New canon lens

[PhreeZone 15]

Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Canon today also announced a super-wide lens for its APS-C sensor DSLRs such as the EOS Rebel SL1, the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. The new lens is designed for enthusiasts who want a lens that will take in a super-wide angle of view for travel and everyday photography as well as for video; its widest setting is equivalent to a 16mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Unlike the older and longer-ranging Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, the 10-18mm is smaller and lighter thanks to the smaller aperture. However, while it's a slower lens, as with the 16-35mm model it more than makes up for its smaller aperture by having Image Stabilization built-in. Canon claims a 4-stop handheld advantage of the 10-18mm over its predecessor.

The new lens has 14 elements in 11 groups and a circular 7-blade aperture for pleasing Bokeh. A Stepping Motor (STM) is said to be quick and quiet. The lens measures 2.9x2.8 inches and weighs 8.5 ounces, which is 5 ounces lighter than the 10-22mm lens.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Zlew 0]

light (under 9 oz) and 300 bucks new.... could be interesting if the quality is anything close to the 10-22.

[BMFin 0]

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/874-canon_1018_4556is?start=1

The review looks good.

[Jacked 0]

I bought it and got to jump it this weekend, I normally shoot a canon 10-22 on manual focus so having a sight window for focus settings was taken for granted until now. I set it up for AF and was a little disappointed in my results.
During the week I had this lens on my carry around camera and it did a really nice job just snapping and some video.. Attached to my SL1 it is a featherweight setup and I believe I need to give it a good hard look again. I let a fellow video guy try it to see what he thinks, I'll get his opinion this weekend. Mean while back with the 10-22... It also has an external focal barrel but it only moves 3/16 of an inch or so and right at the front...

The end result is directly connected to the effort applied

[BMFin 0]

1.If you have a 10-22, why did you buy this lens?
2.What were you expecting this lens to deliver that the 10-22 couldnt do?
3.Why were you disapointed with the 10-18 ?

Also, I would recommend using AF on a lens like 10-22. Manual is going to be reasonably sharp, but not as sharp as AF. I have been shooting quite a bit on AF with 10-22, and the focus motor on that lens works excellent. No way I would use manual focus with that lens. From what I read from the review I mentioned in this thread, it seems the 10-18 also has a very good focus motor. Therefore I would assume AF is definetly the way to go.

[Jacked 0]

Well first off it was a weight issue, always trying to shed it.
Second You can use AF all you want. I happen to have sharp as a tack pictures using my set up. I was not asking for advice on setting a camera up. I was just sharing what I learned... I compare my shots every weekend with my compadres and am very happy with the end results of my setups. The weight is another issue. The older I get the lighter I want my head gear.. That's just me... The lens was 300 bucks.. The reason I bought it is I wanted it... The lens shot great video through the SL1... The Disappointment was more in the having to go back to top plate with a slightly heaver set up than first perceived when I coupled the the two featherweights together...

I cant believe you asked if I had 10 - 22 why did I buy that lens? That is funny... Maybe the same reasons I buy anything I don't really need... Because I can

The end result is directly connected to the effort applied

[gowlerk 1,910]

Ken Rockwell's review says

Not only is it the world's least expensive, it's super light weight, and is also optically superb. There is no sharper ultrawide lens for APS-C cameras, and it's much better than Canon's 10-year-old EF-S 10-22mm that costs over twice as much!

kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/10-18mm.htm

Quote

I cant believe you asked if I had 10 - 22 why did I buy that lens? That is funny... Maybe the same reasons I buy anything I don't really need... Because I can

Right on.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Jacked 0]

You know I believe that, I would very much like to host that lens in combo with the SL1... Maybe I should give it another shot.. I did give up rather quickly... I still am fond of the focus window and use it faithfully... Reviewing my photos compared with some of our guys using autofocus the most things that stands out between the two is everything in the frame on manual is in focus and not the case with the same lens in auto.. The main subject is clear as a tack but the peripherals fall out of the depth of field in some of the shots... I'll check it out some more...
The lens did very well on the ground it should do well in the air...

