# Here are the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 11, 2022)

> Canon will announce the long-rumored Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and compact wide angle zoom Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM shortly.
> Here are the specifications and some images of the new affordable lenses for the RF Mount.
> *Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Besisika (Jul 11, 2022)

Very happy with the 24mm STM. It will pair perfectly with the 16mm in handheld video shooting. Let's see how much it will cost.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jul 11, 2022)

Besisika said:


> Very happy with the 24mm STM. It will pair perfectly with the 16mm in handheld video shooting. Let's see how much it will cost.


It should be more on the budget side as an STM non-L lens. 
I just wish it had higher magnification for macro work, but otherwise it looks great.

I would have preferred to see the long -rumored 300mm and 500mm lenses, but it does not seem those are coming any time soon.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 11, 2022)

Anyone who has the audacity to complain about either of these lenses can get lost. Like. Really lost. 

These are two more excellent budget options that will sell like hotcakes, no doubt at all. Slow zoom or not, depending on the price the 15-30 could be an incredible wide angle option on the low end. I remember when the 10-18 first got announced and there was massive hype for it, now there's a full frame version. The only reason I won't get one is I already have the 16-35mm and the RF 16mm!

I'll pre-order the 24mm immediately. It will be really nice having cheap and fast RF 16mm, 24mm, 34mm, and 50mm primes to choose from for when I don't need to bring my big L series zooms.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2022)

FrenchFry said:


> I would have preferred to see the long -rumored 300mm and 500mm lenses, but it does not seem those are coming any time soon.


The 300/2.8, for sure. I wonder if we’ll see a true pancake like the EF 40/2.8? I generally stick to L lenses, but a pocketable ‘normal’ would be very useful.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 11, 2022)

A lot will depend on the price. How will it compare with the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 IS, which only costs 900 dollars?1


----------



## Traveler (Jul 11, 2022)

Yaaaay! and Yaaaay!
But I wish there’s a programmable button on the camera to turn the lens into MF and the control ring into manual-focus ring while holding the button. 
Else it’s uncomfortable especially when I use the control ring for aperture


----------



## flaviojzk (Jul 11, 2022)

the 15-30 is exactly the same length, diameter and weight of the 24-105 stm…Canon is being smart and probably making some manufacturing savings just like in the case of the RF 16 and 50


----------



## sobrien (Jul 11, 2022)

0.5 magnification on both of these - wonder who the 15-30 offended to be overlooked for a “macro” designation?

These both look pretty interesting. 15-30 looks very similar to the RF 24-105 and you'd imagine similar optical trade offs might have been made. Suspect it will be a very decent option for hiking, etc for those who can live with less than stellar corner performance.

Have never owned a 24mm prime personally but can see also see the appeal assuming IQ is up to that of say the RF 35mm.

Getting more and more difficult to complain about the RF mount options for the budget-focused consumers out there.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jul 11, 2022)

flaviojzk said:


> the 15-30 is exactly the same length, diameter and weight of the 24-105 stm…Canon is being smart and probably making some manufacturing savings just like in the case of the RF 16 and 50


The 24 is virtually identical casing to the 35 f/1.8 as well. Only difference is 62.8mm vs 63.1mm long, which could be a bit of plastic on the end. Same filter size.


----------



## JimmyJames (Jul 11, 2022)

Besisika said:


> Very happy with the 24mm STM. It will pair perfectly with the 16mm in handheld video shooting. Let's see how much it will cost.


I'll guess the same at the 85mm STM lens.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 11, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> A lot will depend on the price. How will it compare with the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 IS, which only costs 900 dollars?


That lens has been discontinued


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 11, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> A lot will depend on the price. How will it compare with the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 IS, which only costs 900 dollars?1



The Tamron is HUGE compared to this Canon 15-30 and will also be more expensive probably. I expect the Canon around the $700 mark.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 11, 2022)

Wish Canon would make lenses built like the older 24 2.8, 35 2.8 and 85mm 1.8. Internal focus and not these extending designs.


----------



## Traveler (Jul 11, 2022)

The issue with those macro lenses without a focus limiter is that if they miss focus then it takes a long time to focus through the whole range


----------



## Mistral75 (Jul 11, 2022)

Let's note that the original source is the person who used to run Nokishita Camera:



https://imgur.com/85rdeKL


as reported by Digital Camera Info: https://digicame-info.com/2022/07/rf15-30mm-f45-63-is-stmrf24mm.html


----------



## Traveler (Jul 11, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Wish Canon would make lenses built like the older 24 2.8, 35 2.8 and 85mm 1.8. Internal focus and not these extending designs.


I prefer smaller lenses over internal focus. But I'm quite surprised that the 15-30 is heavier than Sony's G-master  
It's probably because of the short focus distance (I admit I prefer that)


----------



## Tom W (Jul 11, 2022)

The 15-30 sounds like it will make a nice compact, inexpensive ultra-wide zoom, albeit a little slow on the aperture. But often, ultra-wides are shot stopped down anyway, so that makes it a pretty good alternative to its more expensive "L" brethren. 

I think the 24/1.8 will be a big hit, both on full frame and on the new APS-C bodies like the R7 and R10. Should be fairly inexpensive, and if the 35/1.8 is any indication, pretty good quality as well.


----------



## mbike999 (Jul 11, 2022)

FrenchFry said:


> I would have preferred to see the long -rumored 300mm and 500mm lenses, but it does not seem those are coming any time soon.


Indeed, one would expect with a pro sports body (R3) Canon would be rapidly filling out the telephoto lineup. A modern 300 or 500/4.5 would pair nicely with the lightweight R3.


----------



## bereninga (Jul 11, 2022)

sobrien said:


> 0.5 magnification on both of these - wonder who the 15-30 offended to be overlooked for a “macro” designation?


hahah This made me LOL. I'm still not a fan of any macro designation that's not 1.0x magnification.


sobrien said:


> Getting more and more difficult to complain about the RF mount options for the budget-focused consumers out there.


I think there's still that gaping hole between the budget-focused and super "professional" L-grade lenses. Not everyone needs f/1.2, but f/1.4 and some quality build features, a lens hood and a decent pouch are appreciated. If only third party companies like Sigma could fill in that space for RF-mount w/o an adapter.


----------



## Tom W (Jul 11, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> Indeed, one would expect with a pro sports body (R3) Canon would be rapidly filling out the telephoto lineup. A modern 300 or 500/4.5 would pair nicely with the lightweight R3.


Probably, just my opinion, because there are already very good options for the 300 and 500 mm lengths with the EF lenses and adapters. My 500 f/4 II works just as well on my R5 as it did on the 5D IV, in terms of optical performance, and that is very good. People transitioning from the EF to the RF mount have no issue adapting the Canon big lenses to their RF bodies.

I think that when they do replace the 300/2.8 and 500/4, it will be akin to how they replaced the 400 and 600 II with the Mk III versions - lighter, better weight distribution, and updated optical performance. But it's hard to improve on something that is already top notch.


----------



## sobrien (Jul 11, 2022)

Tom W said:


> I think the 24/1.8 will be a big hit, both on full frame and on the new APS-C bodies like the R7 and R10. Should be fairly inexpensive, and if the 35/1.8 is any indication, pretty good quality as well.


Good point about APS-C. This should be a very useful do almost everything lens for those bodies.


----------



## AJ (Jul 11, 2022)

Given the 67 mm and 52 mm front element sizes, I'm thinking there will be hefty barrel distortion, heavy vignetting, black corners, and hence compulsory corrections.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 11, 2022)

Traveler said:


> I prefer smaller lenses over internal focus. But I'm quite surprised that the 15-30 is heavier than Sony's G-master
> It's probably because of the short focus distance (I admit I prefer that)



The new Sony 16-35 F4 is a great lens but lacks image stabilizer and it's a power zoom. Because of those 2 things it can be made smaller. But it's also brighter so not sure...Sony seems to be much better lately in designing small lenses, like their 50 1.2.


----------



## mbike999 (Jul 11, 2022)

Tom W said:


> Probably, just my opinion, because there are already very good options for the 300 and 500 mm lengths with the EF lenses and adapters. My 500 f/4 II works just as well on my R5 as it did on the 5D IV, in terms of optical performance, and that is very good. People transitioning from the EF to the RF mount have no issue adapting the Canon big lenses to their RF bodies.
> 
> I think that when they do replace the 300/2.8 and 500/4, it will be akin to how they replaced the 400 and 600 II with the Mk III versions - lighter, better weight distribution, and updated optical performance. But it's hard to improve on something that is already top notch.


300 and 500 are optically excellent but the weight savings demonstrated by modern lens design is substantial. A 500 F/4.5 would be expectedly around or just north of the 2KG mark versus 3.2 kg for the 10 year old 500/4 ii. In addition there have been major advancements in AF speed with new AF motors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2022)

bereninga said:


> hahah This made me LOL. I'm still not a fan of any macro designation that's not 1.0x magnification.
> 
> I think there's still that gaping hole between the budget-focused and super "professional" L-grade lenses. Not everyone needs f/1.2, but f/1.4 and some quality build features, a lens hood and a decent pouch are appreciated. If only third party companies like Sigma could fill in that space for RF-mount w/o an adapter.


In most of the world, only the L-series lenses come with the hood and pouch included (although personally, I find the pouches useless). The 'intermediate' EF lenses like the EF 50/1.4 and EF 85/1.8 did not come with a hood or pouch. The only exceptions that I'm aware of were some niche lenses like the 70-300mm DO lens and the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses, which were non-L lenses that came with hood/pouch. So even if Canon fills the 'gaping hole' (which I don't actually believe exists), unless the hole is filled with a cheaper L-series option don't hold your breath waiting for it to come with a hood and pouch.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2022)

Tom W said:


> Probably, just my opinion, because there are already very good options for the 300 and 500 mm lengths with the EF lenses and adapters. My 500 f/4 II works just as well on my R5 as it did on the 5D IV, in terms of optical performance, and that is very good. People transitioning from the EF to the RF mount have no issue adapting the Canon big lenses to their RF bodies.
> 
> I think that when they do replace the 300/2.8 and 500/4, it will be akin to how they replaced the 400 and 600 II with the Mk III versions - lighter, better weight distribution, and updated optical performance. But it's hard to improve on something that is already top notch.


That would be fine with me, although I'd hope for a true RF redesign including a dedicated control ring for the new 300/2.8 and 500/4.

My EF 600/4L IS II does fine on the R3, it's heavy but handholdable (for me), and optically as good as the 600/4 III and the RF version, so I feel no urgency to swap it for the RF 600/4.

However, I will soon have a use for a 300/2.8 (high school football field, night games) and I do not want to purchase the EF 300/2.8 at this point. I'll hold out for a native RF version of the lens.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 11, 2022)

Traveler said:


> I prefer smaller lenses over internal focus. But I'm quite surprised that the 15-30 is heavier than Sony's G-master
> It's probably because of the short focus distance (I admit I prefer that)


Internal focus is extremely useful at close distances and lighting subjects is also easier and so is weather resistance compared to lenses with extending barrels.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 11, 2022)

Count me in for the 24 (as soon as I buy an R system body  )
I hope it will come in for a similar price as the 35 STM.


