Review: Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM

Del Paso said:

I also usually rely on TDP when selecting lenses.
Yet, his "image quality results" can be misleading. If you look at those for the EF 180 macro, without checking other sources, you won't ever buy it. Looks optically mediocre, despite being one of the sharpest Canon EF lenses.
And he is sometimes just too polite, if you know what I mean...

Click to expand...

Exactly! For example, when shooting test shots for the EF-M 18-150mm review on TDP, I found that my lens delivered results similar to the EF-M 55-200mm, but on TDP's test charts the M18-150 looked much worse. I shared comparison images with Bryan, he got another M18-150 and re-tested it, with much better performance. The issue is not really with TDP, but with the copy variation inherent in lenses. That means relying on any one test site is not a good idea, the exception being LensRentals when they do optical bench testing of several copies of a given lens.

I don't mind it at all, but I agree with the 'too polite' characterization. He pretty much always finds ways to praise lenses, compared for example to Klaus at Optical Limits who doesn't pull punches. I do stand by what I said about motivation, anyone who reviews gear and earns income from affiliate links is likely to be biased in favor of recommending the gear they're reviewing. TDP was only Canon for many years, but then expanded to include Sony and Nikon camera and lens reviews, even though AFAIK Bryan still primarily shoots Canon. Why? Revenue, of course. Bryan is like any writer or journalist with a 'style', and if you know that style and factor it into your evaluation of their viewpoint, it's not an issue.

I just finished updating my home page with a fall picture from the woods behind my house, shot from my deck, as I recall. Other trees have grown up in front of the dogwoods, so I don't see as much variety of color now, so I go back to older pictures taken with less good equipment than I have now. I just checked the Raw file of the shot I chose for my home page. It was taken in 2013 with my Rebel T3i and its kit lens at 49mm f/5.6 1/80 second ISO 160. If the trees would cooperate, I could make a sharper version now. I think fall leaves need as much sharpness and resolution as almost anything. But for a picture on a web site, it is OK. It would look better even so with a better original. While I was poking around on the .CR2 file, I juiced the colors up a bit and added a dab of Texture and Clarity. I think reality was somewhere in between. Sometimes color in real life is so intense that if you don't tone them down a bit, they don't look believable. I find that also true with very blue water. My original edit for the web:

If I had been shooting more seriously (as if I knew I would be using the picture nine years later), I would have used a tripod and a smaller lens opening. Even with the EF-S 18–55mm kit lens, I could have done better and made a sharper picture. Even with a tripod, shutter speed is limited by the motion of leaves. Compositionally, the tree trunk is too centered, I realize. I still like the picture (and the scenery behind my house) and gladly use it for the signature photo on my home page.

So, yes, a less than perfect but affordable lens could easily be worth having for a lot of uses. And I realize I wasn't using my old gear even up to its potential. Maybe I'll start blaming my gear when I start taking better pictures than Ansel Adams did with a box camera.

LSXPhotog said:

You bring up a very valid point. When I started this journey into professional photography, the only ultra-wide lenses available in the Canon EF mount were the 17-35L and 16-35L II - not even the Mark III yet. In APS-C, the EF-S 10-22mm was the only choice - the 10-18mm didn't exist yet. Those lenses - all four of them really - perform worse than this lens. Significantly worse in many ways. If you consider the price of this lens versus the original cost of the EF-S 10-22 back in 2005 or whenever it was launched you can now get a FULL-FRAME lens that's even better and cheaper?!

It's a shame that so many people focus on charts and lab testing of lenses. I currently am on a 5-day work even shooting the RF 24-240 EXTENSIVELY simply because of the zoom range...and you know what? The lens has a lot of problems that software fixes very nicely and the colors are brilliant and the sharpness is surprisingly excellent. Thousands of photos taken with a "non professional lens" and they're going to be published in a major national magazine in November and I am loving the results.

Oh well...I guess when people stop reading charts and lab testing on gear they start to actually go out and use it and realize how hilariously pointless much of it can be.

Click to expand...

Your message enlightened me!
I'm new here, so here it is a little background. I'm an amateur photographer and this is how I enjoyed my hobby in the past few years:
- Camera: Canon EOS 7D (NOT the MK II)
- Lens: Canon EF-S 10-22 mm for Landscapes and Urbex
- Lens: Canon EF 50mm for Portraits

I was happy with my 10-22.

At the end of the past year, after several years of savings , I ran into an offer (discount + cashback) and I made myself a Xmas gift!!!
- Camera: Canon EOS R6 (in bundle with)
- Lens: Canon RF 24-105mm
- Adapter: Canon EF-EOS R (the basic version)

I'm happy with the R6. I like it very much. Okay, of course, it's something completely different from the 7D
BUT!!!
The 24-105mm is nice, but I definitely missed my ultra-wide for both Landscapes and Urbex.
I really need something wide.
I tried to use the 10-22 with the adapter. No Way. I don't like the results.

