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

mdcmdcmdc

EOS R7, M5, 100 (film), Sony α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
245
347
If, as I suspect, the R7 will be the only weather-sealed Canon APS-C camera then it would not make much sense to have L lenses for APS-C.
The R7 is really best with full-frame lenses anyway.
People even use full-frame lenses with the C70.
With the R7's emphasis on sports and wildlife/bird photography, I think Canon's expectation is that it will be primarily used with longer lenses. Canon already has a good selection of full frame long lenses, and longer focal lengths don't save as much in terms of size and weight being designed for the APS-C image circle as shorter lenses do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

chong67

I'm New Here
Mar 9, 2020
21
5
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.

Hello @neuroanatomist. Thank you for telling me this. I went to do more research yesterday and I learn something new, its called volume anamorphosis correction. I install DxO ViewPoint and did some of the correction on anything on the sides or the bottoms and it works fairly well! I will keep using my 16mm. Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Sep 17, 2014
815
1,077
If, as I suspect, the R7 will be the only weather-sealed Canon APS-C camera then it would not make much sense to have L lenses for APS-C.
The R7 is really best with full-frame lenses anyway.
People even use full-frame lenses with the C70.

The problem with full-frame lenses is the standard zoom. For the R7 the only zooms you could use maybe are the 15-35 or 14-35. Both expensive and heavy lenses with not enough mm on the long end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Deepboy

Headshot photographer
  • Jun 28, 2017
    39
    30
    Italy
    www.ritrattoaziendale.it
    With the R7's emphasis on sports and wildlife/bird photography, I think Canon's expectation is that it will be primarily used with longer lenses. Canon already has a good selection of full frame long lenses, and longer focal lengths don't save as much in terms of size and weight being designed for the APS-C image circle as shorter lenses do.

    Also, if you shoot with std and wide focal lengths, when you use APS-C you always look for wide, wider, and even more wide, because of the crop factor; but on the other side, if you shoot sport/wildlife, you need longer, not wider.
    I really don't see a market (and in fact as far as I know no one manufactures them) for medium, long and extra long tele made for crop sensor only; I think someone (there' a Tokina 50-100 for sure) manufactures some short-to-medium tele zoom for crop sensors, due to portability and cost, but I don't remember anything over 100/150mm, zoom or prime, being crop only.
    Even if a crop 300 f2.8 would be cheaper then a fullframe 300 f2.8 who's gonna spend all that money for something limited to a single smaller sensor size? Meanwhile they'll spend many money on something like rectilinear 10mm, or shorter, focals.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    mdcmdcmdc

    EOS R7, M5, 100 (film), Sony α6400
    CR Pro
    Sep 4, 2020
    245
    347
    Also, if you shoot with std and wide focal lengths, when you use APS-C you always look for wide, wider, and even more wide, because of the crop factor; but on the other side, if you shoot sport/wildlife, you need longer, not wider.
    I really don't see a market (and in fact as far as I know no one manufactures them) for medium, long and extra long tele made for crop sensor only; I think someone (there' a Tokina 50-100 for sure) manufactures some short-to-medium tele zoom for crop sensors, due to portability and cost, but I don't remember anything over 100/150mm, zoom or prime, being crop only.
    Even if a crop 300 f2.8 would be cheaper then a fullframe 300 f2.8 who's gonna spend all that money for something limited to a single smaller sensor size? Meanwhile they'll spend many money on something like rectilinear 10mm, or shorter, focals.
    If you need wide FOVs and shallow DOF, FF (or even MF) is a better choice than APS-C. APS-C is better where you need maximum pixel density for small or distant subjects. If you’re looking for one camera to do everything, you’re going to have to compromise somewhere.

    Compare the specs on the Fuji XF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 (APS-C) with the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II (FF). Same FL and aperture range. They're virtually the same size (the Canon is a few mm shorter at the wide end), and the Fuji is only lighter by about 200g (out of 1570), which could be as easily explained by the choice of materials or the number of optical elements than anything inherent in APS-C vs FF. For lenses longer than 250mm or so, there's just not that much of a difference in design and construction between FF and APS-C.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 users
    Upvote 0

    Deepboy

    Headshot photographer
  • Jun 28, 2017
    39
    30
    Italy
    www.ritrattoaziendale.it
    If you need wide FOVs and shallow DOF, FF (or even MF) is a better choice than APS-C. APS-C is better where you need maximum pixel density for small or distant subjects. If you’re looking for one camera to do everything, you’re going to have to compromise somewhere.

