My Canon RF 10-20mm f4L review: first-looks with Canon's widest lens! Check prices on the Canon RF 10-20mm f4L at B&H: bhpho.to/48PCJbS // WEX UK: tidd.ly/3RUiN19 Check MPB to buy and sell used gear: bit.ly/3ULU9yL Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop Gordon’s retro gear channel: ua-cam.com/users/dinobytes Equipment used for producing my videos Panasonic Lumix S5 II: amzn.to/3Hf5IcI Sony A6400: prf.hn/l/pRO0wp5 Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF MacBook Pro 14in (16GB / 1TB): amzn.to/3PrKbPV Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Canon's lens designers deserve a lot of credit here considering how the lens size, physical design and weight are kept at reasonable levels. Also considering the unprecedented FoV while coupled with the zooming convenience I am not sure how big the actual optical FoV needs to be given the need to narrow that down to digitally correct for the likely significant distortion at the wide end.
I have the EF 11 24 F4.0L and the weight saving is welcome, not sure I’d upgrade though, I would like to see what the lens is like with corrections turned off.
I suspect it's employing quite a few corrections, but for me it'll be about comparing the actual optical quality of the end result vs the 11-24, especially in the corners.
I also have the 11-24 and love it but it’s such a pain to travel with because of size so I barely use it. If you have the space it’s great but a smaller lens is most welcome for a crowded bag!!
Thanks Gordon for another quick look. I had not seen any of your videos lately and I was troubled that something may have happened to you, Keep well my friend!
I don't have a Canon camera. But it's always a pleasure to watch your reviews. You've been getting it done for a long time brutha. You always remind me what a quality review is. Keep on keeping on. Peace.
Thankyou, I appreciate your support! I always try and make videos that would be interesting to owners of all systems, as it's cool to see what everyone else is doing and seeing the broader pros and cons of each.
Wie hier ein Haar in der Suppe gesucht wird, einfach nur lächerlich. Die Vorteile der RF Version überwiegen deutlich und das ohne wenn und aber! Ich habe nichts mehr hinzuzufügen! Grüße aus Bavaria!
The 14-35mm was recently on sale on US Amazon for $1079, snagged it last week. Normally I would be kicking myself after I finding out that there is a newer more shiny toy is available right after a big purchase, but thankfully, nope! 14mm is already insanely wide, and the linear USM motor is superior to any STM lens I have owned, so happy with my 14 mil purchase. The only reason I’d consider the new 10-20mm is for it to act as a faux shift lens (perspective corrected on software), but I may just wait for a new TS-E to come out in the RF mount. This lens looks phenomenal regardless.
@@zegzbrutal it does say it is a lead screw type, but you're right, there are good and bad STM lenses, I'm sure this is going to have the quiet and snappy STM (like that found in the 24-105mm kit lens) and not the slow and loud STM (like that found in the 50 or 85mm)
To me the primary deal breaker of any wide angle lens is vignetting at full stop opened. You do a comparison of each lens at their widest - but what stop was being used for those shots? Since even though the UA-cam bottom and tops icons/type cover a bit of the images corner, it still appears at whatever f-stops were used, that there doesn't seem to be any vignetting at all. But I wonder what it would be like when fully opened.
My 11-24mm got stolen, and I didn't replace it because it gave me a tennis-elbow while using it on a two week long Moscow photo visit. That thing is heavy! This new 10-20 however looks tempting.
In another video, someone was mentioning(citing) 'recent' lens designs patented by Canon. I wonder if this new lens was incorporating some of that 'technology'. They stated they believe Canon needed to upgrade the quality of lens to match their upcoming cameras that begin to have high MP such as 60+; That at such high resolutions, the apparent 'flaws' of a lens can become more apparent, negating anything useful of having such a high level of sensor density.
Didn't think I'd be replacing my EF 11-24 any time soon--I didn't think Canon would even look at this type of lens for the R Series bodies--but already have this on order and sold my 11-24 to help pay for it. I didn't carry the 11-24 except into real estate photo settings due to the size and weight, but will carry the 10-20 without thinking much about it, and for more than limited use like real estate. Until recently, I just didn't think an L lens was on the purchase list for 2023; and just couldn't see where any lens Canon released would get me excited (the 28mm pancake for sheer size and weight and focal width came very close, esp at that price) enough to buy it, but this one did. I've thought in wide angle since distortion-free was 28mm, and hope to find this lens blows me away for the wide range of uses alone.
I mainly use my RF 14-35mm for video. I'm considering replacing it with this so I can use Canon's most aggressive image stabilization setting without worrying about the resulting crop, since I'm starting with so much wiggle room.
And we sure that distorsion is corrected optically? Or is it done in camera? In the DSLR days you would see any optical imperfections throuhh the optical viewfinder (you would literally see only the lens projection). Now we cannot see any lens inperfections anymore, because the sensor and processing are always in the way. I say this only because digital corrections introduce errors and image degradation (be it big or small). I am eagerly waiting for the full review.
I was really impressed with the sharpness of the 11-24 ef, but the size/weight was not great. I'd gladly give up a few mm to loose that much weight and size.
@@mofi3641 Soweit ich das verstanden habe, geht es hier doch um das Canon System! Das vorgeschlagene Objektiv ist nicht äquivalent zum Canon RF 10-20 STM! Es ist alternativlos! Kein anderer Hersteller hat etwas vergleichbares anzubieten! Wenn am breiten Ende gespart werden soll gibt es das RF 14-35 f4 oder das RF 15-35 f2.8! Auch hier ist Canon ohne wirkliche Konkurrenz! Ist aber nur meine Meinung!
Thanks for the review! Nice dual use lens for use with FF for ultraultrawide and APS-C for ultrawide with sweet spot advantage. In my situation 16mm FF equiv would be enough - buying an R6 (ii) for use with my f4 16-35 EF lens would be the better option but who knows ... just thinking about R50 with RF 10-20 ... :)
@@wilhelmw3455 No, in that case the 14-35 would be much larger, but it isn't. The smaller size compared to 11-24 is mainly due to the shorter flange distance of RF compared to EF, which allows the lens to have a smaller retrofocus group at the rear. This is why people who say "buuuh mirrorless didn't get smaller" just don't understand, they aren't looking at the right lenses.
