Stock Notice: Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM $549

Canon Rumors Guy

Canon EOS 40D
CR Pro
  • Jul 20, 2010
    9,731
    2,396
    Canada
    www.canonrumors.com
    Adorama has stock of the brand new Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM for $549 and it’s ready to ship.
    Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Key Features

    Equivalent to approximately 24-48mm coverage when used on cameras with APS-C size image sensors
    Excellent image quality: Highlights include two UD glass elements, one aspheric and Canon SSC
    Minimum focus distance of approx. 11″ (0.28m) (5.1″ (0.13m) in manual focus at 15mm zoom position)
    Canon STM (stepping motor) focus drive, especially suited for smooth, quiet video AF operation
    Impressively compact and light – approx. 13.7 oz (390g)
    Lens Format: APS-C, Full Frame
    Zoom Focal Length: Focal Length: 15-30mm
    Lens Type: Wide Angle Zoom Lens

    Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM $549

    Continue reading...


     

    LSXPhotog

    Automotive, Motorsports, Commerical, & Real Estate
    CR Pro
    Apr 2, 2015
    634
    720
    www.diossiphotography.com
    I am very curious to see reviews about this lens. Primarily how the distortion behaves, and chromatic aberrations in the periphery of the image. If this lens ends up performing pretty decent, it will make for a tremendous real estate lens to recommend to people.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 users
    Upvote 0

    jd7

    EOS R
    CR Pro
    Feb 3, 2013
    1,011
    362
    The fact that this lens and the RF24 f/1.8 do not support the multiple exposure feature in EOS R bodies suggests substantial distortion correction via software is likely. Heavy use of software to correct optical distortion will likely be a major issue to some potential customers.
    You may be interested in this thread
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    Czardoom

    EOS RP
    Jan 27, 2020
    585
    1,320
    The fact that this lens and the RF24 f/1.8 do not support the multiple exposure feature in EOS R bodies suggests substantial distortion correction via software is likely. Heavy use of software to correct optical distortion will likely be a major issue to some potential customers.
    Yes, let the hysteria begin!!
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 2 users
    Upvote 0
    Aug 7, 2018
    520
    468
    That distortion correction is a major scandal in my opinion, as they already correct the distortion in the viewfinder and there is not way to turn that off even if you want to. In the past OVFs showed every distortion, but now we see one of the big downside of EVFs: Lens manufacturers use EVFs to hide distortion of their own lenses, while probably showing all distortion of third party lenses. That way the third party lenses will look bad. Let's see if that really happens, when Sigma brings its first RF lenses.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 users
    Upvote 0

    entoman

    wildlife photography
    May 8, 2015
    1,346
    1,646
    UK
    That distortion correction is a major scandal in my opinion, as they already correct the distortion in the viewfinder and there is not way to turn that off even if you want to. In the past OVFs showed every distortion, but now we see one of the big downside of EVFs: Lens manufacturers use EVFs to hide distortion of their own lenses, while probably showing all distortion of third party lenses. That way the third party lenses will look bad. Let's see if that really happens, when Sigma brings its first RF lenses.
    Hahahahahahahahaha :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 users
    Upvote 0

    AJ

    EOS R
    Sep 11, 2010
    843
    261
    The distortion anxiety is misplaced. Those who buy this lens care about the images it creates in the end, and not how it looks before correction.

    If you’re worried about the distortion, you’re not the target market.
    True, but the trouble is that Canon does not publish distortion, vignetting, and ca data. Not all of us correct raw images with DPP. Personally I use Affinity, which makes use of the public domain lensfun database. I own a 16/2.8 and a 24-240 and the profiles were slow to come and they ate imprecise and incmplete.
    When buying a lens I look for an imaging system. These days that involves a combination of optics and software. I'm not fussed by having to use software, but I'd like the software to fit into my processing flow.
     
    Upvote 0

    neuroanatomist

    I post too Much on Here!!
    CR Pro
    Jul 21, 2010
    27,914
    7,995
    True, but the trouble is that Canon does not publish distortion, vignetting, and ca data. Not all of us correct raw images with DPP. Personally I use Affinity, which makes use of the public domain lensfun database. I own a 16/2.8 and a 24-240 and the profiles were slow to come and they ate imprecise and incmplete.
    When buying a lens I look for an imaging system. These days that involves a combination of optics and software. I'm not fussed by having to use software, but I'd like the software to fit into my processing flow.
    DPP is free. DxO has excellent correction profiles, LR's are very good. This seems to be another case of getting what you pay for (yes, DPP is free...but kludgy as heck).
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 2 users
    Upvote 0

    AJ

    EOS R
    Sep 11, 2010
    843
    261
    DPP is free. DxO has excellent correction profiles, LR's are very good. This seems to be another case of getting what you pay for (yes, DPP is free...but kludgy as heck).
    DPP is indeed free, so Canon doesn't make money directly from the software correction part. Given this, why isn't Canon more forthcoming with lens data? Why don't Canon engineers supply data to Adobe and the lensfun database? Why does DXO and Adobe have to resort to reverse-engineering?
    Yes you get what you pay for. But IMHO Canon would create more value in their lens products by being more open and cooperative. Slick is worth more than kludgy.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    neuroanatomist

    I post too Much on Here!!
    CR Pro
    Jul 21, 2010
    27,914
    7,995
    DPP is indeed free, so Canon doesn't make money directly from the software correction part. Given this, why isn't Canon more forthcoming with lens data? Why don't Canon engineers supply data to Adobe and the lensfun database? Why does DXO and Adobe have to resort to reverse-engineering?
    Yes you get what you pay for. But IMHO Canon would create more value in their lens products by being more open and cooperative. Slick is worth more than kludgy.
    DxO bases their corrections on empirical testing of production lenses, so Canon would need to share the lens with them before release. They don't, which is why it takes a few weeks for DxO to support a new lens.

