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

mdcmdcmdc · Jan 2, 2023

blackcoffee17 said:
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.

I do hope Canon comes out with some decent RF-S standard zooms, even if it's just to port the EF-S 17-55 or 15-85.

My all-time favorite "normal" lens is the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. That's what I have on my R7 right now. I started doing photography as a teenager in the early 1980's when the mantra was "f/8 and be there", so I rarely shoot that wide, but I have long fingers and I like the diameter and heft of the faster glass in my hand.

Don't get me wrong, Canon has impressively redefined the expectations of a "kit lens" over the past 8-10 years, starting with the EF-S 18-55 STM. I've only used the RF-S 18-150 a couple of times, but I thought the EF-M version was a great compact travel lens that punched well above its weight optically.

entoman · Jan 3, 2023

mdcmdcmdc said:
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.

I also prefer to have the zoom ring furthest out on the lens, for the same reason. It's then easy to adjust the focus manually, if needed, using the left thumb. I can only assume that Canon did it the other way around due to design constraints (positioning of focusing group). When using long lenses I always grip the lens as far out as possible - in fact with my RF 100-500mm and RF 800mm F11 lenses, I grip the lens hood, which makes it much more stable and reduces camera-shake.

neuroanatomist · Jan 3, 2023

mdcmdcmdc said:
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.

I don't mind. It does take some getting used to, but at least with my kit all the black RF lenses have the zoom ring closer to the body, and my two white RF lenses (70-200/2.8, 100-500) have the zoom ring further out than the focus ring (although that's not the case with the RF 70-200/4).

AlanF · Jan 3, 2023

neuroanatomist said:
I don't mind. It does take some getting used to, but at least with my kit all the black RF lenses have the zoom ring closer to the body, and my two white RF lenses (70-200/2.8, 100-500) have the zoom ring further out than the focus ring (although that's not the case with the RF 70-200/4).

The control ring of the RF 100-500 is so close to the body I find it very inconvenient to use.

Exploreshootshare · Jan 3, 2023

AlanF said:
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.

View attachment 207004 View attachment 207005

entoman said:
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

Wooooow! Both absolutely stunning results! Congratulations

It did make me wonder, whether I "need" my RF 100-500mm or if should get rid of it and get the RF 100-400mm I love the RF 100-500mm, but at the moment I'm just thinking it is hard to justify the cost of the lens when seeing (and researching) pics of the RF 100-400mm. And to be honest: I could sell the RF 100-500mm, buy an R7 and 100-400mm and still have money left over.

Since everybody is absolutely raving about this lense, I do have some questions:
1. what "downsides" does the RF 100-400mm have?
2. what do you miss compared to the RF 100-500mm? I mean besides the obvious 100mm in extra reach.
3. is the lense fully compatible with the RF extenders?
4. If you had to choose one of the two lenses, which would be: RF 100-500mm or 100-400mm?

thx for the reply.

Exploreshootshare · Jan 3, 2023

I do have another question, which can't really place in any of the forums, concerning "near-macro/ macro" work:
Has anybody worked the Meike RF Extension tubes yet? I'm interested in getting one or two, but I can't find a decent review or specs which tell me how much the minimum focus distance is shortened. And do they work with all RF lenses? I'd probably use them with RF 35mm, 70-200mm F4 and RF 100-500mm.

Exploreshootshare · Jan 3, 2023

AlanF said:
The control ring of the RF 100-500 is so close to the body I find it very inconvenient to use.

That is one of the two things I don't´like about the RF 100-500mm! The second is the extenders only working between 300-500mm...

I actually opted for the 70-200mm F4 initially because of the (in my opinion) superior placement of the control ring. Looking back, I'd also opt for the 70-200mm F4 because of weight and size. I use it a lot for city travels and even when I go hiking.

AlanF · Jan 3, 2023

Exploreshootshare said:
Wooooow! Both absolutely stunning results! Congratulations
It did make me wonder, whether I "need" my RF 100-500mm or if should get rid of it and get the RF 100-400mm I love the RF 100-500mm, but at the moment I'm just thinking it is hard to justify the cost of the lens when seeing (and researching) pics of the RF 100-400mm. Since everybody is absolutely raving about this lense, I do have some questions:
1. what "downsides" does the RF 100-400mm have?
2. what do you miss compared to the RF 100-500mm? I mean besides the obvious 100mm in extra reach.
3. is the lense fully compatible with the RF extenders?

thx for the reply.

