Why is there a fisherman reviewing camera gears? UA-cam channels now hiring people only based on looks just to boost their views instead of creating actually informative contents.
It's true that the 11-24 is more expensive new... but USED, the 11-24 is now cheaper than the 10-20. US$2300 for the 10-20, while the 11-24 is going for under $1500 in excellent condition on KEH. Thoughts? Right now, my wide-angle stuff is covered by the Sigma 14-24/2.8 and Voigtländer 10/5.6. The 10-20/4 would probably be a nice step up from the Voigtländer. If I decided to foolishly part with my cash, that is...
Ef 11-24 is better on wide end due to the much lower distortion. Your camera doesn't have to stretch and cut so much. This new canon is actually 9mm with fakup distortion and corners, like many other modern ultra wides. 11-24 is more balanced piece of gear.
I've used the EF 11-24 since it came out, and am trading for the 10-20 for two reasons: the huge difference in size and weight, which kept my 11-24 out of my daily carry for all these years, limiting it to specialty shoots; and, 2, I've not experienced an RF lens that was not an improvement over the EF it replaced, both in results and, like this lens, with size. the 11-24 now cheaper? very true, and whoever buys mine from the company I sold it to, will get a well maintained--much respected and loved--lens. they will also buy something twice as heavy as the 10-20 and nearly twice the dimensions. never carried the 11-24 into the backcountry--I backpack with my cameras--but the 10-20 will certainly go with me, possibly as the only lens I carry.
@@clayeewing I ended up buying the 10-20. It's been pretty sweet... the only thing that gets me is that it is indeed quite distorted at 10mm. Trivial to correct (actually, mandatory if you use Canon's software). Not a huge deal as the IQ is good corner to corner corrected. Looking at the test charts, the EF 11-24 seems to have worse CA than the RF 10-20. But it does have the benefit of less distortion (which would affect corner resolution). I can also see the 24mm being useful vs. 20mm in some scenarios. Both seem to be pretty good, but the 10mm gets me a bit wider, and that's what we all want, isn't it? It's also smaller and lighter and has (for what it's worth) IS.
As a photographer that mostly works on the opposite end of the focal length spectrum, can you tell me what is exciting about these super-wide focal lengths? What neat projects and/or creations am I missing out on?
@@trippalhealicks it's really useful for either somewhere that has close surroundings (interior/architecture) as well as outdoor/landscape shots (what I do primarily). With landscape photos, ultra wide angle is great for really emphasizing foreground items like small flowers, leaves on the forest floor, patterns in the desert ground like in Death Valley, etc. You can get 11-12mm lenses incredibly close to the foreground item like mud cracks so they'll appear huge and dramatic in the frame, but then the lens is so dang wide that you'll still get some of the mountains/trees/sky/whatever else in the background for context. Hard to do really well, but when it is... man it's hard to beat the 11-16mm range. The pro of this lens is that it's as light as my 16-35mm f/4L, covers the ranges of that lens that I use most, and would entirely replace the huge 11-24mm. Essentially, I could reduce my bag weight tremendously and consolidate these two lenses to this one.
Idk I thought the corner warping was very noticeable, I wouldn’t use that footage without a decent bit of stabilization/cropping, or just turn off IS and lug along a gimbal
I own the lens and the corner wobbling is LESS than on other ultra wides. When you move slowly it's not obvious as it is on a Sigma 12-24 which I used before. But walking handheld with a 10mm between buildings will always be questionable. When you walk in landscape, blue skies, the wobbling is simply not there.
I’m pretty excited to get this lens…if it ever ships. 😂 I didn’t preorder it because I didn’t think I needed it. Now I wait because I can’t find it anywhere. Ultimately, I don’t need it, but this lens offers a perspective no other lens can. I shoot a lot of interior spaces and architecture for work and the RF 14-35 has been an absolute dream (with profile correction). But now I’m hungrier for something even wider! I look forward to getting this lens and loved your shots, Chris - especially the library photos. This is where this lens THRIVES! I can see it being an awesome lens for exaggerating race car interiors with their insane roll cages.
Here for it. What a hottie. The lens too 😘. I do all my channel pov walks with a 14mm GM, but would absolutely hit a 10 with stabilization for ultimate ghostwalk potential. This lens is not enough of an enticement to switch systems but it sure is pretty close to tipping the scales.
