# Patent: Canon RF 15-28mm f/4-5.6 IS and other wide angle optical designs



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 22, 2022)

> Eventually we’re going to see more affordable RF mount lenses from Canon and one of the obvious types of lenses they’ll need is an affordable wide angle zoom lens.
> Canon has published a patent for such a lens and others with the aim of making manufacturing easier, which also means less expensive.
> Canon RF 15-28mm f/4-5.6 IS
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## bbasiaga (Apr 22, 2022)

So its early and the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet, so I may not be making proper sense of this. But....the largest image height is still 2mm shorter than a FF sensor, correct? I suppose this means this could be the first true RF-s lens design. So far all the APs-c range patents we've seen could do FF at all but the widest angle, and like the 24-240 could do FF with some computational photography applied. If it comes to be a real product I guess it will destroy my theory that they won't have two separate lens lineups for FF and APS-c. 

Brian


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Apr 22, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> So its early and the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet, so I may not be making proper sense of this. But....the largest image height is still 2mm shorter than a FF sensor, correct? I suppose this means this could be the first true RF-s lens design. So far all the APs-c range patents we've seen could do FF at all but the widest angle, and like the 24-240 could do FF with some computational photography applied. If it comes to be a real product I guess it will destroy my theory that they won't have two separate lens lineups for FF and APS-c.
> 
> Brian


It just means vignetting on the wide end which is pretty typical of RF wide zooms so far


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It just means vignetting on the wide end which is pretty typical of RF wide zooms so far


Presumably heavy distortion at the wide end like the 14-35/4L, 24-240 and 16/2.8. The ‘forced’ digital correction (in-camera and with DPP) requires stretching the corners, so the frame is filled.


----------



## MartinVLC (Apr 22, 2022)

For me the also patented 15-28mm f/2.8-4 is actually the most interesting, because it would be lighter and cheaper than "real" 2.8 wide zooms, but still have the extra light at the wide end. If the price and IQ are good, that would be my go to wide angle! Would love to see the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 on the RF mount if canon doesn´t bring out something like it.


----------



## InchMetric (Apr 22, 2022)

The one surprising thing that I really like about the RF 15-35 f2.8 is that very useful 35mm focal length provides a “normal” lens even when shooting ultra wide. I’m a sucker for ultra wide and may be tempted by a 10-24 but 35 is all around handily without changing lenses.


----------



## mxwphoto (Apr 23, 2022)

For the 15-28, if they are able to get pretty good sharpness at the wide end and keep the weight down to say 350 grams and price it at $550 then they may have a winner. Suprised to see length is the same as the 14-35.


----------



## Traveler (Apr 23, 2022)

I’d wish Canon makes an equivalent of EF-S 10-22 but for full frame. I wouldn’t mind aperture f/5.6-7.1 (for 16-35) but I think it’s possible to make it even smaller and lighter with ML technology. And of course much sharper. 
I don’t understand why this lens would be over 100 mm long. 
(14 or 15 mm would be really nice but I wouldn’t expect that)


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 23, 2022)

Traveler said:


> I’d wish Canon makes an equivalent of EF-S 10-22 but for full frame. I wouldn’t mind aperture f/5.6-7.1 (for 16-35) but I think it’s possible to make it even smaller and lighter with ML technology. And of course much sharper.
> I don’t understand why this lens would be over 100 mm long.
> (14 or 15 mm would be really nice but I wouldn’t expect that)


Add half decent close focusing capabilities(similar or better than RF 16mm f2.8) and it would be a great lens for fun macro.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 24, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It just means vignetting on the wide end which is pretty typical of RF wide zooms so far



In other words, another optically compromised wide angle lens for RF from Canon that will be corrected in camera so you don't see how bad it is - just like the RF 14-35/f4L.

Can't wait to see some non-Canon RF wide angle lenses that hopefully aren't fucked by design like Canon's are.


----------



## R1Media (Apr 24, 2022)

dilbert said:


> In other words, another optically compromised wide angle lens for RF from Canon that will be corrected in camera so you don't see how bad it is - just like the RF 14-35/f4L.
> 
> Can't wait to see some non-Canon RF wide angle lenses that hopefully aren't fucked by design like Canon's are.


That's just the nature of how lenses work, no lens is perfect, even the most expensive ones.

I'm glad you are still loving the design of the 90D that is before the RF era.


----------



## tron (Apr 24, 2022)

Still wishing for a 17-70 or so FF L lens. F/4-5.6 or 6.3 It could be a super landscape traveling lens.


