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

[Deleted member 393686]

Too bad this thread, which was just an announcement about the 11-22 mm, turned into a dish of soup about irrelevant lenses and more.

 

[Dragon]

Too bad this thread, which was just an announcement about the 11-22 mm, turned into a dish of soup about irrelevant lenses and more.

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder and everyone was still talking about RF lenses. Besides, this was a rumor (more like a non-rumor), not a forum question on the 11-22. The EF-M 11-22 is a fine little lens, but that is not a guarantee that it will be ported to R. We could see a 10-22 or a 9-18 or who knows what, but likely something wide will show up for RF-s in the next year. In the meantime, enjoy your R10 and maybe pick up an RF 16mm f/2.8. It is very good in crop mode.

 

[Deleted member 393686]

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder and everyone was still talking about RF lenses. Besides, this was a rumor (more like a non-rumor), not a forum question on the 11-22. The EF-M 11-22 is a fine little lens, but that is not a guarantee that it will be ported to R. We could see a 10-22 or a 9-18 or who knows what, but likely something wide will show up for RF-s in the next year. In the meantime, enjoy your R10 and maybe pick up an RF 16mm f/2.8. It is very good in crop mode.

Well, i cannot find tests on a aps-c camera, so i will stick to my ef-s copy for now. But, thanks for the tip!

 

[AlanF]

Well, i cannot find tests on a aps-c camera, so i will stick to my ef-s copy for now. But, thanks for the tip!

The analysis of the RF 16/2.8 by opticallimits on FF can be interpolated to the APS-C borders and you can see the bad aspects are mainly outside the edges https://opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1136-canonrf16f28 It's very sharp on the R5 in the centre and near centre and good at the APS-edges.

 

[Dragon]

Well, i cannot find tests on a aps-c camera, so i will stick to my ef-s copy for now. But, thanks for the tip!

The analysis of the RF 16/2.8 by opticallimits on FF can be interpolated to the APS-C borders and you can see the bad aspects are mainly outside the edges https://opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1136-canonrf16f28 It's very sharp on the R5 in the centre and near centre and good at the APS-edges.

If you are into UWA zooms, you might like the Sigma 8-16. It was discontinued several years ago, but still available on eBay used and most are used very litttle since UWA is occasional use for most folks. I think this was the widest APS-c zoom ever made and it is quite sharp even to the corners with very mild CA. Distortion is well controlled and what is left is corrected by both LR and DXO Photolab. I tried mine on the R7 and other than the IBIS going nuts, it worked fine (with IBIS turned off). Below are two halves (for max upload resolution) of a shot at 8mm and f/4.5 with the R7 processed through DXO PL. The bit of red fringing that is visible in a few spots is mostly removable with manual defringe in LR, but I left it in for clarity.

 

[PhilC]

I’m surprised no one mentions the 15-85 that was a kit lens in the Canon 7D which was the closest to the FF 24-105 equivalent. It was the ideal travel lens, yet sharp for a non L Lens and almost all users loved it. I won’t be moving to RF7 until it comes out as it is 90% of the time my main lens. 15 mm on APS-C is 24 mm equivalent and for me a huge difference with all lenses that only start at 18 which is 29 mm equivalent. I could go FF but I’m trying to lighten my gear so APS-C and it’s specific lenses are better for that reason. Otherwise might move to Fuji with its 16-80 or any other brand with travel lenses in mind. But would be a pity for me being with Canon since 1975 !!

 

[Dragon]

I’m surprised no one mentions the 15-85 that was a kit lens in the Canon 7D which was the closest to the FF 24-105 equivalent. It was the ideal travel lens, yet sharp for a non L Lens and almost all users loved it. I won’t be moving to RF7 until it comes out as it is 90% of the time my main lens. 15 mm on APS-C is 24 mm equivalent and for me a huge difference with all lenses that only start at 18 which is 29 mm equivalent. I could go FF but I’m trying to lighten my gear so APS-C and it’s specific lenses are better for that reason. Otherwise might move to Fuji with its 16-80 or any other brand with travel lenses in mind. But would be a pity for me being with Canon since 1975 !!

The 15-85 is probably the best all around lens in the EF-s line, but it isn't all that small and light, particularly on an R10 or R50. The RF-S 18-150 has pretty close to the same IQ in a MUCH smaller package. It just doesn't include the wide end. It will be interesting to see what Canon does for the wide end of RF-s. With such an abundance of blogging, it is almost certain they will do something, particlarly given how good the video is on all these cameras compared to anything from the EF-s era.

 

[mpb001]

I’m in the process of evaluating an R7 to supplement my 5DIV which I love but is getting kind of heavy as a travel camera. I know I will sacrifice some image quality and dynamic range but maybe with an EFRF adapter my non IS glass like 17-40L and 70-200 f4 Non stabilized will make up a little in image quality on an R7 with the IS in particular.