I would certainly love a zoom that goes down to 10mm! When I first got into photography something like 18 years ago, the first non-kit lens I bought for my EOS at the time was a Sigma 10 - 20mm (therefore 16 - 32mm FF equivalent). Phones didn't have ultra-wide cameras back then, so it was really cool to get something completely unique from a proper camera system. I really enjoyed that field of view for stuff like cityscapes, urban exploration and musical events. Although I could only get like 1/20 shutter speeds in really dark events! Having just literally bought into the L Mount system, I'm hoping something like this comes along. It was a difficult choice between Sony's E Mount, which has a 12 - 24 available. I did see an article mentioning Sigma have patented a 10 - 24 F/4, and a 12 - 24 f/2.8 so I really hope at least one of those gets released at some point!
I used the EF11-24 for real estate photography. I sold it for the RF15-35 which is a great lens. But there are times I still miss the super wide. Plus it was fun to shoot with at weddings under the right circumstance. Stretched out the brides long veil, I remember photographing a Bride and Groom on a beach in the Caribbean. Looked like they were on their own island Now that was pretty cool
The Ronin looks good! I thought the corners were pretty warpy even with the Lens IS. Seems like the best solution to corner wobble is electronic stabilization like on the G9II, although you sacrifice a bit of the extreme width.
I just ordered this... I hope it comes in soon. For my realty shoots, I keep running into scenarios where I'm in a tight space but with tall ceilings and this would be fantastic. I currently use the Laowa 12mm but even that sometimes isn't wide enough. And no, i don't like stitching.
Depending on the kind of photography you do, 10 mil can indeed be way too wide to handle. But as for 600 mil and stuff, there will be people who know what to do with it (and that's not me, for either extreme :D)
Some subjects just need this lens to capture the scene. Realestate will love this. I have been using a Samyang 10mm rectilinear for years - one of my favorite lenses.
This is an impressive lens and your review is well done. The. 10-20mm f/4 (or a 10-24mm) has been on the Canon lens map since the beginning and I was pretty sure it would be an RF-S, for crop sensor cameras. I was surprised it covers full frame! One suggestion, with any zoom it would be very helpful to also look at some of the focal lengths in between the extremes. Some lenses do very well at either end of their zoom range, but less so at mid-range focal lengths. You had some nice shots taken with other focal lengths, but only the extremes with the test target. I also didn't see any discussion of vignetting in your video. Did you have the camera's automatic lens correction enabled or did you do any test shots without it?
If you still have the lens I’d really like a review with the rear filters. Is Canon going to sell these filters? I’ve seen very little about how to use the rear mount gel filters and a comparison to front filter glass.
Typically, gel filters are borderline rudimentary. Canon provides a template (not everyone does) and you cut them yourself out of high quality optical gel sheets. This alone is a good reason that some photographers may be better served with the older, larger/bulkier EF version. On that lens, you have unlimited rear filter options - including a polarizer - as a drop-in.
@@FinalLugiaGuardian it has to be a gift made with lots of love so he can’t destroy it. So maybe a nice pin hole camera which happens to have a 35mm FoV and unfortunately only accepts one paper format and explodes otherwise
I have the better Sony 12-24-mm F/2.8 GM. Dont' you think Sony cant' produce a 10-20mm F/4? Stop with the "Sony mount is too small" myth already... Old and debunked.
What an amazingly easy life you guys have. You walk around talking about cameras all day and you get paid for it. Nowhere in the league of Gerald Undone and yet there you go...playing, making silly jokes and getting paid. How lucky you are.
When you're doing sharpness testing on a wide angle lens you actually need to use a landscape for the test subject, field curvature is going to mess with image sharpness photographing a flat wall from close up.
That’s why we only crop in on the portion of the frame we’re focused on. We refocus when evaluating corner sharpness. Landscape shots sound great in principal, but make it impossible to compare lenses consistently to each other. Also, things like atmospheric haze can impact our perception of a lens’ sharpness. - Jordan
@@PetaPixel Bingo! Yes refocusing the corners is the correct answer. Normally I would say "no-one making reviews on UA-cam is going to waste that much time on a sharpness test." I'm glad to be proven wrong.
Canon is really coming out with some tempting lenses that I actually don't truly need. I already have the 15-35mm f2.8 RF lens, which is one that is always in my camera bag. I can't envision needing 10-15mm for that money...but if that lens was gifted to me, I would find uses.
If you have an RF system already, ideally with a large sensor body, then go with the R7. Otherwise I’d get a Panasonic G9II with the Olympus lens, that’s a killer combo.
