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

[EricN]

Yes, and how dare Canon make an 800mm branded lens affordable by mere mortals. How dare they?!?

Why would anyone even bother trying the 600 or 800mm f/11 lenses when they can make themselves feel smart by complain about the aperture. When they're done with that, they can complain about the price, weight, and design of the F/4 and f/5.6 lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why would anyone even bother trying the 600 or 800mm f/11 lenses when they can make themselves feel smart by complain about the aperture. When they're done with that, they can complain about the price, weight, and design of the F/4 and f/5.6 lenses.

...and complain that Sony does everything better, faster, smaller, lighter and cheaper. And more tech-y.

 

[ashmadux]

(Galactic Emperor’s voice) You want this, don’t you…?

View attachment 212327

Lol I dont want it, but I'd rent it for kicks

Seriously though, good industrial design shouldn't ever be dismissed as needless. Its half of Apple's entire business. It does matter on products.

Some care and some don't, such is design life.

 

[tron]

I hope it will be better that the EF-S version. I do not refer to sharpness. I have the EF-S version and I have used it with 200D. I have taken many nice landscape photos. But when I took night shots and there were lights there were many ghosts of these lights.

 

[DhlcadR6]

I hope it will be better that the EF-S version. I do not refer to sharpness. I have the EF-S version and I have used it with 200D. I have taken many nice landscape photos. But when I took night shots and there were lights there were many ghosts of these lights.

Shouldn't worry too much about flaring/ghosting. All the cheap RF lens control it pretty well, the coating from Canon still has a lot of advantage when compared to 3rd parties.

 

[blackcoffee17]

They'd sell an f/11 lens if they could get away with it... oh wait, they already do.

The 800/600 F11 lenses are a great idea! The RF-S 50-210 F7.1 is not so much. Aperture needs to be evaluated together with focal length, lens size and price.

 

[Czardoom]

...and complain that Sony does everything better, faster, smaller, lighter and cheaper. And more tech-y.

And yet can't design a camera that is comfortable in the hand and has buttons where you want them.

 

[K33p1ts1mpl3]

Sure, you can cherry pick. The iPhone 15 Pro ultrawide camera f/2.2 with a 1/2.55” sensor. That’s equivalent f/8.5 on APS-C (though it’s also wider, 8mm APS-C equivalent framing).

The iPhone 15 Pro main camera is f/1.78 with a 1/1.28” sensor. That’s equivalent f/3.8 on APS-C, which is ~1/2-stop better than the 18-45 kit lens at the wide end. Of course, the RF 16/2.8 on an R100 is 2/3-stop faster and the combo costs much less than an iPhone 15 Pro. See, anyone can cherry pick.

Be careful with your application of scaling (cropping). Cropping has NO effect on aperture. Full frame equivalent focal lengths, and the directly linked depth of field, will convert due to cropping.

 

[Dragon]

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.

And if you want reach that you can carry, that 800mm f/11 looks mighty nice. Way too many comments here that are focused on appearance and a judgement of "plastics" when modern composites are often far more appropriate (and hi-tech) than metal. What matters is the resulting image quality and all the RF lenses I have purchased deliver on that front. Here is a sample R7 100% crop shot from that sleazy RF800 f/11 and remember we are talking a pixel density equal to more than 80 MP FF equivalent and a bird that is just over 2 inches long. Miraculously, the subject is even isolated and the bokeh is smooth at f/11.

 

[tron]

Shouldn't worry too much about flaring/ghosting. All the cheap RF lens control it pretty well, the coating from Canon still has a lot of advantage when compared to 3rd parties.

Do you have 10-18 and speak from experience? Because I do. Sharpness is fine but flare at night - when there are city lights at least - it is not (I have seen duplicate lights even after removing the front filter).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Shouldn't worry too much about flaring/ghosting. All the cheap RF lens control it pretty well…

Do you have 10-18 and speak from experience? Because I do. Sharpness is fine but flare at night - when there are city lights at least - it is not (I have seen duplicate lights even after removing the front filter).

You have the RF-S 10-18? Interesting. Somehow, I doubt that you have it, and I’m sure that if you did, then you couldn’t speak about it at all.

The point @DhlcadR6 was making is about cheap RF lenses controlling flare well, and inferring that would be the case with the new RF-S 10-18. My RF 28/2.8 has very little flare, for example.

