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

[technic]

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.

The 17-40 has VERY soft outer corners (outer 1-2% or so) until stopped down to f/11. But yes, I have seen many great landscape images from this lens. The new 4/16-35 looks more like an improved 17-40 to me than an update for the 2.8/16-35; 20% bigger and heavier than the 17-40 but with IS and hopefully with much better corners ;-)

 

[rrccad]

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.

In the case of canon's UWA's yeah they did - but you could work around them, and if the prints were small enough, everything would look fine - or you had to stop down to f/8 to f/16 so you wouldn't see the dropoff.

Also you can usually snip off the corners (esp on print), or usually work around it. it certainly isn't sharp on a 20mp+ camera body. it did alright with the original 5D.

however the big difference is that canon is declaring this pretty much near perfect in the corners, so much they brag about it.

Loading…

cweb.canon.jp

 

[Peter63]

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.

The 17-40 has VERY soft outer corners (outer 1-2% or so) until stopped down to f/11. But yes, I have seen many great landscape images from this lens. The new 4/16-35 looks more like an improved 17-40 to me than an update for the 2.8/16-35; 20% bigger and heavier than the 17-40 but with IS and hopefully with much better corners ;-)

I am hoping they do well with flare control. I currently have the Tokina 16-28 which is an awesome lens but won't take screw on filters and is terrible with flare. I expect I will buy the 16-40 f4 IS if it lives up to the hype. As a bonus, I already have 77mm ND and CPL.

 

[jitteringjr]

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

I rarely ever need anything over ISO 3200 which I can clean up well enough on crop. This is mostly because I realize that any light level needing higher ISO is also going to be crappy light and I'll just use flash.

I want to go full frame more for overall sharpness improvement and DOF. I could slap a 24-70/2.8 and it be like a bag full of 1.8 primes and not have to change lenses. Also there is no crop 15/.95 lens equivalent to the 24/1.4 on FF for instance. Still its a crap load of money to make that upgrade.

 

[NetMage]

Throw the weight and cost of an EOS M1 or M2 on that EF-M lens and the EF-S lens looks like a good deal for my 7D!

 

[NilsBV]

If you have a 6D (full frame camera), why would you want a 10 - 18 mm that is made for a crop sensor? To say that you have no interest in this lens has nothing to do with the lens and everything to do with the fact that it is not made to work with your camera. That's like saying you have no interest in the latest Nikon lens because you have a Canon, and use that to criticise the Nikon lens as being useless.

 

[Hombre de Maiz]

I am not aware of the "focus limitations" if which you speak. I too own a 6D. It is you whos overstating the case, not I.

 

[BIGTEE]

I have a 6D and just cannot bring myself to spend the money on an UWA zoom. I do have a 20-35mm usm that i picked up for $175 but it isn't that wide. I feel I will always have a crop camera for nature and such so I plan on picking one up for my 60D.

 

[Hombre de Maiz]

If you have a 6D (full frame camera), why would you want a 10 - 18 mm that is made for a crop sensor? To say that you have no interest in this lens has nothing to do with the lens and everything to do with the fact that it is not made to work with your camera. That's like saying you have no interest in the latest Nikon lens because you have a Canon, and use that to criticise the Nikon lens as being useless.

No. I shoot and own both APS-C and FF lenses and cameras. I own an M, a 650D and a 6D. I happen to own the EF-M 11-22 STM IS lens. For many of us it's not either/or, for we own hybrid kits.

 

[asad137]

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.

Jesus, Hombre, we get it. You love your EF-M 11-22. OF COURSE the EF-S 10-18 is bigger. It HAS to be because of the larger flange to sensor distance -- that makes everything bigger.

You seem somehow so insecure about owning an EOS M and 11-22 that you feel the need to disparage any and every other UWA lens that's ever mentioned at any time. Give it a rest!

 

[Peter63]

I am not aware of the "focus limitations" if which you speak. I too own a 6D. It is you whos overstating the case, not I.

I was assuming that since you owned a 6D you were aware of the differences in focusing between the two systems.

The M is one of the slower focusing mirrorless cameras available now. The SL1 beats it for speed, blackout time, and tracking. For moving targets, the SL1 works very well while the M can be frustrating. You can argue that the M is more accurate with on sensor focus but if you want, you can use the SL1 in Live view and it is just as accurate and still faster, equal to the M2.

The 6D focus performance is outstanding in my experience.

I am not trying to put down the performance of the 11-22 in any way, but many of your posts seem to imply that is the only good option while you seem to intentionally ignore the advantages of mirror based PDAF.

You have also claimed that Canon has missed the mark ("close but no cigar. What a shame") with their introduction of the 10-18. You have made this judgement before seeing a single photo but based on the fact that the MTF of the 11-22 is a little better and that the 11-22 is smaller. You have ignored other facts: the 10-18 is cheaper, it will have wider availability, it has better IS, the EF-S mount has millions more units in service than the EF-M, and based on the MTF and features vs price this lens looks like a home run.