@@Bayonet1809 this is true and it's cheap. Build quality, image quality and constant aperture is reasons why I thought of the 10-20mm. For equivalent focal range it will be 16-32mm and the OM-SYSTEM is 16-50mm but both systems have their merits.
I think that lens is a bit dated, as it is one of the first E-mount lenses they brought out. If you don't need the really super wide angles, you could perhaps better consider the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8, which is about the same price, a much newer design and optically very good.
How about Laowa 10-18mm Or Laowa 9mm F5.6 + Sony 16-35mm DR PZ but it will be 3 lens setup and I also thought to get Laowa 35mm F0.95 too after sometime if I need it
@@NetvoTV mechanical lenses can be annoying (focal length not detected from IBIS, need to input every time), not compatible with Catalyst... I think the best video wide lens for Sony is the new PZ 16-35, also compatible with breathing compensation used on A7IV and newer bodies, can zoom remotely etc.
I would like to see the amount of SW corrections that are applied for images taken with this lens... Also I would like to hear all those dumbs commenting all the time in DSLR era, that wide angle lenses do not need stabilization whenever I mentioned how IBIS works well with my 8-16 Sigma..
One of my favourite lenses to try different things was the 10-22 on my 70d and I didn’t want to sell it when I moved to the eosr but it wasn’t gunna work moving forward
Well then, for you Canon has an RF 14-35mm f/4 or an RF 15-35mm f/2.8. Or, if you prefer, there is a much, much more affordable and far more compact RF 16mm f/2.8.
If you're considering it just for fun - get yourself an excellent EF 16-35 f4 for the fraction of price. You will have a lot of fun with it and you don't need to go less than 16mm as much as you think you do.
Rubbish. 14mm is not even close to the look of 10mm. some subjects just need this lens to capture the scene. Realestate will love this. I have been using a Samyang 10mm rectilinear for years - one of my favorite lenses.
Telling people with different needs that they don't need what they think they need is kinda pretentious. I personally won't go above 14mm if I'm purchasing a wide lens but I have a ton of fun with 11. The 16-35 would actually compliment the 10-20 quite nicely but it's by no means any sort of competition, they're completely different.
Or the more standard RF f/4L wide zoom. Are there folks who need the extra 4mm? I’m sure some exist, but shots that wide look really weird, and it’s probably fewer that need it than one might guess. And the RF 14-35/4L can save more than $1000 (depending on sales). With as unusual as the 10-20 is, the 14-35 is likely a better fit for a lot of photographers. The EF can be really cheap, so for the “just for fun” crowd, the bulk and challenges of used kit might be worth the even lower price.
@@thebitterfig9903 'elitist' ? Hahaha. Ok, Im elitist then. I have had my RF 10-20mm only a few days, and have already taken a few 100 differnt shots @ 10mm. 10mm on full frame is a steep learning curve and takes time to master, just like every other lens. At 10mm, 135° fov diagonal corner to corner means composition is important. This is a must buy lens for real estate. I shoot lightning storms using the intervalometer. Wide, eg 10mm, means I can crop in to compose the lightning position in post. This lens is crazy stopped down a little, and can handle significant cropping. In deep canyons and city lanes, 10mm works great. Also, I have also this week proven that 10mm works great for group hand held selfies. My arm holding my R5 looks crazy long, and a group of 4people easily fits the frame. I also like the back ground to be dominant story when taking selfies, and 10mm can realy tell the story. 10-20mm is also a great range for shooting front yard xmas lights from a few m away, as I did last night
@@nordic5490 I said "Exist" not elitist. There are folks who need it. There are also folks who don't and could use GAS relief. The $1000-$1500 difference between this 10-20 and either a new RF 14-35 or a used EF 16-35 is a lot of money. It'd be wise for any photographer to think long and hard about what their needs are. For a wide zoom, for other parts of their kit, for travel budget, etc. There are all sorts of permutations. You say "must buy for real estate" and both me and the first poster said "just for fun." Those are very different contexts that a potential purchaser can bring. They can both be true, just for different people.
F4 for a wide angle is much less of an issue, than for a telephoto. You are going to have most things in focus anyway, so the main compromise is on light transmission, and modern cameras handle higher ISO's quite well.
There are no alternatives atm Some subjects just need this lens to capture the scene. Realestate will love this. I have been using a Samyang 10mm rectilinear for years - one of my favorite lenses.