The end result is directly connected to the effort applied

[BMFin 0]

Jacked

Reviewing my photos compared with some of our guys using autofocus the most things that stands out between the two is everything in the frame on manual is in focus and not the case with the same lens in auto.. The main subject is clear as a tack but the peripherals fall out of the depth of field in some of the shots... I'll check it out some more...

I dont know what images you have been compairing, but I think you should google the concept of depth of field. Shooting on AF or MF has nothing to do with depth of field.

The thing is that using manual focus in theory could provide very accurate focus, IF you know the distance in beforehand. Most of the times its very hard to know the exact distance in beforehand and also most times we are shooting from different distances during the same dive. If I would want all of the photos to be in perfect focus, I would have to manually adjust the focus ring in freefall. Not possible.

The canon AF system is very good and the DOF with wide angles is very deep. Even though I like to use rather large apertures (f 5.6 usually because it is the sharpest for my particular lens) Im still getting 99% of my photos in the best possible focus. There is no way manual could do that.

[Jacked 0]

I have no issues guys! My pictures are sharp, everything in the skydive is SHARP. Sorry if your not able to achieve the same results..
Once again I'm not asking for advice.. Those of you that think I'm full of shit, say it and be done with it. Has no effect on my day or my product..
. And as far as googling DOF No need.. Last time I checked Most FF photographers shoot in Shutter priority which allows changes in DOF through aperture.. Its not the fact of the focal point but the results of changing aperture which has an effect...
All of this is mute in manual mode. You get what you input.
Not one person has even asked what my shutter speeds are set to. Which my friend does have an effect on aperture and that combined with Hyperfocal distance gives
better results in a manual focus... The fraction of the depth of field which is in front of the focal plane approaches 1/2 for the closest focus distances, and decreases all the way to zero by the time the focus distance reaches the hyperfocal distance. The "1/3 rule of thumb" is correct at just one distance in between these two, but nowhere else.
Focusing at infinity causes the nearest acceptably sharp objects to correspond with the hyperfocal distance.
Keep in mind the movement of that little line in the focus window changes from day to day and some times throughout the day due to temperature changes we as skydivers tend to encounter, The placement marker for infinity is very large in comparison the the line of focus your matching on the barrel. Half a line can make or break you depending on where you are in the window
If you want theory then theorize on the face I don't have out of focus issues instead of telling me what I'm doing has ill effects. Thats not productive and a waste of space and time...

Quote

Im still getting 99% of my photos in the best possible focus. There is no way manual could do that.

The focus ring cant be moved to a spot the autofocus moves it to? There is a way and to publicly say it's not is pretty much calling me a dumb ass or a liar in which I'm neither, but I forgive you...
One more thing, The images I've been comparing were took from my fellow video guys using the same gear in AF. I thought I was specific with that? Not sure what mode of AF but sure of what I was seeing...
You do realize I'm here to help and not to create tension among my fellow camera flyers. You all do this for the same reasons I do I hope... We are a minority. Doubting anyone of you is not what I would want to leave this thread with. I'm sure its a misunderstanding of sorts.. Peace

The end result is directly connected to the effort applied

[champu 1]

Jacked

During the week I had this lens on my carry around camera and it did a really nice job just snapping and some video.. Attached to my SL1 it is a featherweight setup and I believe I need to give it a good hard look again. I let a fellow video guy try it to see what he thinks, I'll get his opinion this weekend.

What did you think about the AF performance of the STM lens while using it for stills on the ground? From what I've read it's supposed to be quieter and smoother for improved video performance, but I take that to mean it sacrifices USM's raw speed for achieving focus on a still composition.

