p.2 #1 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
Looking at it on my small screen, it looks decent. Of course, I'm looking at the equivalent of an 8X10 inch picture, so there is that.
Actually, I put it up on my 32 inch monitor - there doesn't seem to be any falloff of sharpness towards the edges. But again, still looking at something that would be like a 10X15 print size, not huge.
p.2 #2 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
and a couple with the R5 and RF 24 f1.8 the starburst is at f9 I like the blades and the hydrangeas are wide open at f1.8
No editing no crop other than using Canon R5 linear profile I created then levels and curves adjustment
p.2 #3 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
I think the flower shot renders pretty well.
The sunstar shot is quite good too. Slight loss of contrast right around the star, but the rest of the picture holds up well.
p.2 #4 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
I have zero concerns about the 24mm. As an owner of the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS, I am certain this lens will be at least as good edge-to-edge while providing a stop and a third more light, along with close focusing abilities.
Some may disagree, but I think all of Canon's RF STM primes are exceptional given their size, weight, and price point.
I think the zoom is going to be more of a compromise, but would love to be surprised.
p.2 #5 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
Ray Still wrote:
just a super quick snap with the 15-30 on the R5 @15 and f6.3 no editing at all 100% of frame
Need to do a lot more testing it is really soft on the edges much more than the new RF 24
[Good contrast throughout. Better at long end than short end. Way better than 17-40 and comparable but lesser centre/mid to ef 16-35 f4]
[I care more about performance at f8 or f11 where I expect the lens to perform much better, so if Canon MTF are close to reality its a good but not fantastic lens]
French review https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=0TzO89hSVJo says:
Uncorrected at widest its a 13mm lens with significant barrel distortion and almost black corners
[Typically in landscape I do some cropping to 16x9 or square or just readjusting for artistic presences so if the scene does not demand distortion correction I get better than 15mm]
Sun stars are not great but okay at f16
Resolution centre is comparable to high price lens
Resolution at edge is little lower but quite good.
https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=XJ_diLLjMao
Another good video at infinity see 1:18 on
Looks pretty good at f8, f11, corners and centre
starburst at f16 not crisp but okay
I think the above show the 15-30 to be a great backpacking landscape lens.
p.2 #7 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
Thanks a lot for posting pictures. 100% crops from center and corner would be great because the current pictures are imho too small (low resolution) to get a good understanding of the quality of these lenses. I would be especially interested in 15mm at f4.5 and f/8 regarding the 15-30.
p.2 #8 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
Interesting looking at the MFT comparing it to the 16-35 f/4 EF as well as the 17-40 f/4 EF. When the 17-40 was introduced, it was really considered a great lens, a bargain of sorts, with great contrast. Still is, but it's interesting how the corners fall off as you move away from the center, compared to the other two lenses.
The 15-30 looks a bit closer to the 16-35 EF in terms of what the chart is telling us.
I have a 17-40, bought it used from KEH, specifically to use on the crop body. The colors are still rich and contrasty, and it might be one of those lenses that actually do shine on a crop body, whether it's the 1.6X or the older 1.3X.
p.2 #9 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
Tom_W wrote:
Interesting looking at the MFT comparing it to the 16-35 f/4 EF as well as the 17-40 f/4 EF. When the 17-40 was introduced, it was really considered a great lens, a bargain of sorts, with great contrast. Still is, but it's interesting how the corners fall off as you move away from the center, compared to the other two lenses.
The 15-30 looks a bit closer to the 16-35 EF in terms of what the chart is telling us.
I have a 17-40, bought it used from KEH, specifically to use on the crop body. The colors are still rich and contrasty, and it might be one of those lenses that actually do shine on a crop body, whether it's the 1.6X or the older 1.3X....Show more →
One of the things that you don't get from the MTF is:
17-40 improves dramatically at 18mm and above
@f8 it improves dramatically
if they called it a 20mm-40 with a bonus 17mm we all would think its a good lens.
p.2 #10 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
Another thing that didn't show in the MTF is the excellent contrast and flare resistance of the 17-40. I foolishly replaced my original 17-40 with the original 16-35 f/2.8L and was somewhat disappointed.
p.2 #11 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
Tom_W wrote:
Another thing that didn't show in the MTF is the excellent contrast and flare resistance of the 17-40. I foolishly replaced my original 17-40 with the original 16-35 f/2.8L and was somewhat disappointed.
