I view this as a replacement for the EF-S 10-18 that gives you a similar field of view on full frame sensors. Having compared this lens on an R6 vs the 10-18 on a 77d - using profile corrections and chromatic aberration reduction, the 15-30/R6 combo outputs a sharper, more consistent image, especially when approaching corners/edges. I have also compared it to an adapted EF 16-35 f/4 IS and the RF 15-35 f/2.8. The latter two lenses are certainly sharper, with less reliance on software profile correction and much less CA, but the 15-30 gives you a very passable image, esp if you don't need to zoom past 100%, and significant weight savings, making it a great option as a hiking landscape lens
@@sharpskilz Can't speak to UK pricing. Mine was $550 USD, which I think is reasonable. $450 would probably be even more appropriate. If you truly want value for money on full frame, an adapter and a used EF 16-35 f/4 is the way to go, though that combo is significantly heavier than the 15-30. The 10-18 is useless on a full frame camera, except in low-res crop modes, with an unacceptable drop in IQ. And the 10-18 is only okay on Canon crop DSLRs. I've owned two copies, paired with crop DSLRs for backpacking, and have never been happy with the compromises in IQ I've had to accept for the weight savings. Edges are downright mushy, even at f/8-f/11. I've resigned myself to accepting the weight penalty and bringing a FF body and my EF 16-35. While I haven't used it extensively in the backcountry yet, my comparison testing so far with the 15-30 has me hopeful that this lens will be an acceptable compromise between IQ and weight/bulk, albeit imperfect
The comparison between 77D/10-18 and R6/15-30 is somewhat unfair: The first combo is already some years old and was sold for less than 1000€ before the camera was discontinued; the second combo is quiet new and is actually sold for approx. 3200€.
@@timritter144 That's the comparison I made because that's the gear I own. The 77d has a pretty respectable APS-C sensor, anyhow, regardless of how inexpensive it is. It's capable of excellent IQ when you put good glass in front of it, but I don't consider the 10-18 especially good glass. My goal was to determine if the lightweight combo of the 77d + 10-18 could be a solid substitute for a heavier full-frame camera + EF 16-35 f/4, and the answer is not really, unless you are willing to accept noticeably degraded IQ at the periphery of the image. A few years ago I did a similar comparison with the same lenses on the bodies I owned at the time: a Rebel SL2 and a 6D Mk II and came to the same conclusion. For its price, the 10-18 is an ok lens that gives you access to an extreme wide angle, but the edge & corner sharpness are quite poor when compared to the 16-35. I have a feeling a combo like the M6 Mk II + EF-M 11-22 might give me the IQ I'm looking for in a light form factor, but I don't like the add-on EVF. It seems a little delicate, especially if subjected to rough handling while backpacking.
Thanks os much for this review. An objective review well done on this lens is impossible to find. I may add this to my kit based on your review. thanks again and God bless.
With Real Estate becoming a significantly larger portion of my work than I ever imagined, having this as a backup to keep in my everyday bag has grown rather attractive. It's currently $150 off at B&H and should be an unbelievable lens to use for professional real estate photography. I'm looking to hire someone this year to assist me with listings and I will get them started with this kit for sure. Combined with an RP, R8, or R you have an affordable and very capable full-frame lens. This couldn't exist without lens corrections, but it's used rather well here to keep size and costs down tremendously. I believe this is the cheapest full frame ultra-wide zoom? Incredible.
I do think for 700 EUR into germany, this lens doesn't cut it - especially, when for APS-C there was the excellent ultra bargain 10-18 STM IS being avialable, which is excellent. Yes, it's not fullframe, but worlds cheaper. No offense. Your milage may vary... 🙂
That's unfortunate. As I've said in other place. Look for the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4, even with adapter is not bulky nor heavy. Only weakness is the slow AF motor during video
@@zegzbrutal RF-S Users could mount the EF-S 10-18 STM via Canon's own RF-EF adapter. So this lens gets a 2nd life. Read the review via photozone(now optical limits since a couple years) That was the reason, i've bought this lens back into the heyday for my 40D, 50D bodies. :) A good day.
@@zegzbrutal I don't know you or your saying, but i don't need or like the Tamron 17-35, i have the 10-18 STM for my xxD Canon APS-C DSLRs, and it's completely fine, great IQ, image stabilizer, small as the usual 18-55 STM kitlens, and it does get the job done. For everything else, via "Fullframe" 36x24 setups, i go with my usual, matching 28-70/2.8 or 24-70/2.8, and that's quite enough.
@@marcp.1752 Apologies for didn't clarify on the Tamron lens. I mean for R7/R10, use the Viltrox/Canon/Metabones speedbooster with the Tamron is a solid alternative
It‘s a newer, optically better, full frame compatible Canon EF-S 10-18mm with an even better focal length range, still able to take normal filters at an ultrawide focal length of 15mm. Impressive. Less impressive is the EU price, Canon.
I would not really recommend it tbh, at least for 550; at the same price you can buy and adapt an used EF 16-35 f4 IS that is brighter at any focal lenght, still has IS, loses 1mm wide but gains 5m tele, and is at least on par optically. This should be a 300/350€$£ max lens to be competitive, any more expensive is frankly not worth it.
With an r5 you can easily adapt old lenses and still have plenty mp. I regret buying the r6 as the quality plummets with adapted lenses. That being said, expensive rf lenses like the 100-500 are amazing even on the r6.
@@Xirpzy not true in my experience; i have R6 with 6 out of 8 lens i own that are EF mount, and 3 out of those 6 are not even Canon, but Sigma or Tokina lenses. Quality is frankly amazing, my Sigma Art 50 f1.4 on the R6 is way better then on any Canon dslr i have ever had, due to absolutely precise eye focus even at f1.4 at minimum focus distance, that was not happening on dslr's, where i could never get 100% sharpness on the eye with the traditional focus point in the optical viewfinder. R6 made my old lenses even better.