----------



## nunataks (Jul 11, 2022)

Oh my god I am so excited for the 24! I'll have the 24, 50, and 85 for my perfect kit now. Please just don't let it be absurdly expensive, maybe like $449? Curious to know what the 15-30 will retail for too.


----------



## MartinVLC (Jul 11, 2022)

I think it´s a pitty that canon doesn´t seem be willing to put out interesting affordable faster zoom lenses. I already doubted the original rumor about the wide zoom being 3.5-5.6 although I would have loved it. I wish it was a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.0 type of faster zoom at 500-600 €/$. I guess I can only wait till some day Tamron produces RF-lenses. Or switch to Sony although I really don´t want to. It´s a shame.



MartinVLC said:


> I also noticed this in the source and I wonder why it says 3.5-5.6 in the canonrumors articel.
> 
> I would love this lense to start at 15mm f/3.5, but I don´t know where they took this information from,
> 
> I´m afraid in the end it will be a 4-5.6 or even 4.5-6.3 the way canon designs consumer zoom lenses (very unfortunately) lately.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2022)

MartinVLC said:


> I think it´s a pitty that canon doesn´t seem be willing to put out interesting affordable faster zoom lenses.


That's never really been part of Canon's strategy. Their zooms were previously limited to f/5.6 by PDAF systems, with MILC that limitation is gone and slower lenses are feasible. Canon can save production costs on those lenses by making them f/6.3, f/7.1 or f/8 at the long end, because most buyers of consumer lenses don't pay much attention to aperture, only to focal length and cost. 

Consider the example of the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, which was replaced by the 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6.


----------



## Juangrande (Jul 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> In most of the world, only the L-series lenses come with the hood and pouch included (although personally, I find the pouches useless). The 'intermediate' EF lenses like the EF 50/1.4 and EF 85/1.8 did not come with a hood or pouch. The only exceptions that I'm aware of were some niche lenses like the 70-300mm DO lens and the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses, which were non-L lenses that came with hood/pouch. So even if Canon fills the 'gaping hole' (which I don't actually believe exists), unless the hole is filled with a cheaper L-series option don't hold your breath waiting for it to come with a hood and pouch.


I don’t understand why there’s no padding in the canvas lens pouches they provide. They are pretty useless for that reason.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 11, 2022)

As ever my interest will come down to price. I've played with the RF 16mm for a couple of weeks, it's a good little lens but I find the perspective challenging to make best use of; a zoom would be more flexible but do I want to lose a stop and a bit of light for that? I guess the 24mm could be the one, but I'm also reluctant to end up with a bag full of primes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I don’t understand why there’s no padding in the canvas lens pouches they provide. They are pretty useless for that reason.


Exactly. I have Lowepro Lens Cases in multiple sizes that I use to carry lenses strapped to the outside of a Toploader Pro for a nice 2-lens kit (I have all 3 Toploader sizes, so I can fit pretty much any combination of lenses). 

Sadly, Lowepro discontinued some of the best (IMO) sizes when they switched from their 1/2/3 N/W sizes to the cm-based sizes. The 1W is the perfect size for 'standard' lenses like a 24-105/4, 24-70/2.8, etc., as well as TS-E 17 or 24 and many other such lenses with hoods reversed. The 1W internal dimensions are 10x12.5, the new 9x13 is too narrow for those lenses to have hoods on them, and the 11x14 works but has a lot of extra space (that case holds my RF 28-70/2 or 70-200/2.8 with the collar on). Similarly, they used to make the 1N case which was designed to hold the 1.4x and 2x TCs stacked and came with a little padded divider to go in between them. There's no current equivalent. Fortunately, I have the ones I need.

I suppose the only purpose for the Canon pouch would be dust protection when you lenses are sitting on a shelf or in a drawer at home. Personally, I keep my lenses in Storm/Pelican cases at home.


----------



## mbike999 (Jul 11, 2022)

bereninga said:


> hahah This made me LOL. I'm still not a fan of any macro designation that's not 1.0x magnification.
> 
> I think there's still that gaping hole between the budget-focused and super "professional" L-grade lenses. Not everyone needs f/1.2, but f/1.4 and some quality build features, a lens hood and a decent pouch are appreciated. If only third party companies like Sigma could fill in that space for RF-mount w/o an adapter.


I think there are some that have a knee-jerk reaction to any expression of opinion or desire for something else as some sort of attack on the brand

I personally agree that a mid-range price bracket of lenses is lacking in Canon, it's either STM lenses with no hood and no weather sealing, or jump to premium L lenses. This is especially apparent on the telephoto side, it's either a $17K 800 /5.6 lens or a $900 F11 non-weather sealed model with no aperture blades. 

Updates to the mid-range options like the legendary 400/5.6 for example, or some 1.4 primes on the wider end would be greatly appreciated by many, I think.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> This is especially apparent on the telephoto side, it's either a $17K 800 /5.6 lens or a $900 F11 non-weather sealed model with no aperture blades.
> 
> Updates to the mid-range options like the legendary 400/5.6 for example...


The legendary 400/5.6 was an L-series lens. The RF 100-500 gives the same FL in it's range, and while f/6.3 at 400mm, is optically better, smaller when retracted, and much more flexible. It is the update to the legendary 300/4, 400/5.6 and 100-400L lenses. People generally prefer zoom lenses, I really doubt we'll ever see updates to the middle-range telephoto primes like the 200/2.8, 300/4 and 400/5.6.

The RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 is a consumer version of that lens, and with the optional hood comes in at $660.

I doubt we'll ever see an 'in between' 800mm lens. An 800/8 would still have a 100mm front element – that's the same size as the 200/2L, and it's 'intermediate' cost would likely fall in line, say $7-8K. Get a 500/4 and put a 1.4x TC on it, you have 700/5.6 in the same price range as 800/8.


----------



## Juangrande (Jul 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly. I have Lowepro Lens Cases in multiple sizes that I use to carry lenses strapped to the outside of a Toploader Pro for a nice 2-lens kit (I have all 3 Toploader sizes, so I can fit pretty much any combination of lenses).
> 
> Sadly, Lowepro discontinued some of the best (IMO) sizes when they switched from their 1/2/3 N/W sizes to the cm-based sizes. The 1W is the perfect size for 'standard' lenses like a 24-105/4, 24-70/2.8, etc., as well as TS-E 17 or 24 and many other such lenses with hoods reversed. The 1W internal dimensions are 10x12.5, the new 9x13 is too narrow for those lenses to have hoods on them, and the 11x14 works but has a lot of extra space (that case holds my RF 28-70/2 or 70-200/2.8 with the collar on). Similarly, they used to make the 1N case which was designed to hold the 1.4x and 2x TCs stacked and came with a little padded divider to go in between them. There's no current equivalent. Fortunately, I have the ones I need.
> 
> I suppose the only purpose for the Canon pouch would be dust protection when you lenses are sitting on a shelf or in a drawer at home. Personally, I keep my lenses in Storm/Pelican cases at home.


I don’t know about dust protection but they’re excellent dust collectors.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's never really been part of Canon's strategy. Their zooms were previously limited to f/5.6 by PDAF systems, with MILC that limitation is gone and slower lenses are feasible. Canon can save production costs on those lenses by making them f/6.3, f/7.1 or f/8 at the long end, because most buyers of consumer lenses don't pay much attention to aperture, only to focal length and cost.
> 
> Consider the example of the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, which was replaced by the 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6.


Perhaps most people who buy consumer lenses don't pay much attention to aperture, or maybe people are shooting the majority of their photos at f/8 or somewhere near there. I may not be typical, but especially for a wide angle lens, it's going to be used for sunsets and an occasional landscape when my 24-105 is not wide enough. Also for vacations, especially in places such as older cities where streets are narrow and your shooting distance is limited. For myself, I can't imagine any situation where I want a fast aperture for a wide angle lens. My default camera setting is Aperture priority and it is set at f/7.1 and I almost never have to change it. Again, that may not be typical - especially for forum dwellers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I don’t know about dust protection but they’re excellent dust collectors.


Mine don't, because they're all still wrapped in their original plastic bags, in the original boxes the lenses came in. They'll stay there until I sell the lens, if I do.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 11, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> Indeed, one would expect with a pro sports body (R3) Canon would be rapidly filling out the telephoto lineup. A modern 300 or 500/4.5 would pair nicely with the lightweight R3.


And they would pair even better with high MPx sensors on the R5 and R7 which need wide lenses to take advantage of the pixel density.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Jul 11, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> For myself, I can't imagine any situation where I want a fast aperture for a wide angle lens. My default camera setting is Aperture priority and it is set at f/7.1 and I almost never have to change it.


I generally agree, and shoot similarly. But one fast aperture wide angle application jumps immediately to mind - wide field astrophotography. Especially if you're chasing dramatic milky way shots, the faster the better. And in a case like that, it's the somewhat exclusive territory of big, heavy, fast primes like the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or 20mm f/1.4. Something that if I owned, I'd likely bypass most of the time in favor of a lens like the 15-30. I am intrigued to see what the 24mm can do, but even for wide field astro, on the times I've gone out and done it, I've found 24mm to be a bit too narrow of an FOV.

As an "also fits full frame" option, I also like the idea of the 15-30 as an alternative to the RF-S 18-45 as a primary lens on an R7 or R10 in a mixed bag with FF kit like I will be carrying.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 11, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That lens has been discontinued


Tamron still list the G2 version of that lens on their website. Why would they discontinue it without a replacement? It is their only full frame zoom that starts below 24mm.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The legendary 400/5.6 was an L-series lens. The RF 100-500 gives the same FL in it's range, and while f/6.3 at 400mm, is optically better, smaller when retracted, and much more flexible. It is the update to the legendary 300/4, 400/5.6 and 100-400L lenses. People generally prefer zoom lenses, I really doubt we'll ever see updates to the middle-range telephoto primes like the 200/2.8, 300/4 and 400/5.6.
> 
> The RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 is a consumer version of that lens, and with the optional hood comes in at $660.



The one major downside to the 100-500 is its price. Those older EF prime telephoto Ls were pretty good value for what they offered; there definitely seems to be a gap in the middle of the range now (but I don't disagree with your assessment that Canon probably don't feel a need to replace them directly).


----------



## bergstrom (Jul 11, 2022)

wow, 30mm @f6.3? Affordable? Absolutely. Useless? Completely.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 11, 2022)

Actually I use my 15-30 f/2.8 at f/8 or even f/11 most of the time to get the best sharpness. Of course that would not work that well at the R5, where you might already notice diffraction at f/6.3.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jul 11, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> wow, 30mm @f6.3? Affordable? Absolutely. Useless? Completely.


You never shoot landscapes narrower than f/6.3? Seems like DOF is of primary importance for a landscape lens like that. Vs low light for a more Astro focused lens for example.


----------



## bergstrom (Jul 11, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> You never shoot landscapes narrower than f/6.3? Seems like DOF is of primary importance for a landscape lens like that. Vs low light for a more Astro focused lens for example.



Well definitely useless for low light work, niteclubs etc..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> wow, 30mm @f6.3? Affordable? Absolutely. Useless? Completely.