 

[shadowsports]

Greetings,
Not sure what you are giving up IQ wise unless all of your photos are landscape and architecture. I understand what you mean about heavy as a travel camera though. Your adapted glass should work fine, except neither of your lenses are faster than f4. While this will increase ISO, the DR (DigicX) on the R7 has a bit more range and punch than the 5D4. I think you might want to consider at least one (faster) RF lens for the R7 to compliment your kit. This body / lens combo will be much lighter than the 5D4 and adapted EF lens.

 

[Deleted member 393686]

Canon will likely release at least three RF-S lenses in 2023, a couple of them will likely be based on their EF-M counterparts. One of the lenses we’re told that will launch in the first half of 2023 is an RF-S 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. The EF-M version was a favourite of EOS M shooters

See full article...

Is there any news about the RF-s 11-24? I hope that WHEN it is released it won't heavily lean on correction software!

 

[Hubert Multana]

Found this online today. Looks like we have it

 

[davidespinosa]

According to Google Translate, the text says:
"V l o g New Possibilities for"

Tools:
https://cloud.google.com/vision/docs/drag-and-drop
https://translate.google.com/

 

[SaP34US]

Canon should make an RF 11-22mm 1.4 or 2.0 or a RF-S 11-22mm 1.4 or a RF-S 11-22 1.4-2.0

 

[DhlcadR6]

With now confirm it's RF-S 10-18 f4.5-6.3 instead...I guess the rumor isn't too wrong. However everyone just assumes it's easy to port EF-M to RF-S, when so far Canon redesign the lenses

 

[neuroanatomist]

However everyone just assumes it's easy to port EF-M to RF-S, when so far Canon redesigns the lenses

Except the EF-M 18-150, which was directly ported to RF-S.

 

[Dragon]

Except the EF-M 18-150, which was directly ported to RF-S.

The EF-M 18-150 was next to the last M lens introduced (just before the 32mm f/1.4) in 2016, so it is possible that it was designed with RF-s in mind. If so, that could mean that we might see the 32mm come across as well, but "might" is the operative word. OTOH, the EF-M 11-22 is a much larger and heavier lens than the RF-s 10-18, so the redesign may have been just a size and cost issue since small size is clearly a goal for RF-s lenses. The M lenses are tiny compared to what we were used to in SLR world, but they are all pretty much the same size. In contrast, the RF-s lenses seem to be as small as it is possible to make them even at the expense of limiting the range as with the 10-18 and 18-45. When you compare the 18-150 with an EF-s 18-135, you have to think it isn't going to get much smaller. The RF-s 55-210 is kind of the odd duck in that theory in that it doesn't seem to have either a size or performance improvement over the EF-m 55-200, but maybe being a candidate for 2 lens kits, the objective was purely cost. All clearly speculation.

 

[DhlcadR6]

The EF-M 18-150 was next to the last M lens introduced (just before the 32mm f/1.4) in 2016, so it is possible that it was designed with RF-s in mind. If so, that could mean that we might see the 32mm come across as well, but "might" is the operative word. OTOH, the EF-M 11-22 is a much larger and heavier lens than the RF-s 10-18, so the redesign may have been just a size and cost issue since small size is clearly a goal for RF-s lenses. The M lenses are tiny compared to what we were used to in SLR world, but they are all pretty much the same size. In contrast, the RF-s lenses seem to be as small as it is possible to make them even at the expense of limiting the range as with the 10-18 and 18-45. When you compare the 18-150 with an EF-s 18-135, you have to think it isn't going to get much smaller. The RF-s 55-210 is kind of the odd duck in that theory in that it doesn't seem to have either a size or performance improvement over the EF-m 55-200, but maybe being a candidate for 2 lens kits, the objective was purely cost. All clearly speculation.

55-200 is just recycling the traditional EF-S 55-200 production line imo. But seriously though why would anyone get that lens when RF 100-400 is so superior

 

[candyman]

@Dragon: "...OTOH, the EF-M 11-22 is a much larger and heavier lens than the RF-s 10-18, so the redesign may have been just a size and cost issue since small size is clearly a goal for RF-s lenses.... "

Are you sure about that?

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...Images.aspx?Lens=967&LensComp2=0&LensComp=950

 

[koenkooi]

@Dragon: "...OTOH, the EF-M 11-22 is a much larger and heavier lens than the RF-s 10-18, so the redesign may have been just a size and cost issue since small size is clearly a goal for RF-s lenses.... "

Are you sure about that?

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...Images.aspx?Lens=967&LensComp2=0&LensComp=950

That shows the EF-s version, not the RF-s. The RF-s is 150g vs 220g of the EF-M. At full extension the EF-M is 84mm and the RF-s is 69mm.

I wouldn’t use ‘much’ to describe the differences between lenses that are both relatively small and light, but the difference is a lot more than I thought.

 

[candyman]

That shows the EF-s version, not the RF-s. The RF-s is 150g vs 220g of the EF-M. At full extension the EF-M is 84mm and the RF-s is 69mm.

I wouldn’t use ‘much’ to describe the differences between lenses that are both relatively small and light, but the difference is a lot more than I thought.

My bad. I agree about term 'much'. I find the 11-22 very small and light. But that's probably because I also have EF lenses. They are indeed much larger