I own the lens and agree with your findings. It is a great lens for the price, works well on R5. I got decent results for Astronomy at 15mm and F4.5 using stacking techniques.
In my country this lens goes regularly on sale for some 400€ or less (currently at 322€, with a Canon Summer Cashback). I own the RF 16mm, that I bought about 2 years ago and, honestly, I'm considering replacing it with this zoom lens, for its versatility, because jumping from 16mm to 24mm is quite a lot of difference. I own both 24-70 and 70-200 2.8s, but I barely use the ultra wide range, so no need for a L series ultra wide lens. Also, I'm noticing that I rarely shoot the RF 16mm at f/2.8.
Thanks for a wonderful Review... In your opinion how close is this to the 14-35 RF. Would you recommend the 16-35 f4 EF instead of this lens... Thanks for your feedback. Cheers 👍🏾
Hey Chris... Thanks. I converted my RP to a full spectrum InfraRed Camera and currently my 14-35 L is always mounted on it always shooting between F8 & F11. I would like to free up that lens for my R6 and have a dedicated wide angle or wide angle zoom mated to it and I'm thinking either this lens or the 24 1.8, although that one just gives me the one option at 24 and I'm really not keen on that 16mm based on what you said in your review of that one. Besides, I'm usually between 14 & 28 on my L lens. The additional problem with the L lens and InfraRed is the occasional Hot Spots in the images, which could be eliminated with this lens. Would this one be a viable option considering with IR I'm usually in bright sun shooting at F8 or higher or should I just consider getting a second 14-35 L just for the IR RP? Cheers!
._. but what happens to canon, because it makes such dark lenses and such a small zoom at such a high price for what it is ._. I don't understand who would buy that lens?
Continued thanks for all your videos.. you are my go to for all lens decisions. I need your help please.. I am looking to update my canon 60d and lenses to an R6 and I have watched all your vids on RF lenses including this one.. it’s seems unless you buy the L senses that most of the RF lenses aren’t great for the money! How do these compare though to for example the review you did on the sigma 18-35 on your old 60d (which I have)? Really undecided if it’s worth spending unless I get L lenses for the R6. Maybe a good idea to do a comparison video on quality for how far we have come and see how much difference? Many thanks and keep up the good work!!
Great review as usual Chris but I wished they At least would have considered an a lil bit faster aperture. Good it’s sharp actually but still…. Use the 18-35 on my r7. Would love to see a rf 11mm f1,8 or a 16mm f1,8 or even 1,4 for the R7
In HK is around 500GBP, but in CN is 400GBP.....I don't understand why Canon price it that high outside of CN. This lens acceptable for entry level. Just like the RF100-400. A lot of people bash it but I found it pleasant to use. For anyone looking alternative to RF 15-30 because of the aperture, I suggest the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.
In my country tamron price is 2x higher than this canon. I usually used 24-105 kit Lens for landscapes, but now i bought 70-200 f4 which is incredible. I think about something wide and light cause i travel a lot in the mountains so rf15-30, rf 50 and rf 70-200 would be a great set. I also have sigma c 150-600
@@stephenartnermusic 16/2.8 has a noisy STM that requires you to have external mic. If you have sorted it out. RF16 is a better choice with digital IS act as the "zoom"
It sounds like it might be a reasonable starter lens for real estate work, especially if paired with the RP or R, since that is often tripod and flash based so the dark aperture won't matter much. The real fly in the ointment is going to be the need to correct that distortion in post, but you'll be in there anyway, right? :)
Another great piece of information...but I hope you are well, you sound a bit congested. Its good they're beginning to bring out more affordable lenses, but it's soooo disappointing they've blocked third party. I'm looking at an R5 as my retirement present, but the lens situation is making me consider the a7rv instead.
I’ve used both, the 15-30 is honestly a much better lens. Corners are actually really sharp. The whole image is impressively sharp with good contrast! The only reason for the 16 f2.8 is for Astro on a budget
@@zaccapps9653 I'm waiting on my RF15-30 to arrive. Have the RF16. I was wanting something with image stabil to walk with video on my R8. Currently have the EF17-40. Will see how it compares.
Only reasonable use case is a lightweight option for landscape photography. But in that case, lack of weather sealing is perplexing (the lack of a hood as well, but this is a given from Canon). Price is ridiculous, which is the case for all new canon's lenses.
I used a 10-22 for 10 years on hikes with no weather sealing and it held up just fine. I dont take it out in pouring rain The extreme distortion is what makes me avoid this and the 16mm 2.8. The 15 36 is on another level but then I had to pay for that
Can someone suggest a good to great lense for landscape photography. Im really new to this and have so much to learn. My goal is to only carry 2-3 lenses and cover a wide variety of shooting like landscapes, people, and architecture. If this isnt the lense to get for a beginner...
I couldnt wait for you to come out with a review for this lens but disappointingly, you skipped over the part i was most interested in: the distortion with lens correction on at 15mm.
So much negativity in the comments. This lens handily outperforms the 17-40L, which it's replacing, not to mention the v1 and 2 16-35/2.8Ls, while being considerably cheaper and lighter. I find it pretty hard to complain about that, especially when there's a pair of faster options, plus the ability to adapt any EF lens if this isn't your jam, but it's pretty ideal for any usage that doesn't require a fast aperture.
@@ramirosolis8770 There's definitely nothing wrong with the 17-40L, it's been the go-to landscape lens in this price range a long time, but yes this new one is definitely performing better. If you switch to the R system, it's worth a look for sure!