----------



## Czardoom (Apr 24, 2022)

dilbert said:


> In other words, another optically compromised wide angle lens for RF from Canon that will be corrected in camera so you don't see how bad it is - just like the RF 14-35/f4L.
> 
> Can't wait to see some non-Canon RF wide angle lenses that hopefully aren't fucked by design like Canon's are.


As a photographer, all I care about is the final image. If the lens can be made cheaper and lighter by having digital correction in camera or automatically done in software, it doesn't bother me a bit. My guess is that most folks would gladly choose lighter and cheaper as well. That's what automatic digital correction is for - to make a cheaper and lighter lens. If the end result is a sharp, quality image, what's the problem?


----------



## dilbert (Apr 24, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> As a photographer, all I care about is the final image. If the lens can be made cheaper and lighter by having digital correction in camera or automatically done in software, it doesn't bother me a bit. My guess is that most folks would gladly choose lighter and cheaper as well. That's what automatic digital correction is for - to make a cheaper and lighter lens. If the end result is a sharp, quality image, what's the problem?



The problem is when Canon produces lenses that generate images with severe problems, you aren't getting lenses that are cheaper (maybe lighter.) Look at the cost of the RF 14-35/f4L vs the 16-35 f/4L. 2mm wider, massive increase in distortion and a massive price increase but only 100g weight savings (the weight of a chocolate bar.)

With this lens, the suggestion is that the image circle doesn't cover the full frame and that's not a problem because in-camera electronics will just correct for the resulting vignetting and distortion. If the camera needs to boost the peripheral parts of the image by 2+ stops, there's no way that can't impact the final image quality. The better the quality of the input, the better the quality of the output.

With what is effectively MkI lenses for RF from Canon, photographers at the wide end are getting fucked over, pure and simple.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 24, 2022)

R1Media said:


> That's just the nature of how lenses work, no lens is perfect, even the most expensive ones.
> 
> I'm glad you are still loving the design of the 90D that is before the RF era.



At least I can frame the image with the 90D without having to drain the battery.

The problem isn't the lack of a perfect lens, the problem is that Canon is pursuing lRF lens designs that have significant image quality issues that they're just hand waving away with software - and asking customers to pay more for the privilege of such lenses.


----------



## sanj (Apr 24, 2022)

It could be a good travel lens for many. I have given up on carrying regular cameras with me on non-photography trips and now travel with G7X3 - much lighter and fantastic photos. So for me, these lenses are useless. It has to be the best lens for photo-centric trips and paid work with R5, for everything else G7x3 works GREAT.


----------



## tron (Apr 24, 2022)

dilbert said:


> The problem is when Canon produces lenses that generate images with severe problems, you aren't getting lenses that are cheaper (maybe lighter.) Look at the cost of the RF 14-35/f4L vs the 16-35 f/4L. 2mm wider, massive increase in distortion and a massive price increase but only 100g weight savings (the weight of a chocolate bar.)
> 
> With this lens, the suggestion is that the image circle doesn't cover the full frame and that's not a problem because in-camera electronics will just correct for the resulting vignetting and distortion. If the camera needs to boost the peripheral parts of the image by 2+ stops, there's no way that can't impact the final image quality. The better the quality of the input, the better the quality of the output.
> 
> With what is effectively MkI lenses for RF from Canon, photographers at the wide end are getting fucked over, pure and simple.


I would accept 14-35's design if it was much cheaper than it is. Not when it costs almost as a much better design 2.8L lens.
Anyway people who do not have EF lenses (or the RF15-35) and can afford it may as well buy it. I understand they will be happy with its IQ and they will soon forget how much they paid for it.


----------



## tron (Apr 24, 2022)

Regarding current travel lenses I use either 5DIV with 16-35 4L IS (with or without 24-105 or G7XII) or 200D with 10-18 with 15-85 sometimes. R5 is busy connected to 100-500 and it's not worth to get a second R5 and 14-35 as a travel combo.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2022)

dilbert said:


> With what is effectively MkI lenses for RF from Canon, photographers at the wide end are getting fucked over, pure and simple.


There are EF L-series lenses with >4 stops of vignetting. There are EF L-series lenses with >3% barrel distortion. Those lenses produce images with very noticeable artifacts unless they are digitally corrected.

In the overlapping part of the zoom range, the RF 14-35/4 is optically quite similar to the EF 16-35/4. The RF lens offers an extra 2-2.5mm on the wide end, and it requires both more money and digital correction to get it.

