Here is the unannounced Canon RF-S 10-18 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Upvote
0
I can only think of the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 and EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5; Was there anything else?
Upvote
0
For an ILC lens, it is. Personally, I have a couple of lenses that take 43mm filters, most of my lenses are 77-82mm and I have one that takes 96mm and one that takes 112mm filters. I also have the Wonderpana 145mm filters for my TS-E 17, though I no longer need them thanks to the drop-in filter adapter for R bodies.
I actually don't have any 49mm filters (I do have one lens that takes them, but I don't see the need to protect the front element of a lens as inexpensive as the EF-M 15-45mm kit lens). But for comparison, here are 52mm and 77mm clear filters along with the 145mm CPL. The 52mm filter looks pretty tiny to me.
Upvote
0
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
This is one interesting viewpoint. That's like saying you don't look at your computer before you buy it. You don't look at your coffee table because you put stuff on top of it and that's it? What's next You don't look at your car because you just needed to drive? And how about that phone (They are definitely people who don't care about how clunky their phone looks as long as it works.. and the rest have sexy android/iPhones)
See how quickly that falls apart?
It's probably better to say YOU personally don't care about aesthetics of your equipment... So yes it is just YOU. I bet you dollars to donuts there's something else trivial that you enjoy that other people just don't care about. Such is life.
No biggie. Others expect our tools and equipment to at least have good or interesting industrial design.
Upvote
0
I know this will cause some people to ridicule me and I accept that. I'm also fully aware it's generally frowned upon to use a wide aperture for landscapes and most people want pan focus landscapes. However, for myself, I believe a wider aperture can (but not always) help make a mediocre landscape a little more interesting. Certainly, someone trying this would be well advised to spend more than the usual amount of time selecting various focal points as well as at least one shot of the landscape with a more traditional approach and of course be prepared for criticism. Rules are made to be broken and all that...
Perplexingly though, it is difficult for me to understand why anyone would want a wide angle lens on aps-c if depth of field is as important as the other commenter seemed to think.
Upvote
0
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Since this is Canon crop, it was definitely going to be a worse optical design (darker). That's the path that they are on and they are sticking with it. These are the guys who supposedly can make such great lenses, but they're not even trying with RFS.
Otherwise even the EFM version handling can be very tricky since it's so small (turning that little zoom can be annoying especially if you have the hood on), but I eventually got used to it somewhat. But when the smallest size is not the prime worry, the EFS 10 to 22 handles like a dream. It has more zoom and is not as dark.
Canon crop lens quality regression is real. Looking forward to see the breakdown this may or may not be plastic optics like that other crappy lens they put out recently.
Let's see what they're going to do with a prime .. probably @2.8 if you're lucky
Otherwise even the EFM version handling can be very tricky since it's so small (turning that little zoom can be annoying especially if you have the hood on), but I eventually got used to it somewhat. But when the smallest size is not the prime worry, the EFS 10 to 22 handles like a dream. It has more zoom and is not as dark.
Canon crop lens quality regression is real. Looking forward to see the breakdown this may or may not be plastic optics like that other crappy lens they put out recently.
Let's see what they're going to do with a prime .. probably @2.8 if you're lucky
Upvote
0
Ten years ago, there were >10x the number of cameras being sold.
The camera market is not what it was, the ratio of lenses:bodies used to be 1.4:1, it's been climbing for the past several years as has the average unit value of cameras shipped. So yes, it's all about pushing people towards full frame. Sony has been doing that for longer than Canon, which is why even though Canon sells more cameras, Sony earns more total revenue from that smaller number of units (as I've said before, neither units nor revenue is most important, but rather profit).
Canon has stated repeatedly that RF lenses are very profitable for them, and the less attractive they make RF-S lenses to higher-end buyers, the more likely those buyers will move to FF. Canon does seem to be keeping the consumer lenses affordable. We'll see what the RF-S 10-18 end up at for price, but consider that the FF equivalent FoV of that lens is 16-29mm, and Canon already offers a 15-30mm lens for FF that lists for $550 but has sold for $400 recently. Coupled with the low-priced FF bodies (RP, R8), Canon is certainly making the cost differential between an APS-C kit with body + a few lenses and a FF kit covering the same focal range something that seems pretty reasonable.
Upvote
0
Gold! Gold! Beautiful gold!
The Simpsons (1989) - S13E12 Comedy clip with quote Gold! Gold! Beautiful gold! Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.
getyarn.io
Upvote
0
What a beautiful shot.
If you really want to have bright APS-C lens for landscapes, there's Laowa/Nisi's 9mm f2.8. Some may argue AF is essential, but I doubt it.
Low-light action shots and APS-C is never a good combo...Dunno why many is obsessed to defeat physical limitation. I tried those "bright" f2.8 zooms on Sony APS-Cs and it just fails miserably. Full-frame is essential for that kind of shooting. And with RF70-200/2.8L and Tamron 70-180/2.8(E/Z) available, pair up with small full-frame cameras like R8 and a7C/C2 will be better than using APS-C.
Yea, dunno why a lot of people on the internet is asking for a extremely competent APS-C when full-frame is there for you. The foucs should be demanding more light&small FF lenses.
Cost-cutting but giving you top tier AF? Is that really cost cutting? The cheap RF primes for RF-S cameras are better than EF-S era. They are actually small enough to be versatile on both RF and RF-S. Now we just need to push Canon to let those SigTam f2.8 APS-C zooms to be available for R50/R10/R7 and we are all good.