    While I agree that Canon's customers would be better served if Canon shared the correction data, I'm sure Canon feels they've done what they need to do by supporting a lens in their own, free software.

    I'll also point out that you purchased two RF lenses with inadequate support in your selected RAW converter, so from that perspective Canon got your money without doing anything extra. :p
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    InchMetric

    Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
    CR Pro
    Jun 22, 2021
    245
    269
    True, but the trouble is that Canon does not publish distortion, vignetting, and ca data. Not all of us correct raw images with DPP. Personally I use Affinity, which makes use of the public domain lensfun database. I own a 16/2.8 and a 24-240 and the profiles were slow to come and they ate imprecise and incmplete.
    When buying a lens I look for an imaging system. These days that involves a combination of optics and software. I'm not fussed by having to use software, but I'd like the software to fit into my processing flow.
    I’m exaggerating, but worrying about publishing the pre-correction specs is like worrying about publishing the specs for the image before it’s corrected by the rearmost lens element.
     
    Upvote 0

    AJ

    EOS R
    Sep 11, 2010
    843
    261
    DxO bases their corrections on empirical testing of production lenses, so Canon would need to share the lens with them before release. They don't, which is why it takes a few weeks for DxO to support a new lens.

    While I agree that Canon's customers would be better served if Canon shared the correction data, I'm sure Canon feels they've done what they need to do by supporting a lens in their own, free software.

    I'll also point out that you purchased two RF lenses with inadequate support in your selected RAW converter, so from that perspective Canon got your money without doing anything extra. :p
    There seems to be a trend in industry where manufacturers keep tight control of things. Some BMW models, for example, don't have a dipstick to check the engine oil. Instead, a "service engine" light comes on the dashboard. I bet that soon, the service engine codes can only be read by genuine BMW dealerships. Replacing auto parts by yourself these days can be impossible because only the dealer can reset the sensors. Farmers these days have to install hacked firmware on their combines so that they don't have to haul their machines to the dealers each time something breaks down. Is this a clever way to do business? Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that I, as a consumer, like it. I'm not criticizing Canon - I'm saying what I'd like as a consumer. I want the right to repair,I want lens data, and I want value for my money.
     
    Upvote 0

    neuroanatomist

    I post too Much on Here!!
    CR Pro
    Jul 21, 2010
    27,914
    7,995
    I want lens data
    It's available for many lenses. Take, for example, the RF 16mm f/2.8 – it's Embodiment 3 in this patent application. Figure 6 shows the aberrations graphically, and the data used to calculate those curves are tabulated in the patent. Now, what are you going to do with those data?? My guess is that there is nothing you can do with them.

    What you really want is someone to take those data and turn them into an algorithm that corrects the aberrations, or someone to test an actual lens using charts that enable measurement of distortion, CA, etc., and build corrections for them into a lens profile you can easily apply using your chosen software. In other words, you're asking someone to do something that requires time and labor...but you don't want to pay for it.

    Sorry to tell you, that's not how the world works. Canon actually does provide those corrections for free, just shoot JPGs or use their software to process your RAW images. DxO and Adobe do provide lens profiles that work very well. Their software is not free, nor is it particularly cheap (relatively speaking).

    Affinity Photo is relatively inexpensive, and relies on a free database that is built with input from the community. If your lens isn't there, you can build the profile yourself and it will be added to the database. Their statement, "Which method you choose depends on your experience and on the effort you want to spend," suggests they may include profiles generated by inexperienced people putting in shoddy effort, but that's always a risk with free, user-populated databases.

    Not trying to be argumentative, but the bottom line is that you get what you pay for:
    • You pay a lot of money for a camera, and Canon gives you the tools to perform software image corrections for free.
    • You can pay for a relatively expensive RAW converter, for which experienced people generate high quality lens profiles to correct the images.
    • You can pay for an inexpensive RAW converter like Affinity Photo, and live with the free database it uses for lens corrections (which is one of the reasons it's relatively inexpensive).
    Personally, I chose the second option. As an example of the benefit, for the strong distortion on the RF 14-35/4L at the wide end, I find that DxO yields images that are sharper in the corners than DPP or in-camera JPGs, and the FoV is about 13.5mm instead of the 14mm from the Canon software.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    scyrene

    EOS R6
    Dec 4, 2013
    3,123
    1,398
    UK
    www.flickr.com
    I was tempted by this lens when I heard the announcement but the price is over twice that of the 16mm f/2.8 so I went with that. Tbh the flexibility of a zoom still tempts but I personally find it hard to justify dropping that much on a fairly narrow aperture consumer level lens, so I don't regret my choice (the 16mm is great btw, although I've never been very good at ultrawide angle composition).
     
    Upvote 0
    Why would anyone care if the distortion CA etc is corrected in the camera? We're not shooting film anymore, the computer in these bodies plays a big part in making the image look good. I love the fact that you don't have to wait till you run the photos through PS or LR to correct distortion among other things... I think this RF glass is making the difference between regular and L glass smaller and smaller. Maybe there will always be a difference, but it's getting smaller.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 users
    Upvote 0