I think Canon has just added another support to their "industry leader" status. A 3 lens SL1 STM kit from 10-250mm would make a small package with excellent IQ that the average person can pick and achieve quality results from without a lot of effort. I would be interested to see a price/size comparison of a similar quality m43 kit.

What if an SL2 or SL3 advances APS-C sensor performance to a level somewhere between a 70D and a 6D? What if they had an enthusiast version that was only slightly bigger with a larger grip and battery and a few more direct buttons? (the small grip is my biggest complaint with the SL1)

The quality of modern gear makes this a fun time to be a photographer.

 

[Hombre de Maiz]

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.

Jesus, Hombre, we get it. You love your EF-M 11-22. OF COURSE the EF-S 10-18 is bigger. It HAS to be because of the larger flange to sensor distance -- that makes everything bigger.

You seem somehow so insecure about owning an EOS M and 11-22 that you feel the need to disparage any and every other UWA lens that's ever mentioned at any time. Give it a rest!

Oh yes, folk virtual psycho - analysis .

 

[Hombre de Maiz]

OK, fair enough.

 

[Peter63]

OK, fair enough.

Now I have a question for you. I have been considering the 11-22 mostly for landscape work while hiking. Using the lens stopped down I thought I would use BBF combined with zone focus. The huge depth of field should allow me to quickly use the AF to set the focus point (probably often near infinity) and then snap away without refocusing. This seems like it would play to the strengths of the M while avoiding its primary weakness.

I am curious what your focus technique is when working with stationary subjects. If you do landscape do you ever use a tripod and MF with magnify? For hand held do you use BBF or half shutter?

Thanks,

Peter

 

[Hombre de Maiz]

I don't use or carry a tripod, or use BackButtonFocus. I also don't use it to shoot pastoral, bucolic images of the countryside or nature. Hyperfocal at 11mm and f/4 is under two meters so I aim for that. Only sometimes do I stop down to f/8. My use of UW is not a good guide to orthodox "landscape" photography. I use it instead for urban peoplescapes.

 

[Peter63]

I don't use or carry a tripod, or use BackButtonFocus. I also don't use it to shoot pastoral, bucolic images of the countryside or nature. Hyperfocal at 11mm and f/4 is under two meters so I aim for that. Only sometimes do I stop down to f/8. My use of UW is not a good guide to orthodox "landscape" photography. I use it instead for urban peoplescapes.

So you are setting it at hyperfocal and using manual focus? I guess this is my main question, thinking that a wide DOF avoids the need for AF much of the time.

 

[Hombre de Maiz]

I don't use or carry a tripod, or use BackButtonFocus. I also don't use it to shoot pastoral, bucolic images of the countryside or nature. Hyperfocal at 11mm and f/4 is under two meters so I aim for that. Only sometimes do I stop down to f/8. My use of UW is not a good guide to orthodox "landscape" photography. I use it instead for urban peoplescapes.

So you are setting it at hyperfocal and using manual focus? I guess this is my main question, thinking that a wide DOF avoids the need for AF much of the time.

No. Always AF, but again, I am not so methodical or Punctilious about max DoF on most shots . I either (look exposure first), focus with center box and recompose. Or set the focus point ( and shoot) by punching the touch screen which allows one to focus anywhere on the frame quickly except for the extreme edges.

 

[technic]

What if an SL2 or SL3 advances APS-C sensor performance to a level somewhere between a 70D and a 6D? What if they had an enthusiast version that was only slightly bigger with a larger grip and battery and a few more direct buttons? (the small grip is my biggest complaint with the SL1)

Add a 70D like sensor (or even better if Canon can do that), a tilt screen and a slightly larger grip and I will buy one instead of a 6D ;-) It will be interesting to see how far Canon will improve the SL series, pretty soon they start competing with the more expensive bodies.

 

[crashpc]

What if an SL2 or SL3 advances APS-C sensor performance to a level somewhere between a 70D and a 6D? What if they had an enthusiast version that was only slightly bigger with a larger grip and battery and a few more direct buttons? (the small grip is my biggest complaint with the SL1)

Add a 70D like sensor (or even better if Canon can do that), a tilt screen and a slightly larger grip and I will buy one instead of a 6D ;-) It will be interesting to see how far Canon will improve the SL series, pretty soon they start competing with the more expensive bodies.

That would be also my boy...

 

[needmoretoys]

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.

Jesus, Hombre, we get it. You love your EF-M 11-22. OF COURSE the EF-S 10-18 is bigger. It HAS to be because of the larger flange to sensor distance -- that makes everything bigger.

You seem somehow so insecure about owning an EOS M and 11-22 that you feel the need to disparage any and every other UWA lens that's ever mentioned at any time. Give it a rest!

Oh yes, folk virtual psycho - analysis .

Maybe, but he's correct.