Why is there a fisherman reviewing camera gears? KZfaq channels now hiring people only based on looks just to boost their views instead of creating actually informative contents.

Are you the real deal Niccoll?

@@LoightaFluwidSo what you are saying is that you think I’m good looking! Thanks!

@@NetvoTVAs real as the guy up on the screen!

Ah makes sense

I am the 24-105 f2.8 constant L series

As a photographer that mostly works on the opposite end of the focal length spectrum, can you tell me what is exciting about these super-wide focal lengths? What neat projects and/or creations am I missing out on?

@@trippalhealicks it's really useful for either somewhere that has close surroundings (interior/architecture) as well as outdoor/landscape shots (what I do primarily). With landscape photos, ultra wide angle is great for really emphasizing foreground items like small flowers, leaves on the forest floor, patterns in the desert ground like in Death Valley, etc. You can get 11-12mm lenses incredibly close to the foreground item like mud cracks so they'll appear huge and dramatic in the frame, but then the lens is so dang wide that you'll still get some of the mountains/trees/sky/whatever else in the background for context. Hard to do really well, but when it is... man it's hard to beat the 11-16mm range. The pro of this lens is that it's as light as my 16-35mm f/4L, covers the ranges of that lens that I use most, and would entirely replace the huge 11-24mm. Essentially, I could reduce my bag weight tremendously and consolidate these two lenses to this one.

@@brianbeattyphotography Thank you for the response. I love hearing about what other photographers enjoy shooting. Very inspirational!

A great review . I love this lens, it is versatile, light and compliments my 24-70 better than the overlapping 15-35!

Careful. Flattery will get you everywhere.

Gordon Laing has reviewed this lens with vlogging

@@nordic5490 appreciate that! Will check it out!

True, but the EF-11-24 is bigger and heavy (also need the EF to RF adaptor).

@@360gradenpanoramafotografi7 True, but still worth thinking about the comparison

Ef 11-24 is better on wide end due to the much lower distortion. Your camera doesn't have to stretch and cut so much. This new canon is actually 9mm with fakup distortion and corners, like many other modern ultra wides. 11-24 is more balanced piece of gear.

I've used the EF 11-24 since it came out, and am trading for the 10-20 for two reasons: the huge difference in size and weight, which kept my 11-24 out of my daily carry for all these years, limiting it to specialty shoots; and, 2, I've not experienced an RF lens that was not an improvement over the EF it replaced, both in results and, like this lens, with size. the 11-24 now cheaper? very true, and whoever buys mine from the company I sold it to, will get a well maintained--much respected and loved--lens. they will also buy something twice as heavy as the 10-20 and nearly twice the dimensions. never carried the 11-24 into the backcountry--I backpack with my cameras--but the 10-20 will certainly go with me, possibly as the only lens I carry.

@@clayeewing I ended up buying the 10-20. It's been pretty sweet... the only thing that gets me is that it is indeed quite distorted at 10mm. Trivial to correct (actually, mandatory if you use Canon's software). Not a huge deal as the IQ is good corner to corner corrected. Looking at the test charts, the EF 11-24 seems to have worse CA than the RF 10-20. But it does have the benefit of less distortion (which would affect corner resolution). I can also see the 24mm being useful vs. 20mm in some scenarios. Both seem to be pretty good, but the 10mm gets me a bit wider, and that's what we all want, isn't it? It's also smaller and lighter and has (for what it's worth) IS.

Yeah, the buildings were very distracting in that shot.

I own the lens and the corner wobbling is LESS than on other ultra wides. When you move slowly it's not obvious as it is on a Sigma 12-24 which I used before. But walking handheld with a 10mm between buildings will always be questionable. When you walk in landscape, blue skies, the wobbling is simply not there.

Typically, gel filters are borderline rudimentary. Canon provides a template (not everyone does) and you cut them yourself out of high quality optical gel sheets. This alone is a good reason that some photographers may be better served with the older, larger/bulkier EF version. On that lens, you have unlimited rear filter options - including a polarizer - as a drop-in.