I’m not sure if that offends you because you abhor digitally processing images, or because the higher cost of the lens is beyond your means. But for those photographers who use modern image processing techniques (which includes those shooting in-camera jpgs) and have the wherewithal to buy the lens, no one is getting screwed over.


----------



## tron (Apr 24, 2022)

@neuroanatomist Indeed TDP shows them similar good catch. The only thing is that 16-35 has visibly less vignetting than the RF version. This may or may not be a problem depending on the ISO one shoots at. If someone wants to shoot at low light with no tripod or with tripod but high iso (say for astro landscape work) then this would be a problem. Unfortunately the same applies to RF15-35 too. It is worse that the EF 16-35 2.8L III which is worse than 14mm 2.8L II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2022)

tron said:


> @neuroanatomist Indeed TDP shows them similar good catch. The only thing is that 16-35 has visibly lower vignetting than the RF version. This may or may not be a problem depending on the ISO one shoots at. If someone wants to shoot at low light with no tripod or with tripod but high iso (say for astro landscape work) then this would be a problem. Unfortunately the same applies to RF15-35 too. It is worse that the EF 16-35 2.8L III which is worse than 14mm 2.8L II.


Looking at TDP, it’s really not much worse. The EF 16-35/4 has a bit over 2 stops at 16mm, the RF 16-35/4 has a bit under 2.5 stops at 14mm, so probably something like 1/3-stop difference. Not really meaningful, IMO. 

Again from TDP, the EF 14/2.8 II has over 3 stops of vignetting, and the EF 16-35/2.8 III has over 4 stops; stopped down to f/4, it’s still >3 stops. The EF 24/1.4 II and 11-24/4 both have over 4 stops, as well.

Based on those numbers, I’m not seeing how the RF 14-35/4 has a ‘problem’ with vignetting.


----------



## tron (Apr 24, 2022)

I am referring to situations where we have to shoot wide open at high iso like astro or handhelding at low light. Then the compensation is too much. I believe the difference seems a little more. In fact you can see in image quality comparisons that the edges (marked as periphery) in 14-35 are definitely more grey.









Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





Unless the pictures are subject to variation.

EDIT: If you check at the point where the RF has -2.07 stops vignetting the EF has -1.5 stops. That's between 1/2 and 2/3rds of a stop.









Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens Vignetting


Review vignetting (peripheral shading) test results with f-stop contours for the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens. Compare the results from this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





I didn't use it initially because it compares 14mm to 16mm so maybe the difference is indeed as you say or between the 2 numbers at 1/2 stop.

Regarding the III yes unfortunately it has more vignetting and the RF version is even worse.

So maybe after all the price in comparison to all of these lenses is the worst thing and nothing more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2022)

tron said:


> I am referring to situations where we have to shoot wide open at high iso like astro or handhelding at low light. Then the compensation is too much.


This discussion started with @dilbert bashing the RF 14-35/4, and your agreement with his issues.

The RF15-35/2.8, EF 16-35/2.8, EF 14/2.8, EF 24/1.4, EF 11-24/4 all have *worse* vignetting wide open than the RF 14-35/4, and thus require even more gain to compensate.

The EF 16-35/4 has ~1/3-stop less vignetting than the RF 14-35/4. Are you honestly saying that applying an additional 1/3-stop of gain in the corners is ‘too much’? Sorry, that’s patently ridiculous. Like those who claim the Canon 800/5.6 is far superior to the Nikon 800/6.3 because of that same 1/3-stop difference, that just sounds asinine and in that case it’s about the entire frame, not just the extreme corners. 

Also, if you shoot the 14-35/4 at 14mm then crop it to a 16mm FoV, it has _less_ corner vignetting than the EF 16-35/4…probably by about that same 1/3-stop you believe is ‘too much’. Plus, cropping away the corners gets rid of the worst coma area, so for astro use I’d say the RF 14-35/4 is a better choice than the EF 16-35/4, if one needed to choose just between those two.

Regardless, I don’t think there’s really much merit in debating these two f/4 lenses for astro use. The f/2.8 UWA zooms have over a stop worse corner vignetting, but give an extra stop across most of the frame. The 24/1.4 gives 3 stops across most of the frame. Even something like the 28-70/2 loses a stop based on FoV (i.e., using the 500/FL exposure duration approximation), but still gains a net stop over the 14-35/4.


