Canon RF 15-30 is Pretty Good

Scott Stoness · Aug 31, 2022

I bought the Canon RF 15-30 and took some pictures and posted some stats related to it at https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1770909/1

on 2nd page near bottom

In summary, my view is:

at f8, it is an excellent lens for backpacking landscape photographers. Very good too for mid day travel and a great compromise for those on a tight budget.

390 grams 15-30 covers the bulk of my compositions in mountains so I can just bring 1 lens

Centre resolution similiar to my Zeiss 15 2.8 adapted

Better edges than my canon rf 16 2.8. Not as good as Zeiss but good enough.

Better at flaring than my Zeiss

Normally I don't post here but I found a shortage of data when I reviewed whether to buy it or not. I thought this would be helpful.

Scott

brnz214 · Sep 1, 2022

I agree - the lens looks pretty good. I've been relatively impressed with what Canon has been able to do after adding some built-in lens adaption (not the right words, but you understand what I'm talking about) on lenses like the 24-240 and the 14-35.

By the way, the sprinklers threw me off in your photos! I was puzzled by the unusual flare from the lens until I realized they were sprinklers!

Franz Kerschbaum · Sep 1, 2022

Better in the corners than the rf 16 at SAME f-stops? I would really be surprised but please comment ...

KEG · Sep 1, 2022

Franz Kerschbaum said:
Better in the corners than the rf 16 at SAME f-stops? I would really be surprised but please comment ...

Given that RF 16 doesn't even cover the corners makes it really easy for any lens to be better.

shadowlands · Sep 1, 2022

Most excellent! Thanks for sharing!

Franz Kerschbaum · Sep 1, 2022

my rf 16 covers the corners. And I have a comparison to the rf15-35./2.8.L at f/8 they are the same.

Scott Stoness · Sep 1, 2022

Franz Kerschbaum said:
Better in the corners than the rf 16 at SAME f-stops? I would really be surprised but please comment ...

I tested it at f8, and it was better than the 16.

You should not be surprised - 16/f2.8 is way less expensive, way smaller, requires way more distortion correction and most importantly with way more distortion/vignetting correction it likely is equivalent to 36mpx because of cropping to avoid vignetting. vs 15-30 which required less cropping (likely equivalent to 40mpx on 45mpx R5). I think the corrections that are done are first straighten it out, then crop to native format to remove the really dark vignetting, then vignetting and finally rescaling to 45mpx. But I am guessing - how else does it yield 45px after correcting.

Scott Stoness · Sep 1, 2022

Franz Kerschbaum said:
my rf 16 covers the corners. And I have a comparison to the rf15-35./2.8.L at f/8 they are the same.

Your comparison is after correction. Before the correction it is a 14mm with extreme (uncorrectable) vignetting in the corners. It was cropped stretched and scaled.

Scott Stoness · Sep 1, 2022

shadowlands said:
Most excellent! Thanks for sharing!

Glad it was helpful. The 15-30 is a very nice lens at f8. Light, good quality and inexpensive.

A best buy winner from Canon.

For me as I said above, this will allow me to bring just one lens when I am trying to keep the weight down.

Sittatunga · Sep 2, 2022

Scott Stoness said:
Franz Kerschbaum said:

my rf 16 covers the corners. And I have a comparison to the rf15-35./2.8.L at f/8 they are the same.

Click to expand...

Your comparison is after correction. Before the correction it is a 14mm with extreme (uncorrectable) vignetting in the corners. It was cropped stretched and scaled.

No, it's a 16mm lens with a lot of complex barrel distortion designed to be removed by the software that exports the image to jpeg (or HEIF or TIFF or whatever). You can't even view the uncorrected image through the camera. That lens, as processed by DPP4, gives the same field of view, almost to the pixel, as the EF 16-35mm f/4 and processed with corrections by DPP4.

In any case, lens focal lengths are better defined by the image scale at the centre of the image than by the uncorrected field of view. If you define the actual focal length by the field of view, then a rectilinear (180° diagonal field of view) fisheye has a focal length of zero with extreme (uncorrectable) vignetting in the corners. Exactly the same focal length as a circular fisheye despite the very different image scale.