I have the RF 14-35 and EF 11-24. At 11mm, the corners suffer a little for critical work, but clean up nicely at 12mm. I assume this 10-20 will need Lens Corrections in post, just like it's 14-35 sibling. I regret selling my EF 16-35 f4. That was very clean without any post correction. It benefited only slightly from LC. But that adapter issue. If you can live with it and you don't need 14mm, it's a lesser expensive, decent option.
@@JohnMacLeanPhotography EF glass was made to shoot on film, no lens profiles available. Technology went on to shoot digitally: - automated exposure control - autofocus - image stabilization - lens correction profiles Why regretting? I love to shoot through i.e. RF 28 pancake as I love to shoot through i.e. FD100 2.0.
Can you kindly tell me something about the drop-in filters? I have never worked with drop-in before. I have used the EF 11-24 for sunrises with the huge grey graduated filters (150mm x 150mm) from "Lensinghouse". Often in combination with a 1000x ND. How does that work with drop-in? Can I adjust the horizon of the graduated filter easily? Can I combine TWO filters at the same time with each other? THANK YOU! ☺
You can't rotate drop in filters - they literally just slide into that housing at the mount end of the lens, so you can't reach them when it's fitted. You might be able to stack a couple if they're thin, but it's unlikely. So they have much less flexibility unless they're part of a specifically designed system like the variable filters in the EF to EOS R filter adapter
@@cameralabs Can you use any sort of polarizer with the 10-20 as I shoot a lot of landscapes and plan to use the lens for outdoor cityscapes where polarization may come in handy.
I gave up on using graduated filters some time ago as I found them difficult to use to get the desired result and heavy to carry around. Instead, I now bracket my exposures and use HDR in Lightroom or blend the exposures in Photoshop.
Hi Gordon, how much digital lens correction is there with this lens? I remember you touching on it when your compared the 2.8/15-35 against the 4.0/14-35
I can't say for sure until a final model, but I suspect quite a lot. But the bottom line is the quality, especially in the corners, after corrections. If it's as good as the 11-24, I'd be happy.
Well the perspective would be different, but yes, if you could stand back enough, you could squeeze in the same subject. It's an interesting question, i may try and do a practical test on that.
@cameralabs thank you Gordon , and your outstanding reviews.Yes that would be interesting I have a 14 35 , excellent optic , which appears to be half the price .So for same field of view what's the difference in perspective, and which is more pleasing.
@@prosunsport1 Ich habe auch das Canon RF 14-35 L, aber nur weil das Canon RF 10-20 mm L STM später vorgestellt wurde! Nach allem was ich gesehen habe ist die Perspektive nicht zu erreichen! Oft schon reicht der Platz nicht aus um weit genug zurück zu treten, vor allem in Innenräumen ! Außerdem ist das Ultraweitwinkel exklusiver als das Massenprodukt 14-35! Der Aha Effekt ist einfach größer!
Nice first look! I hope if you review further you’ll try it out on the R7. I love my R7 for travel (size), and this new lens keeps it small and light, but hopefully producing some sharp results the way L lens can! I’m really wanting to replace my aging sigma 8-16, as it just isn’t sharp enough…I always found I shoot most between 10-12 (on APSC bodies) so this looks perfect!
@@jukeboxjohnnie I already have ;-) have you tried it or are you assuming it doesn’t work well? Edit: let me clarify: I’ve tried the nifty fifty, 135LF2, 70-200 F2.8 IS III, RF28-70F2, EF16-35 2.8III, Tamron 45 1.8, and Tamron 100-400. That might be it. Absolutely each one of those work well on crop sensor. 135 and the 28-70 right now are my favourites (shot a wedding with those on one body, 16-35 on the other). And then when I travel *poof* I can use smaller lenses too ;-)
this lens is literally the reason why I think about getting a R8 beside of my Sony Alpha 7 III & 6500... The only option is the Laowa 10-18, but it doesn't have AF (which isnt that big of a deal for my usecase).
Looks like a great lens, I just strongly disklike front bubble lenses that you cannot protect with filters, especially for a $2200 lens. So definitely a specialty lens.
@@mp2431you show your ignorance of the industry and history, neutral density, effect filters and many others are used extensively in film making and photography. If you buy a quality schott glass filter there is little to no degradation…if you buy cheap filters then that is a different story.
@@mp2431I always put a front protective filter over the 20G & 50GM, and I have trainhopped coast to coast and shot video going 70 mph out of freight train, and my front elements are spotless and perfect as a result....
@@hikertrashfilms Exactly! I buy the best I can so they don't degrade image quality and doing active photography stuff happens and cracking or scratching my front element would require an expensive trip back to canon where if my protective filter takes it, just unscrew it and put on a new one...continue working! I personally use Heliopan, Breakthrough Photography X4, and B+W. All multicoated and top notch glass.
@Unknown2024w Yeah, makes sense. I think the canon looks like a beautiful lens and no filters is not a deal breaker, if I needed the lens I'd buy it, but I think I have a few others in mind first. The 85mm for portraits and the 100-500 for sports. Or really the R5 mk II for better video capabilities would probably be more useful at the moment. I've just rented the 15-35mm for a wedding, so know the wide is a gap in my lenses, but the 10-20mm might be better since it offers the really wide capability over the 15mm.
@@mp2431well since a professional photographer is literally anyone who makes money from photography, the easiest assumption would be that they have insurance to cover it. But that's an expense that the vast majority of photographers cannot offset. Therefore even if quality loss occurs as a result of a filter most people will accept it if it means protecting their investment.
I have the 11-24L and 14-35L and every mm on the short end matters! It’s like how the iPhone UWA camera can fit some crazy scenes into the frame. It will be hard to sell my 11-24 ever since they released the ND filter with adapter. My favourite UWA lens despite the size and weight. I would replace my 14-35 without a doubt for that extra 4mm as a travel lens but no filters make it a tough replacement for the 11-24…
I have this RF10-20mm and it is an amazingly wide and sharp lens, sharp and with no coma in the corners @ F4. There is nothing else on the market like this lens. Buy this lens.
Ground breaking lens, I just wish Canon makes it possible to upload RAW files to my android phone. Obviously it's too costly and challenging to do that lol
I would by it if it would be for EF.... because I own the nice VND EF-RF adapter... its so sad, that rear filter-mounts and filters are still not a thing in 2023+ :(
The lens I've been waiting for to complete my set of L glass which will now give me coverage from 10mm to 1000mm. I was expecting 10-18 as that was shown on the Canon RF lens roadmap last year, so 10-20 and fixed f4 is a bonus, as is the rectilinear design as my 15-35 2.8 does bend things at the edges. f4 might seem a bit narrow for the astrophotography I do a bit of, but as I've got an R3 with it's excellent low light capabilities, I suspect it will be the equivalent of putting a 2.8 on an R5/R6.