----------



## Czardoom (Apr 25, 2022)

dilbert said:


> The problem is when Canon produces lenses that generate images with severe problems, you aren't getting lenses that are cheaper (maybe lighter.) Look at the cost of the RF 14-35/f4L vs the 16-35 f/4L. 2mm wider, massive increase in distortion and a massive price increase but only 100g weight savings (the weight of a chocolate bar.)
> 
> With this lens, the suggestion is that the image circle doesn't cover the full frame and that's not a problem because in-camera electronics will just correct for the resulting vignetting and distortion. If the camera needs to boost the peripheral parts of the image by 2+ stops, there's no way that can't impact the final image quality. The better the quality of the input, the better the quality of the output.
> 
> With what is effectively MkI lenses for RF from Canon, photographers at the wide end are getting fucked over, pure and simple.


You can't compare a 16 vs 14mm lens at the wide end and consider them equal in any way. Plus we are dealing with a changing market, inflation and global shortages, so comparing prices is not really meaningful either. If you don't like auto digital correction, then why not just say that you don't like auto digital correction. That's fine. You don't have to speak for other photographers - most (it appears) who don't mind, since the image quality appears to be as good as older lenses where all the corrections are made by using more and more glass elements. I've tried the new RF 300mm f/2.8. It has a huge amount of digital correction. It's also comparatively as sharp as the EF 16-35mm f/4 L. So I am not get screwed. And my guess is most other photographers do not feel like they are getting screwed. So it is not pure and simple, which makes your statement wrong...pure and simple.

And I assume you are aware that the "f" word is not one to be used in polite company. Your continued use an overly strong word only shows that your argument is weak.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> You don't have to speak for other photographers - most (it appears) who don't mind, since the image quality appears to be as good as older lenses where all the corrections are made by using more and more glass elements.


I find that the digitally corrected RF 14-35/4 at 14mm is on par with the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm, a lens that isn’t that old, costs twice as much, and isn’t at the end of its zoom range. 



Czardoom said:


> I've tried the new RF 300mm f/2.8. It has a huge amount of digital correction.


Wait, what? The new RF 300mm f/2.8?!? What new RF 300mm f/2.8???


----------



## tron (Apr 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> This discussion started with @dilbert bashing the RF 14-35/4, and your agreement with his issues.
> 
> The RF15-35/2.8, EF 16-35/2.8, EF 14/2.8, EF 24/1.4, EF 11-24/4 all have *worse* vignetting wide open than the RF 14-35/4, and thus require even more gain to compensate.
> 
> ...



1. Agree for astro. The 2.8 have the advantage. 14mm 2.8 II can also be used with cropping. He has more coma than both 16-35 but it seems brighter at the edges and it should be even more if we crop at 16 using that logic. But cropping somehow changes the comparison. 

2. I already admitted that TDP specific vignetting comparison was not 100% apples to apples but that was available at TDP so there was no way to compare them at 16mm

3. If you believe TDP lens quality comparisons the difference in brightness at the edges of the two lenses is very obvious (1/3rd or not). And these comparisons were made at 16mm.

I repeat my post copying from above so as to see the part in my agreement which of course does not compare with Dilbert's use of language:

"I would accept 14-35's design if it was much cheaper than it is. Not when it costs almost as a much better design 2.8L lens.
Anyway people who do not have EF lenses (or the RF15-35) and can afford it may as well buy it. I understand they will be happy with its IQ and they will soon forget how much they paid for it."

So Vignetting maybe 1/3 of a stop worse but as I mentioned it shows more in the comparison and that comes from a much more expensive lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2022)

tron said:


> 3. If you believe TDP lens quality comparisons the difference in brightness at the edges of the two lenses is very obvious (1/3rd or not). And these comparisons were made at 16mm.
> 
> So Vignetting maybe 1/3 of a stop worse but as I mentioned it shows more in the comparison and that comes from a much more expensive lens.


It's ~1/3-stop. Honestly, looking at the two images there's really not much difference at the corners. That's confirmed by bringing them into PS, where the 8-bit brightness values for the corners of the 14-35 are ~44 and for the 16-35/4 are ~42. The centers of the images are slightly different, with the 14-35/4 being a bit brighter at a mean of ~123 and the 16-35/4 at ~115 (those values are for a 20x20 pixel square). To properly use the tool, you need to look at the EV differential shown by the labeled circles that are superimposed by the Imatest analysis software – those are measuring the EV difference from the center of the image, so slight differences in illumination from shot to shot (and camera to camera) are normalized.