Ugh, being a Canadian UA-camr I thought $2300 sounded not too bad…but it’s $3100 CAD. Probably be helpful to add the USD on your pricing in the videos.
Plena is a lens name: Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S. It is a heavy lens (995gr). The Canon RF 10-20mm f/4.0L IS STM = 570gr. Name of NIKKOR Z 58mm f/0.95 S= Noct (2000gr)
Some times I wonder why I switched from Canon to Sony. I loved Canon. I would love to own this lens. Then I see the price in Canadian Dollars and $3000 for this lens... oh thats why. What an amazing lens nonetheless.
@@kiwimike2330Canon really concentrate on the very ends of the spectrum. Cheap, super light, slow lenses or super expensive, fast, innovative lenses. There is no in between. That is where a 3rd party manufacturer like Sigma or Tamron could help out.
Monochrome = distortion. We do not see in black and white. Long shutter speed blurred water = distortion. We do not see this way It is about the art. And, some subjects just need this lens to capture the scene. Realestate will love this. I have been using a Samyang 10mm rectilinear for years - one of my favorite lenses.
These chart tests are boring and not real world examples of how the lens will be used. Shoot more interior, shoot people with flying dresses or something. Every lens is sharp now. Throw out the technical charts and show real world stuff. So boring.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I know that guy! He’s the Bow River Troutfitters guy!
Why is there a fisherman reviewing camera gears?
UA-cam channels now hiring people only based on looks just to boost their views instead of creating actually informative contents.
Are you the real deal Niccoll?
@@LoightaFluwidSo what you are saying is that you think I’m good looking! Thanks!
@@NetvoTVAs real as the guy up on the screen!
Ah makes sense
It's true that the 11-24 is more expensive new... but USED, the 11-24 is now cheaper than the 10-20. US$2300 for the 10-20, while the 11-24 is going for under $1500 in excellent condition on KEH. Thoughts?
Right now, my wide-angle stuff is covered by the Sigma 14-24/2.8 and Voigtländer 10/5.6. The 10-20/4 would probably be a nice step up from the Voigtländer. If I decided to foolishly part with my cash, that is...
True, but the EF-11-24 is bigger and heavy (also need the EF to RF adaptor).
@@360gradenpanoramafotografi7 True, but still worth thinking about the comparison
Ef 11-24 is better on wide end due to the much lower distortion. Your camera doesn't have to stretch and cut so much. This new canon is actually 9mm with fakup distortion and corners, like many other modern ultra wides. 11-24 is more balanced piece of gear.
I've used the EF 11-24 since it came out, and am trading for the 10-20 for two reasons: the huge difference in size and weight, which kept my 11-24 out of my daily carry for all these years, limiting it to specialty shoots; and, 2, I've not experienced an RF lens that was not an improvement over the EF it replaced, both in results and, like this lens, with size. the 11-24 now cheaper? very true, and whoever buys mine from the company I sold it to, will get a well maintained--much respected and loved--lens. they will also buy something twice as heavy as the 10-20 and nearly twice the dimensions. never carried the 11-24 into the backcountry--I backpack with my cameras--but the 10-20 will certainly go with me, possibly as the only lens I carry.
@@clayeewing I ended up buying the 10-20. It's been pretty sweet... the only thing that gets me is that it is indeed quite distorted at 10mm. Trivial to correct (actually, mandatory if you use Canon's software). Not a huge deal as the IQ is good corner to corner corrected.
Looking at the test charts, the EF 11-24 seems to have worse CA than the RF 10-20. But it does have the benefit of less distortion (which would affect corner resolution). I can also see the 24mm being useful vs. 20mm in some scenarios.
Both seem to be pretty good, but the 10mm gets me a bit wider, and that's what we all want, isn't it? It's also smaller and lighter and has (for what it's worth) IS.
man if there was one lens that makes me want to jump 100% into the R series, it's this one. good review
I am the 24-105 f2.8 constant L series
As a photographer that mostly works on the opposite end of the focal length spectrum, can you tell me what is exciting about these super-wide focal lengths? What neat projects and/or creations am I missing out on?
