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

neuroanatomist · Dec 31, 2022

Dragon said:
Maybe you are hung up on the RF-s designation. There is already a very nice 16mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8 that are very affordable. The fact that they also work on a FF body is irrelevant to the APS-c discussion. The 24mm f/1.8 IS is a little pricer, but still a nice choice for a crop camera. The 100-400 is also an excellent fit and no bigger or more expensive than it would be if limited to an APS-c frame.

Also a 35/1.8 that makes a good 'normal' lens on APS-C, and an 85/2 for portraits, etc. IMO, all that's really missing for APS-C primes is an UWA (e.g. 8 or 10mm, probably also f/2.8). Having said that, I'd love to see a 20-25mm pancake lens like the M22/2 or EF 40/2.8.

Dragon · Dec 31, 2022

neuroanatomist said:
Also a 35/1.8 that makes a good 'normal' lens on APS-C, and an 85/2 for portraits, etc. IMO, all that's really missing for APS-C primes is an UWA (e.g. 8 or 10mm, probably also f/2.8). Having said that, I'd love to see a 20-25mm pancake lens like the M22/2 or EF 40/2.8.

I was doing an edit while you were commenting and added some more info. I agree that a UWA prime is needed, and a port of the EF-s 15-85 would be welcome. The 15-85 is sharpest of the EF-s zooms and it lives on my 90D. Since Canon seems to be playing with innovative ideas in R lens family, I suspect we will see one or two RF-s lenses that break new ground in the next year or so.

Groundhog · Dec 31, 2022

Exploreshootshare said:
If that’s the case, why is canon reusing EF-M lenses and not EF-S lenses such as the EF-S 10-18mm?

Because the optical formulas of EF-M lenses are for the short flange focal distance and can be converted to RF without much work - the zoom for EF-S needs about 20mm more distance to the sensor which makes for a bigger lens.

€dit:
I missed neuros response ... don't mind me, he said everything.

amfoto1 · Dec 31, 2022

Swerky said:
RF-S 11-22 f4.5-5.6? The EF-M lens goes from f4 to 5.6, and the EF-S lens is a 10-18 f4.5-5.6. So if the info is correct, the coming RF-S lens is a bit slower than the former and less wide than the latter. I believe it should be a 4-5.6 like the EF-M lens.
Anyway I\'m not interested before seeing an 11mm f2.8 prime. Not likely to happen. Get a third party manual focus one.

f/4 vs f/4.5? That's virtually meaningless.

There also is the older, larger, better built and more expensive EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM that's excellent. Up to 2./3 stop larger aperture, slightly wider range of focal lengths, plus USM autofocus... but no IS.

The EF-M 11-22mm is the smallest and lightest of the bunch... 55mm filter (versus 67mm on the EF-S 10-18mm and 77mm on the EF-S 10-22mm). It also is by far the closest focusing of them all... 0.30X (versus 0.15X with the EF-S 10-18mm and 0.17X with the EF-S 10-22mm).

Canon's EF-M 22mm f/2 "pancake" is the widest prime they offered for the M-system... hopefully they will adapt it to the RF-mount too. It's a very nice lens. although almost too small! (I have a metal lens hood permanently screwed into mine, to make it a little larger.)

There are plenty of good third party manual focus, manual aperture 9, 10, 11 and 12mm primes. Personally I uses a 12mm f/2.8 labelled Meike. It also sells under the Opteka brand. But neither of those make lenses themselves, so who knows who actually made it in China. It's pretty decent and easy to use on a mirrorless (exposure preview and various focus assist.... the latter is hardly needed on a lens that has so much depth of field. Look for Laowa, Rokinon/Samyang, Viltrox and others, for some good options.

But why settle for f/2.8? There are both Meike and Laowa 10mm f/2 lenses for APS-C cameras.

mpb001 · Dec 31, 2022

What ever happened to the R replacement and RP replacement? Seems focus has shifted a little to APS-C. I am still a bit baffled by Canon pushing APS-C, unless it’s to challenge Nikon. I say let the other companies like Fuji stick with APS-C. Afterall, a new RP is like $1000 and a R10 is like $799. Not sure why someone would chose Canon crop or FF at that entry point. If I were going to choose crop sensor I would choose Fuji because of their wide range of very good lenses. Just my opinion but I can respect other’s choices.

neuroanatomist · Dec 31, 2022

mpb001 said:
Afterall, a new RP is like $1000 and a R10 is like $799. Not sure why someone would chose Canon crop or FF at that entry point.