I think you're seeing something that isn't really there, perhaps an optical illusion of the different scales used for the two images (the circles for the 14-35 are in 1/3-stop increments, for the 16-35 they are at 1/2-stop increments so there are fewer of them).



tron said:


> "I would accept 14-35's design if it was much cheaper than it is. Not when it costs almost as a much better design 2.8L lens.
> Anyway people who do not have EF lenses (or the RF15-35) and can afford it may as well buy it. I understand they will be happy with its IQ and they will soon forget how much they paid for it."


The RF 15-35/2.8 costs 40% more than the RF 14-35/4, I wouldn't call that 'almost as much'. Having said that, for me personally the difference is not financially significant. I chose the 14-35 over the 15-35 because I really don't need f/2.8 in a UWA zoom (I had the 16-35/2.8 II for several years, and under 1% of my shots with it were at f/2.8), because it's significantly smaller and lighter, and because it uses 77mm filters.

That last point is relevant to the discussion of travel lenses – the combination of the RF 14-35/4, RF 24-105/4 and RF 100-500 gives coverage over a huge range of focal lengths in a relatively compact and light kit that all take the same filters.


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That last point is relevant to the discussion of travel lenses – the combination of the RF 14-35/4, RF 24-105/4 and RF 100-500 gives coverage over a huge range of focal lengths in a relatively compact and light kit that all take the same filters.


Let's not forget the RF70-200/2.8 also has 77mm filters and is small enough for travel now  
That said, all the newer filter systems have step up rings and a large built in CPL. They don't handle 14mm without vignetting though. Most promise 16mm only so any added filters including screw-on ND filters will add more vignetting <16mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Let's not forget the RF70-200/2.8 also has 77mm filters and is small enough for travel now


True, although for me I generally want the extra reach for landscape compositions or opportunistic wildlife. I use my RF 70-200/2.8 mainly for indoor events, and the only filter I’ve used is the clear one I keep on there.



David - Sydney said:


> That said, all the newer filter systems have step up rings and a large built in CPL. They don't handle 14mm without vignetting though. Most promise 16mm only so any added filters including screw-on ND filters will add more vignetting <16mm.


Indeed. I use B+W filters, and I have CPLs and several NDs in both 77mm and 82mm. And I have the step up rings. And the filter wrenches that are sometimes needed when I use them. 

But having all the lenses in a travel kit take the same filter size is very convenient. Also, I’d far rather take round filters than a square setup.

I used to travel with 145mm filters for my TS-E 17, but the drop-in RF adapter means I no longer need to.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 25, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> You can't compare a 16 vs 14mm lens at the wide end and consider them equal in any way. Plus we are dealing with a changing market, inflation and global shortages, so comparing prices is not really meaningful either. If you don't like auto digital correction, then why not just say that you don't like auto digital correction. That's fine. You don't have to speak for other photographers - most (it appears) who don't mind, since the image quality appears to be as good as older lenses where all the corrections are made by using more and more glass elements. I've tried the new RF 300mm f/2.8. It has a huge amount of digital correction. It's also comparatively as sharp as the EF 16-35mm f/4 L. So I am not get screwed. And my guess is most other photographers do not feel like they are getting screwed. So it is not pure and simple, which makes your statement wrong...pure and simple.



It doesn't matter if 14 & 16mm are different focal lengths.

What matters here is that Canon are now designing lens that are flawed and are "fixing" those flaws with software and hoping you the customer won't care or notice. Previously these flaws would have resulted in a lens not being released. 

Canon are designing optically inferior lenses and charging consumers more for that privilege - all in the name of reduced weight (negligable) and size (also negligable).

Right now, photographers have no choice: they either buy what Canon offers in terms of RF lenses or they have nothing.

Canon has its photographers over a barrel.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2022)

dilbert said:


> It doesn't matter if 14 & 16mm are different focal lengths.
> 
> What matters here is that Canon are now designing lens that are flawed and are "fixing" those flaws with software and hoping you the customer won't care or notice. Previously these flaws would have resulted in a lens not being released.
> 
> Canon are designing optically inferior lenses and charging consumers more for that privilege - all in the name of reduced weight (negligable) and size (also negligable).





dilbert said:


> Right now, photographers have no choice: they either buy what Canon offers in terms of RF lenses or they have nothing.
> 
> Canon has its photographers over a barrel.


So in your personal reality, the multiple variations of the EF-RF mount adapter simply don't exist, and thus it's not possible for photographers to buy a new or used EF lens to use with an R-series body. I guess it's a good thing for the rest of us that you're the only one living in your personal, altered reality.

