the single EF-S lens that gave me a nice 24-136 reach.

I think your assumption about Canons decisions are right. If it's too expensive, then the general public might not purchase, and it makes sense to focus and push product on what the demand is. If the trend right now is small compact mirrorless for vlogging, then make vlogging lenses.


I think 11-22 is great wide angle range, especially for vlogers and such that want to do video. It will give them a roughly 18-35 range.
It will complement the vlogging youtube social media market they are after.
The only other option they currently have is the almost 20 year old 10-22 EF-S, or the expensive 11-24 F4 L.

I just wish they could release the 35mm L already and hopefully finish the L prime line this year.
I almost feel like they are trying to satisfy all their markets at once by sprinkling product at them little by little without actually fully completing any one of them.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 15-85 was a great little lens. It was my second lens that I purchased and got rid of my kit lens back when I had my first DSLR, the 7D mk1.
The EF lenses seemed more expensive for me back then and trying to get a "general purpose" zoom range for apsc from EF lenses was a lot more tricky than just getting the single EF-S lens that gave me a nice 24-136 reach.

With my first DSLR purchase (a Rebel T1i/500D, in 2009), I kept in mind the glass > body axiom from my film SLR days and bought the body without the kit lens, getting the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and the EF 85/1.8 as my starter kit. Those plus a 430EX flash and a Manfrotto CF tripod and ballhead kept me under my self-imposed budget of US$2500 for an endeavor that I wasn't sure would become a serious hobby or end up as a passing phase. Obviously, the former was the outcome.

I think 11-22 is great wide angle range, especially for vlogers and such that want to do video. It will give them a roughly 18-35 range.
It will complement the vlogging youtube social media market they are after.
The only other option they currently have is the almost 20 year old 10-22 EF-S, or the expensive 11-24 F4 L.

Those and the EF-S 10-18mm that sells for $299. But the current M11-22 is a noticeably better lens than either of the EF-S UWA zooms (assuming one can live without the extra 1mm on the wide end). A straight port to RF-S, as they did with the M18-150, would be a great option for RF APS-C bodies.

I just wish they could release the 35mm L already and hopefully finish the L prime line this year.
I almost feel like they are trying to satisfy all their markets at once by sprinkling product at them little by little without actually fully completing any one of them.

I'm sure the L prime line won't be finished this year, at least not the 'full' lineup including 14/24/35 on the wide side, 200/300/500 'great whites', TS lenses, etc.

I had the 35/1.4L (MkI), but did not use it too often. For me, the RF 28-70/2 functions as a 'bag of primes' and I have no need for the 24-85mm f/1.2-1.4 lenses, although I do still have the EF 85/1.4L IS. Personally, I'm hoping for a 300/2.8 this year.

 

[scyrene]

That makes market sense, given the likely distribution of the majority of APS-s buyers. The 18-135 became the catch-all general-purpose lens on the higher end rebels and it got updated twice as did the 55-250 (the 18-55 was updated 4 times), so you can easily see where the volume of sales was (kit lenses). That said, I am very fond of my 15-85 as it is likely the sharpest of all the EF-s zooms and it is happy on mirrorless bodies. The 18-150 (M and R) is clearly the successor to the 18-135 family and IQ-wise, it is at least as good as the best of the latter and has more reach, albeit a third of a stop slower. The best part is that it is just over half the weight of the EF-s 18-135s in either M or R format. I think we will see the 11-22 and the 22 pancake in R format. I would guess that we won't see the 55-200 given the price point and size of the 100-400 FF lens. The 32mm f/1.4 M lens is thing of beauty considering its IQ and size but hard to tell if it will make it across to R, given the 35mm f/1.8 FF is only a couple of ounces heavier, but it would be very welcome. Small and light is clearly "in" for casual photography and even at the high end, many lenses are shrinking in both size and weight so the distribution of new lenses is kind of hard to call. Who would have guessed the 600 and 800 f/11 before they popped on the scene. I have both and they are incredibly useful. I also have an EF 800 f/5.6 L and it is an amazing piece of glass, but the f/11 is close enough that for 90% of usage it wins the day simply because it is so maneuverable.

Out of interest, why do you have both the 600 and 800 f/11? Do you find them useful in different situations, is it for completeness/collecting, for the size saving on the 600, or something else?

 

[Dragon]

Out of interest, why do you have both the 600 and 800 f/11? Do you find them useful in different situations, is it for completeness/collecting, for the size saving on the 600, or something else?