Upvote
0
Mirrorless tech allows increased AF sensitivity, letting Canon get away with darker maximum apertures to save on glass costs (and save further by using molded resin instead of glass in some elements). EVFs and LCD screens also let Canon obscure how dark the image is coming through the lens as opposed to an OVF.
EF-S was always about the minimum viable product and they can drag the bar even lower down now. They'd sell an f/11 lens if they could get away with it... oh wait, they already do.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Both of those optics were prosumer grade. Both of those lenses had a gold ring to denote a higher build and optical formula.
Sharpness wise, the EF-S 10-22mm matches the (then current) EF 16-35mm f2.8 II L lens, trading and exchange of brightness for size, weight and portability. It was also 1/3rd of the price.
The EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 was pretty much the secret sleeper / L lens of the EF-s range. Light weight, great focal range, a constant f2.8. An effective 28-90mm focal range which many wedding photographers prefered to the then current EF 24-70mm f2.8. These two lenses often were seen in use by 2nd wedding photographers on a 7DII DSLR. Many added a nifty fifty (as a portrait lens) and a EF 85mm f1.8 as their bright long lens.
The EF-S 28-85mm lens was another gold ring EF-s lens. It's focal lengths matched the EF 28-135mm lens, but was optically superior and had a more consistent build quality.
So yes there were some great EF-s lenses, interestingly two of thse are still in the current Canon lens portfolio. Canon are selling them new and they have good numbers of sales too. Go figure...
If you add either a EF-s 55-250mm lens, it's a lot lighter and more portable than the EF 100-400mm II L on a full frame DSLR. Optically, just as sharp.
Then consider the EF 70-300mm IS mk II. Ok, it's not a EF-s lens but it made it way on to a lot of 1.62x crop camera bodies. Offering an effective focal range of the RF 100-500mm IS L lens with similar Depth of Field once the crop factor was taken into account. It may have been this lens' reach in the 1.6x crop cameras that served as the focal blue print of the RF 100-500 L.
The fact that so many EF-s lenses are still selling well today and are still considred "current", nearly as many EF lenes. One has to wonder if Canon so far haven't managed to fully migrate their DSLR 1.62x prosumers to mirrorless yet.
Cost wil be a major factor, it's a different crowd mentality to the current Prosumer RF L ring purchasers. The prosumer EF-s crowd get great results, impressive photography using realtively humble kit. Don't belittle them or their kit. I know of several of these guys who put out top tier portfolio level work. The EF-s gear in the right hands is seriously impressive.
Upvote
0
That may have been Canon's marketing intention. However, there are many EF-s shooters who prefer the crop with it's numerious advantages like seriously reduced size and weight. Handle a EF-s 55-250mm then compare it to the sheer bulk of a EF 100-400mm II L and it's easy to see the attraction.
These guys have no intention of migrating to full frame. For them, the cost is prohibitive, the gear is a lot heavier and the images they will get are very similar. Sure the Servo AF is like a Night and Day experiance, but with their long learned skill set, they can often offset this with sheer skill. While the EF-s bodies aren't selling liek the they used to, the lenses are selling suprisingly quite well. I can seea lot of EF-s guys just putting their EF-s lenses on a R7 or R10 with a Meike adapter and being very happy with the results.
At some point Canon will realise they are loosing part of their loyal fan base.
Upvote
0
Aperture is not just about AF speed unfortunately. If we have to use ISO 6400 for indoor/low light shots then how is it better than a smartphone?
Upvote
0
It's amazing how we have all been aclimatised to sucessively large and heavy gear.
Pre digital, you know...back in the dark ages when we used film and were stuck with the same slow iso for all 36 shots on a roll, a 16-35mm f2.8 lens was seen as heavy and excessive. Who would ever need to go THAT wide...and lug around a dedicated heavy lens just for that occasional need? They were sold in low numbers to very specific professionals. These days we are discussing the virtues of a RF 10-18mm L full frame rectilinear lens, the suff of dreams only 10 years ago.
Filter sizes have grown in a similar manner, it wasn't that long ago when 67mm was seen as the new pro supersized filter thread, previously 49mm was common. This figure moved up to 72mm for super bright primes. Then came the 77mm standard for f2.8 trinity zoom lenses. For years these were the purvie of professional photographer and no one wanted the size, cost or bulk unless you HAD to.
Go to any UK wedding in 2023 and you would be shocked how many guests now bring along f2.8 pro zooms to a wedding, as a guest.
I know of several full time wedding photographers who went Leica purely to differentiate themselves from the crowds of rich consumers "who have all the gear but no idea". Guests who were assuming that because the have some fearsome gear, that they will magically discearn the 200+ wedding event skills that the pros have shot. To quote a particular Jedi master....I think not. Unfortuantly many foolishly think that to be a great photographer you have to have the biggest gear. It's about the end results. I've seem photographers attend a landsacpe workshop with some of the most suprising and humblest of gear...and yet their results are a lesson to all the other attendies in how to shoot landscapes with skill and not gear.
These days 82mm filter threads is seen as very common and some are now using 100mm filters as their standard filters. Thelenses are getting bigger and brighter...yet the snesors are getting more sensitive and have better iso ability with each generation.
For me, I'm only using drop-in filters with the EF to RF adpater. So I'm really happpy with my filter choices. I've sold off all my 77mm and 82mm filters.
Upvote
0