Canon must be praised for their unique and outstanding lens designs. The new compact size and weight are an amazing improvement over its predecessor, the EF11-24mm! However, I feel this is a "luxurious" lens mainly for those who can afford it or willing to spend much. My big dilemma on such ultra wide zooms is that it will not be used frequently. For the price, it's really not cheap. At f4, it's also not quite favoured for astrophotography. Some say it will be a great architectural lens but I beg to differ. Tilting up the lens will produce serious keystoning effect which I don't find particularly pleasing to the eye. Correcting it in post-editing will reduce your image resolution and create a narrower angle of view which defeats the purpose of the ultra wide 10mm. I am still patiently waiting for the long rumoured 14mm TS-R lens! :( Canon are you listening?! What do you think?
Wow, this lens is lightweight. My IRIX 11mm f/4 is nice enough but quite heavy, so not for everyday. In 11mm focal you dont really need AF, but IS is good feature. But Canon price.
Canon's DSLR's were at the top of the pyramid when buying a camera in the past. One of the most strong reasons for this situation was lens availability from literally all the third party lens manufacturers. I don't know why they give up from it. Although RF mount lenses are really good, there are very few of them which are cheap AND high performing. Today, I would buy a Sony FE body instead of a Canon RF body.
I'm not 100% sure Canon ever approved third party lenses for EF, it's just that they were reverse engineered or they found a way to do it. Or maybe they were less protective, who knows? Either way I completely agree that one of the most compelling reasons to buy a Canon or Nikon DSLR / SLR in the past was access to a huge number of not only third party lenses, but loads of used ones too.
Canon has announced that they will be allowing at least some lens companies to make compatible auto lenses. I assume Sigma and Tamron, which have been mentioned as likely benefactors of this at first.
@@melgross don't count on it. The first third party RF lenses are more likely to be manual focus ones, or ones which don't represent a direct competition, But i hope the full range becomes available eventually.
@@cameralabs I wouldn’t be so sure about it. We’re getting manual lenses now. I doubt Sigma and Tamron would be that interested in producing manual lenses. That’s not where the money is.
@@melgross exactly, that's what I'm saying. I think they'll approve a handful of MF lenses, but AF is another matter. Put it this way, while I remain hopeful, I wouldn't buy a Canon EOS R body today assuming there would definitely be Sigma and Tamron lenses in the near future. I'd assume it's pretty much Canon-only lenses for AF for a while.
There will be plenty of users that just have to have the latest, newest lens or upgrade. However, for me, the cost does not justify the results. Considering the hefty price tag, I will be more than happy to stick with my RF 14-35 lens.
Am breiten Ende ist jeder mm eine Offenbarung! Leider ist das Ultraweitwinkel RF 10-20 mm zu spät herausgekommen und ich hatte bereits das RF 14-35 f4 und das RF 15-35 f2.8!
I love the compact foot print , however at 2,000.99 it is out my budget and at F-4 is not too fast but the optics are incredible !! My wife and I have the 15-35 F2.8 which is an outstanding lens. I have the a EF- 16-35 F-4 which is about the sharpest lens in my kit. I am considering getting the new 14-35 F-4 version but can't make up my mind.
Ich habe das Canon RF 15-35 f2.8 und das Canon RF 14-35 f4 ! Letzteres aber nur weil behauptet wurde das die f4 Variante um so viel schärfer sein soll! Das hat sich aber nur sehr wenig bestätigt! Die Blende 2.8 ist ein nicht zu unterschätzender Vorteil und die notwendigen Korrekturen bezüglich Vignettierung und Verzeichnung sind weniger ausgeprägt was mich aber nicht stört! Das was am Ende rauskommt zählt! Leider ist das Canon RF 10-20 STM erst erschienen als ich das Canon RF14-35 bereits erworben habe!
Some gaps in your arsenal of focal lengths are okay. So 10-20mm, 24-70mm and 100-400mm would give you a 40 times zoom with two holes that may require some cropping once in a while. A 14-35mm overlaps quite a lot with a 24-70mm or 24-105mm lens that is a part of most kits. Such an overlap feels like a waste of resources to me. 10mm is quite extreme though. The corners might have straight lines, but at the expense of people in the corners getting heavily distorted. I try not to get below 24mm unless space restrictions make it really necessary.
@@cameralabs Specifically in video use, if your camera is on slider and you’re shooting a product up close and you do a fast dolly-in, or dolly-out shot, linear motors are much faster at keeping the product in focus. I tested this with 24-70 EF vs RF. RF had a nano usm linear motor and it was noticeably faster. And yes STM is smoother than the traditional ring type USM, but not the nano linear USM. They are different.
@@blackbugmedia good point, but I believe the actual focusing systems vary on each lens, so it's not always possible to assume that one tech will deliver similar performance across all lenses. Certainly that's a good test and comparison you made, but some of the older EF lenses can be surprisingly slow at focusing, and far less suited to videography. Ultimately though, I'll test the new lens for focus pulls and see how it performs.
This was unexpected, i didnt knew this was comming out 😱 , i first thought „why not 2.8“ but then i remembered what that would mean for size and weight at 10mm 😅. Tempting! But i think ill stay with my 15-35 2.8 and the adapted sigma 20mm f1.4 (love that beast!) It is tempting though, as lugging that 15-35 2.8 around on a hike is something you will notice 😂
That price is just absurd: you could buy a good kit (camera+lens) for that kind of money. Meaning, this will only be accessible to pros. Unless for some specific use, I'd rather get the 14-35. Less expensive and a more useful (in my opinion) zoom range.
I'd actually be happier with a 10 or 8 mm prime lens, Zooming in isn't the reason I want it. I got a 8-16mm sigma on my Nikon and it is exclusively always at 8mm.
Well done. A really good review. I consider this. I have the EF 16-35 2.8 which is optically perfect but I miss IS when filming hand held. I guess the RF 15-35 2.8 IS is also interesting since it has f2.8
How can we fully assess the value for money of this lens if Canon won't allow Sigma, Tamron etc to manufacture something similar. It appears that Canon is making themselves the only option so they can keeping pricing their lenses without a direct competitive reference
Ihr Argument ist gut aber glauben Sie wirklich das Sigma und Tamron in der Lage wären solch eine Konstruktion herzustellen? So wie ich das sehe sind diese Hersteller auf Stückzahlen angewiesen und die sehe ich bei so einem Spezialobjektiv nicht!