@@kevindiossiwhere do I find this template for this lens?

They worked really hard to get there, it’s just hard work paying off, not luck

Chris will just mount it on an APSC camera. Problem solved.

@@FinalLugiaGuardian buy him an APSC 23mm

@@TheChosenOne_ Then Chris will hack it and stick it on a micro four thirds camera. Anything to avoid the 35mm...

@@FinalLugiaGuardian it has to be a gift made with lots of love so he can’t destroy it. So maybe a nice pin hole camera which happens to have a 35mm FoV and unfortunately only accepts one paper format and explodes otherwise

Plena is half a Noct or 1kg

You may be better off with the 100-300 ...

Depending on the kind of photography you do, 10 mil can indeed be way too wide to handle. But as for 600 mil and stuff, there will be people who know what to do with it (and that's not me, for either extreme :D)

Some subjects just need this lens to capture the scene. Realestate will love this. I have been using a Samyang 10mm rectilinear for years - one of my favorite lenses.

That’s why we only crop in on the portion of the frame we’re focused on. We refocus when evaluating corner sharpness. Landscape shots sound great in principal, but make it impossible to compare lenses consistently to each other. Also, things like atmospheric haze can impact our perception of a lens’ sharpness. - Jordan

@@PetaPixel Bingo! Yes refocusing the corners is the correct answer. Normally I would say "no-one making reviews on KZfaq is going to waste that much time on a sharpness test." I'm glad to be proven wrong.

Thought about that as well. Maybe a reflection on the metal roof?

Maybe shot on a different planet?

I think that lens is a bit dated, as it is one of the first E-mount lenses they brought out. If you don't need the really super wide angles, you could perhaps better consider the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8, which is about the same price, a much newer design and optically very good.

I can try but it's heavier, too much for everyday lens?

How about Laowa 10-18mm Or Laowa 9mm F5.6 + Sony 16-35mm DR PZ but it will be 3 lens setup and I also thought to get Laowa 35mm F0.95 too after sometime if I need it

​@@NetvoTV mechanical lenses can be annoying (focal length not detected from IBIS, need to input every time), not compatible with Catalyst... I think the best video wide lens for Sony is the new PZ 16-35, also compatible with breathing compensation used on A7IV and newer bodies, can zoom remotely etc.

How about Sigma 16-28/2.8 or Tamron 17-28/2.8 then?

I have the better Sony 12-24-mm F/2.8 GM. Dont' you think Sony cant' produce a 10-20mm F/4? Stop with the "Sony mount is too small" myth already... Old and debunked.

Rubbish. 14mm is not even close to the look of 10mm. some subjects just need this lens to capture the scene. Realestate will love this. I have been using a Samyang 10mm rectilinear for years - one of my favorite lenses.

Telling people with different needs that they don't need what they think they need is kinda pretentious. I personally won't go above 14mm if I'm purchasing a wide lens but I have a ton of fun with 11. The 16-35 would actually compliment the 10-20 quite nicely but it's by no means any sort of competition, they're completely different.

Or the more standard RF f/4L wide zoom. Are there folks who need the extra 4mm? I’m sure some exist, but shots that wide look really weird, and it’s probably fewer that need it than one might guess. And the RF 14-35/4L can save more than $1000 (depending on sales). With as unusual as the 10-20 is, the 14-35 is likely a better fit for a lot of photographers. The EF can be really cheap, so for the “just for fun” crowd, the bulk and challenges of used kit might be worth the even lower price.