Then get the 14-35/4 or 15-35/2.8.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 11, 2022)

It always amazes me that no matter what Canon does, people just simply complain...and honestly, I gotta include myself here, too (where's my 12mm F2? )

Canon delivers the...
...RF 15-35mm F2.8.... too heavy, too expensive... 
...RF 14-35mm F4...not affordable, software corrected images... 
...RF 16mm F2.8...ohhh the corners, I want a cheap zoom, if it was... (too many wished for options here...) 

now they're about to release an affordable, light wide-angle zoom with IS, and it's a like...
"ohhh, optical trade-offs, vignetting, F6.3? not for me..."

Honestly, we are damn lucky to have so many native UWA options! Plus, they all brought something new and unique to the table  In addition, there are intriguing third party options, of course with some payoff. At some point, there are probably more to come! (Tamron/ Sigma)

Since I myself am still trying to figure out which UWA lens I want to keep permanently, I'd love to read about feedback from those lenses and whom they are suited for. Currently, I do own the 15-35mm and 16mm, but I'm still confused


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Jul 11, 2022)

Size-wise, the 15-30 is almost exactly the same size and weight as the 24-105IS STM, and the 24 is pretty close to the RF35 f/1.8 in size, and a tiny bit lighter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Since I myself am still trying to figure out which UWA lens I want to keep permanently, I'd love to read about feedback from those lenses and whom they are suited for. Currently, I do own the 15-35mm and 16mm, but I'm still confused


A fast UWA zoom is for low-light event shooting – weddings, sports, etc. If you don't need to shoot moving subjects in low light, the 14-35/4 is a better choice, IMO. 

For those who can't afford the L-series zooms, they now have a choice between a fast UWA prime and a slow UWA zoom – I'd say the use cases would be the same, for the prime you're trading the flexibility of a zoom for lower cost, for the zoom you're trading a aperture and a little bit of focal length for lower cost.

Personally, I had an EF 16-35/2.8 and something like 0.5% of my shots with it were wider than f/4, so I swapped it for the 16-35/4 which had IS. I then switched to the RF 14-35/4 for the smaller size and wider wide end.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jul 11, 2022)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> I generally agree, and shoot similarly. But one fast aperture wide angle application jumps immediately to mind - wide field astrophotography. Especially if you're chasing dramatic milky way shots, the faster the better. And in a case like that, it's the somewhat exclusive territory of big, heavy, fast primes like the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or 20mm f/1.4. Something that if I owned, I'd likely bypass most of the time in favor of a lens like the 15-30. I am intrigued to see what the 24mm can do, but even for wide field astro, on the times I've gone out and done it, I've found 24mm to be a bit too narrow of an FOV.
> 
> As an "also fits full frame" option, I also like the idea of the 15-30 as an alternative to the RF-S 18-45 as a primary lens on an R7 or R10 in a mixed bag with FF kit like I will be carrying.


Astro was my first thought for the 24mm 1.8 as well. I have a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 ED, which for the price is pretty good, but sadly displays some coma on the stars, particularly at the edges. Stopping down helps, but defeats the purpose. 24mm is pretty good still, considering even at 14mm you often have to stitch to get a full Summer Mikly Way. 

I'll see what the price looks like on the 24, and how close the wife is watching. If its less than $500 I may pre-order. I just got a sideral tracker for my tripod. The itch is real. 

Brian


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I had an EF 16-35/2.8 and something like 0.5% of my shots with it were wider than f/4...


Thx for the replay, it pretty much summed up what I thought before.

At the moment, I have the RF 15-35mm and takes absolutely brilliant shots, so I took it to Vienna and London. The images are great, but 99,9% were at F8 or so... so no need to carry the extra weight. And carrying it three days through the city it really feels heavy...

But the F4 would seriously limit me when I shoot at night (which I love to do, but haven't been able to lately...)

So, I guess I'd need a a light UWA version (F4 zoom or 16mm or the new one) and a dedicated night sky/ cityscapes at night lens like the laowa 15mm F2 (does anybody have any experience with this lens?) 

But I just can't figure out which set I'd like... so, I am confused. Too many choices, first world problems, I know. But I keep thinking about it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> So, I guess I'd need a a light UWA version (F4 zoom or 16mm or the new one) and a dedicated night sky/ cityscapes at night lens like the laowa 15mm F2 (does anybody have any experience with this lens?)
> 
> But I just can't figure out which set I'd like... so, I am confused. Too many choices, first world problems, I know. But I keep thinking about it


I shoot a lot of blue hour / night architecture and cityscapes, but always on a tripod with long exposures so I don't need a wide aperture for those. I only rarely shoot astro, I do have a Rokinon 14/2.8 that works well for that. If I get more into astro, the Laowa 15/2 looks like an excellent choice!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 11, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I don’t understand why there’s no padding in the canvas lens pouches they provide. They are pretty useless for that reason.



That is such a cheap move from Canon. You get those almost useless canvas pouches with $2000 lenses when a high quality padded zip case costs $10 from a Chinese manufacturer.


----------



## nwardrip (Jul 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I shoot a lot of blue hour / night architecture and cityscapes, but always on a tripod with long exposures so I don't need a wide aperture for those. I only rarely shoot astro, I do have a Rokinon 14/2.8 that works well for that. If I get more into astro, the Laowa 15/2 looks like an excellent choice!


I really love the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art for astro (and other unique UWA shots), but understand this is significantly more than the Rokinon/Laowa options.


----------



## nwardrip (Jul 11, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> That is such a cheap move from Canon. You get those almost useless canvas pouches with $2000 lenses when a high quality padded zip case costs $10 from a Chinese manufacturer.


For me, the pouches that Canon provides are actually perfect. I have all of my lenses in Canon pouches and stored in a safe. If I were to use padded cases, I wouldn't be able to keep all of them locked up. Due to space limitations, I can't get a larger safe (or another safe). In fact, I have purchased many of the Canon pouches second-hand on eBay or KEH for all of the Canon and 3rd party lenses I own that don't have pouches. I like that the padded bottom provides some protection for the front of the lens while resting on the shelf and provides a natural buffer zone when everything is all lined up on a shelf.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 11, 2022)

I just knew there would be whining about the aperture of a cheap, compact, lightweight 15-30mm 

Canon legitimately gives you the option, on the cheap end alone, to get a full frame RF 16mm F/2.8 or a full frame 15-30mm F/4.5-6.5, at a price point that never existed for full frame wide angle lenses in Canon's line-up even when the 17-40 could be picked up for "cheap." That's pretty incredible for the everyday consumer, and it's pretty sad that somehow this is being complained about. Need wide apertures at a wide angle? 16mm f2.8. Need wide angles with a zoom for stopped down landscapes and travel? 15-30mm.

I'm sure the RF 15-30mm will look just fine IQ-wise stopped down to F8. All around a smart decision from Canon, I would have honestly been fine if they made it a constant F/8 wide angle built for landscapes, but I can understand making it more usable in more situations.

It definitely also seems like the RF 15-30mm will be a huge seller to R10 and R7 owners who are possibly looking to jump to full frame. I got my 16-35mm F/4L IS back when I still was rocking a 60D but was about to upgrade to the 5D Mark III. For a while it made a decent general zoom when paired with the 60D, and I could imagine the same thing goes for this lens. 24mm on the wide end is very nice for a crop sensor, then you can also pick up a full frame RF zoom like the 100-400 and already have a wide and tight option when you upgrade cameras.

It would honestly be very tempting to replace my EF 16-35mm F/4 with a lens like this since I use it stopped down mostly, but I do appreciate the weathersealing of my EF 16-35 lens when I need it for weather art and stormchasing.


----------



## dlee13 (Jul 11, 2022)

Although not a day 1 purchase, that 15-30 is definitely sounding like the lens for me. 

I like the 16mm f/2.8 but I find that for that focal range, a zoom is often easier.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 300/2.8, for sure. I wonder if we’ll see a true pancake like the EF 40/2.8? I generally stick to L lenses, but a pocketable ‘normal’ would be very useful.


A replacement for the EF40/2.8 seems like a no-brainer and hits the street photography genre. 
As well as the mythical promise of mirrorless being smaller than DLSR from a lens perspective. 
Adapting the EF40/2.8 roughly doubles the weight, length and cost (if you don't already have the R mount adapter) so it would seem to be a perfect candidate for a RF version.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 11, 2022)

Tom W said:


> The 15-30 sounds like it will make a nice compact, inexpensive ultra-wide zoom, albeit a little slow on the aperture. But often, ultra-wides are shot stopped down anyway, so that makes it a pretty good alternative to its more expensive "L" brethren.
> 
> I think the 24/1.8 will be a big hit, both on full frame and on the new APS-C bodies like the R7 and R10. Should be fairly inexpensive, and if the 35/1.8 is any indication, pretty good quality as well.


I am surprised that there isn't ultra wide angle lens for the new RFs bodies. Crop bodies don't have an option today except for adapting the EFs 10-22mm if good quality option for R7 or EFs10-18mm for cheap and cheerful for the R10/100 etc. The EFs10-22mm was my second lens to pair with EF24-105mm/4 with my original 7D and got me into land/seascape photography

Also not sure why there isn't a replacement for the EFs 24mm/2.8 as paired with the smaller bodies would be a pocketable daily option.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 11, 2022)

Tom W said:


> Probably, just my opinion, because there are already very good options for the 300 and 500 mm lengths with the EF lenses and adapters. My 500 f/4 II works just as well on my R5 as it did on the 5D IV, in terms of optical performance, and that is very good. People transitioning from the EF to the RF mount have no issue adapting the Canon big lenses to their RF bodies.
> 
> I think that when they do replace the 300/2.8 and 500/4, it will be akin to how they replaced the 400 and 600 II with the Mk III versions - lighter, better weight distribution, and updated optical performance. But it's hard to improve on something that is already top notch.


The EF 300/500mm are great lenses but maybe Canon will also add a flipable 1.4x TC to tempt EF owners to upgrade to RF. 
It has seemed to be a strange decision not to release a RF equivalent cf RF 400/600mm versions


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Consider the example of the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, which was replaced by the 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6.


Was the EFs10-22mm replaced? B&H still have it for sale as well as the EFs10-18mm. 2 vastly different price points hitting to the R7/7Dii users vs cheaper crop bodies


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 11, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I don’t understand why there’s no padding in the canvas lens pouches they provide. They are pretty useless for that reason.


Agreed that they are useless - at least for me. 
They don't seem to fit properly with the base being far too big and maybe would protect against scratches but most camera bags already have some level of light padding for this. 
I also wouldn't use them for storage as if there is some moisture on the lens somewhere then it wouldn't dry out properly and promote fungus growth.


----------



## Jethro (Jul 11, 2022)

A Canon 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS coming only a couple of days after the Laowa 12-24mm f/5.6. Suddenly there are multiple and relatively affordable wide zooms to choose from! As always, the reviews will be important, as well as the final price of the Canon. But IS, electronic coupling and a bit more zoom flexibility seem likely to give the Canon an advantage. One of these will likely be my next lens purchase.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2022)

nwardrip said:


> I really love the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art for astro (and other unique UWA shots), but understand this is significantly more than the Rokinon/Laowa options.