FINALLY!!!! OK now....Canon listen up...>>>> REMOVE the RED RING and the Stabilizer , change to a removable hood option* not included $40/quid extra or whatever... and make the lens slower f4 to 5.6 and price $600 or Quid or whatever that equals.... and Bobs your uncle ----Me and my other cant find work friends are hoping for THAT 10-20mm
I use an old EF 16-35 f2.8L on the R8 and both of my kids use the RF24 f1.8 on the R10. I would love to see an RF-S 10-20 F2.8, or an RF(-S?) 20mm f1.8. The RF 24mm f1.8 just isn't wide enough and the RF16mm f2.8 is not fast enough outside daylight at times for the APS-Cs. I know this lens isn't for me but, to be honest, who is this really for? If you need to go as wide as 10mm, wouldn't you be better fitted with a much faster prime that may be 500 quid cheaper? Does RF 10mm f1.2L sound like a better addition on the full frame?
My Canon RF 10-20mm f4L review: first-looks with Canon's widest lens!
Check prices on the Canon RF 10-20mm f4L at B&H: bhpho.to/48PCJbS // WEX UK: tidd.ly/3RUiN19
Check MPB to buy and sell used gear: bit.ly/3ULU9yL
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Gordon’s retro gear channel: ua-cam.com/users/dinobytes
Equipment used for producing my videos
Panasonic Lumix S5 II: amzn.to/3Hf5IcI
Sony A6400: prf.hn/l/pRO0wp5
Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk
Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp
Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo
Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY
Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE
Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF
MacBook Pro 14in (16GB / 1TB): amzn.to/3PrKbPV
Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Canon's lens designers deserve a lot of credit here considering how the lens size, physical design and weight are kept at reasonable levels. Also considering the unprecedented FoV while coupled with the zooming convenience I am not sure how big the actual optical FoV needs to be given the need to narrow that down to digitally correct for the likely significant distortion at the wide end.
Yep, I'm expecting there's some wrangling going on in the profile! But the end result is looking good.
Indeed. Canon’s lens designers had developed a few incredible lenses. Their 28-70 f2 is an incredible lens, basically a few primes in one zoom lens
@@cameralabs Hi Gordon, are you able to evaluate the actual distortion at 10mm? The 14-35 has a pretty severe one at 14mm. Thanks
@@FilippoMartini-f7u I intend to do that
Another excellent review. With that fairly close focusing distance, you could probably get some great rule-of-thirds portraits.
Thanks, and yes!
I din't understand the reference to rule of thirds in the context!
Rules of five fourths more like.
@@alandargie9358Probably for generation of superlarge noses in the middle third.
I have the EF 11 24 F4.0L and the weight saving is welcome, not sure I’d upgrade though, I would like to see what the lens is like with corrections turned off.
I concur about the corrections off. I assume it will need them like the 14-35. That's how they can make it smaller and lighter.
I suspect it's employing quite a few corrections, but for me it'll be about comparing the actual optical quality of the end result vs the 11-24, especially in the corners.
Why not accepting technology?
You will never shoot on analog slide film with this beast as you did with the 11-24.
@@cameralabs I concur. And hopefully it will have good weather sealing.
I also have the 11-24 and love it but it’s such a pain to travel with because of size so I barely use it. If you have the space it’s great but a smaller lens is most welcome for a crowded bag!!
Thanks Gordon for another quick look. I had not seen any of your videos lately and I was troubled that something may have happened to you, Keep well my friend!
I'm fine thanks for asking! I was away over Summer, but I've been posting quite a few since then, including one on my Dino Bytes retro channel today!
I don't have a Canon camera. But it's always a pleasure to watch your reviews. You've been getting it done for a long time brutha. You always remind me what a quality review is. Keep on keeping on. Peace.
Thankyou, I appreciate your support! I always try and make videos that would be interesting to owners of all systems, as it's cool to see what everyone else is doing and seeing the broader pros and cons of each.
As always, very well made preview.
Special congrats on the samples of the different angles the different lenses can give 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Thanks, i thought that'd be one of the most useful aspects!
Spot on @@cameralabs !
@4:41 I can see some bowing of the black roof cover, am I thinking this is soft material moving in the wind?
Always the best most thorough, no nonsense reviews!
Thanks!
One unnamed benefit of using the old 11-24 on mirrorless systems, is that you can use drop in lens filters.
But with the RF 10-20 you can as well, right?
@@hochzeitsfotografseychelle2986 They have the slot on the rear yes, but it requires removing the lens. I also don’t think it supports VND filters.
true if you're using the EF to EOSR filter adapter.
biggest benefit! VND is so nice!
Wie hier ein Haar in der Suppe gesucht wird, einfach nur lächerlich. Die Vorteile der RF Version überwiegen deutlich und das ohne wenn und aber! Ich habe nichts mehr hinzuzufügen! Grüße aus Bavaria!
Great lens from Canon. Like the vlogging scene you did walking in the building.
The 14-35mm was recently on sale on US Amazon for $1079, snagged it last week. Normally I would be kicking myself after I finding out that there is a newer more shiny toy is available right after a big purchase, but thankfully, nope! 14mm is already insanely wide, and the linear USM motor is superior to any STM lens I have owned, so happy with my 14 mil purchase. The only reason I’d consider the new 10-20mm is for it to act as a faux shift lens (perspective corrected on software), but I may just wait for a new TS-E to come out in the RF mount. This lens looks phenomenal regardless.
Congrats on your 14-35, it's still a great lens, and that's a solid price you got - less than half the launch price of the 10-20.
This 10-20L's STM motor is also linear, you shouldn't worry about it that much
@@zegzbrutal it does say it is a lead screw type, but you're right, there are good and bad STM lenses, I'm sure this is going to have the quiet and snappy STM (like that found in the 24-105mm kit lens) and not the slow and loud STM (like that found in the 50 or 85mm)
saw one at best buy for 850!
@@normandyeuropa a brand new RF 14-35? That's a great price.
Good review. Any idea if autofocus is totally silent? No ticking noise like all the other RF lenses. Thanks.
It was pretty quiet when i tried it
Kasey from Camera Conspiracies will be happy with that edge wobble containment
To me the primary deal breaker of any wide angle lens is vignetting at full stop opened.