@@trippalhealicks it's really useful for either somewhere that has close surroundings (interior/architecture) as well as outdoor/landscape shots (what I do primarily). With landscape photos, ultra wide angle is great for really emphasizing foreground items like small flowers, leaves on the forest floor, patterns in the desert ground like in Death Valley, etc. You can get 11-12mm lenses incredibly close to the foreground item like mud cracks so they'll appear huge and dramatic in the frame, but then the lens is so dang wide that you'll still get some of the mountains/trees/sky/whatever else in the background for context. Hard to do really well, but when it is... man it's hard to beat the 11-16mm range. The pro of this lens is that it's as light as my 16-35mm f/4L, covers the ranges of that lens that I use most, and would entirely replace the huge 11-24mm. Essentially, I could reduce my bag weight tremendously and consolidate these two lenses to this one.
@@brianbeattyphotography Thank you for the response. I love hearing about what other photographers enjoy shooting. Very inspirational!
A great review . I love this lens, it is versatile, light and compliments my 24-70 better than the overlapping 15-35!
Idk I thought the corner warping was very noticeable, I wouldn’t use that footage without a decent bit of stabilization/cropping, or just turn off IS and lug along a gimbal
Yeah, the buildings were very distracting in that shot.
I own the lens and the corner wobbling is LESS than on other ultra wides. When you move slowly it's not obvious as it is on a Sigma 12-24 which I used before. But walking handheld with a 10mm between buildings will always be questionable. When you walk in landscape, blue skies, the wobbling is simply not there.
nice straight line --- great lens
I’m pretty excited to get this lens…if it ever ships. 😂 I didn’t preorder it because I didn’t think I needed it. Now I wait because I can’t find it anywhere. Ultimately, I don’t need it, but this lens offers a perspective no other lens can. I shoot a lot of interior spaces and architecture for work and the RF 14-35 has been an absolute dream (with profile correction). But now I’m hungrier for something even wider! I look forward to getting this lens and loved your shots, Chris - especially the library photos. This is where this lens THRIVES! I can see it being an awesome lens for exaggerating race car interiors with their insane roll cages.
Here for it. What a hottie. The lens too 😘.
I do all my channel pov walks with a 14mm GM, but would absolutely hit a 10 with stabilization for ultimate ghostwalk potential. This lens is not enough of an enticement to switch systems but it sure is pretty close to tipping the scales.
Careful. Flattery will get you everywhere.
7:40 but you always can find used options of EF 11-24 for a better price at KEH ;)
You should have shown the differences in the image area at the different focal lengths, since it's an uncommon range. Kind of a missed opportunity.
A nice little vid for a nice little lens 🙂
I would certainly love a zoom that goes down to 10mm! When I first got into photography something like 18 years ago, the first non-kit lens I bought for my EOS at the time was a Sigma 10 - 20mm (therefore 16 - 32mm FF equivalent). Phones didn't have ultra-wide cameras back then, so it was really cool to get something completely unique from a proper camera system. I really enjoyed that field of view for stuff like cityscapes, urban exploration and musical events. Although I could only get like 1/20 shutter speeds in really dark events!
Having just literally bought into the L Mount system, I'm hoping something like this comes along. It was a difficult choice between Sony's E Mount, which has a 12 - 24 available. I did see an article mentioning Sigma have patented a 10 - 24 F/4, and a 12 - 24 f/2.8 so I really hope at least one of those gets released at some point!
Bummer there’s no vlogging clips. An ultra wide zoom lens with IS is like a unicorn in the vlog world.
Gordon Laing has reviewed this lens with vlogging
@@nordic5490 appreciate that! Will check it out!
You bastards are literally using the Plena as a serious weight measurement haha
Love it!
I used the EF11-24 for real estate photography. I sold it for the RF15-35 which is a great lens. But there are times I still miss the super wide. Plus it was fun to shoot with at weddings under the right circumstance. Stretched out the brides long veil, I remember photographing a Bride and Groom on a beach in the Caribbean. Looked like they were on their own island Now that was pretty cool
The Ronin looks good! I thought the corners were pretty warpy even with the Lens IS. Seems like the best solution to corner wobble is electronic stabilization like on the G9II, although you sacrifice a bit of the extreme width.
love this jacket
I just ordered this... I hope it comes in soon. For my realty shoots, I keep running into scenarios where I'm in a tight space but with tall ceilings and this would be fantastic. I currently use the Laowa 12mm but even that sometimes isn't wide enough. And no, i don't like stitching.
Wow. I find my Nikon 14-24mm too wide sometimes, 10mm is crazy
You may be better off with the 100-300 ...