Thanks for the review, but I do have a question, several websites (B&H Photo, Camera Decision) list the minimum focus distance at 13cm, which means it could focus effectively at 4cm from the end of the lens, but there must be some discrepancy of information because here and elsewhere it's been stated that the distance is 28cm.
Both are correct. The shorter minimum focus distance is only accessible when manual focus mode is selected in the camera. Chris probably wasn't aware of this feature.
Probably a 2nd hand Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 L USM mark I would be a better comparison. I have both lenses 10-18 & 17-35 and they adapt well onto my R6MKII. The f/2.8 lets in more light and is sharper. The STM is wider at 10mm but my R6MKII auto crops due to the EF-S lens.
who cares about MFD/macro at ultra-wide angle?! Even a 50mm 2.8 macro lens is already too wide for 99% of the macro shots and i need to use the 100mm 2.8L
For those unaware of the lens macro capability, when manual focus is selected in the camera, the lens can focus as close as 13 cm at 15mm giving a 0.5x magnification.
I think that Canon's RF and RF-S zooms lens releases are generally disappointing, especially the apertures. I would also expect that FF lenses used on a APS-C camera should perform better on APS-C than FF, not the opposite.
@@todanrg3 smaller and cheaper lenses that deliver trash image quality because every corner pixel is now stretched across three. Plus these "smaller and cheaper" lenses are barely ever cheap.
@@fandyus4125 All im saying is the final result what matters. Not talking about one specific lens. But some modern lenses with software corrections have much better image quality than older designs without software corrections, even in the corners. While being smaller and lighter or have better parameters. So software correction is not automatically bad as many think.
On Canon RF, you pay 700€ for a 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3. On other systems, you pay 700€ for the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8; that's a two f-stop advantage for the same amount of money...
I found it rather funny that they reuse the main barrel of another lens that has an entirely different focal range. My canon hater side wanted to say "another day, another way of Canon cheaping out on lenses", but then realize it is an effective way for a budget lens. If anything that shows how small the 24 105 STM is (and why it has such dark max apertures and terrible IQ).
I don't understand how full frame lenses are softer in the corners when tested on an APS-C sensor, your tests always turn out this way and the proof is in the pudding but reality is with APS-C your are using the sharpest part of the lens which is towards the center, the soft corners are 'cropped' out... So I simply don't understand how the results are usually soft corners?
The Edges at 15mm are never really good. As you say, you want the best sharpness, especially at 15mm. distortion is terrible. interesting thing about flaring - your position is far away so the light got smaller therefore the artifacts are smaller, too... i like the comment about bokeh ;) but how could this be recommend? the nikon 14-30 is also recommend... i think the price has to much influence on your ratings. to be honest, photography isn't a cheap hobby, so i think price differences of 100 oder 200€/$/... should never change a rating this dramaticaly. For me it is no coincidence that lens appeared. Nikon offers a lot of pretty good lenses at a good price. Canon is now following and offering affordable lenses with affordable quality and would like to win customers.
I'm not trying to be Mr Negative here, but looking at the "affordable" lenses that Canon has released lately for the RF and RF-S system, you wonder what the appeal is supposed to be to photographers or film-makers. Maybe this is what happens when lens design is being left to the accountants, rather than a collaboration of the lens designers, creators, and the marketing department. I absolutely fail to see the appeal of any of these slow and non-weather sealed lenses. They aren't bargains. They aren't tack-sharp into the corners. They aren't sexy. They aren't directly compatible with anything else. They aren't fun in some unique way, like, say, a cheap Chinese lens, or a Lensbaby, or something vintage off e-bay. If I had the money for their pro-lenses, I'd buy into a different camera system altogether, like Sony for the almost open-source third party lens options (thanks Canon lawyers), or Leica for their classic ruggedness and M-mount compatibility, which fits almost any camera mount via manual adapter, lasting a lifetime. I am not a full time marketing guy, but I'd say you have to give people at least ONE good reason to buy your line of products in order to turn them into prospective customers. Love your reviews nonetheless, thanks Christopher!
What an odd lens. I don't remember it being announced. (Or I blocked it from memory because it's an odd lens.) For only a 2x zoom range, i would have expected a constant aperture. But maybe that was limited by reusing the housing of the 24-105 as mentioned. Edit: actually, I supposed all the 14-35, 15-35, and 16-35 lenses are also 2x lenses. Compared to those L lenses it makes more sense to me now.
@@zegzbrutal Its a better bargain in average probably, but the 2.8 "non IS" is better, especially when the camera with IBIS make the lens stabilizer pretty much obscolete. And here in Austria, when you look at the 2nd hand market, the 2.8 costs barely more than the F4 with stabilizer. I mean sure, if you are fine with F4, you probably even look into the 17-40mm F4 which is then definately cheaper than 16-35 F4 too. For me the only options i really liked were "going full nuts" with the 16-35 2.8 or the 17-40 F4L as "budget" option, the 16-35 F4 isnt anything better than the 17-40 but more expensive and also not much cheaper than the 2.8 to make sense.
On one side I'm fine with the review but: Right now we have a huge lack of reviews about RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 vs RF 14 -35 mm f/4. From that angle to incorporate the R7 in this test was a waste of time. As the reviewer pointed out: who would consider to buy the RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 for the use on a R7 if the topic is ultra wide angle potography ? If people would refer to the RF 24-50 mm for FF cameras, than the way to go with the R7 and RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 the would be a very expensive way.
Imagine that RF 100-500 ($2900) and RF 70-200 F4 ($1700) are weather sealed and suck dust as crazy in less than a year throwing it all against sensor, how this non weather sealed lens could last clean. Also a non sealed lens that mostly will be used on exterior. Canon is playing to "Our users will buy it anyway"
You are lying to the people and I don't know why. I am using the RF800 mm /the RF14-35 mm and the RF100-500 mm for landscape and wildlife for about 8-18 months (dependent on the lens) now. I am shooting at any weather condition nearly every weekend, each lens at least 48000 pictures. No problem at all with dust sucking or the weather sealing (I am in south of Italy) - even if the weather sealing is missing.
