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

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
723
786
Oregon
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 :)
You will find that the R7 is very happy with the 800 f/11 and from all reports here, also with the 100-100.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

OskarB

EOS 90D
Jul 17, 2021
137
397
500px.com
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.
I'm thinking of buying a Sigma 105mm Macro for my R5. I would use it in my garden or around for insects and plants, as well as for some portraits.
Having the RF 100-400 already I wonder if I need the Macro lens at all?
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,400
1,754
UK
I'm thinking of buying a Sigma 105mm Macro for my R5. I would use it in my garden or around for insects and plants, as well as for some portraits.
Having the RF 100-400 already I wonder if I need the Macro lens at all?
If you're shooting "true" macro, i.e. 1:1 or higher magnification, your best bet is the RF 100mm macro. The stabilisation is amazing, it's one of the sharpest lenses on the market, and it focuses down to 1:1.4x which is great for tiny insects. Miles better than the Sigma, although twice the price.

For anything down to 1:2 scale, the RF100-400mm is probably better due to the greater working distance. It also has nicer bokeh than the macro, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
723
786
Oregon
I'm thinking of buying a Sigma 105mm Macro for my R5. I would use it in my garden or around for insects and plants, as well as for some portraits.
Having the RF 100-400 already I wonder if I need the Macro lens at all?
The SIGMA APO MACRO 150mm F/2.8 EX DG OS HSM is also a very nice lens. You can pick one up on fleabay for less than $600. The Sigma 180mm is a tiny bit sharper wide open, but it is HEAVY and more expensive. The longer macros give you more air space from your subject, which is often handy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

OskarB

EOS 90D
Jul 17, 2021
137
397
500px.com
If you're shooting "true" macro, i.e. 1:1 or higher magnification, your best bet is the RF 100mm macro. The stabilisation is amazing, it's one of the sharpest lenses on the market, and it focuses down to 1:1.4x which is great for tiny insects. Miles better than the Sigma, although twice the price.

For anything down to 1:2 scale, the RF100-400mm is probably better due to the greater working distance. It also has nicer bokeh than the macro, IMO.
Here hte price is 3,5x higher (400€ - 1.400€).
And I wouldn't like to spend too much money, as I don't know by now how much I like to (and can) shoot real Macro.
If it becomes a passion, I still could sell the cheap Sigma and get a Canon Macro.
But maybe I give the 100-400 a try first... the nicer bokeh is definately a plus.
 
Upvote 0

OskarB

EOS 90D
Jul 17, 2021
137
397
500px.com
The SIGMA APO MACRO 150mm F/2.8 EX DG OS HSM is also a very nice lens. You can pick one up on fleabay for less than $600. The Sigma 180mm is a tiny bit sharper wide open, but it is HEAVY and more expensive. The longer macros give you more air space from your subject, which is often handy.
I just looked it up. No new ones anymore and the used ones are without OS. But this can change, of course.
The double weight doesn't attract me, though.
 
Upvote 0

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
3,166
1,442
UK
www.flickr.com
Here hte price is 3,5x higher (400€ - 1.400€).
And I wouldn't like to spend too much money, as I don't know by now how much I like to (and can) shoot real Macro.
If it becomes a passion, I still could sell the cheap Sigma and get a Canon Macro.
But maybe I give the 100-400 a try first... the nicer bokeh is definately a plus.
Maybe also consider a secondhand EF 100mm L macro, that is a stalwart lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

OskarB

EOS 90D
Jul 17, 2021
137
397
500px.com
Maybe also consider a secondhand EF 100mm L macro, that is a stalwart lens.
I did. The Canon is 600 used, the Sigma is 400 new. So for trying out Macro I thought I would go with the cheaper one for a season or two and then evaluate again.
Actually I think I start with the 100-400 - no expenses at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,400
1,754
UK
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.
Here is a link to extension tubes on sale at B&H:


As you can see from the illustration, they are available only in 18mm and 13mm lengths, although they can be combined to make a 31mm tube. They have the full set of electrical contacts, so will transmit AF, metering and EXIF data between RF lenses and bodies.

The 13mm tube woulds be best on your RF 35mm lens. Using both tubes together would be needed to get a decent magnification with the RF100-500mm. It would also result in a long, heavy and cumbersome set-up.

What I'd recommend is to get the RF100-400mm and both tubes. Used in combination they'll get you a bit closer, but probably not enough to make a worthwhile difference. When using tubes you'll also lose the ability to focus on more distant subjects.

Screenshot 2023-01-03 at 20.08.05.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

OskarB

EOS 90D
Jul 17, 2021
137
397
500px.com
Here is a link to extension tubes on sale at B&H:


As you can see from the illustration, they are available only in 18mm and 13mm lengths, although they can be combined to make a 31mm tube. They have the full set of electrical contacts, so will transmit AF, metering and EXIF data between RF lenses and bodies.