Depending on the kind of photography you do, 10 mil can indeed be way too wide to handle. But as for 600 mil and stuff, there will be people who know what to do with it (and that's not me, for either extreme :D)
Some subjects just need this lens to capture the scene.
Realestate will love this.
I have been using a Samyang 10mm rectilinear for years - one of my favorite lenses.
This is an impressive lens and your review is well done.
The. 10-20mm f/4 (or a 10-24mm) has been on the Canon lens map since the beginning and I was pretty sure it would be an RF-S, for crop sensor cameras. I was surprised it covers full frame!
One suggestion, with any zoom it would be very helpful to also look at some of the focal lengths in between the extremes. Some lenses do very well at either end of their zoom range, but less so at mid-range focal lengths. You had some nice shots taken with other focal lengths, but only the extremes with the test target.
I also didn't see any discussion of vignetting in your video. Did you have the camera's automatic lens correction enabled or did you do any test shots without it?
I’m going to have to vote for bringing back the noct as a unit of measurement
I really wish that you would've tested the video performance on a non ibis body
use the rfs 10-18
what does that have to do with what I said? @@truthseeker6804
Great Video. The video walk @5:20 made me sea sick, is that good IS for Canon?
Why were there two suns stars on the first shot?
Thought about that as well. Maybe a reflection on the metal roof?
Maybe shot on a different planet?
The DJI video used here looks so smooth and clean!
Whoa the boys got the Ronin today! Jordan must be stoked!
If you still have the lens I’d really like a review with the rear filters. Is Canon going to sell these filters? I’ve seen very little about how to use the rear mount gel filters and a comparison to front filter glass.
Typically, gel filters are borderline rudimentary. Canon provides a template (not everyone does) and you cut them yourself out of high quality optical gel sheets. This alone is a good reason that some photographers may be better served with the older, larger/bulkier EF version. On that lens, you have unlimited rear filter options - including a polarizer - as a drop-in.
@@kevindiossiwhere do I find this template for this lens?
Jordan buy Chris a 35mm lens from KEH! I know he'll just love it. 😂
Chris will just mount it on an APSC camera.
Problem solved.
@@FinalLugiaGuardian buy him an APSC 23mm
@@TheChosenOne_ Then Chris will hack it and stick it on a micro four thirds camera.
Anything to avoid the 35mm...
@@FinalLugiaGuardian it has to be a gift made with lots of love so he can’t destroy it. So maybe a nice pin hole camera which happens to have a 35mm FoV and unfortunately only accepts one paper format and explodes otherwise
How does it work with the R7?
I only know weights in Nocts, what's the Noct:Plena conversion rate?
Plena is half a Noct or 1kg
Not even Sony E mount lenses with the open mount get close to this lens.
I have the better Sony 12-24-mm F/2.8 GM. Dont' you think Sony cant' produce a 10-20mm F/4? Stop with the "Sony mount is too small" myth already... Old and debunked.
This could make for a great landscape/architecture/interior and if you’re brave enough, Astro lens as well…😅
What an amazingly easy life you guys have. You walk around talking about cameras all day and you get paid for it. Nowhere in the league of Gerald Undone and yet there you go...playing, making silly jokes and getting paid. How lucky you are.
They worked really hard to get there, it’s just hard work paying off, not luck
The lens I love the most of those I'll never own. Oh boy, so many uses for a generalist utility photographer.
When you're doing sharpness testing on a wide angle lens you actually need to use a landscape for the test subject, field curvature is going to mess with image sharpness photographing a flat wall from close up.
That’s why we only crop in on the portion of the frame we’re focused on. We refocus when evaluating corner sharpness. Landscape shots sound great in principal, but make it impossible to compare lenses consistently to each other. Also, things like atmospheric haze can impact our perception of a lens’ sharpness.
- Jordan
@@PetaPixel Bingo! Yes refocusing the corners is the correct answer.
Normally I would say "no-one making reviews on UA-cam is going to waste that much time on a sharpness test."
I'm glad to be proven wrong.
Canon is really coming out with some tempting lenses that I actually don't truly need. I already have the 15-35mm f2.8 RF lens, which is one that is always in my camera bag. I can't envision needing 10-15mm for that money...but if that lens was gifted to me, I would find uses.
Its funny I thought it wouldn't be that much difference going from 10-15 but its major
Canon R7 with the 10-20mm f/4 or Olympus OM-1 with the 8-25mm f/4?
Use the RF-S 10-18mm on the R7, not this full frame lens.