Canon is designing lenses for the bodies they'll be used on. Digital correction is less expensive, and relying on it can save weight and size in an optical design. It can also save on production costs, and since Canon is adding other features (e.g. 2mm on the wide end) they can justify charging more for the lens, and higher price with lower cost means more profit. If that offends you, don't buy the lens. Since the RF 14-35/4L and especially the RF 16/2.8 seem quite popular, your wallet vote is probably irrelevant.

Incidentally, 14 vs. 16mm does matter, because an optically-corrected 14-35 would like have a bulbous front element and either not take front filters or need massive ones like the Nikon Z 14-24. Personally, I'd prefer the digital corrections and a compact lens that takes convenient 77mm filters.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 25, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> As a photographer, all I care about is the final image. If the lens can be made cheaper and lighter by having digital correction in camera or automatically done in software, it doesn't bother me a bit. My guess is that most folks would gladly choose lighter and cheaper as well. That's what automatic digital correction is for - to make a cheaper and lighter lens. If the end result is a sharp, quality image, what's the problem?


Are you a FF user ?


----------



## Etienne (Apr 26, 2022)

A lot of people should reconsider their lens choices now that high resolution sensors are becoming more common. 
You may be better served with prime lenses and cropping. My choice for lenses are 20mm and 85mm.
A 20mm f/1.4 (or 1.8) is far superior than the zooms and yet can be cropped to 40mm if necessary leaving reasonable resolution for most applications. 
An 85mm f/1.4 (or 1.8) will give amazing portraits and can be cropped all the way to 170 maintaining an effective aperture of f/2.8.
Some people may want three lenses, like: 20mm (or 14mm), 35mm (or 50mm), and 135mm.
I submit that this strategy would be almost as flexible as the zoom trinity at much lower weight and in many (if not most) cases give better results (especially for those images which do not need to be cropped much and in lower light circumstances).


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 27, 2022)

This is what you're asking for, it's not too dissimilar to the EF_S 10-22mm, this is equivalent to an APSC 9-18mm f/2.5-3.5, it's bigger because of the faster aperture. Welcome to the cheap (price, construction and image quality) APSC EF-S grade lenses on RF full frame!


----------



## R1Media (Apr 27, 2022)

dilbert said:


> At least I can frame the image with the 90D without having to drain the battery.
> 
> The problem isn't the lack of a perfect lens, the problem is that Canon is pursuing lRF lens designs that have significant image quality issues that they're just hand waving away with software - and asking customers to pay more for the privilege of such lenses.


True, wish my 28-70 f2 and 85 f1.2 ds that costs around $5000 each had better image quality


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 27, 2022)

R1Media said:


> True, wish my 28-70 f2 and 85 f1.2 ds that costs around $5000 each had better image quality


You've just proven the point Dilbert was making, the lenses you've mentioned aren't under-designed optically to cut corners with a reliance on software correction for extreme optical distortion! Those lenses have some of the best optics in the Canon RF lens range and are properly optically corrected like the better F L-series lenses. Do you own any of the RF 16mm f/2.8, RF 24-240mm or RF 14-35mm f/4 L lenses in question? If not, why not? 

PS - you don't really want your 28-70 f2 and 85 f1.2 ds, you can do better, send them to me. I'll happily drop my standards and take your inferior lenses off your hands for free!


----------



## R1Media (Apr 27, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> You've just proven the point Dilbert was making, the lenses you've mentioned aren't under-designed optically to cut corners with a reliance on software correction for extreme optical distortion! Those lenses have some of the best optics in the Canon RF lens range and are properly optically corrected like the better F L-series lenses. Do you own any of the RF 16mm f/2.8, RF 24-240mm or RF 14-35mm f/4 L lenses in question? If not, why not?
> 
> PS - you don't really want your 28-70 f2 and 85 f1.2 ds, you can do better, send them to me. I'll happily drop my standards and take your inferior lenses off your hands for free!


I was being sarcastic if you didn't catch lmao

Yeah I will just give you my most prized lenses that I can't live without. What's your address? I will even deliver them to you.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Apr 28, 2022)

R1Media said:


> I was being sarcastic if you didn't catch lmao
> 
> Yeah I will just give you my most prized lenses that I can't live without. What's your address? I will even deliver them to you.


I too was being sarcastic, if you didn't catch that! lmao


----------



## R1Media (Apr 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I too was being sarcastic, if you didn't catch that! lmao


Of course I didn't. So you meant I didn't prove the point Dilbert was making, and the lenses i mentioned are under-designed optically while having the worst optics in the RF range. Then again, you lower/raise? your standards to take my inferior lens off my hands for free. Too confusing


----------