@@networm64 i did not say..But you are incorrect...4f is f4 for exposer metering only ....F4 on a ff has the same light intensity or brightness falling on the sensor pr square mm as APS-c. at F4 .BUT the FF sensor is 1.6 times bigger so the TOTAL light gathered is approx 1 stop more light ...a FF at say 50mm F2.8 ISO set at 200 is equiv to APS-c in focal length,DOF, and noise with a 31mm F2 lens at 100ISO
$1200AUD (converted from pounds) for a plastic fantastic 15-30 with the worst aperture range possible? Maybe if it was properly corrected for distortions and vignetting it'd be worth thinking about, but this looks like Canon getting away with the bare minimum.
Nikon be like : how about spend more 500 usd to buy 14-30 f4, or 17-28 f2.8 .F4 vs f6.3 is about x3 iso better. And the sharpness of nikon lenss iss well. Check 35mm rf on frost video and see how slow it auto focus. Canon now clamed to be king of overpirce company lens. IN the past they was sony, and now they even overprice more than sony when sony is slowly become friendly for everyone cause their sigma/samyang/tamron very cheap
In which way? aperture sucks, IQ is at best usable but nothing more, its big, its "cheaply" built (but expensive for what you get) I would ALWAYS prefer my EF 16-35 2.8, on a body with IBIS its also great stabilized if you even need the stabilization at all with the 2.8 aperture.
@@plisskenetic No need to give me a patronising nickname, we dont know each other. Yes I watched the review it just seems like a very poor choice of lens, might be better converting an old 10-18 efs or even a 17-40 f4L for a lot less cash.
The Canon lens offerings are getting from bad to absolutely dismal. A piece of plastic for a lot of money, with no character and rendering as flat as a pancake. And very slow too, with no fixed aperture. Hating Canon has never been easier, they just don`t care.
I view this as a replacement for the EF-S 10-18 that gives you a similar field of view on full frame sensors. Having compared this lens on an R6 vs the 10-18 on a 77d - using profile corrections and chromatic aberration reduction, the 15-30/R6 combo outputs a sharper, more consistent image, especially when approaching corners/edges. I have also compared it to an adapted EF 16-35 f/4 IS and the RF 15-35 f/2.8. The latter two lenses are certainly sharper, with less reliance on software profile correction and much less CA, but the 15-30 gives you a very passable image, esp if you don't need to zoom past 100%, and significant weight savings, making it a great option as a hiking landscape lens
Yeah but the 10-18 efs doesn't cost nearly 700 quid.
@@sharpskilz Can't speak to UK pricing. Mine was $550 USD, which I think is reasonable. $450 would probably be even more appropriate. If you truly want value for money on full frame, an adapter and a used EF 16-35 f/4 is the way to go, though that combo is significantly heavier than the 15-30. The 10-18 is useless on a full frame camera, except in low-res crop modes, with an unacceptable drop in IQ. And the 10-18 is only okay on Canon crop DSLRs. I've owned two copies, paired with crop DSLRs for backpacking, and have never been happy with the compromises in IQ I've had to accept for the weight savings. Edges are downright mushy, even at f/8-f/11. I've resigned myself to accepting the weight penalty and bringing a FF body and my EF 16-35. While I haven't used it extensively in the backcountry yet, my comparison testing so far with the 15-30 has me hopeful that this lens will be an acceptable compromise between IQ and weight/bulk, albeit imperfect
The comparison between 77D/10-18 and R6/15-30 is somewhat unfair:
The first combo is already some years old and was sold for less than 1000€ before the camera was discontinued; the second combo is quiet new and is actually sold for approx. 3200€.
@@timritter144 That's the comparison I made because that's the gear I own. The 77d has a pretty respectable APS-C sensor, anyhow, regardless of how inexpensive it is. It's capable of excellent IQ when you put good glass in front of it, but I don't consider the 10-18 especially good glass. My goal was to determine if the lightweight combo of the 77d + 10-18 could be a solid substitute for a heavier full-frame camera + EF 16-35 f/4, and the answer is not really, unless you are willing to accept noticeably degraded IQ at the periphery of the image. A few years ago I did a similar comparison with the same lenses on the bodies I owned at the time: a Rebel SL2 and a 6D Mk II and came to the same conclusion. For its price, the 10-18 is an ok lens that gives you access to an extreme wide angle, but the edge & corner sharpness are quite poor when compared to the 16-35. I have a feeling a combo like the M6 Mk II + EF-M 11-22 might give me the IQ I'm looking for in a light form factor, but I don't like the add-on EVF. It seems a little delicate, especially if subjected to rough handling while backpacking.
And so slow.
Thanks I was considering this lens for my R7 but was waiting/hoping for your review. Glad I waited.
Thanks os much for this review. An objective review well done on this lens is impossible to find. I may add this to my kit based on your review. thanks again and God bless.
With Real Estate becoming a significantly larger portion of my work than I ever imagined, having this as a backup to keep in my everyday bag has grown rather attractive. It's currently $150 off at B&H and should be an unbelievable lens to use for professional real estate photography. I'm looking to hire someone this year to assist me with listings and I will get them started with this kit for sure. Combined with an RP, R8, or R you have an affordable and very capable full-frame lens. This couldn't exist without lens corrections, but it's used rather well here to keep size and costs down tremendously. I believe this is the cheapest full frame ultra-wide zoom? Incredible.