The original 16-35/2.8 was many years ago and corners were quite bad at 16mm. Even the second version was not so good. It took until the Mk II and the 16-35/4 IS to reach high IQ, and even those have some weakness over parts of the range. The ultrawide lenses are one of the few areas benefitting from the short backfocus of the MILS. However, I'm continuing to use the 16-35/4 IS for those situations that require wide.
p.2 #12 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
EB-1 wrote:
The original 16-35/2.8 was many years ago and corners were quite bad at 16mm. Even the second version was not so good. It took until the Mk II and the 16-35/4 IS to reach high IQ, and even those have some weakness over parts of the range. The ultrawide lenses are one of the few areas benefitting from the short backfocus of the MILS. However, I'm continuing to use the 16-35/4 IS for those situations that require wide.
EBH
First, from one of the earlier posts, this 15-30mm RF lens looks like a pretty decent performer to me. (I currently use the excellent 16-35mm f/4 for the small number of photographs where I need an ultra-wide.) I agree with the assessment above that it looks very attractive for people who value lighter lenses for subjects such as landscape.
Regarding the history of the 16-35mm lenses...
... until the 16-35mm f/4 I never felt that there was a really good EF lens with this focal length range. The alternatives were all "good enough," and could perform well with specific, narrower use cases. For example, I used the 17-40mm f/4 (which I still have lying around, but am about to give to one of my sons) for landscape photography. My experience was that it was very good in the center of the frame and at the apertures I most often used it was also decent in the corners. (Quite a few of the reports of bad corner performance that I saw were affected by the inclusion of lower corner subjects that pushed DOF too far.) Notice that "decent" is not the same as "great," but the lens could produce fine images.
The f/2.8 alternatives were often given a bit too much credit, from what I could tell. If you needed f/2.8, well, you got the f/2.8 lens — let's say you were going to use it for something like photo-journalism, where it was the best option in most cases. But there was a notion that the f/2.8 was an optically superior lens, too... and it really was not. The 17-40 actually had slightly better performance in the center, and the f/2.8 also was less than perfect in the corners. I often felt that some buyers simply assumed it to be better because it had the f/2.8 aperture... and it cost more. (Sort of like the 70-200mm lenses... where the f/4 versions are actually really, really good. I've used both f/2.8 and f/4 versions.)
p.2 #13 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
I have 4 of the various 16-35s and only the 16-35/4 is still used.
Lenses like the 15-30 are designed more for the lower grade FF bodies, which makes sense to a degree. Presumably there will be something with better AF and video to replace the R/RP.
However, it is not clear where Canon is going with the croppers. I had assumed they were dead when the range of slow, non-L RF FF lenses proliferated.
p.2 #14 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
EB-1 wrote:
I have 4 of the various 16-35s and only the 16-35/4 is still used.
Lenses like the 15-30 are designed more for the lower grade FF bodies, which makes sense to a degree. Presumably there will be something with better AF and video to replace the R/RP.
However, it is not clear where Canon is going with the croppers. I had assumed they were dead when the range of slow, non-L RF FF lenses proliferated.
EBH
While I agree with you that the the most recent versions of 16-35 are marginally better than RF 15-30; I will still use them with the most current high mpx camera (R5 45mpx) because
In the centre at f8, the non RF lens (16/2.8, 15-30, and 24-105) deliver centre performance that is indistinguishable from L lens.
At the extreme corners, for landscape where distortion correction is not usually necessary, eg the RF 16/2.8 lens performance is lessor but likely not noticably diminished, uncorrected.
