Canon RF-S 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM coming first half of 2023

This is kind of a surprise for me to be honest. So far, the RF UWA zooms have become wider (14 & 15mm to start with) and even the cheaper model (RF 15-30mm) is a wide option. Therefore, I figured Canon would at least copy the EF-s 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM but I actually thought it would be a RF-s 9-18mm option. Instead, it is is 11mm (which would be 17.6mm on FF, right?) and so it doesn't match the EF-s lense...
I kind of don't like the idea of simply "bringing over the EF-m" design without a try of making it better. Improving lenses and design is something substantial and an obvious task for Canon imho.

neuroanatomist said:

I am considering the RF 100-400 for travel, to urban destinations where a longer focal length may occasionally be useful but not sufficiently to justify bringing the 100-500L.

Click to expand...

I started using the RF 14-35mm F4 (so far the 15-35mm F2.8 but I'm selling that one) and the RF 70-200mm F4 as my city travel set-up, along with the 35mm F1.8. The 70-200mm is a bit heavier than the RF 100-400mm but it fits perfectly in a small backpack or messenger bag because it is really small. For future travels, I hope to have a camera with an internal extender mode like the R6 to have extra reach if needed.

mdcmdcmdc said:

Let the independents make RF and RF-S lenses!

Click to expand...

Canon seem to be taking a pretty tough stance on this. It will take a while for Tamron and Sigma to reliably reverse engineer the protocols in a way that doesn't impinge on Canons' intellectual property. I can kinda understand Canon's approach, but we can be pretty sure that there are quite a lot of "wishlist lenses" that Canon won't make themselves, at least not in the foreseeable future.

My own wishlist comprises mainly of 1:1 macro lenses of various focal lengths. I can't see Canon ever replacing their EF 180mm macro with an improved, lighter, stabilised version, but Tamron and Sigma will probably do so, given half a chance.

entoman said:

Canon seem to be taking a pretty tough stance on this. It will take a while for Tamron and Sigma to reliably reverse engineer the protocols in a way that doesn't impinge on Canons' intellectual property. I can kinda understand Canon's approach, but we can be pretty sure that there are quite a lot of "wishlist lenses" that Canon won't make themselves, at least not in the foreseeable future.

My own wishlist comprises mainly of 1:1 macro lenses of various focal lengths. I can't see Canon ever replacing their EF 180mm macro with an improved, lighter, stabilised version, but Tamron and Sigma will probably do so, given half a chance.

Click to expand...

Not sure Tamron or Sigma plan on reverse engineering. I think it is more likely that within a couple years they will negotiate license agreements with Canon to produce some AF lenses. Tamron has just recently done so with Nikon and rumnors are that Sigma is negotiating with Nikon as well. Based on comments from the Grays at Westminster folks online, the Nikon agreement with Tamron may include some restrictions on the lenses Tamron can make - not making any lenses with the same specs as Nikon lenses (either already made or on the roadmap). I could see Canon making similar agreements in the future. We just have to wait and see.

Exploreshootshare said:

I kind of don't like the idea of simply "bringing over the EF-m" design without a try of making it better. Improving lenses and design is something substantial and an obvious task for Canon imho.

Click to expand...

If a straight port of the M11-22 yields a popular lens (and probably it will), it means minimal development costs and thus more profit for Canon.

Czardoom said:

the Nikon agreement with Tamron may include some restrictions on the lenses Tamron can make - not making any lenses with the same specs as Nikon lenses (either already made or on the roadmap). I could see Canon making similar agreements in the future. We just have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

I´d be fine with that. So Canon could offer a 12mm, Tamron a 13mm and Sigma a 14mm prime lense Also a 12-24mm would possible

imho, we don't need yet another 70-200mm lense, but more niche lenses or designated macro lenses, so if that deal would become reality, all three manufacturer could be in a win-win

neuroanatomist said:

If a straight port of the M11-22 yields a popular lens (and probably it will), it means minimal development costs and thus more profit for Canon.

Click to expand...

Yep, and I totally get that. I still don't like the idea and it kind stand against the promises Canon made when introducing the R mount concerning lense designs etc.

neuroanatomist said:

Personally, I’m hoping the rumored ‘R8’ is an M6II-like smaller body. If so, I’d get that and the 11-22 / 18-150 as a travel set since unlike the M6II it could serve as a backup for my R3.

Perhaps the RF-S 11-22 will be announced alongside the R8, if the latter is a vlogging camera it needs an ultrawide.

I am considering the RF 100-400 for travel, to urban destinations where a longer focal length may occasionally be useful but not sufficiently to justify bringing the 100-500L.

Click to expand...

Vlogging + 4.0-4.5 lens is not a match. Way too dark.

Exploreshootshare said:

it kind stand against the promises Canon made when introducing the R mount concerning lens designs etc.

Click to expand...

I agree. Canon probably didn't plan to be this lazy.
Of course, the really lazy approach is an EF-M to RF adapter.
Probably not possible with the current RF design.
But with a different RF design, maybe they could have done it.

Too slow for me. Unless one is only taking day fotos.

Exploreshootshare said:

Yep, and I totally get that. I still don't like the idea and it kind stand against the promises Canon made when introducing the R mount concerning lense designs etc.

Click to expand...

Sure, but a big part of the initial philosophy around new R mount lenses was that they could be smaller & lighter etc. The M11-22 is already small (being designed for the M mount) and considered optically very good - so why go through a long development process to redesign an already high quality lens? On Neuro's point, reduced development costs not only means higher profit for Canon, but (at least potentially) a lower cost for consumers, because there is no need to recoup capital outlays.

Exploreshootshare said:

This is kind of a surprise for me to be honest. So far, the RF UWA zooms have become wider (14 & 15mm to start with) and even the cheaper model (RF 15-30mm) is a wide option. Therefore, I figured Canon would at least copy the EF-s 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM but I actually thought it would be a RF-s 9-18mm option. Instead, it is is 11mm (which would be 17.6mm on FF, right?) and so it doesn't match the EF-s lense...
I kind of don't like the idea of simply "bringing over the EF-m" design without a try of making it better. Improving lenses and design is something substantial and an obvious task for Canon imho.

Click to expand...

They could make, for example, a 10-20 f/2.8 but it would almost certainly cost a lot more. This lens is for the people who cannot or will not spend $1000 for an APS-C UWA zoom lens. It's the same market as those who buy an R7 or R10 and, I suspect, there are a lot of us.

Jethro said:

Sure, but a big part of the initial philosophy around new R mount lenses was that they could be smaller & lighter etc.

Click to expand...

And Canon has come through with some fantastic new and unique lenses, as well as significantly improving on certain EF lenses with the RF versions.

Exploreshootshare said:

Yep, and I totally get that. I still don't like the idea and it kind stand against the promises Canon made when introducing the R mount concerning lense designs etc.

Click to expand...

M mount lenses are already designed for a shorter flange distance. So not the same as an EF mount lens being re-designed for RF mount.

While I am certainly happy to see another RF-S lens coming to market, I must express that I'm disappointed that we're simply seeing recycled EF-M designs. They have the opportunity to bring out some of the previous cool patents we saw late in the EF-M lifecycle. It would extraordinary if they would start to provide weather sealing on these lenses as well...but I would never hold my breath on that because I don't see it happening.

Let's get some faster glass for APS-C, Canon! Please!!

vondo said:

Mine: 60mm macro. Then I can consider the R10 for underwater use.

Click to expand...

Would certainly make it a small and cheaper option than my R5/100mm!

mdcmdcmdc said:

I'm eager to see that 16-55 constant f/2.8 that CR reported on shortly after the R7/R10 announcement.
Plus: Let the independents make RF and RF-S lenses!

Click to expand...

That would be a logical replacement for the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8. I would also like to see a follow-on to the EF-s 15-85, which is probably the best all-around EF-s lens ever made. Of course, a port of the excellent EF-M 32mm f/1.4 is a must.

Hubert Multana said:

Vlogging + 4.0-4.5 lens is not a match. Way too dark.

Click to expand...

What is the scenario where this is an issue?
With every vlogger investing in a range of rings lights for indoor shooting, the aperture does't need to be too wide. Normally a lot more light if shooting outdoor so the same logic applies.
In any case, it is distracting it hunts for focus with a low f stop. STM motors aren't the quietest anyway manual focus with a wider aperture should be better.
I still don't get people using lenses with significant focus breathing and auto focus.

Exploreshootshare said:

Yep, and I totally get that. I still don't like the idea and it kind stand against the promises Canon made when introducing the R mount concerning lense designs etc.

Click to expand...

The R mount has no optical advantage over M for APS-c. The big mount was all about FF. The faster communication could be an advantage and they may use that, but you wouldn't notice by looking at the lens. You would have to do an a/b performance comparison with the M lens and you probably still wouldn't be sure because the R7 AF is so far beyond the M6 II that you would be hard pressed to identify the contribution of the lens.

mdcmdcmdc said:

Looks like a port of the EF-M 11-22, which is a fine lens. I'm glad to see Canon starting to fill out the RF-S line.

Click to expand...

That doesn't just look like the EF-M 11-22 it is the EF-M 11-22. The RF-s version will necessarily have a flange at the mount end just like the RF-s 18-150. And yes, the EF-M 11-22 is an excellent WA lens, so well worth porting. The EF-M 32 f/1.4 needs to be on the list as well. along with the 22 f/2 (but the RF 24 f/1.8 does cover that base). When you throw in the RF 16mm f/2.8 and the RF 50mm f/1.8, that gives you 16,22,32, and 50 in decently fast primes. Add the 11-22, the 18-150, and the RF 100-400 and the R7 has a remarkably complete lens kit that includes super telephoto if you throw in the 600 and 800 f/11, both of which the R7 is very fond of. The rumored 16-55 f/2.8 adds a fast normal zoom. That leaves maybe a 10mm prime and it would be nice to see a replacement for the EF-s 15-85.