I’ll consider that alongside the Laowa. Not sure the 1/3-stop and 1mm add much (and AF doesn’t, for astro), but worth considering if the IQ is meaningfully better.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The legendary 400/5.6 was an L-series lens. The RF 100-500 gives the same FL in it's range, and while f/6.3 at 400mm, is optically better, smaller when retracted, and much more flexible. It is the update to the legendary 300/4, 400/5.6 and 100-400L lenses. People generally prefer zoom lenses, I really doubt we'll ever see updates to the middle-range telephoto primes like the 200/2.8, 300/4 and 400/5.6.


The RF100-500mm is just a perfect 2nd lens for me. My recent Iceland trip 2 lens daily combo was an adapted EF16-35mm/4 plus RF100-500mm covering almost every situation from waterfalls/landscapes/city to icebergs/seals/puffins. 
I used my EF8-15mm/4 just for an ice cave and the RF24-105mm once for a private aerial flight but otherwise could have left them at home. No long exposure photography options as the airline lost my luggage (including filters/tripod) for 11 days! but very happy to use my new Mini 3 Pro for alternative angles.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Was the EFs10-22mm replaced? B&H still have it for sale as well as the EFs10-18mm. 2 vastly different price points hitting to the R7/7Dii users vs cheaper crop bodies


Incorrect assumption on my part, I see the 10-22mm is in stock at Canon USA, too. 

It is listed here:





Canon Rumors - Your best source for Canon rumors, leaks and gossip


Below is a list of Canon EF lenses that have been discontinued recently. I will be updating this list as Canon continues to move manufacturing capabilities to m




www.canonrumors.com




…but I take that with a grain of salt. 

Thanks for pointing that out!


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 11, 2022)

scyrene said:


> The one major downside to the 100-500 is its price. Those older EF prime telephoto Ls were pretty good value for what they offered; there definitely seems to be a gap in the middle of the range now (but I don't disagree with your assessment that Canon probably don't feel a need to replace them directly).


I am not sure that Canon sees that there is a gap. Their RF L lenses are generally offering features not available on EF lenses prompting either to use adapted EF lenses or seductively teasing the RF version at a premium


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 11, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> wow, 30mm @f6.3? Affordable? Absolutely. Useless? Completely.


Potential buyers will only be interested in focal length, size and price. 
Given the mirrorless advantages of smaller aperture focusing, lens correction software and general improvements in ISO performance with newer sensors then I don't see an issue for them.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 11, 2022)

nwardrip said:


> For me, the pouches that Canon provides are actually perfect. I have all of my lenses in Canon pouches and stored in a safe. If I were to use padded cases, I wouldn't be able to keep all of them locked up. Due to space limitations, I can't get a larger safe (or another safe). In fact, I have purchased many of the Canon pouches second-hand on eBay or KEH for all of the Canon and 3rd party lenses I own that don't have pouches. I like that the padded bottom provides some protection for the front of the lens while resting on the shelf and provides a natural buffer zone when everything is all lined up on a shelf.


Wouldn't it be cheaper to insure them rather than a new safe to lock them up? 
The only reason I can think of for locking up would be humidity control in a dry box to reduce possibility of fungus.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 11, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I am not sure that Canon sees that there is a gap. Their RF L lenses are generally offering features not available on EF lenses prompting either to use adapted EF lenses or seductively teasing the RF version at a premium


Oh they probably don't see a gap, I agree. But as a consumer, I find the lack of L RF lenses below £1000 (and indeed only two are currently listed below £1500) a pity - the EF range had some L bargains, but it seems that's a thing of the past.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 11, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Honestly, we are damn lucky to have so many native UWA options! Plus, they all brought something new and unique to the table  In addition, there are intriguing third party options, of course with some payoff. At some point, there are probably more to come! (Tamron/ Sigma)


Crop RF bodies don't have a native ultra wide solution besides adapting EFs Canon/3rd party lenses today.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 11, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Oh they probably don't see a gap, I agree. But as a consumer, I find the lack of L RF lenses below £1000 (and indeed only two are currently listed below £1500) a pity - the EF range had some L bargains, but it seems that's a thing of the past.


All about priorities for Canon I guess. The EF range was developed over decades so it may happen in the future.


----------



## dcm (Jul 11, 2022)

I've had some occassions where the RF 24-240 isn't wide enough on the R6. The RF 15-30 looks like a perfect companion for this purpose.


----------



## Skux (Jul 12, 2022)

This seems like a good idea, I don't need a pro wide angle, I just need a wide angle.

The price will be the deciding factor, even the non-L RF lenses have been significantly more expensive than EF budget options. If it's more expensive than a used 16-35mm f2.8 I'll pass.


----------



## danfaz (Jul 12, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Crop RF bodies don't have a native ultra wide solution besides adapting EFs Canon/3rd party lenses today.


Well, they did just come out.


----------



## t.linn (Jul 12, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> I'll see what the price looks like on the 24, and how close the wife is watching.


 My wife is always like, "Get it. You deserve it." (I don't.) She knows that if a new Vitamix shows up on the kitchen counter a few weeks later, I'm not going to be able to say anything. She's a clever one.


----------



## t.linn (Jul 12, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The RF100-500mm is just a perfect 2nd lens for me. My recent Iceland trip 2 lens daily combo was an adapted EF16-35mm/4 plus RF100-500mm covering almost every situation from waterfalls/landscapes/city to icebergs/seals/puffins.


It's interesting how different people see comps. It's hard for me to imagine going without the 35-100mm focal range but I know there are more than a few landscapers who don't own a standard zoom.


----------



## BadHorse (Jul 12, 2022)

One thing I that baffled me was that the R5 defaults to Movie Cropping mode enabled. I've been using an my EF 35mm F/1.4 II as my primary lens for video in full-frame mode but I can't help but wonder if there would be an advantage to this little 24mm in crop-mode. Apart from being 1/3rd the weight and easier on a gimbal I guess you're trading IQ and sensitivity for less rolling-shutter? I'm not sure.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 12, 2022)

danfaz said:


> Well, they did just come out.


Really? 15mm on a crop sensor is full frame 24mm. 
"Crop RF bodies don't have a native ultra wide solution besides adapting EFs Canon/3rd party lenses today."
My comment was for ultra wide options. The EFs 10-22 and 10-16mm both go out to 16mm full frame equivalent. 
Can you elaborate on other native RF options for crop sensors?

Strangely enough, I don't consider 16mm of full frame to be "ultra wide" given I use it often for many genres. Being limited to 24mm on a crop sensor would be quite restrictive for my shooting style.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The RF100-500mm is just a perfect 2nd lens for me. My recent Iceland trip 2 lens daily combo was an adapted EF16-35mm/4 plus RF100-500mm covering almost every situation from waterfalls/landscapes/city to icebergs/seals/puffins.


My kit for my last trip was the RF 14-35/4, RF 24-105/4, and RF 100-500. I used them about equally. That was with no architecture planned, for that I’d add a TS-E lens as well.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 12, 2022)

t.linn said:


> It's interesting how different people see comps. It's hard for me to imagine going without the 35-100mm focal range but I know there are more than a few landscapers who don't own a standard zoom.


I own the RF24-105mm/4 but don't use it often. It was perfect for aerial shooting and would be my choice for a 1 lens option. 
I was seriously annoyed when I researched a hike to Múlagljúfur canyon and was told that 24mm was sufficient and hence took the 24-105mm when wider was certainly needed and I had to stitch panoramas. 100mm was perfect to video dancing rainbows in the waterfall though.

With the R5, I could easily crop from 35mm if I needed to but I appreciate the perspective would be different. For a 2 lens combo, it was perfect. I was switching between them often on a zodiac iceberg lagoon tour between shooting icebergs and seals though.

I use my RF70-200mm/2.8 mostly for indoor sports now but my previous EF70-200mm plus TCs were a standard part of my 2 lens DLSR combo . I never had the EF100-400mm. 
Given the lack of TC support for RF70-200mm, the RF100-500mm now covers any situation if a telephoto subject appeared and the smaller aperture isn't a major concern for me in those scenarios.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 12, 2022)

I'm past the point of buying low-end glass unless it covers a wide range like 24-105, etc., so the 15-30 zoom doesn't do anything for me. I hope those who need it are satisfied with its price and performance.


----------



## MartinVLC (Jul 12, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Perhaps most people who buy consumer lenses don't pay much attention to aperture, or maybe people are shooting the majority of their photos at f/8 or somewhere near there. I may not be typical, but especially for a wide angle lens, it's going to be used for sunsets and an occasional landscape when my 24-105 is not wide enough. Also for vacations, especially in places such as older cities where streets are narrow and your shooting distance is limited. For myself, I can't imagine any situation where I want a fast aperture for a wide angle lens. My default camera setting is Aperture priority and it is set at f/7.1 and I almost never have to change it. Again, that may not be typical - especially for forum dwellers.


I´m mostly shooting portraits, events and arcitecture. For the latter I agree, that the aperture of the upcoming 15-30mm is perfectly fine. For portrait you can get some nice effects though with a faster lense and for event/low light moving subjects the new 15-30mm is way to slow. If it was a 2.8-4 like the Tamron EF 17-35mm (that´s roughly the same size and weight) it would be great. To me it´s a pitty that canon only offers very slow affordable zooms.


Exploreshootshare said:


> It always amazes me that no matter what Canon does, people just simply complain...





H. Jones said:


> I just knew there would be whining about the aperture of a cheap, compact, lightweight 15-30mm


In my opinion the affordable STM primes are ok, so I´m not complaining about everything ;-). 

But the problem is, that Canon does not offer ANY affordable fast zoom lenses. And the upcoming 15-30mm is just another example. 
It´s obvious that they could offer them, if Tamron can, and even Nikon offers at least a halfway affordable 28-75mm 2.8. 
I understand, that they don´t care about non rich enthousiasts and beginning pros and want you to spend 2500 $/€ on fast L-zooms. But that has to be critizised from the consumers point of view, that´s no whining. 

On the Sony E-Mount you get a ton of fast zooms between 600-1000 $/€ on the Canon RF mount not a single one. I´ve been shooting Canon for 15 years (300D, 30D, 7D, RP) and I wish there were more third party options on the RF-Mount because I don´t want to have to switch to Sony.


----------



## danfaz (Jul 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> My kit for my last trip was the RF 14-35/4, RF 24-105/4, and RF 100-500. I used them about equally. That was with no architecture planned, for that I’d add a TS-E lens as well.


My last trip was mainly split between the 28-70 and 100-500, with the occasional 16mm usage.


----------



## mbike999 (Jul 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I doubt we'll ever see an 'in between' 800mm lens. An 800/8 would still have a 100mm front element – that's the same size as the 200/2L, and it's 'intermediate' cost would likely fall in line, say $7-8K. Get a 500/4 and put a 1.4x TC on it, you have 700/5.6 in the same price range as 800/8.


$7K is a lot better than $18K. One needs only to look at Nikon is currently doing to see what is possible.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> My kit for my last trip was the RF 14-35/4, RF 24-105/4, and RF 100-500. I used them about equally. That was with no architecture planned, for that I’d add a TS-E lens as well.


I gravitate to wider perspectives in general but after shooting puffins, I now have some interest in birding as well. I got ~500 shots of acceptable and critically sharp shots of them which was remarkable  

Never had a TSE lens but I can see a wide angle TSE lens being very useful for cityscapes and waterfalls. It would be hard to justify the expense though. Maybe a second hand TSE17/4 once a RF version comes out as they are currently very rare on the 2nd hand market


----------



## JustUs7 (Jul 12, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> Well definitely useless for low light work, niteclubs etc..


So is a 100-500 f/4.5-7.1, because that’s not what it’s for.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jul 12, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> I'm sure the RF 15-30mm will look just fine IQ-wise stopped down to F8.



I feel like the idea of improved performance when stepped down is a holdover from DSLR thinking. When lenses had to open to f/5.6 for AF to work, but optically at their best a stop slower. Mirrorless seems built to be sharp through the range, with maybe some weakness at the widest due to reliance on digital lens optimization. My RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 is plenty sharp wide open. And because it can focus at f/8, it’s a lot smaller and lighter too. 

I bet this will be just fine at 30mm f/6.3, but probably rely on lens corrections at 15mm regardless of aperture.


----------



## Bonich (Jul 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The legendary 400/5.6 was an L-series lens. The RF 100-500 gives the same FL in it's range, and while f/6.3 at 400mm, is optically better, smaller when retracted, and much more flexible. It is the update to the legendary 300/4, 400/5.6 and 100-400L lenses. People generally prefer zoom lenses, I really doubt we'll ever see updates to the middle-range telephoto primes like the 200/2.8, 300/4 and 400/5.6.
> 
> The RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 is a consumer version of that lens, and with the optional hood comes in at $660.
> 
> I doubt we'll ever see an 'in between' 800mm lens. An 800/8 would still have a 100mm front element – that's the same size as the 200/2L, and it's 'intermediate' cost would likely fall in line, say $7-8K. Get a 500/4 and put a 1.4x TC on it, you have 700/5.6 in the same price range as 800/8.


That's why Nikon is introducing a stellar 400 4.5 .....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2022)

mbike999 said:


> One needs only to look at Nikon is currently doing to see what is possible.





Bonich said:


> That's why Nikon is introducing a stellar 400 4.5 .....


In the past 10 years, Nikon has gone from >40% ILC market share to <15%. Does it sound like Nikon has a strategy worth emulating?


----------



## Blue Zurich (Jul 12, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> It always amazes me that no matter what Canon does, people just simply complain...and honestly, I gotta include myself here, too (where's my 12mm F2? )
> 
> Canon delivers the...
> ...RF 15-35mm F2.8.... too heavy, too expensive...
> ...


Negative Vibe Merchants! (to quote Neil from The Young Ones)


----------



## SNJ Ops (Jul 12, 2022)

bereninga said:


> hahah This made me LOL. I'm still not a fan of any macro designation that's not 1.0x magnification.
> 
> I think there's still that gaping hole between the budget-focused and super "professional" L-grade lenses. Not everyone needs f/1.2, but f/1.4 and some quality build features, a lens hood and a decent pouch are appreciated. If only third party companies like Sigma could fill in that space for RF-mount w/o an adapter.


I was at a local photography trade show on Saturday and I spoke to a Sigma UK rep and one of the things I asked him was about the lack of RF and Z mount glass. His response was “We are just waiting on licenses from them, the lenses are ready to go and all we would need to do is add RF and Z mounts on the end of them”

Unfortunately I didn’t get to speak to any of the Canon reps and ask them the same question.


----------



## Skux (Jul 12, 2022)

Officially announced!






RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM


Take The Next Step With This Macro Lens




www.canon.co.nz










RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM


Take the Next Step With This Ultra-wide Lens




www.canon.co.nz





Heaps of YouTube impressions videos are coming out too, looks like the embargo has lifted.

The zoom has some pretty decent macro chops as well.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 12, 2022)

t.linn said:


> It's interesting how different people see comps. It's hard for me to imagine going without the 35-100mm focal range but I know there are more than a few landscapers who don't own a standard zoom.


Knew a war photographer who *only* used a 24mm and 35mm prime. His view was, if he wasn't close enough to be able to use those lenses and be in the situation, the pictures didn't matter anyway because they wouldn't put the viewer into the situation. To him the 35mm was "for more reach" 

Hard for me to imagine as a photojournalist who often uses 560mm on police incidents, but that's the beauty of photography as an art form, everyone has their own way of working. I drove across America with only one body and my 16-35mm and 100-400mm, and while I definitely missed having a general zoom, I was ultimately very happy with the combination. 35-100mm is mostly a distance that can be spanned by cropping lightly or moving closer to your subject.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 12, 2022)

nwardrip said:


> I really love the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art for astro (and other unique UWA shots), but understand this is significantly more than the Rokinon/Laowa options.


I had the Sigma 20mm F1.4 Art for quite a while and the 14mm F1.8 for a short period. While both are exceptional lenses, they are very heavy to carry around for city travel... Plus, I actually did like the IQ of the RF 35mm a bit better when shooting cityscapes at night. So I sold them both.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 12, 2022)

Park Camera video of the lenses: 




The listings: https://www.parkcameras.com/shop/ca...m_medium=youtube&utm_campaign=canon-rf-lenses







Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens | Park Cameras


The Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens is a compact wide to ultra wide angle zoom with 5.5-stop stabilisation & 0.5x magnification for macro. Buy now.




www.parkcameras.com


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 12, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Crop RF bodies don't have a native ultra wide solution besides adapting EFs Canon/3rd party lenses today.


Honestly, it feels like the announcement of the Crop RF bodies was only two days ago...only very few have received their day-one preorder R7 & R10 cameras... 
Feels like the common complaint from October 2018 when introduced the EOS R, "but there are only three lenses...". 
Give it time, there will be a native UWA lens for RFs mount.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 12, 2022)

Just hit B&H: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1716503-REG/canon_rf_24mm_f_1_8_is.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1716510-REG/canon_rf_15_30mm_f_3_5_5_6_is.html

RF 24mm F/1.8 is $600 and RF 15-30mm F/4.5-6.3 is $550.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> My kit for my last trip was the RF 14-35/4, RF 24-105/4, and RF 100-500. I used them about equally. That was with no architecture planned, for that I’d add a TS-E lens as well.


That's my standard kit, well at the moment 15-35mm. If I choose to leave the 100-500mm at home, I take the 70-200mm which is great for city travels and even hiking.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 12, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Just hit B&H: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1716503-REG/canon_rf_24mm_f_1_8_is.html
> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1716510-REG/canon_rf_15_30mm_f_3_5_5_6_is.html
> 
> RF 24mm F/1.8 is $600 and RF 15-30mm F/4.5-6.3 is $550.


In Germany, the RF 15-30mm is 699 € and the 24mm F1.8 is 749 €. I thought the 24mm would be the same price point as the 35mm, but ok. I think it is funny that in 2019 I thought the RF 35mm was kind of expensive (being around 450 € after Cashback and a retailers sales offer), but after using it a lot (I absolutely love it!) and seeing other prices come up, it feels like a bargain  

https://www.foto-erhardt.de/objektive/canon-objektive/rf-objektive/canon-rf-15-30mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm.html?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Canon 2 neue Objektive Juli&utm_medium=email

Here is the second link: 









Canon RF 24mm f1,8 Macro IS STM - Foto Erhardt


Canon RF 24mm f1,8 Macro IS STM: Das 24mm f1,8 Makroobjektiv von Canon ist nicht nur leicht und kompakt, sondern kombiniert das Weitwinkelbildfeld mit einer hohen Lichtstärke für kreative Aufnahmen.




www.foto-erhardt.de


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 12, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> In Germany, the RF 15-30mm is 699 € and the 24mm F1.8 is 749 €. I thought the 24mm would be the same price point as the 35mm, but well.
> 
> https://www.foto-erhardt.de/objektive/canon-objektive/rf-objektive/canon-rf-15-30mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm.html?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Canon 2 neue Objektive Juli&utm_medium=email
> 
> ...



Roughly $100 USD more than the RF 35mm F/1.8 STM Macro was on release in 2018, given everything that has happened with parts shortages and inflation over 4 years, I don't think it's totally unreasonable for a launch price. I also would presume it's *slightly* more difficult optically to make a wide 24mm F/1.8 than a 35mm f/1.8, for the same reason the 50mm F/1.8 is the cheapest prime out there, though I think inflation and parts availability is more of the reason for the jump.


----------



## nunataks (Jul 12, 2022)

Ugh I wish the 24 was cheaper, but I'm surprised by the price of the 15-30

Hands on from youtube: the 24 looks BEAUTIFUL


----------



## Skux (Jul 12, 2022)

$550 for the zoom comes to $1000 NZD, add retail fees and this will probably be on sale here for at least $1200. I could buy a used EF 16-35mm f2.8 II for that much...


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 12, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Honestly, it feels like the announcement of the Crop RF bodies was only two days ago...only very few have received their day-one preorder R7 & R10 cameras...
> Feels like the common complaint from October 2018 when introduced the EOS R, "but there are only three lenses...".
> Give it time, there will be a native UWA lens for RFs mount.


For the R7/R10, the main issue for focal length range coverage was in the ultra wide space. Current telephoto lens covers the "reach" aspect but the missing link is the ultra wide lenses. I would assume equivalents to the EFs10-22/10-18mm even if they are just welded adapters, control rings and faster communications with RF protocols to cover 2 price points.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 12, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Tamron still list the G2 version of that lens on their website. Why would they discontinue it without a replacement? It is their only full frame zoom that starts below 24mm.


You are right 
They discontinued the G1








TAMRON | Discontinued Product List


株式会社タムロン, TAMRONは、永に培った光学技術に電子技術、精密機械工学を融合し、あらゆる産業の中で映像の眼を創造する企業として挑戦を続けています。



www.tamron.jp


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 12, 2022)

scyrene said:


> The one major downside to the 100-500 is its price. Those older EF prime telephoto Ls were pretty good value for what they offered;


Canon raised the price of the EF 100-400L
The price difference between it and the RF 100-500L is not all that much


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 12, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> So is a 100-500 f/4.5-7.1, because that’s not what it’s for.


So is the 1200 f/8 unless you are a bouncer


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 12, 2022)

So $599 for 24mm and $549 for 15-30mm is not bad(they are for preorder on B&H) also it looks like MFD at 15mm for 15-30mm is 28cms. Overall good additions to RF lineup.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 12, 2022)

PR: 





Canon U.S.A., Inc. | Press Release Details







www.usa.canon.com





Videos:


----------



## Jethro (Jul 12, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Just hit B&H: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1716503-REG/canon_rf_24mm_f_1_8_is.html
> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1716510-REG/canon_rf_15_30mm_f_3_5_5_6_is.html
> 
> RF 24mm F/1.8 is $600 and RF 15-30mm F/4.5-6.3 is $550.


Undercutting the USD649 for the Laowa 12-24mm f5.6, which obviously is wider, but initial reports describe as very soft at the 24mm end. Very interested in full reviews of the RF 15-30mm.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 12, 2022)

Jethro said:


> Undercutting the USD649 for the Laowa 12-24mm f5.6, which obviously is wider, but initial reports describe as very soft at the 24mm end. Very interested in full reviews of the RF 15-30mm.