KEG · Sep 2, 2022

Scott Stoness said:
shadowlands said:

Most excellent! Thanks for sharing!

Click to expand...

Glad it was helpful. The 15-30 is a very nice lens at f8. Light, good quality and inexpensive.

A best buy winner from Canon.

For me as I said above, this will allow me to bring just one lens when I am trying to keep the weight down.

Interesting, I am going to see more reviews and see if I settle for it or save up the big bucks for 15-35L.

Marximus · Sep 2, 2022

Cool. I just got mine last night. I was using an EF-S 10-18 in crop mode on my R5 for my lightweight ultrawide zoom, but when factoring in the adapter, this one's about the same size and weight, is wider and longer, and it covers full frame. I have my adapted Sigma 14-24 for serious stuff and the RF 16 for *really* casual, lightweight stuff. The 15-30 is fun. I like the really close MFD (but you need to go into manual focus to activate it).

Scott Stoness · Sep 8, 2022

Scott Stoness said:
I bought the Canon RF 15-30 and took some pictures and posted some stats related to it at https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1770909/1

on 2nd page near bottom

In summary, my view is:

at f8, it is an excellent lens for backpacking landscape photographers. Very good too for mid day travel and a great compromise for those on a tight budget.

390 grams 15-30 covers the bulk of my compositions in mountains so I can just bring 1 lens

Centre resolution similiar to my Zeiss 15 2.8 adapted

Better edges than my canon rf 16 2.8. Not as good as Zeiss but good enough.

Better at flaring than my Zeiss

Normally I don't post here but I found a shortage of data when I reviewed whether to buy it or not. I thought this would be helpful.

Scott

Thedigitalpicture has image comparisons, flare and vignetting loaded now --- and the 15-30 is performing well.

image:

Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Distortion

Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Distortion

Review distortion test results for the Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens and compare the performance of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Flare

Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Flare Test Results

Review flare test results for the Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens and compare the performance of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

sintos · Feb 1, 2023

Marximus said:
Cool. I just got mine last night. I was using an EF-S 10-18 in crop mode on my R5 for my lightweight ultrawide zoom, but when factoring in the adapter, this one's about the same size and weight, is wider and longer, and it covers full frame. I have my adapted Sigma 14-24 for serious stuff and the RF 16 for *really* casual, lightweight stuff. The 15-30 is fun. I like the really close MFD (but you need to go into manual focus to activate it).

I'm thinking about doing the same upgrade from EF-S 10-18 on R5. Could you write more about your experience with this upgrade ?

Thank you in advance !

Olivier

From Belgium

Marximus · Feb 1, 2023

The previous comment about sums it up. I sold the 10-18 quite a while ago so I don't really have much more experience to compare it. I've found the 15-30 to be sharp enough on the R5, so when I go hiking, I use the R6 with the 24-240, and then I have the 15-30 and the RF 100-400 to swap on the R5. It's not a super lightweight setup, but it covers a huge focal length range, 15-640 (crop mode on the R5 with the 100-400).

KEG · Feb 1, 2023

Marximus said:
The previous comment about sums it up. I sold the 10-18 quite a while ago so I don't really have much more experience to compare it. I've found the 15-30 to be sharp enough on the R5, so when I go hiking, I use the R6 with the 24-240, and then I have the 15-30 and the RF 100-400 to swap on the R5. It's not a super lightweight setup, but it covers a huge focal length range, 15-640 (crop mode on the R5 with the 100-400).

How do you like the corners?

sintos · Feb 2, 2023

Marximus said:
The previous comment about sums it up. I sold the 10-18 quite a while ago so I don't really have much more experience to compare it. I've found the 15-30 to be sharp enough on the R5, so when I go hiking, I use the R6 with the 24-240, and then I have the 15-30 and the RF 100-400 to swap on the R5. It's not a super lightweight setup, but it covers a huge focal length range, 15-640 (crop mode on the R5 with the 100-400).

Thank you for your reply !

Marximus · Feb 2, 2023

No complaints about the corners, but I don't look at them too critically. I just took a look at one of the shots using the R5 and it looks fine to me. I think for landscape apertures, I have no reservations. Here's an example of a SOOC JPEG, using the R5 at 15mm.

Canon RF 15-30 is Pretty Good

Member

Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts