Canon RF-S 10-18 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

[mcoren]

I picked up an RF-S 10-18 today!

At some point I'll get some outside shots with it, but for now I wanted to play with investigate its close focus ability. The specs say it can do up to 0.5x in MF. I don't do macro so I don't have a great setup for this. This was a single flash on a tripod and me hand-holding the camera above the coin. It was less than an inch from the front of the lens. This is the full, uncropped R7 image, resized to 1200x800 and with some lighting and exposure correction.

When I first turned on the camera, it gave a warning that the lens wasn't supported by current firmware. I don't see an R7 FW update on the Canon USA web site at present, so I decided to just go with what I have.

The MF ring seemed intermittently responsive, but I may have been at the limit, or it might have been due to the need for new firmware. Either way, I couldn't tell if I was getting a larger image at the 10 or 18 mm end. This shot was actually at 11 mm because, like I said, I don't have a great macro setup, so I didn't realize until afterward that it wasn't at the limit.

There's a lot of barrel distortion in the raw image, but the embedded preview had correction. I didn't make an in-camera JPEG. Lightroom applied its profile correction for the RF 18mm f/2.8 STM, and you can see the results (I'm using LRC v13 but I'm probably a couple of updates behind there too so there may akready be a real profile for it).

 

[Scott M]

I saw this lens is becoming in stock at resellers. I will be interested in reading buyers' thoughts, as I plan on placing an order in a week or two. This will be paired with a R10 and will replace the EF-M 11-22 that I sold with my M50 "travel kit".

 

[mcoren]

It's a nice small lens. My reference is the EF-S 10-18 + EF-RF adapter, and it's literally half the length of that combination.

Aside from the focal length range, one difference from the EF-M is that there isn't a switch to put it in or out of the "retracted" position. There's a soft click stop at 10 mm, and you turn past that to another click stop at the fully retracted position. To extend it, you similarly turn it from the fully retracted click stop to the click stop at the 10 mm position. Given the plastic construction of the lens, I wonder if those click stops will loosen over time.

 

[mcoren]

Firmware version 1.4 is available for the R7 and R10 on the Canon USA site (I didn't look at the R50 or R100). Says it adds support for the RF-S 10-18.
They're still showing the older version too (1.3.1). I had to reload a couple of times by selecting different macOS versions before I saw it (but that may have been me; I'm not too swift after 7pm).

 

[Scott M]

Firmware version 1.4 is available for the R7 and R10 on the Canon USA site (I didn't look at the R50 or R100). Says it adds support for the RF-S 10-18.
They're still showing the older version too (1.3.1). I had to reload a couple of times by selecting different macOS versions before I saw it (but that may have been me; I'm not too swift after 7pm).

I updated both my R10 and R6m2 this morning to the new firmware that supports this lens -- although I doubt I will ever use the lens on the R6m2. No issues with either update.

Now I just have to order the lens -- probably next week.

 

[bogeypro]

In your opinion, do you find this lens to be as-good-as / better than the EF-S 10-18?

 

[Anton Largiader]

I think I will finally be buying a UWA and this one is probably it. Half the length of the 10-18 + adapter is a big selling point. On paper there is a choice to make between APS-C and FF, but I just don't see spending FF money on this. As Canon crop options go:

EF-S 10-22. Canon seems to attach a lot of value to this lens as the price remains high. f/3.5-4.5, 24cm MFD. $600 retail, $480 refurb.
EF-S 10-18. f/4.5-5.6, 22cm, $300, $240 refurb (but not in stock).
RF-S 10-18. f/4.5-6.3, 8.6-14cm depending, $330.

The super-close MFD and the small size make it, to me, a natural choice. The relatively slow aperture isn't a big deal, I think. I would be shooting UWA with plenty of light and shallow DOF isn't such a big issue.

 

[mcoren]

In your opinion, do you find this lens to be as-good-as / better than the EF-S 10-18?

I still haven't had a chance to take any "outside" shots with it, but I hope it's at least "as good", optically, as the EF-S version. I expect it won't be long before somebody does a comprehensive side-by-side IQ comparison.

I don't do a lot of UWA shooting, but the size difference appealed to me. I figure I'll be more likely to bring it along.

Here's a size and MTF chart comparison. I'm not an MTF expert, but his conclusion is, "If you were happy with the EF-S 10-18 IS STM, then you will be equally as happy if not more so because of the extremely small size of the RF-S 10-18mm." That's what I'm hoping for.

 

[Anton Largiader]

but his conclusion is,

I guess starting off the article with "issues in the era when..." makes me think that he's using words and phrases that he's not really familiar with, leading me to pretty much dismiss any conclusion of his. But draw your own conclusions from the charts, or check out Bryan Carnathan's more detailed preview and explanation of the focus ring behavior which may be what you were noticing.

Canon RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Review

Is the Canon RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

The Canon equivalent in FF looks like the RF 15-30 f/4.5-6.3. 7 blades, 5 stops IS, $500. It shares the MF-only close-in focus feature (and he goes into more detail on the behavior of this, since it is a hands-on review) but doesn't collapse to an extra-short size like the RF-S. Slightly wider FOV but the IQ and aperture don't seem to be better. Having an APS-C camera, it looks like the 10-18 is the more attractive option. Bryan compares the specs here but once he publishes a full review of the 10-18 the comparison will be a bit more meaningful:

Canon RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Compared to the Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens

Compare the detailed specifications and detailed lab measurements of the Canon RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens to the 1624

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[Scott M]

Has anyone found a third party version of the EW-53B hood for this lens? A search on Amazon shows nothing so far. I usually buy 3rd party hoods for my Canon non-L lenses, as they work just as well for less than half the price.

 

[mcoren]

I guess starting off the article with "issues in the era when..." makes me think that he's using words and phrases that he's not really familiar with, leading me to pretty much dismiss any conclusion of his. But draw your own conclusions from the charts, or check out Bryan Carnathan's more detailed preview and explanation of the focus ring behavior which may be what you were noticing.

Canon RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Review

Is the Canon RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

The Canon equivalent in FF looks like the RF 15-30 f/4.5-6.3. 7 blades, 5 stops IS, $500. It shares the MF-only close-in focus feature (and he goes into more detail on the behavior of this, since it is a hands-on review) but doesn't collapse to an extra-short size like the RF-S. Slightly wider FOV but the IQ and aperture don't seem to be better. Having an APS-C camera, it looks like the 10-18 is the more attractive option. Bryan compares the specs here but once he publishes a full review of the 10-18 the comparison will be a bit more meaningful:

Canon RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Compared to the Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens

Compare the detailed specifications and detailed lab measurements of the Canon RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens to the 1624

www.the-digital-picture.com

Indeed. What appealed to me was the size. I figured if it was no worse than the EF-S version, it would be a winner for me.

 

[mcoren]

Has anyone found a third party version of the EW-53B hood for this lens? A search on Amazon shows nothing so far. I usually buy 3rd party hoods for my Canon non-L lenses, as they work just as well for less than half the price.

I've also been watching for that. I suspect the third party manufacturers have to first get their hands on the lens, then maybe even a Canon hood, before they can copy engineer it. Not sure how long that usually takes.

 

[LoneRider]

I bought a refurb EFS 10-18mm for use with an adapter on my R7 for a trip to Guatemala. Three days later they announced the RF-S version

Decided to return the refurb EFS and spend the extra $100 for the RF version for the more compact size.

The new lens arrived today (along with my R6 Mark II) looking forward to checking them both out when I get home in an hour or so.

Might not get to shoot anything of substance with either until the weekend, but will post up when I have something to share.

 

[Scott M]

I bought a refurb EFS 10-18mm for use with an adapter on my R7 for a trip to Guatemala. Three days later they announced the RF-S version

To be fair, a lens of this type has been in the rumor mill for awhile, and was expected in the batch of lenses to be announced by the end of the year. It's why I have been waiting on buying anything to use on my R10 for an upcoming trip to Hawaii.

I just placed my order with B&H. Now I just need to wait until a 3rd party makes a hood -- I'll go hoodless until then.

 

[Anton Largiader]

You'd think by this point there would be 3D printing files for hoods floating around on the web.

 

[Scott M]

My Canon RF-S 10-18mm lens arrived today. Since DxO Photolab does not have correction modules available yet for the lens, I had to shoot these test shots JPEG, with just in camera processing.

The lens is pretty small. This is attached to the R10.

 

[Scott M]

Regarding the official EW-53B hood for this lens, I happen to have a EW-53 from when I owned the EF-M 15-45mm, so I tried it on this lens for the heck of it. This was shot as a jpeg, processed in camera, as DxO Photolab doesn't currently support this lens for RAW processing. I cannot see any vignetting at 10mm.

 

[mcoren]

My Canon RF-S 10-18mm lens arrived today. Since DxO Photolab does not have correction modules available yet for the lens, I had to shoot these test shots JPEG, with just in camera processing.

Scott, you have a beautiful home!

Lightroom Classic v13.1 has a correction profile for the RF-S 10-18. Here's another export of my original quarter pic with the new profile.

Regarding the official EW-53B hood for this lens, I happen to have a EW-53 from when I owned the EF-M 15-45mm, so I tried it on this lens for the heck of it. This was shot as a jpeg, processed in camera, as DxO Photolab doesn't currently support this lens for RAW processing. I cannot see any vignetting at 10mm.

I have that lens and hood too. I'll give it a try. I'm planning to get out with the lens tomorrow. I'll bring the hood and try some with/without shots.

 

[mcoren]

I finally got some outside time with the RF-S 10-18 today. I didn't go for any uber-wide vistas, but I tried to get perspective separation here with one of my favorite overlooked DC monuments. It didn't come out quite as I had envisioned it, but I was shooting up a hill and if I tried to get lower and closer to the Jefferson Pier, the Washington Monument got very bent looking.



I took most of my shots without a hood, but I also tried a few with the EW-53 hood (the one for the EF-M 15-45, NOT the B version for this lens). I couldn't see any difference either in the viewfinder or in LrC, that is, until I turned off the lens profile correction. Here are a couple of the out-takes, with lens profile correction turned off.



Judging from the pics on Amazon, the petals on the EW-53 hood are a bit longer than the B version, which shouldn't be surprising. I'm curious to see if there is a similar (but reduced) effect with the B is hood.

 

[Scott M]

Looks like the hood is affecting the image a little, but the software is correcting it. I cannot try this with my RAW files yet, as I use DxO PhotoLab instead of Lightroom. I need to wait for DxO to add a module for the lens + R10. My in camera jpegs look similar to your shot with the LR profile correction on.