Canon EF-S 10-18 F4.5-5.6 IS STM

[Hombre de Maiz]

Canon EF-M 11-22 STM IS wide open and handheld at 11mm

 

[technic]

It completes well the IS STM set, you should get sharp, quality coverage from 10mm to 250mm, all in less than one kilogram weight.

yes, especially with the SL1 body this is for many an interesting alternative to mirrorless cameras (with better value for money, if you don't need the smallest kit).

 

[Steve Balcombe]

... losing 2/3 stop on an already relatively dim lens and a smaller zoom range is less promising,

I think that's a very minor loss in practice. If you really need DoF control in an ultrawide then the only way you will really get it is with a 16-35/2.8L on full frame. And four-stop IS is a much better solution for low light.

You could contrive situations where it makes a difference (ultrawide skateboarding action shots under street lighting?) but they will be few and far between.

I'm not by nature an early adopter, but I'm totally sold on this lens.

 

[technic]

... losing 2/3 stop on an already relatively dim lens and a smaller zoom range is less promising,

I think that's a very minor loss in practice. If you really need DoF control in an ultrawide then the only way you will really get it is with a 16-35/2.8L on full frame. And four-stop IS is a much better solution for low light.

Agree, but I didn't have DOF control in mind; the viewfinder image does not improve by losing 2/3 stop ...

You could contrive situations where it makes a difference (ultrawide skateboarding action shots under street lighting?) but they will be few and far between.

I'm not by nature an early adopter, but I'm totally sold on this lens.

If it is close to the EFM 11-22 in optical quality, as the MTF curves suggest, it could be a very interesting lens. In that case I might decide to buy one and stay with APS-C body for a bit longer, because none of the current Canon FF bodies is really attractive for me. On the other side, if the 4/16-35 turns out to be much improved compared to the 17-40 that would make a future Canon FF body more attractive again. I'm hoping for a 6D like camera with tilt screen and better sensor (more DR and if possible a bit more resolution).

I would also like to know how it performs in infrared, because the 15-85IS that I'm using now has very weak corners in the 15-24mm part of the range for IR. If the 10-18 is sharp in most of the range and doesn't have a hotspot in IR it would be even more attractive for me (there are very few good APS-C lenses for IR photography in the WA range).

 

[Steve Balcombe]

... losing 2/3 stop on an already relatively dim lens and a smaller zoom range is less promising,

I think that's a very minor loss in practice. If you really need DoF control in an ultrawide then the only way you will really get it is with a 16-35/2.8L on full frame. And four-stop IS is a much better solution for low light.

Agree, but I didn't have DOF control in mind; the viewfinder image does not improve by losing 2/3 stop ...

A small point, but valid. Low light + f/5.6 + crop viewfinder is not a great combination.

 

[Jonathan Brady]

I'm rarely if ever at 15mm on my 15-85 so I don't know that I'd get much if any use out of this lens. But, at 20% off ($240) I feel like it would be worth it to find out. Or maybe even a 15-20% off refurb sale.
Looks like a very good lens though and I'm happy Canon is releasing it! Like others have said, it seems to be a great 3rd lens for the crop sensor owners who like STM lenses and/or small and lightweight, high IQ, IS zoom lenses.
Good job Canon!

 

[rrccad]

I'll probably give it a go. Single mom budget here, and I've never owned anything wide angle before. Decent enough price for me to try it out and see how I like shooting at that end of the spectrum. Would I prefer the other one? Heck ya, but the reality of it doesn't fit my current financial life.

--
Tracey

oh you'll love this lens for sure.

 

[ColinJennings]

I am so excited for this I've had the 10-22 in my shopping cart for weeks.

Going to go great with my SL1!

 

[biza43]

Canon has announced an EF-S 10-18 F4.5-5.6 IS STM lens...

...regrettrably it is slower, heavier, larger and has a smaller focal range than the existing EF-M 11-22 F4-5.6 IS STM. Close but no cigar. What a shame.

Of course it is, one is EFM mount, the other is EFS... why compare the two? Pointless...

 

[67gtonr]

Canon has announced an EF-S 10-18 F4.5-5.6 IS STM lens...

...regrettrably it is slower, heavier, larger and has a smaller focal range than the existing EF-M 11-22 F4-5.6 IS STM. Close but no cigar. What a shame.

Of course it is, one is EFM mount, the other is EFS... why compare the two? Pointless...

 

[Hombre de Maiz]

Bottom line: Optically the EF-M 11-22 remains ahead of the two EF-S lenses judging by the MTF graphs.

 

[technic]

Canon has announced an EF-S 10-18 F4.5-5.6 IS STM lens...

...regrettrably it is slower, heavier, larger and has a smaller focal range than the existing EF-M 11-22 F4-5.6 IS STM. Close but no cigar. What a shame.

Of course it is, one is EFM mount, the other is EFS... why compare the two? Pointless...

 

[jitteringjr]

This is confusing my master plan. I was going to stop buying EF-S lenses and start preparing/saving for full frame. I was going to get the then rumored 16-35/4 and sell the Sigma 17-50 and add either a 6D or 5D3. But for only $300, I could get into UWA for much much less.

 

[Peter63]

Bottom line: Optically the EF-M 11-22 remains ahead of the two EF-S lenses judging by the MTF graphs.

My bottom line:

1. Works with my SL1 that I prefer for focus speed and handling. 1 cigar for EF-S
2. $100 cheaper. 2 cigars for EF-S
3. USA release instead of importing from Canada. 3 cigars for EF-S
4. 4 stop IS instead of 3. Cigar for EF-S

At this rate my cigar box is going to overflow. Seriously though, why put down this EF-S mount just because the EF-M is good. I wonder if you will be able to tell the difference in IQ once it is out. The huge number of Rebels in owners hands combined with the low price will make this lens a huge hit. Much more significant than the 11-22.

I had been planning on buying the 11-22 but now I think I will wait to see reviews of this lens before deciding. The focus limitations of the M are a bigger factor for me than a slight or imperceptible difference in IQ. I can't wait to see a real life comparison.

 

[technic]

I had been planning on buying the 11-22 but now I think I will wait to see reviews of this lens before deciding. The focus limitations of the M are a bigger factor for me than a slight or imperceptible difference in IQ. I can't wait to see a real life comparison.

The 11-22 makes a very compact and relatively high quality SWA solution. The system has its disadvantages, but the SL1/10-18 combo is a lot bigger. Depending on the subject the focus system might be a limitation (EOS M relatively slow) or an advantage (more accurate than PDAF especially with such a slow lens, and faster than contrast detect AF on the SL1).

A real life comparison would certainly be interesting. Many ILC SWA lenses (especially the more compact ones) have relatively low quality in the corners. The 11-22 is probably one of the few with better corners and general sharpness than an up-to-date DSLR design, but maybe the difference is not significant for the average user.

 

[Hombre de Maiz]

Focus limitations? What focus limitations? Do you see any focus limitations in any of these?

















That one will not be able to see the difference in IQ is your own partisan speculation.

 

[technic]

This is confusing my master plan. I was going to stop buying EF-S lenses and start preparing/saving for full frame. I was going to get the then rumored 16-35/4 and sell the Sigma 17-50 and add either a 6D or 5D3. But for only $300, I could get into UWA for much much less.

Same here, I might stick to APS-C for a bit longer and wait for an FF body that is more my taste. You can always sell the 10-18 later on, the cost for using it a year or so should be relatively low.

Will be interesting to see how much better the 4/16-35 is on a 6D or 5D3 compared to the 10-18 on a recent crop body

 

[Hombre de Maiz]

How much better? At least two, if not three stops worth of improved ISO noise performance.

 

[technic]

How much better? At least two, if not three stops worth of improved ISO noise performance.

I don't doubt that, but I do very very little low light photography. So I'm interested in the comparison in good light conditions.

Corner sharpness is often a weak point for Canon WA lenses and in some cases similar APS-C lenses seem to do a bit better despite the more strained sensor. Another issue that interests me as a landscape-style photographer is flare resistance; this also can vary strongly between lens designs.

 

[Peter63]

Focus limitations? What focus limitations? Do you see any focus limitations in any of these?

As an owner of a 6D I am sure you are aware of the focus limitations of the M and the ability of the M to take pictures in focus does not alter things. If you tone down the fanaticism your input will be of more value.

That one will not be able to see the difference in IQ is your own partisan speculation.

I am speculating while I wait for evidence. The MTF charts are promising and a small difference in MTF may not translate into much difference in actual use. The 17-40 which looks terrible on the chart consistently turns out stunning images in many users hands.