I bought the 800 first and really like it. Canon had the 600 on sale in Refurb for $399 over the holidays, so I snapped it up, partly for completeness, but mostly because it is considerably smaller and there are times when smallness is very helpful. Also, sometimes 800 is just a bit too long for certain subjects. If I put the 800 on the R7 and the 600 on the R5, that gives me 600 and 1280 just by reaching for a different body and that covers a big chunk of the long reach territory. I also have the EF 100-400 L II, which is an excellent lens in just about every way but am considering adding the RF 100-400 at just over 1/3rd the weight.

 

[scyrene]

I bought the 800 first and really like it. Canon had the 600 on sale in Refurb for $399 over the holidays, so I snapped it up, partly for completeness, but mostly because it is considerably smaller and there are times when smallness is very helpful. Also, sometimes 800 is just a bit too long for certain subjects. If I put the 800 on the R7 and the 600 on the R5, that gives me 600 and 1280 just by reaching for a different body and that covers a big chunk of the long reach territory. I also have the EF 100-400 L II, which is an excellent lens in just about every way but am considering adding the RF 100-400 at just over 1/3rd the weight.

Thanks! That's a very comprehensive answer

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I bought the 800 first and really like it. Canon had the 600 on sale in Refurb for $399 over the holidays, so I snapped it up, partly for completeness, but mostly because it is considerably smaller and there are times when smallness is very helpful. Also, sometimes 800 is just a bit too long for certain subjects. If I put the 800 on the R7 and the 600 on the R5, that gives me 600 and 1280 just by reaching for a different body and that covers a big chunk of the long reach territory. I also have the EF 100-400 L II, which is an excellent lens in just about every way but am considering adding the RF 100-400 at just over 1/3rd the weight.

If you're OK with f/8 at 400, I think you'll be happy with the RF 100-400. I know I am. I haven't looked at any side-by-side comparisons against the EF 100-400L II, but in my experience it's every bit as good as my Sigma 100-400|C, which did compare favorably with the 100-400L II when it first came out.

 

[photophil]

I used to have the venerable air pump EF 100-400 Mk I before I got the RF100-400, and the new lens is a definite improvement coming from that in almost any regard. My poor RP's sensor used to be absolutely speckled, which was a real pain with stopped down macros.
The only thing I miss on the RF100-400 is the focus limiter and I am not super happy about the long focus throw, but I guess the latter is personal preference. With stabilization the loss of one stop does not bother me at all.

 

[koenkooi]

[...]The only thing I miss on the RF100-400 is the focus limiter and I am not super happy about the long focus throw, but I guess the latter is personal preference. [...]

Does the RP have the focus ring sensitivity setting the R5 has? That might help reduce the focus throw when set to 'varies with rotation speed'. On RF lenses the focus( r)ing is completely controlled by software, it isn't mechanically coupled like the EF USM lenses were.

 

[photophil]

Does the RP have the focus ring sensitivity setting the R5 has? That might help reduce the focus throw when set to 'varies with rotation speed'. On RF lenses the focus( r)ing is completely controlled by software, it isn't mechanically coupled like the EF USM lenses were.

Yeah, I have tried out that setting, but found it did not make that much of a difference.
I am not a big fan of focusing by-wire in general, though. It is okay-ish on the RF50mm 1.8, but on the RF35 and RF100-400 it just feels a bit meh and not super responsive.
Are the haptics of manual focusing better implemented on RF L lenses?

 

[koenkooi]

Yeah, I have tried out that setting, but found it did not make that much of a difference.
I am not a big fan of focusing by-wire in general, though. It is okay-ish on the RF50mm 1.8, but on the RF35 and RF100-400 it just feels a bit meh and not super responsive.
Are the haptics of manual focusing better implemented on RF L lenses?

Not by much, the rings are larger and made to feel more expensive. Manually focussing feels the same to me, but I rarely use it outside of macro shooting so I'm not the best person to ask