APS-C for a smaller, lighter body that can use smaller, lighter lenses but can still natively mount FF RF lenses.

Jethro · Dec 31, 2022

Exploreshootshare said:
Sure, that's an approach. Saves R&D and contributes to Canon making a whole of money. I get that.

But why I should an M-user reinvest in the very same lense when the m-mount lense and camera still functions? RF-S is not only intended for "new customers", but for M-customers willing to switch. Usually, when you "switch" and reinvest, you'd want it to be an upgrade. Canon hasn't upgraded any M-lense so far and as far as I informed, some of the zoom have actually become a "downgrade" (is that a word?) by becoming darker.

Canon tries to entice people to upgrade from an EF to an RF lense, e.g.:
EF 100-400mm --> RF 100-500mm
EF 16-35mm F4 --> RF 14-35mm F4
EF 16-35mm F2.8 --> RF 15-35mm F2.8 IS

I have upgraded the 100-400mm and my UWA zoom because the RF mount lense offers me something, the EF version doesn't... I don't see that happening with M-lenses and feel Canon is actually being lazy here.
As an M-user (which I am not) I would feel strongly disappointed in two ways: Canon not communicating that the m-mount is actually dead... and for charging me extra money for the exact lenses for the RF mount. It really is a bad move and hope a lot people opt not to buy it. Least Canon could do is to develop an M-RF-s adapter...

Maybe because the M11-22 is a popular and well designed lens, and for a lot of people having it available in a native RF mount would be an incentive to move to the R mount? Let's face it, Canon would love such people to move up to a FF R mount body, but for those preferring to stay with APS-C, they brought out options, including for those wanting an 'M series alternative'.

It's unlikely that a lot of the sort of development you're talking about is going to be expended on RF-S lenses. As someone else mentioned, some of the new RF FF lenses seem to also have an APS-C application in mind. But I don't see why it is an issue for Canon to recycle the best of the M series lenses, bearing in mind this also speeds up the timing of getting them out in RF-S mount.

chong67 · Dec 31, 2022

I am having trouble keeping my subject face, arms and legs from looking abnormal! I am only at 16mm. To go to 11mm? How?

entoman · Dec 31, 2022

Happy New Year everyone, and may 2023 bring us a great selection of new Canon lenses and bodies!

... and maybe, if we're lucky, Tamron and Sigma AF lenses in RF mount?

neuroanatomist · Jan 1, 2023

chong67 said:
I am having trouble keeping my subject face, arms and legs from looking abnormal! I am only at 16mm. To go to 11mm? How?

Move back. Wide angles with people work as ‘environmental’ portraits, smaller subject showing a lot of background.

If your issue is people at the edges, e.g., shots of large groups of people where you can’t move back to frame with a longer lens, try using DxO PhotoLab (v6 only) or DxO ViewPoint, which have volume anamorphosis correction. I posted an example here.

Dragon · Jan 1, 2023

Exploreshootshare said:
Sure, that's an approach. Saves R&D and contributes to Canon making a whole of money. I get that.

But why I should an M-user reinvest in the very same lense when the m-mount lense and camera still functions? RF-S is not only intended for "new customers", but for M-customers willing to switch. Usually, when you "switch" and reinvest, you'd want it to be an upgrade. Canon hasn't upgraded any M-lense so far and as far as I informed, some of the zoom have actually become a "downgrade" (is that a word?) by becoming darker.

Canon tries to entice people to upgrade from an EF to an RF lense, e.g.:
EF 100-400mm --> RF 100-500mm
EF 16-35mm F4 --> RF 14-35mm F4
EF 16-35mm F2.8 --> RF 15-35mm F2.8 IS

I have upgraded the 100-400mm and my UWA zoom because the RF mount lense offers me something, the EF version doesn't... I don't see that happening with M-lenses and feel Canon is actually being lazy here.
As an M-user (which I am not) I would feel strongly disappointed in two ways: Canon not communicating that the m-mount is actually dead... and for charging me extra money for the exact lenses for the RF mount. It really is a bad move and hope a lot people opt not to buy it. Least Canon could do is to develop an M-RF-s adapter...