You do a comparison of each lens at their widest - but what stop was being used for those shots? Since even though the UA-cam bottom and tops icons/type cover a bit of the images corner, it still appears at whatever f-stops were used, that there doesn't seem to be any vignetting at all.
But I wonder what it would be like when fully opened.
Those coverage shots were at f8, but not for any particular reason. I will of course include wide-open comparisons n my final review.
My 11-24mm got stolen, and I didn't replace it because it gave me a tennis-elbow while using it on a two week long Moscow photo visit. That thing is heavy!
This new 10-20 however looks tempting.
Meine Anerkennung dafür das sie es überhaupt mitgenommen haben! Dafür müsste ich in Krafttraining investieren!
Thanks for the great review. Do you know of filters available for this lens, and in particular polarizing? .
Only rear mounted filters as mentioned in the video, none of which are accessible externally, so no polarisers
In another video, someone was mentioning(citing) 'recent' lens designs patented by Canon. I wonder if this new lens was incorporating some of that 'technology'.
They stated they believe Canon needed to upgrade the quality of lens to match their upcoming cameras that begin to have high MP such as 60+; That at such high resolutions, the apparent 'flaws' of a lens can become more apparent, negating anything useful of having such a high level of sensor density.
Lens looks great. Thanks for the video.
You're welcome!
wow , i was not expecting canon to produce such an incredible lens!
Didn't think I'd be replacing my EF 11-24 any time soon--I didn't think Canon would even look at this type of lens for the R Series bodies--but already have this on order and sold my 11-24 to help pay for it. I didn't carry the 11-24 except into real estate photo settings due to the size and weight, but will carry the 10-20 without thinking much about it, and for more than limited use like real estate. Until recently, I just didn't think an L lens was on the purchase list for 2023; and just couldn't see where any lens Canon released would get me excited (the 28mm pancake for sheer size and weight and focal width came very close, esp at that price) enough to buy it, but this one did. I've thought in wide angle since distortion-free was 28mm, and hope to find this lens blows me away for the wide range of uses alone.
I mainly use my RF 14-35mm for video. I'm considering replacing it with this so I can use Canon's most aggressive image stabilization setting without worrying about the resulting crop, since I'm starting with so much wiggle room.
I loved the 11-24mm .... all of the sudden I need this lens.
Gordon, great review as usual. I’m wondering how it’ll work on Red Komodo?
Sorry, no idea, I don't use them!
And we sure that distorsion is corrected optically? Or is it done in camera? In the DSLR days you would see any optical imperfections throuhh the optical viewfinder (you would literally see only the lens projection). Now we cannot see any lens inperfections anymore, because the sensor and processing are always in the way. I say this only because digital corrections introduce errors and image degradation (be it big or small). I am eagerly waiting for the full review.
I am certain there are digital corrections taking place to achieve the smaller, size, weight and price.
that size is amazing very clever people to reduce it down to such a manageable size and weight , very cool.
I was really impressed with the sharpness of the 11-24 ef, but the size/weight was not great. I'd gladly give up a few mm to loose that much weight and size.
i think the nikon 14-30 is one of the greates lenses out there. super compact, quite cheap and versatile.
@@mofi3641 Soweit ich das verstanden habe, geht es hier doch um das Canon System! Das vorgeschlagene Objektiv ist nicht äquivalent zum Canon RF 10-20 STM! Es ist alternativlos! Kein anderer Hersteller hat etwas vergleichbares anzubieten! Wenn am breiten Ende gespart werden soll gibt es das RF 14-35 f4 oder das RF 15-35 f2.8! Auch hier ist Canon ohne wirkliche Konkurrenz! Ist aber nur meine Meinung!
Thanks for the review! Nice dual use lens for use with FF for ultraultrawide and APS-C for ultrawide with sweet spot advantage. In my situation 16mm FF equiv would be enough - buying an R6 (ii) for use with my f4 16-35 EF lens would be the better option but who knows ... just thinking about R50 with RF 10-20 ... :)
widest full frame zoom with autofocus ?
what about 8-15 ??
from canon ?
That's a fisheye, not a wide angle
Impressive how they reduced the size and created a even ultrawider lens!
Keep up the good work
They limited the focal length at the long end to keep the size down but still an impressive achievement.
@@wilhelmw3455 No, in that case the 14-35 would be much larger, but it isn't. The smaller size compared to 11-24 is mainly due to the shorter flange distance of RF compared to EF, which allows the lens to have a smaller retrofocus group at the rear. This is why people who say "buuuh mirrorless didn't get smaller" just don't understand, they aren't looking at the right lenses.
I would consider this lens only when there is a working filter system for it released
I have the RF 14-35 and EF 11-24. At 11mm, the corners suffer a little for critical work, but clean up nicely at 12mm. I assume this 10-20 will need Lens Corrections in post, just like it's 14-35 sibling. I regret selling my EF 16-35 f4. That was very clean without any post correction. It benefited only slightly from LC. But that adapter issue. If you can live with it and you don't need 14mm, it's a lesser expensive, decent option.
That said, If the IQ reviews of this are better than the 11-24, I would highly consider it.
You will never shoot on film with those RF lenses as you die with the older EF lenses.
@@peterebel7899 what do you mean by that?
@@JohnMacLeanPhotography EF glass was made to shoot on film, no lens profiles available.
Technology went on to shoot digitally:
- automated exposure control
- autofocus
- image stabilization
- lens correction profiles
Why regretting?
I love to shoot through i.e. RF 28 pancake as I love to shoot through i.e. FD100 2.0.
@@peterebel7899 there are lens profiles for EF lenses. I don't care about shooting film any more. I did that from 1972-2002.
Ohhhh I want. It’s got it all for a ultra wide. I like my EF 11-24 but it’s a beast…thanks foe the introduction and information on this!
You're welcome!
Is it true that the control ring doesnt have steps?
I didn't try the control ring, so can't say. I'd be surprised if it wasn't clicked though. Where did you hear that?
Can you kindly tell me something about the drop-in filters? I have never worked with drop-in before. I have used the EF 11-24 for sunrises with the huge grey graduated filters (150mm x 150mm) from "Lensinghouse". Often in combination with a 1000x ND. How does that work with drop-in? Can I adjust the horizon of the graduated filter easily? Can I combine TWO filters at the same time with each other? THANK YOU! ☺
You can't rotate drop in filters - they literally just slide into that housing at the mount end of the lens, so you can't reach them when it's fitted. You might be able to stack a couple if they're thin, but it's unlikely. So they have much less flexibility unless they're part of a specifically designed system like the variable filters in the EF to EOS R filter adapter
@@cameralabs OK. Thank you very much! 🙏
@@cameralabs Can you use any sort of polarizer with the 10-20 as I shoot a lot of landscapes and plan to use the lens for outdoor cityscapes where polarization may come in handy.