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I have several shelves loaded with old FD, Minolta MD, and Nikon F lenses and I love to experiment with them, but none were expensive enough to make me cry if they quit and I have the tools to repair at least the simpler ones. I just drew the line on the 800 FD as I think the owner wanted about $1500 at the time. I have a friend with an 8" Celestron Schmitt and the EF 800L seems to outperform it by a pretty good margin, and yes, he is always fussing with collimation. The Schmitts can be very good if everything is tuned up and better with correction lenses (e..g Celestron Edge line), but if is a big word in this context. I have several older Mirror lenses (Canon FD 500mm, Minolta MD 500mm, Sigma 600mm, Nikon 500mm, and Nikon 1000mm). They are a blast to experiment with, but the 800L will smoke them all looking through samples, I would say the RF 800 f/11 does also. The Nikon 1000mm comes the closest, but it still needs a lot of sharpening to get close to the refractors and then you have the challenge of actually taking the shot. The Mirrors need a stable platform (most tripods are marginal) and then focus (particularly on long distance) is VERY touchy and hard to optimize, whereas with the 800 f/11, the same shot can be handheld and taken in a couple of seconds. I think the biggest challenge with mirrors is accurate focus. It is very hard to determine (even with focus peaking) just where the optimum point is. I believe that is because the secondary mirror effectively blocks the center (and therefore the peak) of the airy disc, so when focusing, you are actually looking at bunch of tiny doughnuts rather than something that looks like a gaussian curve. This means the focus adjustment has a flat spot on top rather than a peak. It also means that the depth of field is very shallow because you don't have the advantage of that peak to broaden the DOF. Here are a few comparison shots. Note that this pole is about a mile away and much of the time is heavily distorted by thermals. These shots were taken at different times and even different years, but the seeing conditions were pretty good in each case. The time-of-day differences make direct comparison more difficult, but you can get the idea. The R5 likes the big Nikon Mirror better than any other body I have tried it on but it is still a bear to focus and this shot was with a 10 second delay to let the tripod settle down and probably the sharpest shot I have ever taken with that lens. The 800L was on a tripod with the stabilizer on and shot with an SL-2 (200D) by simply hitting the shutter button. The 800 f/11 shot was with an R7 handheld (leaning against a post) and the easiest to set up by a mile. All the shots are quite usable with a little post work, but you can see that the RF 800 does not lose the contest by any means, particularly considering it was shot with the high res R7, but that is offset by the 1.4 TC as opposed to 2x (I don't have an RF 2x converter). All shots are 100% crops.


View attachment 207078
Nikon 1000mm Mirror with 2x TC (f/22) and R5.

View attachment 207079
EF 800 f/5.6L with 2x TC (at f/14) and SL2

View attachment 207080
RF 800 f/11 with 1.4x TC (f/16) and R7

@Dragon, you convinced me! Today I took advantage of the current sale (and some holiday gift cash) and picked up an RF 800 f/11!

Here is a 100% crop from an R7 image of the electric meter across the street. I took this from the far end of my bedroom through the dirty window. According to Google maps, the distance is about 90 feet (27.4 m). This is hand-held at 1/125 sec (2-2/3 stops slower than 1/800, and the 800's IS is actually rated for four), ISO 1600.

The only post processing I did was to crop it and apply a little bit of dehaze. I also blacked out a few things that looked like an account/serial number or barcode that could identify the account (I don't think the ones on top are customer-related).

Looking forward to giving this lens a workout!

 

[Jethro]

@Dragon, you convinced me! Today I took advantage of the current sale (and some holiday gift cash) and picked up an RF 800 f/11!

Here is a 100% crop from an R7 image of the electric meter across the street. I took this from the far end of my bedroom through the dirty window. According to Google maps, the distance is about 90 feet (27.4 m). This is hand-held at 1/125 sec (2-2/3 stops slower than 1/800, and the 800's IS is actually rated for four), ISO 1600.

The only post processing I did was to crop it and apply a little bit of dehaze. I also blacked out a few things that looked like an account/serial number or barcode that could identify the account (I don't think the ones on top are customer-related).

Looking forward to giving this lens a workout!

View attachment 207310

There's a little Paparazzi in all of us

A great example of what this lens can do.

 

[Dragon]

@Dragon, you convinced me! Today I took advantage of the current sale (and some holiday gift cash) and picked up an RF 800 f/11!

Here is a 100% crop from an R7 image of the electric meter across the street. I took this from the far end of my bedroom through the dirty window. According to Google maps, the distance is about 90 feet (27.4 m). This is hand-held at 1/125 sec (2-2/3 stops slower than 1/800, and the 800's IS is actually rated for four), ISO 1600.

The only post processing I did was to crop it and apply a little bit of dehaze. I also blacked out a few things that looked like an account/serial number or barcode that could identify the account (I don't think the ones on top are customer-related).

Looking forward to giving this lens a workout!

View attachment 207310

Congratulations. You will like that combo. When using in dark conditions, DXO PhotoLab is a big help. Deep Prime XD makes very usable shots from ISO 6400 on the R7.