The 13mm tube woulds be best on your RF 35mm lens. Using both tubes together would be needed to get a decent magnification with the RF100-500mm. It would also result in a long, heavy and cumbersome set-up.

What I'd recommend is to get the RF100-400mm and both tubes. Used in combination they'll get you a bit closer, but probably not enough to make a worthwhile difference. When using tubes you'll also lose the ability to focus on more distant subjects.

View attachment 207022
Is an extension tube just as good as an Achromat? Something like this here: https://smile.amazon.de/gp/product/B000VZ2RFK/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
 
Upvote 0

OskarB

EOS 90D
Jul 17, 2021
137
397
500px.com
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Oct 31, 2020
405
526
Here is a link to extension tubes on sale at B&H:


As you can see from the illustration, they are available only in 18mm and 13mm lengths, although they can be combined to make a 31mm tube. They have the full set of electrical contacts, so will transmit AF, metering and EXIF data between RF lenses and bodies.

The 13mm tube woulds be best on your RF 35mm lens. Using both tubes together would be needed to get a decent magnification with the RF100-500mm. It would also result in a long, heavy and cumbersome set-up.

What I'd recommend is to get the RF100-400mm and both tubes. Used in combination they'll get you a bit closer, but probably not enough to make a worthwhile difference. When using tubes you'll also lose the ability to focus on more distant subjects.

View attachment 207022
Thank you for your effort and providing the links as well for the information! It really helped a lot :)
I looked at the Meike extension a couple of days on amazon, because I couldn't find them on German camera retailers site. I couldn't do anything with the 11mm/ 13mm and 18mm, but now I can :) thx
I´ll probably get a few couple and test them on several lenses
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Oct 31, 2020
405
526
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.

Thanks for summing up the advantages. I'll be testing the RF 100-400mm next month because I am super curious.
From your list, I'd expect to stick to the 100-500mm though because I do shoot a lot of birds and hopefully dolphins on this years vacation.
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 .....
Thank you as well for summing up the advantages! Did not know the 100-500mm had more focus breathing...
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.

Thanks for the info and the link! I bookmarked it and will use quite often :)

You will find that the R7 is very happy with the 800 f/11 and from all reports here, also with the 100-100.
I can imagine :) But after thinking about it the entire day, I'm also curious how the RF 100-500mm works with crop sensor!


Thx to all the people on this forum contributing to my questions! That's what I love about this site, I learn so much here :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,481
2,637
The Netherlands
I just looked it up. No new ones anymore and the used ones are without OS. But this can change, of course.
The double weight doesn't attract me, though.
The OS is junk on the 150 and the IBIS on the R5 actively fights it. So the non-OS 150 would likely give you better stabe on an IBIS body. Turning off OS on my 150 also turns off IBIS :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

mdcmdcmdc

EOS R7, M5, 100 (film), Sony α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
245
347
You will find that the R7 is very happy with the 800 f/11 and from all reports here, also with the 100-100.
I rented an 800mm f/11 STM to use during the lunar eclipse in November. I got some great shots with it. While checking it out and "practicing" a couple of nights before, I really liked that the STM focus motor adapted its responsiveness so that when I turned the MF ring fast, focus would change by a lot, but when I turned it slowly, it changed much more slowly than just the difference in how fast I turned it.

I got some great shots during the eclipse, but by mid-eclipse, the down-side of f/11 was apparent as I needed 1/2 second exposures at ISO 1600. Fortunately I had a tracking mount and it was aligned well enough to get some keepers, but next time (which I don't think is until 2025 for the eastern US) I might go back to the Sigma 100-400. It's 1-2/3 stops faster (f/6.7), but only half the focal length. Still, I have 32.5 MP with the R7 so I shouldn't be afraid to crop.

Moon_800_f11.jpg

3R7A7870-Edit-crop.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
723
786
Oregon
I rented an 800mm f/11 STM to use during the lunar eclipse in November. I got some great shots with it. While checking it out and "practicing" a couple of nights before, I really liked that the STM focus motor adapted its responsiveness so that when I turned the MF ring fast, focus would change by a lot, but when I turned it slowly, it changed much more slowly than just the difference in how fast I turned it.

I got some great shots during the eclipse, but by mid-eclipse, the down-side of f/11 was apparent as I needed 1/2 second exposures at ISO 1600. Fortunately I had a tracking mount and it was aligned well enough to get some keepers, but next time (which I don't think is until 2025 for the eastern US) I might go back to the Sigma 100-400. It's 1-2/3 stops faster (f/6.7), but only half the focal length. Still, I have 32.5 MP with the R7 so I shouldn't be afraid to crop.