I do think for 700 EUR into germany, this lens doesn't cut it - especially, when for APS-C there was the excellent ultra bargain 10-18 STM IS being avialable, which is excellent. Yes, it's not fullframe, but worlds cheaper. No offense. Your milage may vary... 🙂
That's unfortunate. As I've said in other place. Look for the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4, even with adapter is not bulky nor heavy. Only weakness is the slow AF motor during video
@@zegzbrutal RF-S Users could mount the EF-S 10-18 STM via Canon's own RF-EF adapter. So this lens gets a 2nd life. Read the review via photozone(now optical limits since a couple years) That was the reason, i've bought this lens back into the heyday for my 40D, 50D bodies. :)
A good day.
@@zegzbrutal I don't know you or your saying, but i don't need or like the Tamron 17-35, i have the 10-18 STM for my xxD Canon APS-C DSLRs, and it's completely fine, great IQ, image stabilizer, small as the usual 18-55 STM kitlens, and it does get the job done. For everything else, via "Fullframe" 36x24 setups, i go with my usual, matching 28-70/2.8 or 24-70/2.8, and that's quite enough.
@@marcp.1752 Apologies for didn't clarify on the Tamron lens. I mean for R7/R10, use the Viltrox/Canon/Metabones speedbooster with the Tamron is a solid alternative
@@zegzbrutal It's all fine, no offense. Have a great day.
It‘s a newer, optically better, full frame compatible Canon EF-S 10-18mm with an even better focal length range, still able to take normal filters at an ultrawide focal length of 15mm. Impressive. Less impressive is the EU price, Canon.
I would not really recommend it tbh, at least for 550; at the same price you can buy and adapt an used EF 16-35 f4 IS that is brighter at any focal lenght, still has IS, loses 1mm wide but gains 5m tele, and is at least on par optically. This should be a 300/350€$£ max lens to be competitive, any more expensive is frankly not worth it.
With an r5 you can easily adapt old lenses and still have plenty mp. I regret buying the r6 as the quality plummets with adapted lenses. That being said, expensive rf lenses like the 100-500 are amazing even on the r6.
@@Xirpzy not true in my experience; i have R6 with 6 out of 8 lens i own that are EF mount, and 3 out of those 6 are not even Canon, but Sigma or Tokina lenses.
Quality is frankly amazing, my Sigma Art 50 f1.4 on the R6 is way better then on any Canon dslr i have ever had, due to absolutely precise eye focus even at f1.4 at minimum focus distance, that was not happening on dslr's, where i could never get 100% sharpness on the eye with the traditional focus point in the optical viewfinder. R6 made my old lenses even better.
I would agree: the only advantage of the 15-30 is its light weight and compactness. Otherwise I continue to love my adapted EF 16-35 f/4 IS on my R6
I own the lens and agree with your findings. It is a great lens for the price, works well on R5. I got decent results for Astronomy at 15mm and F4.5 using stacking techniques.
In my country this lens goes regularly on sale for some 400€ or less (currently at 322€, with a Canon Summer Cashback). I own the RF 16mm, that I bought about 2 years ago and, honestly, I'm considering replacing it with this zoom lens, for its versatility, because jumping from 16mm to 24mm is quite a lot of difference. I own both 24-70 and 70-200 2.8s, but I barely use the ultra wide range, so no need for a L series ultra wide lens. Also, I'm noticing that I rarely shoot the RF 16mm at f/2.8.
that lens is amazing i see that lens shot photos i can't believe that lens it's been use for that shot .. buy 🔜 daily landscape
why does canon keep releasing lenses with such dark apertures? kit lens used to be 3.5-5.6 back on DSLRS. does it have to do with mirrorless optics?
Yes, boosting iso is no problem on their r lineup
Canon IS is working much better than.... Cough cough, Sony
F4.5-6.3... OUCH! And i thought im poor that i can only afford a F3.5-4.5 lens :D
Thanks for a wonderful Review... In your opinion how close is this to the 14-35 RF. Would you recommend the 16-35 f4 EF instead of this lens... Thanks for your feedback.
Cheers 👍🏾
Hey Chris... Thanks. I converted my RP to a full spectrum InfraRed Camera and currently my 14-35 L is always mounted on it always shooting between F8 & F11. I would like to free up that lens for my R6 and have a dedicated wide angle or wide angle zoom mated to it and I'm thinking either this lens or the 24 1.8, although that one just gives me the one option at 24 and I'm really not keen on that 16mm based on what you said in your review of that one. Besides, I'm usually between 14 & 28 on my L lens. The additional problem with the L lens and InfraRed is the occasional Hot Spots in the images, which could be eliminated with this lens. Would this one be a viable option considering with IR I'm usually in bright sun shooting at F8 or higher or should I just consider getting a second 14-35 L just for the IR RP?
Cheers!
._. but what happens to canon, because it makes such dark lenses and such a small zoom at such a high price for what it is ._. I don't understand who would buy that lens?
Continued thanks for all your videos.. you are my go to for all lens decisions. I need your help please.. I am looking to update my canon 60d and lenses to an R6 and I have watched all your vids on RF lenses including this one.. it’s seems unless you buy the L senses that most of the RF lenses aren’t great for the money! How do these compare though to for example the review you did on the sigma 18-35 on your old 60d (which I have)? Really undecided if it’s worth spending unless I get L lenses for the R6. Maybe a good idea to do a comparison video on quality for how far we have come and see how much difference? Many thanks and keep up the good work!!
Great review as usual Chris but I wished they At least would have considered an a lil bit faster aperture.
Good it’s sharp actually but still…. Use the 18-35 on my r7. Would love to see a rf 11mm f1,8 or a 16mm f1,8 or even 1,4 for the R7
You do realize the 14-35 f4 exists right?
This is supposed to be the cheap and compact option
This makes my old Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 look like a rockstar lens ($450!)