As one who has 3 M cameras and all the M lenses, I am a bit sad that M is not going forward, but I fully understand the decision. The small battery used in the M cameras will not support IBIS plus the level of processing needed for scaled 4k video. That is to say there is no way to turn an M6 II into a mini R7 and still have reasonable battery life. That said, I also snapped up an R7 to use with my RF 800 f/11 and I would like to see most, if not all the M lenses ported to the RF mount. Progress is progress and things-a-change. My M cameras still work fine and the M6 II is still my go-to for max portability.

As far as an adapter from M to R, that is a physical impossibility because the M flange distance is less than the R flange distance https://briansmith.com/flange-focal-distance-guide/ Even with a port, they have to kind of pop the rear element back into the camera much like many of the EF-s lenses were made. You could make the argument that the R flange distance could have been shorter (like the Nikon Z), but then there would not have been room for ND filters in the R cine cameras. Physics is unforgiving.

mb66energy · Jan 1, 2023

Maximilian said:
I'm really hoping for all APS-C fans for such a lens to come.
Honestly, I wouldn't even bet a penny on that. I hope I'm wrong

@Maximilian: Probability is higher after the release of the R7 because it is a camera well suited for professional use. Not sharing RF lens-camera protocol should urge Canon to give us solutions. I hope I'm right

Deepboy · Jan 1, 2023

I hope to be refuted by Canon, but I think they'll treat RF-S just like they did with EF-S and EF-M, so almost only consumer lenses, maybe optically good but only with dark apertures, and very few primes; probably they'll manufacture just a single bright standard lens to match the old EF-S 17-55 (hopefully with same extra mm on wide and/or tele end...Tamron has done a 17-70 f2.8 for E-mount, so it's possible) that wouldn't be L (I'm pretty sure we'll never EVER see an L lens for crop sensors), no weather sealing and no hood provided in the box...same old story.

They'll port all the EF-M lenses, because they're ready with minimal rehousing (but i wouldn't be so sure on the 32 f1.4 because M system was a system on its own, without an FF counterpart...on RF I think it's "too much of a lens" for Canon, they want you to buy FF if you like bright primes), and they'll reproject a couple of things from scratch, like the 17-55 2.8 and std 5x/6x "better then kit" zoom wider then 18mm like the 15-85, because they were missing in M mount, but not much else.

Waiting to see if, and when, they'll port the 22 f2 pancake, i just bought for 75€ an used EF-S 24 f2.8 to be my do-it-all-pocket-size-lens on my R10, even if the "pocket" part is much less pocketable than my M6 II + 22 STM were (but even with a 22mm pancake the R10 is very much less pocketable on its own compared to the M6 II); I thought about the RF 24 f1.8 (roughly same size then EF-S 24 + adapter) but cost 10 times as much, so not a viable option for now, even if I can reuse it on R6 (but it's a focal I'll likely never use on FF).
But the supposed RF-S 22 pancake wouldn't be cheap as well, I expect it in the range of 350/400€/$, which is still to much for my taste and pockets for such a lens.

EOS 4 Life · Jan 1, 2023

Groundhog said:
There won't be an adapter from EF-M to RF since the flange focal distance 2mm shorter for the M.

That should not stop Canon from going the other way and making an RF lens to EF-M camera body adapter

Deepboy · Jan 1, 2023

EOS 4 Life said:
That should not stop Canon from going the other way and making an RF lens to EF-M camera body adapter

That's "flangely" theoretically possible, but the adapter should be just 2mm thick, electronics included, and also RF lenses are way bigger in diameter, they cannot sit in a M mount, even raised by 2mm; Canon won't do it because they want you to buy R bodies, and neither will the Chinese manufacturers, it's too complicate and unreasonable, as both M and R bodies "talk EF", so it's basically just electronic coupling for both, but M doesn't "speak RF", that means the hypothetical adapter should also have a processor onboard to translate instructions (and someone needs to write software to do that)...all in 2mm?