Venus is wider and has lower max mag ratio(.4x but probably keeps that throughout zoom range) compared to canon which isn't wider but has AF and IS to boot with slightly better max mag ratio. Would love to see comparison review of these 2 lenses.


----------



## Jethro (Jul 12, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Venus is wider and has lower max mag ratio(.4x but probably keeps that throughout zoom range) compared to canon which isn't wider but has AF and IS to boot with slightly better max mag ratio. Would love to see comparison review of these 2 lenses.


Yes, I think it's going to be a good play-off between these lenses! 30mm is actually a length that I would potentially use as a walk-around (24mm is a little wide for me), so there are advantages to both of them.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 12, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon raised the price of the EF 100-400L
> The price difference between it and the RF 100-500L is not all that much


Given that the second hand market for EF100-400mm is keeping up much higher than other lenses, the RF100-500mm was the best choice for me when it was on sale. Only real choice as the RF70-200mm/2.8 doesn't accept TCs. No regrets though


----------



## mxwphoto (Jul 12, 2022)

That 15-30 checks off so many of my wishlist boxes! Small and light UWA, check! Autofocus, check! Image stabilized, check! Affordable price point, check!

Just have to see how the resulting images appear, but I suspect they would be good enough (unless if it is just horrible in the corners somehow). This is likely going to be the dream travel UWA I have been looking for.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 12, 2022)

The Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM is literally the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM for full frame. It's the same equivalent focal length and lens filter size (but brighter), and dimensions fairly similar, with crop lens 74.6 x 72mm and this new lens at 76.6 x 88.4 mm, the extra length needed to make up some of the the additional 24mm of flange distance required for the RF mount.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 12, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> Anyone who has the audacity to complain about either of these lenses can get lost. Like. Really lost.
> 
> These are two more excellent budget options that will sell like hotcakes, no doubt at all. Slow zoom or not, depending on the price the 15-30 could be an incredible wide angle option on the low end. I remember when the 10-18 first got announced and there was massive hype for it, now there's a full frame version. The only reason I won't get one is I already have the 16-35mm and the RF 16mm!
> 
> I'll pre-order the 24mm immediately. It will be really nice having cheap and fast RF 16mm, 24mm, 34mm, and 50mm primes to choose from for when I don't need to bring my big L series zooms.


It's equally invalid to either praise or complain about lenses that probably haven't been manufactured yet, let alone sold and tested. They could be awesome or completely crap, and Canon's asking price will determine value for money.

I also like the *idea *of a 24mm f/1.8 macro, but the *implementation *of that idea is what I'm waiting to see, meaning the release of testing results from credible sources. If it's anything like the RF 35mm 1.8 macro, and sells at a reasonable price, that would be awesome!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 12, 2022)

sobrien said:


> 0.5 magnification on both of these - wonder who the 15-30 offended to be overlooked for a “macro” designation?
> 
> These both look pretty interesting. 15-30 looks very similar to the RF 24-105 and you'd imagine similar optical trade offs might have been made. Suspect it will be a very decent option for hiking, etc for those who can live with less than stellar corner performance.
> 
> ...


It's most likely a typo, and the Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM probably does not have a 0.5x magnification...


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 12, 2022)

JimmyJames said:


> I'll guess the same at the 85mm STM lens.


From all the reviews the RF 85mm f/2 macro is a great photography lens but atrocious as a video lens, the AF is not up for video work.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 12, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Perhaps most people who buy consumer lenses don't pay much attention to aperture, or maybe people are shooting the majority of their photos at f/8 or somewhere near there. I may not be typical, but especially for a wide angle lens, it's going to be used for sunsets and an occasional landscape when my 24-105 is not wide enough. Also for vacations, especially in places such as older cities where streets are narrow and your shooting distance is limited. For myself, I can't imagine any situation where I want a fast aperture for a wide angle lens. My default camera setting is Aperture priority and it is set at f/7.1 and I almost never have to change it. Again, that may not be typical - especially for forum dwellers.


Perhaps most people who buy consumer lenses don't pay much attention to aperture, or they just always run their camera in Auto mode!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 12, 2022)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> I generally agree, and shoot similarly. But one fast aperture wide angle application jumps immediately to mind - wide field astrophotography. Especially if you're chasing dramatic milky way shots, the faster the better. And in a case like that, it's the somewhat exclusive territory of big, heavy, fast primes like the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or 20mm f/1.4. Something that if I owned, I'd likely bypass most of the time in favor of a lens like the 15-30. I am intrigued to see what the 24mm can do, but even for wide field astro, on the times I've gone out and done it, I've found 24mm to be a bit too narrow of an FOV.
> 
> As an "also fits full frame" option, I also like the idea of the 15-30 as an alternative to the RF-S 18-45 as a primary lens on an R7 or R10 in a mixed bag with FF kit like I will be carrying.


Fast wide angle lenses are also useful for low-light indoor and night events.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 12, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon raised the price of the EF 100-400L
> The price difference between it and the RF 100-500L is not all that much


I hadn't noticed that, wow.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 12, 2022)

Skux said:


> Officially announced!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting looking at the specs, the 15-30mm zoom doesn't earn the 'macro' title in its name because AF doesn't work at minimum focus distances by the look of it. Only manual focus.


From https://www.canon.co.nz/camera-lenses/rf-15-30mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm

Take impressive macro shots

Enjoy broad use, with the RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM's *macro capability in manual focus mode*. Get up close and personal, with focusing distances as close as 13cm magnified up to 0.5x. Handy for more intricate shots like food, flowers and smaller subjects you really want to show off.


----------



## sobrien (Jul 12, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> The Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM is literally the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM for full frame.


Yes, literally the same, apart from the different equivalent focal length (16mm-28.8mm), aperture (f/7.2-f/8.96), physical dimensions and weight.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 12, 2022)

Too rich for my blood!


----------



## Felix (Jul 12, 2022)

The prices in Germany:
RF24 749€
RF15-30 699€


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 12, 2022)

sobrien said:


> Yes, literally the same, apart from the different equivalent focal length (16mm-28.8mm), aperture (f/7.2-f/8.96), physical dimensions and weight.


Um, factor in the missing metal lens mount on the EF-S 10-18mm and the extra bit of plastic to make up the flange distance and the weight is quite close.

I'm not sure if anybody has let you in on one of photography's worst kept secrets, but the focal lengths quoted by manufacturers are conveniently rounded of the next best marketable figure! The 100-400 II is something closer to 380mm at the long end, the RF 85mm f/2 has a narrower FOV than other 85mm lenses and is probably closer to 90mm, etc... The apertures are rounded off too!

Like I said, same lens specs, but brighter!


----------



## Traveler (Jul 12, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Internal focus is extremely useful at close distances and lighting subjects is also easier and so is weather resistance compared to lenses with extending barrels.


I didn't have any issues with the 35mm even when shooting at close distance. But as always, we have the choice. The STM lenses are supposed to be cheaper, lighter, smaller. Good enough for me. Other people can buy dedicated macro lenses I guess.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 12, 2022)

Felix said:


> The prices in Germany:
> RF24 749€
> RF15-30 699€


£719, £669 UK. Should be without price gouging by Canon Europe: £635 and £592. That's 13% higher with the same taxes and warranties. Simple, as a matter of principle, I'll wait for the gray market and Canon Europe will lose out. Canon seem to have made a pricing mistake with the R7 and had the pre-orders at the same price in the EU and UK from stores. But, they have upped the price in the UK on-line store by 10%. It's still the old price from some dealers. I paid on the first day of pre-ordering on 25 May £1699 for the kit with RF 18-150mm + free EF to R adapeter, it's now £1849 for the kit with no adapter.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 12, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Um, factor in the missing metal lens mount on the EF-S 10-18mm and the extra bit of plastic to make up the flange distance and the weight is quite close.
> 
> I'm not sure if anybody has let you in on one of photography's worst kept secrets, but the focal lengths quoted by manufacturers are conveniently rounded of the next best marketable figure! The 100-400 II is something closer to 380mm at the long end, the RF 85mm f/2 has a narrower FOV than other 85mm lenses and is probably closer to 90mm, etc... The apertures are rounded off too!
> 
> Like I said, same lens specs, but brighter!



The focal length is quoted at infinity focus. The 380mm you talking about is at minimum focusing distance. At infinity is much closer to 400mm.


----------



## sobrien (Jul 12, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I'm not sure if anybody has let you in on one of photography's worst kept secrets, but the focal lengths quoted by manufacturers are conveniently rounded of the next best marketable figure!


Have you any evidence to support an argument that Canon takes greater liberties with focal length measurements today than it did when it released the 10-18 STM?


----------



## Felix (Jul 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> £719, £669 UK. Should be without price gouging by Canon Europe: £635 and £592. That's 13% higher with the same taxes and warranties. Simple, as a matter of principle, I'll wait for the gray market and Canon Europe will lose out. Canon seem to have made a pricing mistake with the R7 and had the pre-orders at the same price in the EU and UK from stores. But, they have upped the price in the UK on-line store by 10%. It's still the old price from some dealers. I paid on the first day of pre-ordering on 25 May £1699 for the kit with RF 18-150mm + free EF to R adapeter, it's now £1849 for the kit with no adapter.


I don't understand the canon prices. The RF24 comes in the same concept as the RF35 and both have IS & STM. I can understand that the development and production of a 135mm 1.8 is more expensive, but I cannot understand the surcharge. I had the RF35 and was happy with the image quality (corrected in Lr). However, the slow STM and lack of weather protection made me sell the lens. I think the RF24 will have the same problems.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 12, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The focal length is quoted at infinity focus. The 380mm you talking about is at minimum focusing distance. At infinity is much closer to 400mm.


The focal length of the 100-400mm II at its minimum focal distance is 175mm, as calculated from Canon's own figures for the magnification at its mfd. I measured it to be 178mm. At 1.6m distance, it increases to 228mm.
I just calculated the following focal lengths for these lenses at 19.5m from target with the R5 (from measured magnifications):
400mm DO II, 377mm
100-400mm II @400mm, 373mm
RF 100-400mm @400mm, 377mm
RF 100-500mm @500mm, 463mm.
This assumes the pixel size is 4.39 µ for the R5, as given on various sites. However, if the 8192 px width of the images is 36mm, then the pixels would be 4.15 µ, and those calculations a 5.7% overestimate and so the EF 100-400mm II calculates at 353mm, and @LogicExtremist claim of 360mm at infinity focus most reasonable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The focal length of the 100-400mm II at its minimum focal distance is 175mm, as calculated from Canon's own figures for the magnification at its mfd. I measured it to be 178mm. At 1.6m distance, it increases to 228mm.
> I just calculated the following focal lengths for these lenses at 19.5m from target with the R5 (from measured magnifications):
> 400mm DO II, 377mm
> 100-400mm II @400mm, 373mm
> ...


Several of Canon's patents for RF 100-500mm lenses are actually 102-485mm.


----------



## bernie_king (Jul 12, 2022)

FrenchFry said:


> It should be more on the budget side as an STM non-L lens.
> I just wish it had higher magnification for macro work, but otherwise it looks great.
> 
> I would have preferred to see the long -rumored 300mm and 500mm lenses, but it does not seem those are coming any time soon



I am expecting the 300 2.8 and 500 f4 to be released with the R1. I'd imagine we'll see a dev announcement this fall.