1. It's not weather sealed - but, I don't shoot in the rain.
2. The 100-500 does have an edge in IQ, but unless you are heavy cropping it might not be noticeable. It has 2/3rds stop more light gathering. And, the wider lens adds a little to the resolution. The 100-400 focusses very fast but for extreme BIF, the 100-500 has an edge. The RF 100-500 is IMHO the best lighter zoom available across all brands when considering performance and weight.
3. The RF 100-400 is fully compatible with the RF1.4x and 2x TCs, and is not limited to the 300mm minimum.

My wife and I are going on an intensive foreign bird safari in March, with flights and vehicles. She will take the R7 and RF 100-400mm. I will be taking the R5 and torn between the second RF 100-400 and the RF 100-500. I know the 100-500 will have the edge over the 100-400, but the 100-400 will be good enough for much of the time. I'd take it every time over the EF 100-400mm, but the 100-500 will probably go with me. On the other hand, I could buy a second R7 and have the same kit as my wife!

Exploreshootshare · Jan 3, 2023

AlanF said:
1. It's not weather sealed - but, I don't shoot in the rain.
2. The 100-500 does have an edge in IQ, but unless you are heavy cropping it might not be noticeable. It has 2/3rds stop more light gathering. And, the wider lens adds a little to the resolution. The 100-400 focusses very fast but for extreme BIF, the 100-500 has an edge. The RF 100-500 is IMHO the best lighter zoom available across all brands when considering performance and weight.
3. The RF 100-400 is fully compatible with the RF1.4x and 2x TCs, and is not limited to the 300mm minimum.

My wife and I are going on an intensive foreign bird safari in March, with flights and vehicles. She will take the R7 and RF 100-400mm. I will be taking the R5 and torn between the second RF 100-400 and the RF 100-500. I know the 100-500 will have the edge over the 100-400, but the 100-400 will be good enough for much of the time. I'd take it every time over the EF 100-400mm, but the 100-500 will probably go with me. On the other hand, I could buy a second R7 and have the same kit as my wife!

Thx for the reply! There are things I hadn't considered and were very helpful:
1. I do shoot sports (soccer) in the rain sometimes. I also shoot in the rain when traveling and the weather isn't great. (But we were very lucky/ fortunate this year!)
2. Since I don't own a longer lense than the RF 100-500mm and got rid of the extenders, I do crop quite a lot... with the RF 100-400mm I'd have to crop even more or use an extender (extra cost/ slower aperture...)

I now ordered the R7, RF 100-400mm and the 800mm F11 from a lens rental place in Germany for a weekend in February. I'll compare all three lenses at this weekend and the R7. Maybe I get my future father-in-law to get the RF 100-400mm He is thinking about getting R7 now, after I/ canon almost lost him to Sony due to lack of APS-C cameras when his 750d gave up working... I convinced him to get a used one and wait

Maybe it is about time now

AlanF · Jan 3, 2023

Exploreshootshare said:
Thx for the reply! There are things I hadn't considered and were very helpful:
1. I do shoot sports (soccer) in the rain sometimes. I also shoot in the rain when traveling and the weather isn't great. (But we were very lucky/ fortunate this year!)
2. Since I don't own a longer lense than the RF 100-500mm and got rid of the extenders, I do crop quite a lot... with the RF 100-400mm I'd have to crop even more or use an extender (extra cost/ slower aperture...)

I now ordered the R7, RF 100-400mm and the 800mm F11 from a lens rental place in Germany for a weekend in February. I'll compare all three lenses at this weekend and the R7. Maybe I get my future father-in-law to get the RF 100-400mm He is thinking about getting R7 now, after I/ canon almost lost him to Sony due to lack of APS-C cameras when his 750d gave up working... I convinced him to get a used one and wait Maybe it is about time now

Modern software is another factor. The AI sharpening from Topaz, for example, is a great leveller of lenses. It's a whole new world where narrower cheaper lenses benefit greatly from that and noise reduction.

Exploreshootshare · Jan 3, 2023

AlanF said:
Modern software is another factor. The AI sharpening from Topaz, for example, is a great leveller of lenses. It's a whole new world where narrower cheaper lenses benefit greatly from that and noise reduction.