Does it good? Sharpness, AF accuracy, AF speed ?
Do you used it on eos mirrorless ?
@@vinvanid you can find his review for this lens on his Chanel!
It can be adapted. I use it on my Nikon mirrorless.
It makes almost any lens look like a rockstar lens. Canon users must be used to nothing if they are even considering this junk.
In HK is around 500GBP, but in CN is 400GBP.....I don't understand why Canon price it that high outside of CN.
This lens acceptable for entry level. Just like the RF100-400. A lot of people bash it but I found it pleasant to use.
For anyone looking alternative to RF 15-30 because of the aperture, I suggest the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.
In my country tamron price is 2x higher than this canon. I usually used 24-105 kit Lens for landscapes, but now i bought 70-200 f4 which is incredible. I think about something wide and light cause i travel a lot in the mountains so rf15-30, rf 50 and rf 70-200 would be a great set. I also have sigma c 150-600
@@andredo4880 I guess your options are RF16, this 15-30 or 2nd hand 16-35L f4.
@@zegzbrutalWould you recommend the 16mm or this 15-30mm for video work?
@@stephenartnermusic 16/2.8 has a noisy STM that requires you to have external mic. If you have sorted it out. RF16 is a better choice with digital IS act as the "zoom"
It sounds like it might be a reasonable starter lens for real estate work, especially if paired with the RP or R, since that is often tripod and flash based so the dark aperture won't matter much. The real fly in the ointment is going to be the need to correct that distortion in post, but you'll be in there anyway, right? :)
Only problem is, that there are no support for this lens in LR yer.
Looks like a great lens. Would def buy if I was living in the US. It costs 800$ where I live so will prob buy it used…
Another great piece of information...but I hope you are well, you sound a bit congested. Its good they're beginning to bring out more affordable lenses, but it's soooo disappointing they've blocked third party. I'm looking at an R5 as my retirement present, but the lens situation is making me consider the a7rv instead.
Which one would be great rf 15-30mm is stm or rf 16mm f 2.8 for real estate photography (indoor+outdoor) ?? Please give me a suggestion
I have the same question...
I’ve used both, the 15-30 is honestly a much better lens. Corners are actually really sharp. The whole image is impressively sharp with good contrast!
The only reason for the 16 f2.8 is for Astro on a budget
@@zaccapps9653 I'm waiting on my RF15-30 to arrive. Have the RF16. I was wanting something with image stabil to walk with video on my R8. Currently have the EF17-40. Will see how it compares.
Only reasonable use case is a lightweight option for landscape photography. But in that case, lack of weather sealing is perplexing (the lack of a hood as well, but this is a given from Canon). Price is ridiculous, which is the case for all new canon's lenses.
I used a 10-22 for 10 years on hikes with no weather sealing and it held up just fine. I dont take it out in pouring rain
The extreme distortion is what makes me avoid this and the 16mm 2.8.
The 15 36 is on another level but then I had to pay for that
Oh, they still sell hoods seperately. That`s robery.
I really wonder how did Canon become so popular, people must like garbage.
Are those blue and red dots on the image for coma test (07:35) thermal noise or just real stars?
It's a shame you didn't show the effect of the barrel distortion correction of the R5. Nice video anyway.
Thanks for testing this lens! ❤
I’m trying to get into real estate photography, I’ve been meaning to purchase the 15-35 f2.8 but would you recommend this since it’s a lot cheaper?
I feel like for real estate you can probably get away with it. Only issue I have is for video….
Can someone suggest a good to great lense for landscape photography. Im really new to this and have so much to learn. My goal is to only carry 2-3 lenses and cover a wide variety of shooting like landscapes, people, and architecture. If this isnt the lense to get for a beginner...
I couldnt wait for you to come out with a review for this lens but disappointingly, you skipped over the part i was most interested in: the distortion with lens correction on at 15mm.
Will it be better than ef 15 35??
So much negativity in the comments. This lens handily outperforms the 17-40L, which it's replacing, not to mention the v1 and 2 16-35/2.8Ls, while being considerably cheaper and lighter. I find it pretty hard to complain about that, especially when there's a pair of faster options, plus the ability to adapt any EF lens if this isn't your jam, but it's pretty ideal for any usage that doesn't require a fast aperture.
Scott, did you think this New lens is better than the 17-40L?, I own one and i use it for landscspe fotography.
@@ramirosolis8770 There's definitely nothing wrong with the 17-40L, it's been the go-to landscape lens in this price range a long time, but yes this new one is definitely performing better. If you switch to the R system, it's worth a look for sure!
@@Caveman2085 Thanks
The 17-40 has much better colors and contrast, this lens is as flat as a pancake.
Chris.....recommending it just for decent sharpness is not a good suggestion, given the price should be lower
I’m so excited for this!! Good APSC lens and vlog lens for full frame
Good APSC lens? Are we even living on the same planet?
No it's not lol
I am not sure about your results. For me in raw at 15mm even at f/8 there is huge vignetting. Its embarrassing how much. (un corrected ofc.)
Where are all those lenses starting at 3.5 or 4 .. :D
looks better on aps-c than on FF. Not sure about your perception, chris.
Thanks for the review, but I do have a question, several websites (B&H Photo, Camera Decision) list the minimum focus distance at 13cm, which means it could focus effectively at 4cm from the end of the lens, but there must be some discrepancy of information because here and elsewhere it's been stated that the distance is 28cm.
Both are correct. The shorter minimum focus distance is only accessible when manual focus mode is selected in the camera. Chris probably wasn't aware of this feature.
I wouldn’t recommend it given the limited aperture and the poor uniformity at 15mm.
Isn’t a 10-18mm using an adapter both cheaper and better?