----------



## photophil (Jul 12, 2022)

Felix said:


> I don't understand the canon prices. The RF24 comes in the same concept as the RF35 and both have IS & STM. I can understand that the development and production of a 135mm 1.8 is more expensive, but I cannot understand the surcharge. I had the RF35 and was happy with the image quality (corrected in Lr). However, the slow STM and lack of weather protection made me sell the lens. I think the RF24 will have the same problems.


Did you find any alternative for the RF35 that filled that niche for you? I have similar gripes about my RF35, but I am not aware of anything that could replace it, especially with EF mount lenses being significantly bigger and heavier from the adapter alone.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Several of Canon's patents for RF 100-500mm lenses are actually 102-485mm.


You do indeed need to go to the patents to get closer to the truth for the focal length and f-numbers. I measured the diameter of the front lens of the 400mm f/4 DO II and recall it was 95mm, below the 100mm required for a 400mm f/4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You do indeed need to go to the patents to get closer to the truth for the focal length and f-numbers. I measured the diameter of the front lens of the 400mm f/4 DO II and recall it was 95mm, below the 100mm required for a 400mm f/4.


Yes, my 600/4 II has a front element of ~144mm. But apertures are rounded, too. So the 600/4 is could be something like 593mm f/4.12, for example.


----------



## Jose Rubio Rodrigu (Jul 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> De hecho, necesita ir a las patentes para acercarse a la verdad de la distancia focal y los números f. Medí el diámetro de la lente frontal del 400 mm f/4 DO II y recuerdo que era de 95 mm, por debajo de los 100 mm necesarios para un 400 mm f/4.


 No estoy de acuerdo con esta definición de este gran objetivo.
El Rf 100 500 es majestuoso, lijero y con una calidad sublime, rapido y eficaz. Es una pata negra.
no lo juzgueis si no lo habeis probado como se merece.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 12, 2022)

Jose Rubio Rodrigu said:


> No estoy de acuerdo con esta definición de este gran objetivo.
> El Rf 100 500 es majestuoso, lijero y con una calidad sublime, rapido y eficaz. Es una pata negra.
> no lo juzgueis si no lo habeis probado como se merece.


Google translate: "I do not agree with this definition of this great objective. The Rf 100 500 is majestic, light and with sublime quality, fast and efficient. It's a black leg. do not judge it if you have not tried it as it deserves."

You clearly haven't been following discussions in CanonRumors. You have missed my many posts in which I have written that the RF 100-500mm is my favourite lens and I have posted regularly images of birds and insects taken with it. I started one of the earliest threads on the lens in Dec 2020 when I was one of the first group to buy the lens.





RF 100-500mm vs EF 100-400mm II vs 400mm DO II on R5


One of the questions asked about the RF 100-500mm is whether it’s worth upgrading to it from an EF 100-400mm II plus adapter. The consensus so far is that if you are starting from scratch, then it makes sense to buy into the RF system but if you already have the excellent EF lens then there is...




www.canonrumors.com




And here is another thread I started about the lens.





The awesome AF of the R5 and RF 100-500mm for Dragonflies in Flight


We have a fun thread on Dragonflies and Damselflies, enjoyed by some of us aficionados. The most difficult shots are those of them flying as they are very small and fast and usually erratic. So we have developed tricks for photoing them. Recently, the AF of the R5 has made such shots much...




www.canonrumors.com





There is a some possibility that I have used this lens for longer and more than you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Google translate: "I do not agree with this definition of this great objective. The Rf 100 500 is majestic, light and with sublime quality, fast and efficient. It's a black leg. do not judge it if you have not tried it as it deserves."
> 
> You clearly haven't been following discussions in CanonRumors. You have missed my many posts in which I have written that the RF 100-500mm is my favourite lens and I have posted regularly images of birds and insects taken with it. I started one of the earliest threads on the lens in Dec 2020 when I was one of the first group to buy the lens.
> 
> ...


Yes, Alan, but what do you _really_ think of the lens?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 12, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, Alan, but what do you _really_ think of the lens?


Did my enthusiasm have any influence on your buying one?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Did my enthusiasm have any influence on your buying one?


Un poco.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jul 13, 2022)

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

Maximum shooting magnification: 0.5x
I have a question about this, since this lens has 0.5x magnification, why did they leave the Macro label out since the 24mm f/1.8 Macro has the same magnification?


----------



## Nemorino (Jul 13, 2022)

This magnification is only possible at 15mm and manual focussing. For every other focal length the mfd is 28cm. Not enough to call a lens macro.


----------



## Felix (Jul 13, 2022)

photophil said:


> Did you find any alternative for the RF35 that filled that niche for you? I have similar gripes about my RF35, but I am not aware of anything that could replace it, especially with EF mount lenses being significantly bigger and heavier from the adapter alone.


No but I have no pressure to wait for an L version to be released.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 13, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The focal length is quoted at infinity focus. The 380mm you talking about is at minimum focusing distance. At infinity is much closer to 400mm.


That's besides the point! Lens specs aren't exact, there are tolerances, ie. +/- a certain percentage, like all things! You're buying a lens with a specific optical design consisting of several elements to do a certain task, not a piece of equipment used to calibrate lens measurements! Have a look at the patents, then the marketing labels, they do differ. If a specific lens formula works out to 23.4mm, it will be marketed as a 24mm lens, that's why lenses are always nice round numbers!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 13, 2022)

sobrien said:


> Have you any evidence to support an argument that Canon takes greater liberties with focal length measurements today than it did when it released the 10-18 STM?


Thanks for misstating my point, nobody is claiming that "Canon takes greater liberties with focal length measurements today", you've obviously misunderstood what I was saying. No point labouring the statement you made earlier. 10mm on APSC and 15mm of full frame are going to be equivalent, despite your protestations, because 15/1.6 = 9.375 and you can be damn hard pressed to find a 10mm lens that's exactly 10mm and a 15mm lens that's exactly 15mm! Relax, the EF-S 10-18mm and RF 15-30mm are equivalent focal length lenses on the two sensor sizes, with very similar dimensions, and that was my point.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 13, 2022)

photophil said:


> Did you find any alternative for the RF35 that filled that niche for you? I have similar gripes about my RF35, but I am not aware of anything that could replace it, especially with EF mount lenses being significantly bigger and heavier from the adapter alone.


I'm not sure what your intended use is, but I've found the RF 35mm f/1.8 a very useful lens for static subjects, allowing for excellent close-ups as well as wide shots with great perspective. I've found the lens has excellent sharpness and bokeh as well. At f/2 it's quite sharp, with peak centre sharpness at f/2.8 and edge sharpness at f/4. I would consider this a very versatile and outstanding quality lens, worth every dollar. Some reviewers claim it approachesd L series lens quality. It's small and light, but not weatherproof. I'm curious, where did it fall short for you?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 13, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> That's besides the point! Lens specs aren't exact, there are tolerances, ie. +/- a certain percentage, like all things! You're buying a lens with a specific optical design consisting of several elements to do a certain task, not a piece of equipment used to calibrate lens measurements! Have a look at the patents, then the marketing labels, they do differ. If a specific lens formula works out to 23.4mm, it will be marketed as a 24mm lens, that's why lenses are always nice round numbers!


They'd market it as a 23mm - looks wider for marketing and more mathematically correct to round to nearest!


----------



## JustUs7 (Jul 13, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> It's small and light, but not weatherproof. I'm curious, where did it fall short for you?



For me, the only place it falls short is wide open, low light for night skies or Christmas lights. Can’t really hand hold such pictures or even tripod astro because the batwing coma is so bad at f/1.8. 

Tried walking out and taking a quick snap of our house at Christmas, and ended up having to step down the aperture and get the tripod out. Which was okay, because I closed way down and went for long exposure with star points instead. However for Astro, that would force star trails.

Not a huge deal. Just means it can’t do everything!

I’ve watched some videos on the 16f/2.8 and it isn’t as bad. Curious where the 24 will fall.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 13, 2022)

AlanF said:


> They'd market it as a 23mm - looks wider for marketing and more mathematically correct to round to nearest!


You're probably right, wider sells better on that end of the focal range. Probably would be something like 25.6mm rounded down to 24. Most people prefer the standard sizes rather than the odd ones lol! It was just a random example anyway.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 13, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> For me, the only place it falls short is wide open, low light for night skies or Christmas lights. Can’t really hand hold such pictures or even tripod astro because the batwing coma is so bad at f/1.8.
> 
> Tried walking out and taking a quick snap of our house at Christmas, and ended up having to step down the aperture and get the tripod out. Which was okay, because I closed way down and went for long exposure with star points instead. However for Astro, that would force star trails.
> 
> ...


Makes sense, the RF 35mm f/1.8 isn't good for use as an astro lens. The RF 16mm f/2.8 smears the corners by stretching the pixels during software correction. I'm looking forward to seeing some proper tests run on the RF 24mm f/1.8, if there's no extreme distortion correction required, and the coma in the corners is managed well, it might be a popular lens!


----------



## photophil (Jul 14, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I'm not sure what your intended use is, but I've found the RF 35mm f/1.8 a very useful lens for static subjects, allowing for excellent close-ups as well as wide shots with great perspective. I've found the lens has excellent sharpness and bokeh as well. At f/2 it's quite sharp, with peak centre sharpness at f/2.8 and edge sharpness at f/4. I would consider this a very versatile and outstanding quality lens, worth every dollar. Some reviewers claim it approachesd L series lens quality. It's small and light, but not weatherproof. I'm curious, where did it fall short for you?


Thanks for your input. This is me being nitpicky, and I absolutely agree that it is a very decent lens, especially at that price point. The 35 is what I use most of the time, which is why it would consider upgrading even with diminishing returns.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 15, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I'm not sure what your intended use is, but I've found the RF 35mm f/1.8 a very useful lens for static subjects, allowing for excellent close-ups as well as wide shots with great perspective. I've found the lens has excellent sharpness and bokeh as well. At f/2 it's quite sharp, with peak centre sharpness at f/2.8 and edge sharpness at f/4. I would consider this a very versatile and outstanding quality lens, worth every dollar. Some reviewers claim it approachesd L series lens quality. It's small and light, but not weatherproof. I'm curious, where did it fall short for you?


I'm not the person you were responding to, and I should probably just stay out of this, but ... as someone interested in stills photography (not video), I find the RF 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 85 f/2 all very disappointing lenses. I look at lenses for the Sony system such as the Sony 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8, the Samyang 35mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8, and the Sigma 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2, and I look at the Nikon f/1.8 lenses for the Nikon Z system, and to me the Canon lenses have the worst IQ of the group (I am not talking about sharpness, they all seem sharp enough, but about the overall image), and they aren't even necessarily the smallest, lightest, cheapest, best weather sealed or fastest to AF. For example, the RF 35mm f/1.8 has good enough bokeh when used close up (as just about any lens will), but at typical portrait distances it can produce horrible bokeh (for example see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-rf-35mm-f-1-8-is-macro-the-ugly-bokeh-king.36469/), and is not particularly fast to AF. I accept the Canon 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2 are the only lenses in that group with IS and I believe they have the closest minimum focus distance, so if those things are important to you then the Canons have a clear advantage. For me, though, those things are much less important (particularly with newer bodies having IBIS) than other aspects. I feel that so far as RF native lenses go, Canon generally gives you a choice between extremely expensive L lenses which are often large and heavy as well, or disappointing non-L lenses, subject to an exception or two more recently (eg the RF 100-400mm seems to be good for its size, weight and price). Obviously the RF 35mm f/1.8 must suit your uses for the lens very well for you to be so happy with it, but I am afraid I just cannot get excited about the lens.