Given the different flange distance, the RF-S 10-18 will be a different optical design than the old EF-S version.

 

[Kit.]

Be careful with your application of scaling (cropping). Cropping has NO effect on aperture. Full frame equivalent focal lengths, and the directly linked depth of field, will convert due to cropping.

Be careful with your application of scaling (cropping). Cropping has NO effect on focal length.

 

[tron]

You have the RF-S 10-18? Interesting. Somehow, I doubt that you have it, and I’m sure that if you did, then you couldn’t speak about it at all.

The point @DhlcadR6 was making is about cheap RF lenses controlling flare well, and inferring that would be the case with the new RF-S 10-18. My RF 28/2.8 has very little flare, for example.

Given the different flange distance, the RF-S 10-18 will be a different optical design than the old EF-S version.

If you read again you will see I was referring to EF-S 10-18.

"I hope it will be better than the EF-S version. I do not refer to sharpness. I have the EF-S version and I have used it with 200D. I have taken many nice landscape photos. But when I took night shots and there were lights there were many ghosts of these lights."

Yes he was referring to RF version but this does not exist yet and I have written about the EF-S and what I see as a problem there and what I hope will not be in the new one.

Plus I wrote 10-18 and not RF 10-18.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you read carefully you will see I was referring to EF-S 10-18.

"I hope it will be better that the EF-S version. I do not refer to sharpness. I have the EF-S version and I have used it with 200D. I have taken many nice landscape photos. But when I took night shots and there were lights there were many ghosts of these lights."

I know. That was my point. Given that the RF-S 10-18mm will be a different design, how is your experience with the EF-S lens and whether @DhlcadR6 has one at all relevant to the unknown performance of this not-yet-announced lens? Rhetorical question, it’s not.

 

[tron]

I know. That was my point. Given that the RF-S 10-18mm will be a different design, how is your experience with the EF-S lens and whether @DhlcadR6 has one at all relevant to the unknown performance of this not-yet-announced lens? Rhetorical question, it’s not.

Reasonable fear I guess with key phraze: "I hope it will be better"

 

[EricN]

Be careful with your application of scaling (cropping). Cropping has NO effect on aperture. Full frame equivalent focal lengths, and the directly linked depth of field, will convert due to cropping.

Oh no! Just as I'm getting ready for Halloween, this horror show....

 

[neuroanatomist]

Oh no! Just as I'm getting ready for Halloween, this horror show....

Lol. I didn’t bother. I remember a post some time ago on DPR regarding cropping and depth of field that started out, “90% of the replies on topics like this are wrong,” then that person proceeded to show that they were part of the 90%.

 

[Foxdude]

I'm actually really interested about this lens. Currently shooting with Eos R and M100 cameras, and looking forward to replace M100 with some crop sensor R Camera. They are just lacking nice native lenses, and I cant use my ef-m 11-22 or Sigma 56mm 1.4 lenses on R cameras. I was waiting Canon just convert the really good ef-m 11-22 lens to Rf-s, so that was a little surprise to me. Not a bad thing, just surprising. I think the lens is as good or better as it's ef-s counterpart, just much more compact, and only a bit darker. Now, I'm just hoping Canon Will do something like rf-s 32mm f1.4... not holding my breath they open the mount for third party, so Rf-s Sigma 56 1.4 will be in my Dreams..

 

[EricN]

I'm actually really interested about this lens. Currently shooting with Eos R and M100 cameras, and looking forward to replace M100 with some crop sensor R Camera. They are just lacking nice native lenses, and I cant use my ef-m 11-22 or Sigma 56mm 1.4 lenses on R cameras. I was waiting Canon just convert the really good ef-m 11-22 lens to Rf-s, so that was a little surprise to me. Not a bad thing, just surprising. I think the lens is as good or better as it's ef-s counterpart, just much more compact, and only a bit darker. Now, I'm just hoping Canon Will do something like rf-s 32mm f1.4... not holding my breath they open the mount for third party, so Rf-s Sigma 56 1.4 will be in my Dreams..

I know someone holding their breath for the RF 35mm F/1.2...

 

[MVP_Kryptonite]

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?

The EF-S 15-85 is an outstanding lens; extremely sharp and well built imo. It’s my go to general purpose lens when I don’t need to use the EF-S 17-55.

I’ll likely pass on this RF-S ultra wide zoom, as it’s my least used focal range and stick with adapting the EF-S 10-22.