I gave up on using graduated filters some time ago as I found them difficult to use to get the desired result and heavy to carry around. Instead, I now bracket my exposures and use HDR in Lightroom or blend the exposures in Photoshop.
@@JMSteger remember they're drop-in filters here, so you won't be rotating them, which makes polarising almost impossible to adjust.
Is that geometry and vignetting assessed with lens corrections turned on?
It should be. Many raw converters don't even allow you to turn those off.
The examples I posted were all with lens corrections applied in camera by default.
@@cameralabs Then I will have to wait for full review for true optical performance.
@@przybylskipawel Does it's 'true' performance matter? Why would you want all the native vignetting and barrel distortion?
@@opalyankaBG Ich glaube das solche Zwischenrufe gar nicht mehr beachtet werden sollten! Es lohnt nicht!
Hi Gordon, how much digital lens correction is there with this lens? I remember you touching on it when your compared the 2.8/15-35 against the 4.0/14-35
I can't say for sure until a final model, but I suspect quite a lot. But the bottom line is the quality, especially in the corners, after corrections. If it's as good as the 11-24, I'd be happy.
@@cameralabs Thanks Gordon ... good day
And people say that mirrorless didn't get smaller. Lots of people just don't understand flange distance and which lenses it matters for.
Does anyone know of plans for a rf 8mm fish eye? I need it for work, currently using an old sigma with rf adapter.
I'm sure they'll make one, but they haven't announced one. I bet it would be a zoom though like an RF version of the 8-15
@@cameralabs yeah, that would be great. I saw somewhere patents for that one a couple of years ago already.
Edit: thanks for the reply
Awesome lens and great review! Any word on why Canon went with 20mm instead of 24mm?
I think it's just a compromise to achieve a certain size, weight and price. Something always has to give.
have the cropped efs. 10-22mm zoom. which is great!
another trailblazing lens from Canon
its purposes includes, but not limited to:
landscapes
architectures
interior
vlogging
How far back do u have to shoot a 14mm to get same field of view as 10mm
Well the perspective would be different, but yes, if you could stand back enough, you could squeeze in the same subject. It's an interesting question, i may try and do a practical test on that.
@cameralabs thank you Gordon , and your outstanding reviews.Yes that would be interesting I have a 14 35 , excellent optic , which appears to be half the price .So for same field of view what's the difference in perspective, and which is more pleasing.
@@prosunsport1 Ich habe auch das Canon RF 14-35 L, aber nur weil das Canon RF 10-20 mm L STM später vorgestellt wurde! Nach allem was ich gesehen habe ist die Perspektive nicht zu erreichen! Oft schon reicht der Platz nicht aus um weit genug zurück zu treten, vor allem in Innenräumen ! Außerdem ist das Ultraweitwinkel exklusiver als das Massenprodukt 14-35! Der Aha Effekt ist einfach größer!
Nice first look! I hope if you review further you’ll try it out on the R7. I love my R7 for travel (size), and this new lens keeps it small and light, but hopefully producing some sharp results the way L lens can! I’m really wanting to replace my aging sigma 8-16, as it just isn’t sharp enough…I always found I shoot most between 10-12 (on APSC bodies) so this looks perfect!
It would be fun to try it on APSC. Wish there was an RF version of the Sigma 10-18 f2.8 which I recently reviewed...
You would really pay £2.2K for a full frame lens to go on apsc? 🙂
@@jukeboxjohnnie I already have ;-) have you tried it or are you assuming it doesn’t work well? Edit: let me clarify: I’ve tried the nifty fifty, 135LF2, 70-200 F2.8 IS III, RF28-70F2, EF16-35 2.8III, Tamron 45 1.8, and Tamron 100-400. That might be it. Absolutely each one of those work well on crop sensor. 135 and the 28-70 right now are my favourites (shot a wedding with those on one body, 16-35 on the other). And then when I travel *poof* I can use smaller lenses too ;-)
very interesting lens, Sony should be thinking to upgrade their 12-24 f4....are there any rumors of ts lenses for any of the main brands?
I would hope they'd make some in the RF mount at some point
this lens is literally the reason why I think about getting a R8 beside of my Sony Alpha 7 III & 6500... The only option is the Laowa 10-18, but it doesn't have AF (which isnt that big of a deal for my usecase).
Gotta love canons recent lenses they have been realising
Great video as usual! Laowa 10-18 looks interesting as it's so much cheaper.
Ja, aber nur wenn man alles andere, außer dem Preis, ausblendet!
The size difference is astounding.
Looks amazing. Pre-order is in.
Wow that looks like an amazing lens
Cool lens, but out of my budget. For what I shoot I still use the EF17-40 with adapter or the RF 16mm. Considering the RF 14-35.
My first L lens was the 17-40 f4L on an EOS 5D!
Much Focus breathing?
Not anything that stood out in my brief time with it
i really enjoy ALL of your reviews. thank you for the work you do
Thanks!
I DO NOT NEED it but I want it. Even on crop sensors (or in crop mode on the R5) this would be a sweet lens.
so do I.
Same
So geht es mir auch immer wieder! Nice to have!
Looks like a great lens, I just strongly disklike front bubble lenses that you cannot protect with filters, especially for a $2200 lens. So definitely a specialty lens.
@@mp2431you show your ignorance of the industry and history, neutral density, effect filters and many others are used extensively in film making and photography. If you buy a quality schott glass filter there is little to no degradation…if you buy cheap filters then that is a different story.
@@mp2431I always put a front protective filter over the 20G & 50GM, and I have trainhopped coast to coast and shot video going 70 mph out of freight train, and my front elements are spotless and perfect as a result....
@@hikertrashfilms Exactly! I buy the best I can so they don't degrade image quality and doing active photography stuff happens and cracking or scratching my front element would require an expensive trip back to canon where if my protective filter takes it, just unscrew it and put on a new one...continue working! I personally use Heliopan, Breakthrough Photography X4, and B+W. All multicoated and top notch glass.
