Kakakumag.com has published their review of the Canon RF 10-20mm f/4L IS STM that was announced earlier this month. The review is in Japanese, but Google Translate works just fine.
A big point of the review notes the “incredible” resolving power of the lens at 10mm. Corner performance, even wide open looks extremely good for a 10mm focal length. Stopped down it's obviously even better. Vignetting at 10mm also seems to be very well controlled.
The MTF charts for the RF 10-20mm f/4L IS STM is exceptional, and it looks like that has translated to the real world as well. As the RF follow-up to the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM, I think Canon has done something pretty extraordinary.
The Canon RF 10-20mm f/4L IS STM begins shipping later this week for $2299 USD.
You can check out a bunch of sample images and read the full review here.
Light, portable and doesn't domiate your camera bag with a lump of big glass.
The sharpness looks impressive and the angle of view is expansive, boardering on the (OMG, this is actually a bit too wide to easily compose with).
Without the in camera / post prod corner corrections...this lens has chronic mechanical vignetting in the corners, to the point there are black corners of nothing. Which means that Canon is using software to correct the dodgy optics and we loose data due to the stretching and bending and adding of exposure to the far corners.
The flare and ghosting resitance look amazing. It's sunstars look the best I've seen so far.
I think the zoom range is excellent, covering all of the ultrawide points, but curiously maxing out at 20mm. Surely 21mm would have been a better place to end the long end? If it was 24mm I could have used this as my one and only ultrawide lens, with a 24-70L or 24-105L. But no, I have to get ANOTHER UWL to cover that range. That's pushing up my bag's lens slots and pushing up my bag weight and overall lens collection cost by a substantial amount.
The lens hood looks as pathetic as the EF 11-24mm f4L's hood. The lens hood rubs ont he side walls of the inbuilt pedal hood surround and super wears away the lens body finish. Just look at any S/H EF 11-24mm F4L and you will see what I mean. An unusally poor piece of engineering from Canon. Which is bizarre considering how ecpensive this lens is. It's like Canon ran out of budget and engineering effort with the cap (again).
For some, the Image Stabilliser is an obvous benefit. For me and my landscape work, less so because I need the option to shoot multiple images at differetn exposures to create a final image that captrues the entire dynamic range of a scene. That requires absolutely identical image registration with zero movement between frames. This needs to be scrutinised at 100% pixel peeping. This can't be done with hand held shooting regardless of how good the image stabiliser is. Sure for video work or run and gun / walk about types of shots I'm probably quite useful.
One of the things I've loved about the L EF lenses were their durability vs the reast of the competition and in recent years, Canon have been under-enginering the durability of thier lenses. Has anyone else noticed that the newer "easy to clean" flourine coated front elements are a lot more susceptable to scratching?
I'm not happy about the rear gel filter holder. After 20 years of this type of optic (the Sigma 12-24mm being the first of this type), some one really needs to develop a better filter system than rear gels.
For me, I still prefer the EF 11-24mm L f4 with it's abilty to use a drop in filter via the EF to RF adapter. The lack of reliance on software correction to fix the "no where as bad" corners. The fact that it's a lot heavier and larger is not a problem because in the RF dediated lenses, I would need two lenses to cover a similar focal range. One of hte problems this lens will have with photographers who have / are migrating over from the DSLR cameras is that it is effectively in competition with the legendary EF 11-24mm f4 L. It's a lens that will only stand on it's own to the RF purists. Everyone else will conpare it to the Sigma EF mount 12-24, the Canon EF 11-24 L or other offerings. Each with thier benefits and weaknesses. for some, having the absolutely widest land available, that extra 1mm at the wide end is all that matters. For others, there are other compromises or requirements in play. In this case, small and light might not be the deciding feature for many photographers.
I'm happy for all UWA fans.
It's not so much my preferred FL range. So I am happy that I don't have to think about spending 2.700 € (incl. VAT).
At least I am at an affordable 800 f/11 unless I can get a more expensive lens to pay for itself.
Camera Labs has a good review of the lens. Wonder why this is being called the first review.
Camera labs is a great review, compared to going to an Asian site with out English translations.
I don't get it... lol
Canon RF 10-20mm f4L IS review-so-far | Cameralabs
For me, both be 10-20 and the 11-24 are niche lenses offering an ultra ultra wide angle. The use case is different from, for example, the 14-35/4 which can serve as both a UWA and walk around lens.
I do not understand why people equate metal with durable. The composites used in current lenses, especially the higher grade ones in L-series lenses, are more robust than the metal alloys used previously and much lighter.
I haven’t. I do keep a B+W clear filter on lenses (except the really cheap ones). I have had to clean the bulbous front elements on my 11-24 and TS-E 17 occasionally, have not had an issue. Obviously using proper technique is important.
Check out the Fotodiox Wonderpana system. I used their 145mm filters and holder with my TS-E 17, they also make one for the 11-24 (using their 186 mm filters). ND gels are a bit fiddly, but they work. However, there is no CPL option for that.
Same for me, and that’s the reason I did not jump on the 10-20 mm. I might still pick one up down the line, next summer I will be hiking in the Swiss Alps, and this new lens will be a lot easier to carry than my 11-24.
Another meaningless complaint, IMO. I understand it, because I once felt that way myself. Then I actually tested it.
Prior to digital correction, the RF 14-35/4 also has strong barrel distortion and black corners at the wide end, and thus requires distortion correction to produce a usable image. After that correction is applied, the corners are just as sharp as the EF 11-24/4, which at 13-14 mm is essentially distortion free.
The new review shows corner details and has more image samples. Worth a look!
I also like his friendly and quiet ways, unlike most Youtubers and other "influencers".
I'm also not quite understanding why anyone would need the missing 3mm focal range between this and a 24-70. Other than a 15/16-35mm lens that significantly overlaps a 10-20 and a 24-70, what additional lens would one actually use?
+1 again on the composite vs plastic argument. I think something many people overlook when it comes to lens durability (or survivability) is weight. Heavier is not necessarily better. If you were to drop a 1200g metal lens (EF 11-24), it's hitting the ground with twice as much force as this 570g composite lens. A metal body might survive the impact better than composite, but that doesn't mean the glass or internals will.
We never have enough lenses...:)
RF27-10mm f/20 L IS STM
substantial lens configuration of 1 elements in 3 groups
Any good links?