Probably a 2nd hand Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 L USM mark I would be a better comparison. I have both lenses 10-18 & 17-35 and they adapt well onto my R6MKII. The f/2.8 lets in more light and is sharper. The STM is wider at 10mm but my R6MKII auto crops due to the EF-S lens.
You missed one of the most important features of this lens - the minimum focusing distance at wide angle
who cares about MFD/macro at ultra-wide angle?!
Even a 50mm 2.8 macro lens is already too wide for 99% of the macro shots and i need to use the 100mm 2.8L
@@harrison00xXx Many care. Small MFD un an ultrawide can be used for many interesting closeup shots, not just macro.
@@todanrg3 I havent seen yet any wider angle lens with a bad MFD...
Almost any wide lens will do that.
For those unaware of the lens macro capability, when manual focus is selected in the camera, the lens can focus as close as 13 cm at 15mm giving a 0.5x magnification.
Is it a better option than 16-35 F/4? on R6 mark 2.
No.
I think that Canon's RF and RF-S zooms lens releases are generally disappointing, especially the apertures.
I would also expect that FF lenses used on a APS-C camera should perform better on APS-C than FF, not the opposite.
Will the big companies ever put out an ultrawide zoom lens that doesn't double as a fisheye somewhere in it's zoom range? lol
After all is the end result what matters. Software correction allows for smaller and cheaper lenses.
@@todanrg3 smaller and cheaper lenses that deliver trash image quality because every corner pixel is now stretched across three. Plus these "smaller and cheaper" lenses are barely ever cheap.
@@fandyus4125 All im saying is the final result what matters. Not talking about one specific lens. But some modern lenses with software corrections have much better image quality than older designs without software corrections, even in the corners.
While being smaller and lighter or have better parameters.
So software correction is not automatically bad as many think.
Is it better than the EF 16-35 mm f/4 ?
Absolutely no😅
Not good enough at the wide end which is where you need it performing. Im sure my EFM 11-22mm beats this..
No way. That was on a 45 megapixel body.
I was surprised you gave this a ‘recommended’ after you slated its sharpness. Seems rather inconsistent.
On Canon RF, you pay 700€ for a 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3.
On other systems, you pay 700€ for the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8; that's a two f-stop advantage for the same amount of money...
I found it rather funny that they reuse the main barrel of another lens that has an entirely different focal range. My canon hater side wanted to say "another day, another way of Canon cheaping out on lenses", but then realize it is an effective way for a budget lens. If anything that shows how small the 24 105 STM is (and why it has such dark max apertures and terrible IQ).
I don't understand how full frame lenses are softer in the corners when tested on an APS-C sensor, your tests always turn out this way and the proof is in the pudding but reality is with APS-C your are using the sharpest part of the lens which is towards the center, the soft corners are 'cropped' out... So I simply don't understand how the results are usually soft corners?
Because on APSC pixels are smaller if we talk about same pixel count
The Edges at 15mm are never really good. As you say, you want the best sharpness, especially at 15mm.
distortion is terrible. interesting thing about flaring - your position is far away so the light got smaller therefore the artifacts are smaller, too... i like the comment about bokeh ;) but how could this be recommend? the nikon 14-30 is also recommend... i think the price has to much influence on your ratings. to be honest, photography isn't a cheap hobby, so i think price differences of 100 oder 200€/$/... should never change a rating this dramaticaly.
For me it is no coincidence that lens appeared. Nikon offers a lot of pretty good lenses at a good price. Canon is now following and offering affordable lenses with affordable quality and would like to win customers.
I'm not trying to be Mr Negative here, but looking at the "affordable" lenses that Canon has released lately for the RF and RF-S system, you wonder what the appeal is supposed to be to photographers or film-makers. Maybe this is what happens when lens design is being left to the accountants, rather than a collaboration of the lens designers, creators, and the marketing department.
I absolutely fail to see the appeal of any of these slow and non-weather sealed lenses. They aren't bargains. They aren't tack-sharp into the corners. They aren't sexy. They aren't directly compatible with anything else. They aren't fun in some unique way, like, say, a cheap Chinese lens, or a Lensbaby, or something vintage off e-bay.
If I had the money for their pro-lenses, I'd buy into a different camera system altogether, like Sony for the almost open-source third party lens options (thanks Canon lawyers), or Leica for their classic ruggedness and M-mount compatibility, which fits almost any camera mount via manual adapter, lasting a lifetime.
I am not a full time marketing guy, but I'd say you have to give people at least ONE good reason to buy your line of products in order to turn them into prospective customers.
Love your reviews nonetheless, thanks Christopher!
What an odd lens. I don't remember it being announced. (Or I blocked it from memory because it's an odd lens.)
For only a 2x zoom range, i would have expected a constant aperture. But maybe that was limited by reusing the housing of the 24-105 as mentioned.
Edit: actually, I supposed all the 14-35, 15-35, and 16-35 lenses are also 2x lenses. Compared to those L lenses it makes more sense to me now.
It was announced alongside RF 24 1.8 prime.
the EF 16-35 2.8 is a BEAST of a lens.
@@harrison00xXx I would say the EF 16-35L f4 IS is a better bargain on FF RF cameras.
@@zegzbrutal Its a better bargain in average probably, but the 2.8 "non IS" is better, especially when the camera with IBIS make the lens stabilizer pretty much obscolete.
And here in Austria, when you look at the 2nd hand market, the 2.8 costs barely more than the F4 with stabilizer.
I mean sure, if you are fine with F4, you probably even look into the 17-40mm F4 which is then definately cheaper than 16-35 F4 too.
For me the only options i really liked were "going full nuts" with the 16-35 2.8 or the 17-40 F4L as "budget" option, the 16-35 F4 isnt anything better than the 17-40 but more expensive and also not much cheaper than the 2.8 to make sense.