    Compare the specs on the Fuji XF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 (APS-C) with the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II (FF). Same FL and aperture range. They're virtually the same size (the Canon is a few mm shorter at the wide end), and the Fuji is only lighter by about 200g (out of 1570), which could be as easily explained by the choice of materials or the number of optical elements than anything inherent in APS-C vs FF. For lenses longer than 250mm or so, there's just not that much of a difference in design and construction between FF and APS-C.

    Well, I already see there's someone doing APS-C long lenses, my bad! I tend to consider just CaNiSo, having them FF cameras; I totally ignore (again, my bad, it's my fault) the existence of Fuji, or Olympus, or...Panasonic? Is Pana still in the market with MFT cameras? And Oly?
    You see, shooting Canon since 1999 and never changing, I just barely know what Nikon and Sony are doing; all the other guys are like in blur and smoke :-D I'm fixated on Canon cameras and lenses, and in general photo tech, but not on camera and lens market in general, so I basically know nothing about other brands/mounts, even if they're still in business.

    Well, of course if they only manufacture APS-C camera, they'll have matching lenses; makes sense. Do CaNiSo, or even TamSigTok, manufacture APS-C tele lenses?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    mdcmdcmdc

    EOS R7, M5, 100 (film), Sony α6400
    CR Pro
    Sep 4, 2020
    245
    347
    Well, I already see there's someone doing APS-C long lenses, my bad! I tend to consider just CaNiSo, having them FF cameras; I totally ignore (again, my bad, it's my fault) the existence of Fuji, or Olympus, or...Panasonic? Is Pana still in the market with MFT cameras? And Oly?
    You see, shooting Canon since 1999 and never changing, I just barely know what Nikon and Sony are doing; all the other guys are like in blur and smoke :-D I'm fixated on Canon cameras and lenses, and in general photo tech, but not on camera and lens market in general, so I basically know nothing about other brands/mounts, even if they're still in business.

    Well, of course if they only manufacture APS-C camera, they'll have matching lenses; makes sense. Do CaNiSo, or even TamSigTok, manufacture APS-C tele lenses?
    The only third party I pay much attention to is Sigma, who have a "DC DN" series for mirrorless crop sensors, but the longest one they have is 56mm.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 users
    Upvote 0
    Also, if you shoot with std and wide focal lengths, when you use APS-C you always look for wide, wider, and even more wide, because of the crop factor; but on the other side, if you shoot sport/wildlife, you need longer, not wider.
    I really don't see a market (and in fact as far as I know no one manufactures them) for medium, long and extra long tele made for crop sensor only; I think someone (there' a Tokina 50-100 for sure) manufactures some short-to-medium tele zoom for crop sensors, due to portability and cost, but I don't remember anything over 100/150mm, zoom or prime, being crop only.
    Even if a crop 300 f2.8 would be cheaper then a fullframe 300 f2.8 who's gonna spend all that money for something limited to a single smaller sensor size? Meanwhile they'll spend many money on something like rectilinear 10mm, or shorter, focals.
    Canon has the EF-s 55-250. The last version with the STM is pretty good for what it is.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 users
    Upvote 0

    entoman

    wildlife photography
    May 8, 2015
    1,400
    1,754
    UK
    I picked up an RF 100-400 at the sale price this fall and I'm super happy with it. The results have been great, and the f/8 maximum aperture doesn't bother me since I normally shoot between f/8 and f/11 anyway. I'm coming from an adapted Sigma 100-400|C, which is also a fantastic lens.

    I've got two kids in college so for now I can only dream about the RF 100-500L.
    No need to dream, the RF 100-400mm is more than up to the job, I've been very pleasantly surprised at the sharpness and delightful bokeh the lens produces.

    It makes a great "near macro" lens too, as it focuses down to half life-size. Here is a shot of an unidentified grasshopper, photographed a couple of weeks ago in West Papua. Cropped quite heavily (50% linear) and then put through Topaz DeNoise AI. Canon R5, RF 100-400mm at 300mm, 1/750 at F7.7, ISO 1600. At 100% is is bitingly sharp and noise-free.

    Screenshot 2023-01-02 at 19.32.07.png
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 4 users
    Upvote 0

    AlanF

    Desperately seeking birds
    CR Pro
    Aug 16, 2012
    10,504
    17,256
    No need to dream, the RF 100-400mm is more than up to the job, I've been very pleasantly surprised at the sharpness and delightful bokeh the lens produces.

    It makes a great "near macro" lens too, as it focuses down to half life-size. Here is a shot of an unidentified grasshopper, photographed a couple of weeks ago in West Papua. Cropped quite heavily (50% linear) and then put through Topaz DeNoise AI. Canon R5, RF 100-400mm at 300mm, 1/750 at F7.7, ISO 1600. At 100% is is bitingly sharp and noise-free.