[Jacked 0]

Well let me apolige for the bad information on how this lkens does in the air.. Turn IS off and this lens seems to get it done. One of my videographers jumped the lens this weekend. He normally uses the canon 10 22 and I will be lucky to get it back from him. (he's bigger then me) :) He uses Auto focus in SP mode... The lens did great on the ground, I was using the IS but most likely didn't need it.
I wish I could answer your question of sacrificing speed, It did very well in the air this weekend...
I did shoot some video on the ground with it but the noise level in the shop was really high, you could have had tank treads rotating the AF and I would have not noticed it...
The lens was well worth the money.. even if you dont need one :)

The end result is directly connected to the effort applied

[gowlerk 1,910]

Auto focus speed is almost never an issue with ultra wide lenses. I doubt very much it will be on Canon's latest design.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[champu 1]

gowlerk

Auto focus speed is almost never an issue with ultra wide lenses. I doubt very much it will be on Canon's latest design.

I generally agree, with the notable exception of the Sigma 15mm f/2.8. I like that lens, and it is pretty good about AF most of the time, but if it gets lost in the weeds for any reason it takes seconds to figure out what's going on.

That lens has made me wary of non-USM AF lenses for freefall photography.

[gowlerk 1,910]

That can happen with third party lenses. Canon doesn't tell Sigma all the secrets of the software they install in the body. And even if Sigma can figure it out, when new camera models come out Canon will make sure it's backwards compatible with their stuff. But you are on your own with Sigma, or Tokina. Not that they don't make fine products, especially Tokina, but there is no guarantee it will always work with new bodies.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[william.dalban 0]

Hi PhreeZone.
I'm a newbie to photography.
What do you mean when you say that the 10-18mm is slower than the 10-22mm ?
Thanks.

[gowlerk 1,910]

I know you didn't ask me, you asked Phreezone. But to get you started, your question is very basic to photography. Go here and read about about lens speed.

http://www.photographybay.com/2010/01/02/photography-basics-lens-speed-and-aperture/

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[william.dalban 0]

Thanks a lot for the quick reply and the very helpful link.
If I understand well, the problem of this lens would be in low light conditions right ?
Has anybody had bad results inside the plane or on cloudy days ? and could share them ?
Cheers.

[Laszloimage 0]

I just saw this long back and forth debate about "manal or auto focus" regarding this 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 lens.
Here is the fact using it on Canon APS-C sized (1.6 crop) senzors
This lens at 10mm has the maximum aperture of 4.5. This means if this lens at 10mm manually focused to 4 feet (about 1.2meter) everything is going to be sharp from 1.97 feet (~0.59m) to infinity. If the aperture number is is kept above 4.5 the lens actually can be focused even closer to have the infinite sharpness.
This 10-18mm at 18mm has f5.6 as a largest aperture. This means if this lens is focused to 10.5feet (~3.15m) at f5.6 everything is going to be in focus from 5.13 feet (~1.5m) to infinity. But let say we use Av mode and maintain f8 at 18mm and we focus to 7.5 feet (~2.3m), then everything from 3.63 feet (~1.1m) to infinity will be sharp.

[BMFin 0]

Laszloimage

I just saw this long back and forth debate about "manal or auto focus" regarding this 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 lens.
Here is the fact using it on Canon APS-C sized (1.6 crop) senzors
This lens at 10mm has the maximum aperture of 4.5. This means if this lens at 10mm manually focused to 4 feet (about 1.2meter) everything is going to be sharp from 1.97 feet (~0.59m) to infinity. If the aperture number is is kept above 4.5 the lens actually can be focused even closer to have the infinite sharpness.
This 10-18mm at 18mm has f5.6 as a largest aperture. This means if this lens is focused to 10.5feet (~3.15m) at f5.6 everything is going to be in focus from 5.13 feet (~1.5m) to infinity. But let say we use Av mode and maintain f8 at 18mm and we focus to 7.5 feet (~2.3m), then everything from 3.63 feet (~1.1m) to infinity will be sharp.

It will not be sharp, but it will appear reasonably sharp. There is always a difference with something being as sharp as possible and something appearing to be reasonably sharp.

If you are satisfied with something being reasonably sharp then manual is ok.