@@thebitterfig9903 'elitist' ? Hahaha. Ok, Im elitist then. I have had my RF 10-20mm only a few days, and have already taken a few 100 differnt shots @ 10mm. 10mm on full frame is a steep learning curve and takes time to master, just like every other lens. At 10mm, 135° fov diagonal corner to corner means composition is important. This is a must buy lens for real estate. I shoot lightning storms using the intervalometer. Wide, eg 10mm, means I can crop in to compose the lightning position in post. This lens is crazy stopped down a little, and can handle significant cropping. In deep canyons and city lanes, 10mm works great. Also, I have also this week proven that 10mm works great for group hand held selfies. My arm holding my R5 looks crazy long, and a group of 4people easily fits the frame. I also like the back ground to be dominant story when taking selfies, and 10mm can realy tell the story. 10-20mm is also a great range for shooting front yard xmas lights from a few m away, as I did last night

@@nordic5490 I said "Exist" not elitist. There are folks who need it. There are also folks who don't and could use GAS relief. The $1000-$1500 difference between this 10-20 and either a new RF 14-35 or a used EF 16-35 is a lot of money. It'd be wise for any photographer to think long and hard about what their needs are. For a wide zoom, for other parts of their kit, for travel budget, etc. There are all sorts of permutations. You say "must buy for real estate" and both me and the first poster said "just for fun." Those are very different contexts that a potential purchaser can bring. They can both be true, just for different people.

Use the RF-S 10-18mm on the R7, not this full frame lens.

If you have an RF system already, ideally with a large sensor body, then go with the R7. Otherwise I’d get a Panasonic G9II with the Olympus lens, that’s a killer combo.

​@@Bayonet1809True, it costs a tiny fraction and is much smaller.

@@Bayonet1809 this is true and it's cheap. Build quality, image quality and constant aperture is reasons why I thought of the 10-20mm. For equivalent focal range it will be 16-32mm and the OM-SYSTEM is 16-50mm but both systems have their merits.

@@Ildskalli that could be a nice 3rd option. Thanks!

use the rfs 10-18

what does that have to do with what I said? @@truthseeker6804

Well then, for you Canon has an RF 14-35mm f/4 or an RF 15-35mm f/2.8. Or, if you prefer, there is a much, much more affordable and far more compact RF 16mm f/2.8.

@@alanm.4298 15-35 is perfect

That lens would weigh 2 Nocts and a Plena and cost about that much as well.

It would be about time they release the 10-200 1.4

Same

Yeah, 100%. Canon don’t really have any excellent affordable lenses.

​@@kiwimike2330Canon really concentrate on the very ends of the spectrum. Cheap, super light, slow lenses or super expensive, fast, innovative lenses. There is no in between. That is where a 3rd party manufacturer like Sigma or Tamron could help out.

So what alternative do the other competitors offer? 10mm fullframe is a 5mm rectalinear on mft or a 7mm on apsc. Keep in mind it is not a fish eye

F4 for a wide angle is much less of an issue, than for a telephoto. You are going to have most things in focus anyway, so the main compromise is on light transmission, and modern cameras handle higher ISO's quite well.

The size is your complaint? It is way smaller than the 11-24/4.

There are no alternatives atm Some subjects just need this lens to capture the scene. Realestate will love this. I have been using a Samyang 10mm rectilinear for years - one of my favorite lenses.

Half a Noct.

@@gameshoes 🤣

Plena is a lens name: Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S. It is a heavy lens (995gr). The Canon RF 10-20mm f/4.0L IS STM = 570gr. Name of NIKKOR Z 58mm f/0.95 S= Noct (2000gr)

It's a bit of humour, creating a unit of weight of 'a Plena' a relatively heavy Nikon lens.@@gameshoes

@@gameshoesThis brings me so much joy!

That was for APS-C sensor though. Sigma had also an 8-16mm for that. This is for full frame, and it is the first one ever with autofocus.

True.@@emotionblur7214

I like distortion sometimes 🤷🏻‍♂

Monochrome = distortion. We do not see in black and white. Long shutter speed blurred water = distortion. We do not see this way It is about the art. And, some subjects just need this lens to capture the scene. Realestate will love this. I have been using a Samyang 10mm rectilinear for years - one of my favorite lenses.