----------



## photophil (Jul 15, 2022)

jd7 said:


> I'm not the person you were responding to, and I should probably just stay out of this, but ... as someone interested in stills photography (not video), I find the RF 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 85 f/2 all very disappointing lenses. I look at lenses for the Sony system such as the Sony 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8, the Samyang 35mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8, and the Sigma 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2, and I look at the Nikon f/1.8 lenses for the Nikon Z system, and to me the Canon lenses have the worst IQ of the group (I am not talking about sharpness, they all seem sharp enough, but about the overall image), and they aren't even necessarily the smallest, lightest, cheapest, best weather sealed or fastest to AF. For example, the RF 35mm f/1.8 has good enough bokeh when used close up (as just about any lens will), but at typical portrait distances it can produce horrible bokeh (for example see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-rf-35mm-f-1-8-is-macro-the-ugly-bokeh-king.36469/), and is not particularly fast to AF. I accept the Canon 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2 are the only lenses in that group with IS and I believe they have the closest minimum focus distance, so if those things are important to you then the Canons have a clear advantage. For me, though, those things are much less important (particularly with newer bodies having IBIS) than other aspects. I feel that so far as RF native lenses go, Canon generally gives you a choice between extremely expensive L lenses which are often large and heavy as well, or disappointing non-L lenses, subject to an exception or two more recently (eg the RF 100-400mm seems to be good for its size, weight and price). Obviously the RF 35mm f/1.8 must suit your uses for the lens very well for you to be so happy with it, but I am afraid I just cannot get excited about the lens.


I had not seen that thread, thanks for the input.
I am not particularly concerned about the bokeh issue, this has actually not bothered me before and when I prioritize bokeh I usually go for longer focal lengths anyway.

However, since switching to the R6 from an RP, weight and size of the lens I use most of the time have become more of a priority and current 35mm alternatives with AF are not exactly ideal when it comes to that; here is comparison.
So for now the RF35 seems to be the best stop-gap for what I need. I should probably just learn to properly use a nifty fifty instead


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jul 15, 2022)

jd7 said:


> I'm not the person you were responding to, and I should probably just stay out of this, but ... as someone interested in stills photography (not video), I find the RF 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 85 f/2 all very disappointing lenses. I look at lenses for the Sony system such as the Sony 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8, the Samyang 35mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8 and 75mm f/1.8, and the Sigma 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2, and I look at the Nikon f/1.8 lenses for the Nikon Z system, and to me the Canon lenses have the worst IQ of the group (I am not talking about sharpness, they all seem sharp enough, but about the overall image), and they aren't even necessarily the smallest, lightest, cheapest, best weather sealed or fastest to AF. For example, the RF 35mm f/1.8 has good enough bokeh when used close up (as just about any lens will), but at typical portrait distances it can produce horrible bokeh (for example see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-rf-35mm-f-1-8-is-macro-the-ugly-bokeh-king.36469/), and is not particularly fast to AF. I accept the Canon 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2 are the only lenses in that group with IS and I believe they have the closest minimum focus distance, so if those things are important to you then the Canons have a clear advantage. For me, though, those things are much less important (particularly with newer bodies having IBIS) than other aspects. I feel that so far as RF native lenses go, Canon generally gives you a choice between extremely expensive L lenses which are often large and heavy as well, or disappointing non-L lenses, subject to an exception or two more recently (eg the RF 100-400mm seems to be good for its size, weight and price). Obviously the RF 35mm f/1.8 must suit your uses for the lens very well for you to be so happy with it, but I am afraid I just cannot get excited about the lens.


Thanks for your sharing your opinion, no problem there. You're correct, I tend to shoot the 35mm up close for small subjects up to around 30cm in size at f/2 for good bokeh (more like product/food photography scale), and when I shoot wider scenes at medium to far range (nature settings) I'm stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 for greater depth of field, which is why it works for me, as I don't use it wide open for subject separation on wider scenes where the bokeh would become apparent, such as portraiture.

I've seen too many reviews where the RF 85mm is described as a sharp lens with lots of contrast, with a flat plane of focus like a macro lens, 0.5 macro capability, great for photos of subjects close up, possibly a great product photography lens, but for portraits the bokeh is too contrasty and busy, and not up to par with the bokeh that other 85mm lenses produce stopped down to f/2. Bad for video, doesn't maintain focus well on moving subjects. It has its shortcomings, which is why I didn't buy it.

The RF 50mm f/1.8 is said to be every so slightly better in in most aspects than the old EF 50mm f/1.8, I find mine noticeably sharper stopped down at f/5.6 where it has peak sharpness. It's got decent sharpness at f/2.8, and I stop it down to f/2 when I want balance between bokeh and sharpness. It's not a fancy bokeh lens though.

Totally agree with the huge gulf between these lenses and expensive L versions, as well as the fact that depending on what you use them for, these lenses may not serve your needs at all and be quite disappointing. Personally, I don't think Canon has any decent non-L series portrait lenses, which is really disappointing. I'm definitely not wanting to pay thousands for an RF 85mm f/1.2 L.

In the thread you linked to, there was some very useful information - when the RF 35mm (and other 35mm lenses) are used wide open with the focus point greater than 3m (10') away, and a busy background, such photos don’t play to the 35mm strengths. The fancy EF 35mm II L and Sigma 35mm Art lenses produce a better bokeh in these situations, but not ideal still. 

To quote the last post in that thread, which may be helpful, "_The best looking bokeh often takes place in a distance sweet spot, especially with 35mm lenses. When you get past 10 feet with this lens you start to see some issues with bokeh in the corners. You almost get this split image that happens and it can give a very distracting nervous feel. So at f1.8 you’ll want to stay within 10 feet (3 meters) for the best looking bokeh.This is pretty standard though. I include this in my reviews now because people will often complain about nervous bokeh, or this bokeh or that bokeh, but the quality of bokeh varies massively with distance on most lenses so this lens will be suited well for head shots, but for full body portraits you will get a distracting bokeh_."


----------



## AlanF (Jul 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The focal length of the 100-400mm II at its minimum focal distance is 175mm, as calculated from Canon's own figures for the magnification at its mfd. I measured it to be 178mm. At 1.6m distance, it increases to 228mm.
> I just calculated the following focal lengths for these lenses at 19.5m from target with the R5 (from measured magnifications):
> 400mm DO II, 377mm
> 100-400mm II @400mm, 373mm
> ...


The patent for the RF 100-500mm has its maximum focal length at infinity 489.98mm and f/7.2 according to photonstophotos. I have tried to calculate the focal lengths at a distance closer to infinity from the size of images of the moon using tabulated distances when my photos were taken. Using the usual quoted pixel length for the R5 of 4.39µ (eg TDP), I calculate
RF 100-400mm @400mm, 399mm
RF 100-500mm @500mm, 501mm.

However, the quoted pixel dimension on the various sites I believe is calculated by assuming 44.8 Mpx on 24x36mm sensor. But, Canon quotes 47.1 effective Mpx, which would equate to 4.28µ pixels.
Using 4.28µ
EF 100-400mm II @400mm, 389mm
RF 100-500mm @500mm, 488mm.
which are within 3% of the "official" figures.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> However, the quoted pixel dimension on the various sites I believe is calculated by assuming 44.8 Mpx on 24x36mm sensor. But, Canon quotes 47.1 effective Mpx, which would equate to 4.28µ pixels.


Is the sensor exactly 24x36mm? Or is it slightly larger with the non-effective pixels outside the 24x36mm imaging area?


----------



## jd7 (Jul 15, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Thanks for your sharing your opinion, no problem there. You're correct, I tend to shoot the 35mm up close for small subjects up to around 30cm in size at f/2 for good bokeh (more like product/food photography scale), and when I shoot wider scenes at medium to far range (nature settings) I'm stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 for greater depth of field, which is why it works for me, as I don't use it wide open for subject separation on wider scenes where the bokeh would become apparent, such as portraiture.
> 
> I've seen too many reviews where the RF 85mm is described as a sharp lens with lots of contrast, with a flat plane of focus like a macro lens, 0.5 macro capability, great for photos of subjects close up, possibly a great product photography lens, but for portraits the bokeh is too contrasty and busy, and not up to par with the bokeh that other 85mm lenses produce stopped down to f/2. Bad for video, doesn't maintain focus well on moving subjects. It has its shortcomings, which is why I didn't buy it.
> 
> ...


And I think your post has identified the difference between your perspective and mine on the lenses. For me, one of the most important uses of a 35mm, 50mm and 85mm is environmental portraiture / portraiture, while portraiture doesn't seem to be a priority for you (at least for the 35mm). So, as much as I like the idea of a small, light 35mm, the RF 35mm f/1.8 isn't the one for me. I am glad it's there for people such as you who will make the most of it, I just wish there were more RF native options. I doubt Canon will give us multiple RF 35mm f/1.8 options though, so I'm betting if I had an RF camera my option would be to look at whatever RF 35mm L lens they come out with, but I assume it will be very expensive and probably large and heavy, so I have doubts it will be the lens I'm looking for either. I really wish we'd start seeing more third party options with AF, particularly from Sigma, Samyang and Tamron, because they may well fill the gaps Canon leaves (assuming there are enough other people out there who have similar preferences to mine).


----------



## AlanF (Jul 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Is the sensor exactly 24x36mm? Or is it slightly larger with the non-effective pixels outside the 24x36mm imaging area?


We need the info from Canon. The difference is only 2.5%. I should also take into account the pincushion effects of lens distortion, 1.58% for the RF 100-500mm and 1.59% for the EF 100-400mm II fully extended. Allowing for the lens distortion in the calculations assuming 4.39µ pixels gives:
RF 100-400mm @400mm, 405mm
RF 100-500mm @500mm, 509mm.
And for 4.28µ pixels
EF 100-400mm II @400mm, 395mm
RF 100-500mm @500mm, 496mm.
The second set is more credible and so I suppose it is more likely that the sensor actually has the higher figure of pixels in the 24x36mm^2 frame. But, I think the take home message within a couple of percent is that we can all sleep better knowing that Canon has not defrauded us by too many mm of focal length when we are standing some 400,000 km from our subject.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> But, I think the take home message within a couple of percent is that we can all sleep better knowing that Canon has not defrauded us by too many mm of focal length when we are standing some 400,000 km from our subject.


What about at infinity?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> What about at infinity?


I redid the measurements with the RF 100-500mm using the R7 and the latest Supermoon, which is 10% closer than before, so even nearer from infinity but with more pixels. Assuming the frame is 22.3mm wide and filled by 6960 px, I calculate the f at a nominal 500mm to be 492mm.


----------



## AJ (Jul 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> What about at infinity?


At infinity, the space-time continuum wraps around itself. Maybe there is a relativistic effect on focal length. Paging theoretical physicists....


----------