    View attachment 207003
    I can't resist adding these from the RF 100-400 at 400mm on the R7 of a Common Darter dragonfly in flight. It focusses very fast as well as being more than sharp enough, and is light enough to move quickly.

    3R3A8963-DxO_Common_darter_dragonfly_flying-ls-shm.jpg 3R3A9024-DxO_Common_darter_dragonfly_flying-ls-sm_crop.jpg
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 7 users
    Upvote 0

    Dragon

    EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
    May 29, 2019
    723
    786
    Oregon
    That is a catch I could live with.
    Maybe. The FD to EF flange distance difference is also -2mm, but the overall distance is double that of the R. The FD to ef adapter had a 1.26 magnifier and a bit more than half a stop reduction in effective aperture. The Canon version also only worked on telephoto lenses. The third-party versions are optically junk. With the shorter overall flange distance of the mirrorless cameras, I think an adapter from M to R would have to be at least 1.4x and a full stop in aperture to physically fit. It might be possible to get there with a full-blown retrofocus optical assembly, but that approach would make a very large adapter that would likely cost about as much as the entire M lens lineup and would likely have to be made differently for each lens. Bottom line: there is no PRACTICAL way to get there. I think you can rest assured that this issue was discussed with some emotion inside Canon when the R dimensions were developed because leaving customers orphaned is never an easy business decision, but clearly preparing for the future won out as it did with the FD to EF switch.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 2 users
    Upvote 0

    entoman

    wildlife photography
    May 8, 2015
    1,400
    1,754
    UK
    I can't resist adding these from the RF 100-400 at 400mm on the R7 of a Common Darter dragonfly in flight. It focusses very fast as well as being more than sharp enough, and is light enough to move quickly.
    Yes, I find that when photographing insects and birds, the light weight and great manoeuvrability of the lens make life much easier than when using the RF100-500mm.
     
    Upvote 0

    Dragon

    EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
    May 29, 2019
    723
    786
    Oregon
    Well, I already see there's someone doing APS-C long lenses, my bad! I tend to consider just CaNiSo, having them FF cameras; I totally ignore (again, my bad, it's my fault) the existence of Fuji, or Olympus, or...Panasonic? Is Pana still in the market with MFT cameras? And Oly?
    You see, shooting Canon since 1999 and never changing, I just barely know what Nikon and Sony are doing; all the other guys are like in blur and smoke :-D I'm fixated on Canon cameras and lenses, and in general photo tech, but not on camera and lens market in general, so I basically know nothing about other brands/mounts, even if they're still in business.

    Well, of course if they only manufacture APS-C camera, they'll have matching lenses; makes sense. Do CaNiSo, or even TamSigTok, manufacture APS-C tele lenses?
    Panasonic and Olympus both make a 100 to 400 for micro 4/3. The Oly is about a half stop faster than the Canon R lens, but it weighs twice as much and is 2-1/2 times the price. The Panny is a full stop faster but weighs 50% more and is over 3 times the price of the Canon. Both are very nice lenses, but not smaller or cheaper.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0

    Dragon

    EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
    May 29, 2019
    723
    786
    Oregon
    I can't resist adding these from the RF 100-400 at 400mm on the R7 of a Common Darter dragonfly in flight. It focusses very fast as well as being more than sharp enough, and is light enough to move quickly.
    The R7 wrings out just about the most resolution possible from any lens you pop on it. I suspect it uses the same AAF technology that is used in the R5, albeit I haven't seen where there was any mention of such from Canon. The R7 with the 800 f/11 is a delight with my bevy of hummingbirds. This is a shot with that combo taken in very dark conditions under the brush in the evening with an approaching storm at ISO 6400 and 1/30th handheld. Of 50 shots taken in that session, only a couple were blurred (due to bird motion). The rest were spot on focus and no motion blur. For 800mm at over 80MP equivalent FF resolution, that is pretty amazing.


    E57A0231_DxO-Edit-2.jpg
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 2 users
    Upvote 0

    mdcmdcmdc

    EOS R7, M5, 100 (film), Sony α6400
    CR Pro
    Sep 4, 2020
    245
    347
    Really great shots folks!

    This is the kind of "bird" I like to shoot. R7 + RF 100-400, 1/250, f/8, ISO 320. Postprocessed in Lightroom Classic with ON1 NoNoise AI 2023. This is cropped to about 75% of the original frame in both dimensions.

    My only complaint about the RF 100-400 is that I wish the zoom ring and focus ring were swapped, so the zoom ring was farther from the camera body. I keep my left hand on the zoom ring, and having it farther from the camera body gives me a little more stability and fine control when panning.

    2022_Culpeper_Air_Fest-1318-Edit-2.jpg
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1 user
    Upvote 0