Eg I estimate from the optical limits data, by adding close to 600 lpi resolution related to accepting distortion rather than correcting, the RF16 achieves about 3200 lpi vs 3900 for EF 16-35 f2.8 III, at 16mm f8. [In another review optical limits reviewed a similar lens rf24-105 before and after distortion/cropping correction and it made the difference of 900 lpi. I was conservative in my estimate. https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1113-canonrf24105f471?start=1 has before and after correction at 24mm]
And I would point out that unless you use a TS 17, you will have to correct the distortion of the 16-35 decreasing corner performance by ~1,000 lpi because you can't shift the 16-35 in any event, to avoid warped trees, that necessitate software correction and/or cropping.
So many times when I am backpacking for landscape, the marginal gain of 16-35/2.8VIII is way offset by the lessor weight at f8 on an R5.
p.2 #15 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
I bought the 15-30 today.
Compared it to my Zeiss 15 and my canon r5 16 f2.8. [my back yard from my upper den balcony]
They were all pretty close in the centre. I focused centre with focus assist and checked manual but it could be just a minute difference in focus.
At the edges, the Zeiss had the edge. The 15-30 looked a bit better than the 16/f2.8. But as shown below you would have to be pixel peeping to see the difference and it took me a while to decide. Zeiss was easier to pick as the winner.
But as expected at f8, any one of these lens would be great for landscape at infinity at f8.
[All at 15 f8 focussed near centre near infinity. All processed the same for posting with my regular sharpening. All on R5 - zeiss adapted. The camear was in a constant spot but the zeiss sticks way out with adapter and the 16 is way shorter - causing the railing to show up in the 16 pic's below]
p.2 #16 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
And here is the 16/2.8 and 15-30 uncorrected for reference.
A successful buy. I am happy that I would be happy with it as my only lens on a backpacking trip.
[I was really expecting my Zeiss to beat the two handily. It is adapted and I did not do fine focussing manually because it was so bright. The fact that they are really close centre with Zeiss better on edges but not overwhelmingly brings me to the cheap lens are pretty good. The Zeiss failed on flare.]
p.2 #17 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
Not too shabby flare resistance of the Canon budget lenses vs. legendary Zeiss T*. Sure the 15-30 flares at the left edge in this scenario, but I'll take that in exchange for the apparent better central veiling flare resistance (and no ghost blobs) of the two Canons. In this respect the 16/2.8 looks really good.
How does the 15-30 hold up through the rest of the range? From my EF super-wide zoom experiences (I've owned most of them), the wide end was usually the sharper, higher contrast end (ignoring other issues like field curvature).
p.2 #18 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
I agree the Canon lenses look good. I honestly expected the 16 (not to mention the Zeiss) to beat the zoom, but I think the zoom shows better contrast and veiling flare resistance than either of the primes. Unexpectedly good I would say. (All are good though.)
p.2 #19 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
rscheffler wrote:
Not too shabby flare resistance of the Canon budget lenses vs. legendary Zeiss T*. Sure the 15-30 flares at the left edge in this scenario, but I'll take that in exchange for the apparent better central veiling flare resistance (and no ghost blobs) of the two Canons. In this respect the 16/2.8 looks really good.
How does the 15-30 hold up through the rest of the range? From my EF super-wide zoom experiences (I've owned most of them), the wide end was usually the sharper, higher contrast end (ignoring other issues like field curvature).
Please post more!
My impression is that it is not as sharp as 15mm but the light was challenging when I shot this. Looks okay too.
p.2 #20 · New Canon RF 15-30 and RF 24 In Stock Release date 8-25 & Review
The 15-30 looks good. I currently own an EF 16-35 f/4. Looking through Lightroom and exif data, there are few shots where the loss in aperture would have been a big hardship. The RF is so much lighter and smaller when you factor in the adapter.
Sure the 15-30 flares at the left edge in this scenario, but I'll take that in exchange for the apparent better central veiling flare resistance (and no ghost blobs) of the two Canons. In this respect the 16/2.8 looks really good.