@@harrison00xXx IMO 16-35 f4 has superior image quality than 17-40 and 16-35 f2.8 I/II ....
Canon is not even trying anymore, every RF zoom lens has crazy distortion, totally reliant on the camera corrections.
Not a bad lens but not for almost £700!
Perfect for landscape.
Yes. On sunny days with no dust blowing around. Canon's service department will be busy.
On one side I'm fine with the review but: Right now we have a huge lack of reviews about RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 vs RF 14 -35 mm f/4. From that angle to incorporate the R7 in this test was a waste of time.
As the reviewer pointed out: who would consider to buy the RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 for the use on a R7 if the topic is ultra wide angle potography ?
If people would refer to the RF 24-50 mm for FF cameras, than the way to go with the R7 and RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 the would be a very expensive way.
My goodness that bowel distortion!
I rather buy tamron 17-35 F2.8-4 or 15-30 f2.8 and use adapter than buy this lens with such a dark aparture.
Imagine that RF 100-500 ($2900) and RF 70-200 F4 ($1700) are weather sealed and suck dust as crazy in less than a year throwing it all against sensor, how this non weather sealed lens could last clean.
Also a non sealed lens that mostly will be used on exterior. Canon is playing to "Our users will buy it anyway"
From my expeience, a simple protective or UV filter solves 99% of dust sucking issues no mater is a lens "sealed" or not.
@@Marquis_dOchirac dust doesn't get in through front element, it does at collapsible part of them.
You are lying to the people and I don't know why. I am using the RF800 mm /the RF14-35 mm and the RF100-500 mm for landscape and wildlife for about 8-18 months (dependent on the lens) now. I am shooting at any weather condition nearly every weekend, each lens at least 48000 pictures. No problem at all with dust sucking or the weather sealing (I am in south of Italy) - even if the weather sealing is missing.
Without software correction, this glass is optically weak
Not cheap but more affordable for a lens that begins at a ridiculous aperture f4.5...
It's like a kit lens starting at f4.5
its slow for FF but fast compared to APS-c.. The equivalent APS-c is approx 9-19mm F2.8-4 and m43 equivalent would be 7.5-15mm F2.25-3.1
Those are DOF numbers. Light doesn't change changing the sensor size.
@@networm64 doesn't change in what way?
@@77appyi The way you said! F4 is F4 no matter what the sensor size is, only DOF changes depending on the sensor size.
@@networm64 i did not say..But you are incorrect...4f is f4 for exposer metering only ....F4 on a ff has the same light intensity or brightness falling on the sensor pr square mm as APS-c. at F4 .BUT the FF sensor is 1.6 times bigger so the TOTAL light gathered is approx 1 stop more light ...a FF at say 50mm F2.8 ISO set at 200 is equiv to APS-c in focal length,DOF, and noise with a 31mm F2 lens at 100ISO
@@77appyi Nope! You need to check some TH-cam videos to see the truth!
550 bucks for a 30mm f 6.3? This a joke canon? I can see why everyone is ditching canon for sony.
There's IS to compensate. IRL is close to non-IS f4 lens. And tbh, this is an entry ultra wide, for landscapes, f6.3 is ok
You are correct. Your money is better spent on a consumer electronics company camera. Sony. BTW do you still have your betamax?
Buy 15-35 mm f2.8
It`s wha you get if your selling to nitwits and parrots, they think this is the norm. They`re being cheated.
$1200AUD (converted from pounds) for a plastic fantastic 15-30 with the worst aperture range possible? Maybe if it was properly corrected for distortions and vignetting it'd be worth thinking about, but this looks like Canon getting away with the bare minimum.
You`re being really polite about this crap lens. Canon is selling garbage.
At least Canon offers something different. Not my cup of tea.
Nikon be like : how about spend more 500 usd to buy 14-30 f4, or 17-28 f2.8 .F4 vs f6.3 is about x3 iso better. And the sharpness of nikon lenss iss well. Check 35mm rf on frost video and see how slow it auto focus. Canon now clamed to be king of overpirce company lens. IN the past they was sony, and now they even overprice more than sony when sony is slowly become friendly for everyone cause their sigma/samyang/tamron very cheap
Lovely lens
In which way?
aperture sucks, IQ is at best usable but nothing more, its big, its "cheaply" built (but expensive for what you get)
I would ALWAYS prefer my EF 16-35 2.8, on a body with IBIS its also great stabilized if you even need the stabilization at all with the 2.8 aperture.
Damn, it doenst even have a sealing at the mount!
wow sounds horrible.. for that money as well..
For that money, I'd rather go and buy myself a nice giant turnip 👍
@@rodmehta5356 😅
Assuming u even watched the review, the results are considered good overall bub, but I guess 'good' to you means horrible
@@plisskenetic No need to give me a patronising nickname, we dont know each other. Yes I watched the review it just seems like a very poor choice of lens, might be better converting an old 10-18 efs or even a 17-40 f4L for a lot less cash.
The Canon lens offerings are getting from bad to absolutely dismal.
A piece of plastic for a lot of money, with no character and rendering as flat as a pancake. And very slow too, with no fixed aperture.
Hating Canon has never been easier, they just don`t care.
Looks like hot trash ... blurry and CA at 15mm IN THE CENTER
670 pounds?
Canon RF is the worst mirrorless system. The lens selection is so bad !!! also low quality plastic and bad auto focus. No weather sealing either.
Sony 1635 pz f4 is much betyer i thibk
First?
No sadly
Junk lol maybe for $150 ?
Garbage max aperture, would never buy that lens. Not that I own a Canon camera, but still, this is a terrible value.
Thank you Chris for your always much appreciated effort.
What a boring lens...
Very bad value for money