That's true and actually own and use the AI deNoise from Topaz along with LR and now Affinity photo 2 in an attempt of trying to get rid of LR and their monthly payments. I only use DeNoise for shoots with severe noise and high ISO because it takes time and don't enjoy editing and spending time in front of my laptop as much as actually going out and shoot. Therefore, I always try to get as much right as possible and as little editing as necessary. Although your point is absolutely correct and for some customers a great advise, I don't think I'll ever get a lense with keeping in mind: if a use certain software, it's as good as...

entoman · Jan 3, 2023

Exploreshootshare said:
Wooooow! Both absolutely stunning results! Congratulations
It did make me wonder, whether I "need" my RF 100-500mm or if should get rid of it and get the RF 100-400mm I love the RF 100-500mm, but at the moment I'm just thinking it is hard to justify the cost of the lens when seeing (and researching) pics of the RF 100-400mm. And to be honest: I could sell the RF 100-500mm, buy an R7 and 100-400mm and still have money left over.

Since everybody is absolutely raving about this lense, I do have some questions:
1. what "downsides" does the RF 100-400mm have?
2. what do you miss compared to the RF 100-500mm? I mean besides the obvious 100mm in extra reach.
3. is the lense fully compatible with the RF extenders?
4. If you had to choose one of the two lenses, which would be: RF 100-500mm or 100-400mm?

thx for the reply.

The RF100-400mm isn't weather-sealed, and the build quality is lower, so it's less durable. Optically it's more than good enough and the bokeh is really nice IMO. It focuses closer than the RF100-500mm, but it isn't supplied with a tripod collar, lens hood or case. But it's a fraction of the cost of the RF100-500mm.

For safaris or bird photography from hides, weight and portability aren't significant factors, so I use the RF100-500mm on my R5, which gives me about an extra stop of light at most focal lengths - and that's valuable for wildlife in winter light or at dusk and dawn when most animals are active.

For insects and other small wildlife, the RF100-400mm is for me a much better choice, as it's so easy and light to carry, focuses closer, and is much easier to manoeuvre.

Luckily I have both lenses, but if I had to choose between one or the other, I'd probably get the RF100-400mm and poke it on a R7, which will give more reach than the RF100-500mm will on FF.

neuroanatomist · Jan 3, 2023

AlanF said:
The control ring of the RF 100-500 is so close to the body I find it very inconvenient to use.

I don’t use the control rings that much (set to ISO, which is usually on Auto), but the ring placement on the 100-500 (same as in the 70-200/2.8) allows me to adjust it with one finger of my right hand while holding the camera.

koenkooi · Jan 3, 2023

neuroanatomist said:
I don’t use the control rings that much (set to ISO, which is usually on Auto), but the ring placement on the 100-500 (same as in the 70-200/2.8) allows me to adjust it with one finger of my right hand while holding the camera.

After a few mishaps, I set the ring to only activate when the shutter is pressed halfway. This is great on the other lenses, but on the 100-500 I would need more opposable digits

entoman · Jan 3, 2023

neuroanatomist said:
I don’t use the control rings that much (set to ISO, which is usually on Auto), but the ring placement on the 100-500 (same as in the 70-200/2.8) allows me to adjust it with one finger of my right hand while holding the camera.

I don't use the control ring at all, because I find it superfluous when using the R5, but on a camera like the R7, which lacks a third input dial on the body, it must be pretty much essential to have a ring on the lens. If I was using a R7, I'd probably use the ring for exposure compensation.

entoman · Jan 3, 2023

Exploreshootshare said:
That's true and actually own and use the AI deNoise from Topaz along with LR and now Affinity photo 2 in an attempt of trying to get rid of LR and their monthly payments. I only use DeNoise for shoots with severe noise and high ISO because it takes time and don't enjoy editing and spending time in front of my laptop as much as actually going out and shoot. Therefore, I always try to get as much right as possible and as little editing as necessary. Although your point is absolutely correct and for some customers a great advise, I don't think I'll ever get a lense with keeping in mind: if a use certain software, it's as good as...

You'd better not buy any more lenses then, because virtually all modern lenses need software to get the best from them.

Regarding noise, remember that everything in digital photography is *digital*, i.e. totally dependent on software to produce an image from a digital signal, so it makes sense to use the best and most appropriate software.