@Unknown2024w Yeah, makes sense. I think the canon looks like a beautiful lens and no filters is not a deal breaker, if I needed the lens I'd buy it, but I think I have a few others in mind first. The 85mm for portraits and the 100-500 for sports. Or really the R5 mk II for better video capabilities would probably be more useful at the moment. I've just rented the 15-35mm for a wedding, so know the wide is a gap in my lenses, but the 10-20mm might be better since it offers the really wide capability over the 15mm.
@@mp2431well since a professional photographer is literally anyone who makes money from photography, the easiest assumption would be that they have insurance to cover it. But that's an expense that the vast majority of photographers cannot offset. Therefore even if quality loss occurs as a result of a filter most people will accept it if it means protecting their investment.
I have the 11-24L and 14-35L and every mm on the short end matters! It’s like how the iPhone UWA camera can fit some crazy scenes into the frame. It will be hard to sell my 11-24 ever since they released the ND filter with adapter. My favourite UWA lens despite the size and weight. I would replace my 14-35 without a doubt for that extra 4mm as a travel lens but no filters make it a tough replacement for the 11-24…
I'd definitely keep hold of the 11-24 until we see how their optics compare.
Got mine second hand during covid for a great price too!@@cameralabs
I shoot architecture and have (among my EF tilt-shifts) the 15-35-which in most contexts is WAY too wide... Still, I really want to try the 10-20! 😅
I have this RF10-20mm and it is an amazingly wide and sharp lens, sharp and with no coma in the corners @ F4.
There is nothing else on the market like this lens. Buy this lens.
I think Canon just need a Prime with IS at 10mm for Full Frame ane APS-C
I agree, that would be great, something like the RF 16
Pricey. But it will sell. They always do. The fact that it has IS baked in is pretty godly. I'd love it in my 14mm GM.
No it won't sell. It has very limited use scenarios. It is NOT the sort of lens that would be widely bought.
Ground breaking lens, I just wish Canon makes it possible to upload RAW files to my android phone. Obviously it's too costly and challenging to do that lol
10mm x 1.43 Enhance IS for R8 is giving me 14.3mm Perfect for Vlogging 😊
Ace review thank you. I really really want one of these ;-)
Hope you manage to get one!
I need one for ice cave photography!
Thanks - A great review..
Thankyou!
I would by it if it would be for EF.... because I own the nice VND EF-RF adapter...
its so sad, that rear filter-mounts and filters are still not a thing in 2023+ :(
Thanks!
The lens I've been waiting for to complete my set of L glass which will now give me coverage from 10mm to 1000mm. I was expecting 10-18 as that was shown on the Canon RF lens roadmap last year, so 10-20 and fixed f4 is a bonus, as is the rectilinear design as my 15-35 2.8 does bend things at the edges. f4 might seem a bit narrow for the astrophotography I do a bit of, but as I've got an R3 with it's excellent low light capabilities, I suspect it will be the equivalent of putting a 2.8 on an R5/R6.
R6 have a similar low light performance so no
What is your 1000mm lens?
Canon must be praised for their unique and outstanding lens designs. The new compact size and weight are an amazing improvement over its predecessor, the EF11-24mm!
However, I feel this is a "luxurious" lens mainly for those who can afford it or willing to spend much.
My big dilemma on such ultra wide zooms is that it will not be used frequently. For the price, it's really not cheap.
At f4, it's also not quite favoured for astrophotography.
Some say it will be a great architectural lens but I beg to differ. Tilting up the lens will produce serious keystoning effect which I don't find particularly pleasing to the eye. Correcting it in post-editing will reduce your image resolution and create a narrower angle of view which defeats the purpose of the ultra wide 10mm.
I am still patiently waiting for the long rumoured 14mm TS-R lens! :( Canon are you listening?!
What do you think?
Id use it once or twice at most! Rather have the 14-35mm. Actually just got the Pergear 14mm 2.8 ii for sony only £280 and pretty stunning
Wow, this lens is lightweight. My IRIX 11mm f/4 is nice enough but quite heavy, so not for everyday. In 11mm focal you dont really need AF, but IS is good feature. But Canon price.
Delivering this in a 570gram package is a huge win.
Yep, it's really light, especially vs the 11-24
Canon's DSLR's were at the top of the pyramid when buying a camera in the past. One of the most strong reasons for this situation was lens availability from literally all the third party lens manufacturers. I don't know why they give up from it. Although RF mount lenses are really good, there are very few of them which are cheap AND high performing. Today, I would buy a Sony FE body instead of a Canon RF body.
I'm not 100% sure Canon ever approved third party lenses for EF, it's just that they were reverse engineered or they found a way to do it. Or maybe they were less protective, who knows? Either way I completely agree that one of the most compelling reasons to buy a Canon or Nikon DSLR / SLR in the past was access to a huge number of not only third party lenses, but loads of used ones too.
Canon has announced that they will be allowing at least some lens companies to make compatible auto lenses. I assume Sigma and Tamron, which have been mentioned as likely benefactors of this at first.
@@melgross don't count on it. The first third party RF lenses are more likely to be manual focus ones, or ones which don't represent a direct competition, But i hope the full range becomes available eventually.
@@cameralabs I wouldn’t be so sure about it. We’re getting manual lenses now. I doubt Sigma and Tamron would be that interested in producing manual lenses. That’s not where the money is.
@@melgross exactly, that's what I'm saying. I think they'll approve a handful of MF lenses, but AF is another matter. Put it this way, while I remain hopeful, I wouldn't buy a Canon EOS R body today assuming there would definitely be Sigma and Tamron lenses in the near future. I'd assume it's pretty much Canon-only lenses for AF for a while.
The eyewatering price😢.
It's way less than the EF 11-24 still sells for.
@@cameralabs Indeed Gordon, but still.
Not much bigger than the old Sigma 8-16 for APS-C, but wider, brighter and for full frame. Crazy!
There will be plenty of users that just have to have the latest, newest lens or upgrade. However, for me, the cost does not justify the results. Considering the hefty price tag, I will be more than happy to stick with my RF 14-35 lens.
10 is different to 14
Am breiten Ende ist jeder mm eine Offenbarung! Leider ist das Ultraweitwinkel RF 10-20 mm zu spät herausgekommen und ich hatte bereits das RF 14-35 f4 und das RF 15-35 f2.8!