View attachment 207027

View attachment 207028
During the Eclipse in Jan 2018, I tried some shots with an SL2 (200D) and my EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS with a 1.4 extender. It was a little breezy and I didn't have the luxury of an equatorial mount, so I left the IS turned on. This shot is near totality at f/8 and 1/10th s at ISO 12800. It has had a fair bit of post work, but as you can see, not as sharp as the one you took (due to lunar motion, wind, and possibly the IS just not holding on that long). The bottom line is that one or even two stops doesn't buy that much for this kind of shot. A tracking mount with still and clear air are the biggest help. In stable conditions, the EF 800L is sharper than the RF 800 f/11, but not by all that much and it is sharpest at f/8 (without TC), so really only a 1 stop advantage for best performance and did I mention that it weighs 10 lbs and change. :).
View attachment 207033

IMG_2106_DxO-Edit.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

mdcmdcmdc

EOS R7, M5, 100 (film), Sony α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
245
347
During the Eclipse in Jan 2018, I tried some shots with an SL2 (200D) and my EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS with a 1.4 extender. It was a little breezy and I didn't have the luxury of an equatorial mount, so I left the IS turned on. This shot is near totality at f/8 and 1/10th s at ISO 12800. It has had a fair bit of post work, but as you can see, not as sharp as the one you took (due to lunar motion, wind, and possibly the IS just not holding on that long). The bottom line is that one or even two stops doesn't buy that much for this kind of shot. A tracking mount with still and clear air are the biggest help. In stable conditions, the EF 800L is sharper than the RF 800 f/11, but not by all that much and it is sharpest at f/8 (without TC), so really only a 1 stop advantage for best performance and did I mention that it weighs 10 lbs and change. :).
View attachment 207033

View attachment 207035
Nice. I think I remember that January eclipse. It was cold and ridiculously windy here (Virginia suburbs of DC). I didn’t get a single decent shot.

For the lunar eclipse in May, 2022, I rented a Sony 200-600 for use with my a6400. Got some good shots with that. I think 600mm on a 24MP sensor is still a higher pixel density on the moon than 400mm on the 32.5MP of the R7? Am I doing that math right? Is it linear like that?

My thinking is that since the Sigma at f/6.7 is 1-2/3 stops faster than f/11, I can use exposures about 1/3 as long at the same ISO (I think the actual number is 1/3.17). So instead of 1/2 second, I can be at 1/6. Still needs a good tracking mount, but less likely to be affected by wind or tracking error.

I have a 1.4x TC for the Sigma but I haven’t had much luck with it in the past, and that will also bring it up to about f/9. I could rent a Sigma or Tamron 150-600. Renting a big white Canon 600 or 800 f/4 is a bit beyond my budget. Regardless, I have a couple of years to figure it out. I think the next one visible from the eastern US is March 2025.
 
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
723
786
Oregon
Nice. I think I remember that January eclipse. It was cold and ridiculously windy here (Virginia suburbs of DC). I didn’t get a single decent shot.

For the lunar eclipse in May, 2022, I rented a Sony 200-600 for use with my a6400. Got some good shots with that. I think 600mm on a 24MP sensor is still a higher pixel density on the moon than 400mm on the 32.5MP of the R7? Am I doing that math right? Is it linear like that?

My thinking is that since the Sigma at f/6.7 is 1-2/3 stops faster than f/11, I can use exposures about 1/3 as long at the same ISO (I think the actual number is 1/3.17). So instead of 1/2 second, I can be at 1/6. Still needs a good tracking mount, but less likely to be affected by wind or tracking error.

I have a 1.4x TC for the Sigma but I haven’t had much luck with it in the past, and that will also bring it up to about f/9. I could rent a Sigma or Tamron 150-600. Renting a big white Canon 600 or 800 f/4 is a bit beyond my budget. Regardless, I have a couple of years to figure it out. I think the next one visible from the eastern US is March 2025.
The linear resolution is related to the square root of the pixel count, so the R7 has 1.16 x more linear resolution than the A6400 or 1.16x400 = 465mm equiv on the A6400 for the same pixel density on the subject. I didn't see any sign of motion issues in your shots. If you have a tracking mount and an R7, just buy the 800 f/11 rather than spending all that rental money. It takes awesome pictures and supports a 1.4 TC well even on an R7. I bought the 800L used before there was a mention of anything "R" and it has served me well, but it still cost more than an R5 plus an R7 plus an 800 f/11 :) . I probably won't sell it but given how well the f/11 lens works, I wouldn't buy the L today. It has landed me some very cool shots and it supports a 2x TC well, albeit best at f/16. Here is a shot I took with the 800L and the 2x converter at f/16, ISO 1600, and 1/125th. This was during the recent near flyby of Jupiter, which was very bright. This was on a tripod with delayed shutter and the IS turned off.

The second shot is with the R7, the RF800 f/11 with 1.4 TC at f/16, ISO 6400, and 1/400th handheld, but note that the stabilizer is good down to 1/30th if you have a reasonably steady hand and the subject is not moving. That hummingbird was about 35 feet away and the attached image is downscaled almost 2:1 to give you an idea of the magnification.


2W4A6622-Edit-2.jpg E57A0100_DxO-Edit.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0