I use Topaz DeNoise AI, but it isn't perfect (over-processed images can look plasticky, and it can sometimes produce weird random soft-edged rectangular artefacts), so I'd recommend trials with various brands to see which you prefer.

AlanF · Jan 3, 2023

neuroanatomist said:
I don’t use the control rings that much (set to ISO, which is usually on Auto), but the ring placement on the 100-500 (same as in the 70-200/2.8) allows me to adjust it with one finger of my right hand while holding the camera.

You must have the finger span of a pianist or, even more importantly, a pool player. I use the control ring for altering ±exposure to compensate.

Bonich · Jan 3, 2023

Exploreshootshare said:
Wooooow! Both absolutely stunning results! Congratulations
It did make me wonder, whether I "need" my RF 100-500mm or if should get rid of it and get the RF 100-400mm I love the RF 100-500mm, but at the moment I'm just thinking it is hard to justify the cost of the lens when seeing (and researching) pics of the RF 100-400mm. And to be honest: I could sell the RF 100-500mm, buy an R7 and 100-400mm and still have money left over.

Since everybody is absolutely raving about this lense, I do have some questions:
1. what "downsides" does the RF 100-400mm have?
2. what do you miss compared to the RF 100-500mm? I mean besides the obvious 100mm in extra reach.
3. is the lense fully compatible with the RF extenders?
4. If you had to choose one of the two lenses, which would be: RF 100-500mm or 100-400mm?

thx for the reply.

The 100-400 is the way to go for closeups, there is no better option for insects like grasshoppers, butterflies, dragonflies on the market. It does accept PCs without the pain we know from the 100-500 (but I still did not use it with TC)
The 100-500 has (in the distance)100mm more reach, is a bit faster, the AF is better and it is even more sharp.
The biggest disadvantage shooting insects is double the weight of the non L and a slightly reach disadvantage due to more focus breathing.
Whenever you want to go ultra light, you are on a budget or insects are your special thing, the 100-400 is the way to go.

In the meantime I do have both and I will hold both: Birding: L, insects non L, landscape: L, longer hikes and light traveling: non L

You have to decide .....

blackcoffee17 · Jan 3, 2023

mdcmdcmdc said:
I do hope Canon comes out with some decent RF-S standard zooms, even if it's just to port the EF-S 17-55 or 15-85.

My all-time favorite "normal" lens is the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. That's what I have on my R7 right now. I started doing photography as a teenager in the early 1980's when the mantra was "f/8 and be there", so I rarely shoot that wide, but I have long fingers and I like the diameter and heft of the faster glass in my hand.

Don't get me wrong, Canon has impressively redefined the expectations of a "kit lens" over the past 8-10 years, starting with the EF-S 18-55 STM. I've only used the RF-S 18-150 a couple of times, but I thought the EF-M version was a great compact travel lens that punched well above its weight optically.

Yes, they only need one decent standard zoom, like 16-70 F4 or 16-55 2.8 or maybe 15-85 and 1 or 2 small APS-C primes. And one wide angle. The rest can be covered by the RF full frame lenses.

mdcmdcmdc · Jan 3, 2023

Exploreshootshare said:
I do have another question, which can't really place in any of the forums, concerning "near-macro/ macro" work:
Has anybody worked the Meike RF Extension tubes yet? I'm interested in getting one or two, but I can't find a decent review or specs which tell me how much the minimum focus distance is shortened. And do they work with all RF lenses? I'd probably use them with RF 35mm, 70-200mm F4 and RF 100-500mm.

The most important spec for an extension tube is its length. The magnification and MFD depend on the length of the extension and the focal length, magnification, and MFD of the lens without the extension tube. There are many online extension tube calculators. Here is one that I’ve used.

Apart from length, look for extension tubes that pass the electrical signals between the camera and the lens. Without those, you won’t have AF or aperture control. The better quality tubes also fit the camera and lens better. You don’t want it to be loose or too tight.

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

EOS R7, M5, 100 (film), Sony α6400

wildlife photography

I post too Much on Here!!

Desperately seeking birds

EOS RP

EOS RP

EOS RP

Desperately seeking birds

EOS RP

Desperately seeking birds

EOS RP

wildlife photography

I post too Much on Here!!

EOS 5D Mark IV

wildlife photography

wildlife photography

Desperately seeking birds

EOS 90D

EOS R

EOS R7, M5, 100 (film), Sony α6400

Similar threads