If you have an RF system already, ideally with a large sensor body, then go with the R7. Otherwise I’d get a Panasonic G9II with the Olympus lens, that’s a killer combo.
@@Bayonet1809True, it costs a tiny fraction and is much smaller.
@@Bayonet1809 this is true and it's cheap. Build quality, image quality and constant aperture is reasons why I thought of the 10-20mm. For equivalent focal range it will be 16-32mm and the OM-SYSTEM is 16-50mm but both systems have their merits.
@@Ildskalli that could be a nice 3rd option. Thanks!
Dean Cain wow I loved you in Lois and Clark.
Anyone know if Sony will update the 12-24mm F4 or it's still a good buy, I want to pair it with the Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3!
I think that lens is a bit dated, as it is one of the first E-mount lenses they brought out. If you don't need the really super wide angles, you could perhaps better consider the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8, which is about the same price, a much newer design and optically very good.
I can try but it's heavier, too much for everyday lens?
How about Laowa 10-18mm
Or
Laowa 9mm F5.6 + Sony 16-35mm DR PZ but it will be 3 lens setup and I also thought to get Laowa 35mm F0.95 too after sometime if I need it
@@NetvoTV mechanical lenses can be annoying (focal length not detected from IBIS, need to input every time), not compatible with Catalyst... I think the best video wide lens for Sony is the new PZ 16-35, also compatible with breathing compensation used on A7IV and newer bodies, can zoom remotely etc.
How about Sigma 16-28/2.8 or Tamron 17-28/2.8 then?
I like it. Yeah, it's expensive, but no one else has it. Well done Canon.
This still counts as a 2024 lens. I really want to get my hands on this lens.
Chris enjoying that nice, tight ring.
I would like to see the amount of SW corrections that are applied for images taken with this lens...
Also I would like to hear all those dumbs commenting all the time in DSLR era, that wide angle lenses do not need stabilization whenever I mentioned how IBIS works well with my 8-16 Sigma..
One of my favourite lenses to try different things was the 10-22 on my 70d and I didn’t want to sell it when I moved to the eosr but it wasn’t gunna work moving forward
10 mm at full frame is wide. Maybe foo wide for my needs
Well then, for you Canon has an RF 14-35mm f/4 or an RF 15-35mm f/2.8. Or, if you prefer, there is a much, much more affordable and far more compact RF 16mm f/2.8.
@@alanm.4298 15-35 is perfect
It was worth the wait! Thanks! Merry Christmas you filthy animals! 🤣
If you're considering it just for fun - get yourself an excellent EF 16-35 f4 for the fraction of price. You will have a lot of fun with it and you don't need to go less than 16mm as much as you think you do.
Rubbish. 14mm is not even close to the look of 10mm.
some subjects just need this lens to capture the scene.
Realestate will love this.
I have been using a Samyang 10mm rectilinear for years - one of my favorite lenses.
Telling people with different needs that they don't need what they think they need is kinda pretentious. I personally won't go above 14mm if I'm purchasing a wide lens but I have a ton of fun with 11. The 16-35 would actually compliment the 10-20 quite nicely but it's by no means any sort of competition, they're completely different.
Or the more standard RF f/4L wide zoom. Are there folks who need the extra 4mm? I’m sure some exist, but shots that wide look really weird, and it’s probably fewer that need it than one might guess. And the RF 14-35/4L can save more than $1000 (depending on sales). With as unusual as the 10-20 is, the 14-35 is likely a better fit for a lot of photographers.
The EF can be really cheap, so for the “just for fun” crowd, the bulk and challenges of used kit might be worth the even lower price.
@@thebitterfig9903 'elitist' ? Hahaha. Ok, Im elitist then. I have had my RF 10-20mm only a few days, and have already taken a few 100 differnt shots @ 10mm.
10mm on full frame is a steep learning curve and takes time to master, just like every other lens. At 10mm, 135° fov diagonal corner to corner means composition is important. This is a must buy lens for real estate.
I shoot lightning storms using the intervalometer. Wide, eg 10mm, means I can crop in to compose the lightning position in post. This lens is crazy stopped down a little, and can handle significant cropping.
In deep canyons and city lanes, 10mm works great.
Also, I have also this week proven that 10mm works great for group hand held selfies. My arm holding my R5 looks crazy long, and a group of 4people easily fits the frame. I also like the back ground to be dominant story when taking selfies, and 10mm can realy tell the story.