There's no way; you can do it with a lens in the adapter, so it can be thicker, and being wider at the front to accommodate the RF diameter, but again, there's no sense in doing that, and quality would be cr*p because the lens would screw it really hard, or other way with a good lens the adapter would cost hundreds of €/$, and would eventually even change focal lengths.

blackcoffee17 · Jan 1, 2023

What happened with the CR ratings? Did i miss something?

blackcoffee17 · Jan 1, 2023

EOS 4 Life said:
That should not stop Canon from going the other way and making an RF lens to EF-M camera body adapter

You need an adapter only 2mm in width. Pretty hard to make and pointless as not too many M users want to adapt RF lenses on their $500 M's.

blackcoffee17 · Jan 1, 2023

Deepboy said:
I hope to be refuted by Canon, but I think they'll treat RF-S just like they did with EF-S and EF-M, so almost only consumer lenses, maybe optically good but only with dark apertures, and very few primes; probably they'll manufacture just a single bright standard lens to match the old EF-S 17-55 (hopefully with same extra mm on wide and/or tele end...Tamron has done a 17-70 f2.8 for E-mount, so it's possible) that wouldn't be L (I'm pretty sure we'll never EVER see an L lens for crop sensors), no weather sealing and no hood provided in the box...same old story.

They'll port all the EF-M lenses, because they're ready with minimal rehousing (but i wouldn't be so sure on the 32 f1.4 because M system was a system on its own, without an FF counterpart...on RF I think it's "too much of a lens" for Canon, they want you to buy FF if you like bright primes), and they'll reproject a couple of things from scratch, like the 17-55 2.8 and std 5x/6x "better then kit" zoom wider then 18mm like the 15-85, because they were missing in M mount, but not much else.

Waiting to see if, and when, they'll port the 22 f2 pancake, i just bought for 75€ an used EF-S 24 f2.8 to be my do-it-all-pocket-size-lens on my R10, even if the "pocket" part is much less pocketable than my M6 II + 22 STM were (but even with a 22mm pancake the R10 is very much less pocketable on its own compared to the M6 II); I thought about the RF 24 f1.8 (roughly same size then EF-S 24 + adapter) but cost 10 times as much, so not a viable option for now, even if I can reuse it on R6 (but it's a focal I'll likely never use on FF).
But the supposed RF-S 22 pancake wouldn't be cheap as well, I expect it in the range of 350/400€/$, which is still to much for my taste and pockets for such a lens.

"I'm pretty sure we'll never EVER see an L lens for crop sensors" - I think Canon mentioned a few times that L designation is reserved for full-frame lenses only.

blackcoffee17 · Jan 1, 2023

mpb001 said:
What ever happened to the R replacement and RP replacement? Seems focus has shifted a little to APS-C. I am still a bit baffled by Canon pushing APS-C, unless it’s to challenge Nikon. I say let the other companies like Fuji stick with APS-C. Afterall, a new RP is like $1000 and a R10 is like $799. Not sure why someone would chose Canon crop or FF at that entry point. If I were going to choose crop sensor I would choose Fuji because of their wide range of very good lenses. Just my opinion but I can respect other’s choices.

The R10 is a cheaper and much better video camera than the RP. Also, it is much faster. The RP is cheap for a full frame but sloooow and limited.

Fuji is much better indeed if you don's need some exotic lenses, like super telephotos you can buy in EF mount and adapt to an R7 for example.

Bob Howland · Jan 1, 2023

blackcoffee17 said:
The R10 is a cheaper and much better video camera than the RP. Also, it is much faster. The RP is cheap for a full frame but sloooow and limited.

Fuji is much better indeed if you don's need some exotic lenses, like super telephotos you can buy in EF mount and adapt to an R7 for example.

There is also an adaptor to use EF lenses on 4/3 cameras. I'm not sure how well it works though. I've always wondered if the R10 could be made with an M mount and lots of the R7 firmware. It's about the same size as the M5 although it has a decent grip.

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

I post too Much on Here!!

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11

EOS M50

EOS M50

EOS 90D

I post too Much on Here!!

EOS R

I'm New Here

wildlife photography

I post too Much on Here!!

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11

EOS 5D Mark IV

Headshot photographer

EOS 5D Mark IV

Headshot photographer

EOS R

EOS R

EOS R

EOS R

EOS R

Similar threads