I love the compact foot print , however at 2,000.99 it is out my budget and at F-4 is not too fast but the optics are incredible !! My wife and I have the 15-35 F2.8 which is an outstanding lens. I have the a EF- 16-35 F-4 which is about the sharpest lens in my kit. I am considering getting the new 14-35 F-4 version but can't make up my mind.
I had the RF 14-35mm f/4 for quite a while now. Superb quality! Can't see a reason for going for f/2.8.
Ich habe das Canon RF 15-35 f2.8 und das Canon RF 14-35 f4 ! Letzteres aber nur weil behauptet wurde das die f4 Variante um so viel schärfer sein soll! Das hat sich aber nur sehr wenig bestätigt! Die Blende 2.8 ist ein nicht zu unterschätzender Vorteil und die notwendigen Korrekturen bezüglich Vignettierung und Verzeichnung sind weniger ausgeprägt was mich aber nicht stört! Das was am Ende rauskommt zählt! Leider ist das Canon RF 10-20 STM erst erschienen als ich das Canon RF14-35 bereits erworben habe!
Some gaps in your arsenal of focal lengths are okay. So 10-20mm, 24-70mm and 100-400mm would give you a 40 times zoom with two holes that may require some cropping once in a while. A 14-35mm overlaps quite a lot with a 24-70mm or 24-105mm lens that is a part of most kits. Such an overlap feels like a waste of resources to me.
10mm is quite extreme though. The corners might have straight lines, but at the expense of people in the corners getting heavily distorted. I try not to get below 24mm unless space restrictions make it really necessary.
Should’ve been nano usm linear motor.
What benefit would that have given you on a 10-20 range with this focusing group? It's fine with STM and smoother than trad USM.
@@cameralabs Specifically in video use, if your camera is on slider and you’re shooting a product up close and you do a fast dolly-in, or dolly-out shot, linear motors are much faster at keeping the product in focus. I tested this with 24-70 EF vs RF. RF had a nano usm linear motor and it was noticeably faster.
And yes STM is smoother than the traditional ring type USM, but not the nano linear USM. They are different.
@@blackbugmedia good point, but I believe the actual focusing systems vary on each lens, so it's not always possible to assume that one tech will deliver similar performance across all lenses. Certainly that's a good test and comparison you made, but some of the older EF lenses can be surprisingly slow at focusing, and far less suited to videography. Ultimately though, I'll test the new lens for focus pulls and see how it performs.
7:10 still lots of wobble
Yes, I didn't see it working on my sample, but it was pre-production and maybe the camera needs a further update too.
Canon RF-S 6-12mm f/5.6-7.1 IS STM would be superb on APS-C.
I doubt Canon will make UWA RF-S, Sigma can do that job....
This was unexpected, i didnt knew this was comming out 😱 , i first thought „why not 2.8“ but then i remembered what that would mean for size and weight at 10mm 😅.
Tempting! But i think ill stay with my 15-35 2.8 and the adapted sigma 20mm f1.4 (love that beast!) It is tempting though, as lugging that 15-35 2.8 around on a hike is something you will notice 😂
Yep, the 15-35 is an excellent lens, but you do know you're carrying it!
What I don't understand is why they didn't go for a F1.2.
@@Tugela60 why not go all the way to f0.7 on all lenses going forward?
@cameralabs That would be even better, but unfortunately manufacturers lack the courage to go for a 0.2mm depth of field!
Sarkasmus Endet!
thxxx for this.
You're welcome!
Nothing on sharpness or other elements of IQ?
Not yet, it's pre-production and this was a first-looks.
still over here dying waiting for a new RF fisheye
That price is just absurd: you could buy a good kit (camera+lens) for that kind of money. Meaning, this will only be accessible to pros.
Unless for some specific use, I'd rather get the 14-35. Less expensive and a more useful (in my opinion) zoom range.
You said it, it's not meant for most of us, it's a specialist lens., The 14-35 is the more attainable one
should be awesome with my C70
Looks better than my rf 15-35. 🥴. Thing needs serious corrections
I think there is such a thing as too wide. I use 14mm a lot and honestly I find that too wide. How useful is 10-14mm?
Not all lenses are for everyone. This one example of a specialty lens that you buy if your work needs it regularly.
Wenn ich mich richtig erinnere gab es eine EF Variante mit 8-15 mm! Was dem einen zu breit ist, ist dem anderen zu schmal …
I'd actually be happier with a 10 or 8 mm prime lens, Zooming in isn't the reason I want it. I got a 8-16mm sigma on my Nikon and it is exclusively always at 8mm.
I know what you mean. When I realised I mostly used my zooms at their extremes, I moved mostly to primes.
I kinda want this.
Nice sir
Still have Canon EF 8-15L and it rocks
That is still an amazing lens
Well done. A really good review. I consider this. I have the EF 16-35 2.8 which is optically perfect but I miss IS when filming hand held. I guess the RF 15-35 2.8 IS is also interesting since it has f2.8
How can we fully assess the value for money of this lens if Canon won't allow Sigma, Tamron etc to manufacture something similar. It appears that Canon is making themselves the only option so they can keeping pricing their lenses without a direct competitive reference
Hmm, good point...
Ihr Argument ist gut aber glauben Sie wirklich das Sigma und Tamron in der Lage wären solch eine Konstruktion herzustellen? So wie ich das sehe sind diese Hersteller auf Stückzahlen angewiesen und die sehe ich bei so einem Spezialobjektiv nicht!
Wow, nice lens.. :o
ooooooooooooooh I want one!
FINALLY!!!! OK now....Canon listen up...>>>> REMOVE the RED RING and the Stabilizer , change to a removable hood option* not included $40/quid extra or whatever... and make the lens slower f4 to 5.6 and price $600 or Quid or whatever that equals.... and Bobs your uncle ----Me and my other cant find work friends are hoping for THAT 10-20mm
With an already ultra wide 15-35, a fixed 10mm plastic cheap lens wouldn’t be a miss for Canon either.
I use an old EF 16-35 f2.8L on the R8 and both of my kids use the RF24 f1.8 on the R10. I would love to see an RF-S 10-20 F2.8, or an RF(-S?) 20mm f1.8. The RF 24mm f1.8 just isn't wide enough and the RF16mm f2.8 is not fast enough outside daylight at times for the APS-Cs.
I know this lens isn't for me but, to be honest, who is this really for? If you need to go as wide as 10mm, wouldn't you be better fitted with a much faster prime that may be 500 quid cheaper? Does RF 10mm f1.2L sound like a better addition on the full frame?