10-20mm is also a great range for shooting front yard xmas lights from a few m away, as I did last night
@@nordic5490 I said "Exist" not elitist. There are folks who need it. There are also folks who don't and could use GAS relief.
The $1000-$1500 difference between this 10-20 and either a new RF 14-35 or a used EF 16-35 is a lot of money. It'd be wise for any photographer to think long and hard about what their needs are. For a wide zoom, for other parts of their kit, for travel budget, etc. There are all sorts of permutations.
You say "must buy for real estate" and both me and the first poster said "just for fun." Those are very different contexts that a potential purchaser can bring. They can both be true, just for different people.
For a second, I thought the video title said the lens was a 10-200mm F4...
That lens would weigh 2 Nocts and a Plena and cost about that much as well.
It would be about time they release the 10-200 1.4
Lovely, I can't afford due to weak currency.
does it make sense to buy this gem for my r10?
5:25 Man that's consider "quite acceptable"? I love Canon but that is not "quite acceptable." Those types of warps are not fixable in post.
Isn’t enough that Chris talks all the time, now also about video? Jesus, bring in more Jordan…!
Fk Plena wishy... do pricing of new lenses based on fractions 😂
Man I really can’t watch a single video that doesn’t remind me of our collapsing climate. Warm and rain in December in Calgary in this case.
Same
that corner warping is obnoxious, its like a constant jello-effect around the corner
That size + over 2000 dollars + F4 is a tough sell. But then again Canon fans love spending big money lol.
So what alternative do the other competitors offer? 10mm fullframe is a 5mm rectalinear on mft or a 7mm on apsc. Keep in mind it is not a fish eye
F4 for a wide angle is much less of an issue, than for a telephoto. You are going to have most things in focus anyway, so the main compromise is on light transmission, and modern cameras handle higher ISO's quite well.
The size is your complaint? It is way smaller than the 11-24/4.
There are no alternatives atm
Some subjects just need this lens to capture the scene.
Realestate will love this.
I have been using a Samyang 10mm rectilinear for years - one of my favorite lenses.
$2300 for a f4 with unusable stabilization for videos? Canon wont sell much :o
You can also take photos with your R cameras...
@emotionblur7214 jeh but f4 is f4
Ugh, being a Canadian UA-camr I thought $2300 sounded not too bad…but it’s $3100 CAD. Probably be helpful to add the USD on your pricing in the videos.
wtf is a plena
Half a Noct.
@@gameshoes 🤣
Plena is a lens name: Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S. It is a heavy lens (995gr). The Canon RF 10-20mm f/4.0L IS STM = 570gr. Name of NIKKOR Z 58mm f/0.95 S= Noct (2000gr)
It's a bit of humour, creating a unit of weight of 'a Plena' a relatively heavy Nikon lens.@@gameshoes
@@gameshoesThis brings me so much joy!
Yikes. The lens price was why I left Canon.
Some times I wonder why I switched from Canon to Sony. I loved Canon. I would love to own this lens. Then I see the price in Canadian Dollars and $3000 for this lens... oh thats why. What an amazing lens nonetheless.
Yeah, 100%. Canon don’t really have any excellent affordable lenses.
@@kiwimike2330Canon really concentrate on the very ends of the spectrum. Cheap, super light, slow lenses or super expensive, fast, innovative lenses. There is no in between. That is where a 3rd party manufacturer like Sigma or Tamron could help out.
Wow, a positive Canon review? I'm shocked, lol...
This is just too wide, the images do not look pretty because of all the distortion.
I like distortion sometimes 🤷🏻♂
Monochrome = distortion. We do not see in black and white.
Long shutter speed blurred water = distortion. We do not see this way
It is about the art.
And, some subjects just need this lens to capture the scene.
Realestate will love this.
I have been using a Samyang 10mm rectilinear for years - one of my favorite lenses.
Over fifteen years ago, I had a 10~20 Sigma for my Nikon D200. Wide zooms are nothing new.
That was for APS-C sensor though. Sigma had also an 8-16mm for that. This is for full frame, and it is the first one ever with autofocus.
True.@@emotionblur7214
These chart tests are boring and not real world examples of how the lens will be used. Shoot more interior, shoot people with flying dresses or something. Every lens is sharp now. Throw out the technical charts and show real world stuff. So boring.
2300 for an f4…better to wait for Sigma and Tamron.😢😢😢