Of course, the Canon RF 14-35mm L would be The Dream, but hey I'm not a PRO and I simply can't afford it now.
Unfortunately, my favorite Photo Shop closed two years ago. I was used to go there to borrow lenses for some test weekend.
Now I don't have anymore a Shop to test lenses.

About the RF 15-30 you said: "Those lenses - all four of them really - perform worse than this lens."

So, finally!!! , my question.

Since I was happy with my 10-22 on the 7D, and the RF 15-30 performs better, do you think I'll be happier with the RF 15-30 on the R6?
Do you think I don't have to think twice about it and I've to buy it today?

Thank you very much in advance for your reply and sorry for this huge message!

The 10–22 is a good lens. I used a 50mm for portraits with my Rebel. So I agree with those choices.

ashmadux said:

Bryan doesn't have rose colored glasses, he just writes more like a glass half full kind of style. I've bought ALL my canon gear by referencing his site and image quality charts since my xsi 12 years ago. He delivers practical data, thats it. And to insinuate that Bryan makes nice reviews of all gear just for clicks of his website affiliate ads is demeaning, stupid, and nonsensical. His site is a much better resource for canon users than the NOTHING these naysayers commenters have produced. And he reviews more gear than DPreview. So stop the crap. Dont care for hsi review style? Dont read them- go look at his image qulity results, and bam you have your reference.

Anyways ..

Even with an R body purchase pending, I bought a 16-35 EF instead. R mount non-L glass so far has been a giant waste of time. NONE of the non-L lenses are interesting, they are SLOW, generic options that arent exactly better than previous lenses they are replacing. The 85 f2 with the extending barrel may be the most decent of the bunch, but...its an extending barrel 85..f2. Yuck.

RF-S lenses thus far? A sick joke for r7/R10 users.

Canon is doing a great job making no middle ground in their product line, and a huge quality chasm from basic lenses to L lenses. Think I'm wrong? Cool, go buy a canon RF 50mm lens....300$ or 2200$. + It's not like 3rd party glass is available for it either...great.

Click to expand...

Damn dude… harsh just harsh… but you are pretty much saying the same damned thing I have been saying. I wouldn’t mind dropping some serious cash on middle of the road lenses. I used to own some batis lenses, some ZA lenses like the 55 f1.8 ZA once upon a time when I was on the Sony system before switching back to canon.

It isn’t even 100% about the cost right? But damn if I were to get the L 50 and 85… that is some serious weight and size to be carrying around.

While I “wait for canon” I bought a used X-T4, used f1.4 lenses cause they aren’t huge, they are quite and weather sealed. Would have preferred to spend it on canon lenses instead… bust just as you said. Yuck.

I still prefer canon handling, menus and AF system which is why I am being patient. But if I didn’t have any system at all… I would probably pick up the Z8 (currently have the R5), a few of those S Z primes and the “affordable” f2.8 trinity lenses from nikon. Eventually a long tele lens and I would have been done.

It’s anyone’s guess if it when canon will provide anything comparable.

neuroanatomist said:

For many people, the intent of landscape imagery is to post on social media, not to hang as wall-sized prints.


I'm not aware of any other OEM UWA zooms for FF under $1K, and this lens is ≥20% cheaper than the 3rd party FF UWA zoom offerings for DLSRs or MILCs.

Click to expand...

Another consideration is that most landscape photographs are shot stopped down to maximise DOF. Most lens tests concentrate on wide open performance. Even bottom tier UW's performs very well in the middle aperture values and are often competative with superior lenses in that particaulr use case scenario.
My favorite UW is the EF 16-35 IIL. It's got heavy vignetting and soft corners wide open. Stopped down and it all resoves beautifully. It suffers with strong CA and moderate barrel distortion, all of which are correctable in LR/PS. It's a versatile lens, it's issues are well known and easily corrected.
Sure there's lots of newer lenses available now, but I'm not seeing a strong reason to side grade. Between my EF 8-15L fisheye, ef 11-24L and my ef 16-35IIL, I have the wide end truely covered. However, my ef 16-35IIL is most used and most versatile.

lawny13 said:

Damn dude… harsh just harsh… but you are pretty much saying the same damned thing I have been saying. I wouldn’t mind dropping some serious cash on middle of the road lenses. I used to own some batis lenses, some ZA lenses like the 55 f1.8 ZA once upon a time when I was on the Sony system before switching back to canon.

It isn’t even 100% about the cost right? But damn if I were to get the L 50 and 85… that is some serious weight and size to be carrying around.

While I “wait for canon” I bought a used X-T4, used f1.4 lenses cause they aren’t huge, they are quite and weather sealed. Would have preferred to spend it on canon lenses instead… bust just as you said. Yuck.

I still prefer canon handling, menus and AF system which is why I am being patient. But if I didn’t have any system at all… I would probably pick up the Z8 (currently have the R5), a few of those S Z primes and the “affordable” f2.8 trinity lenses from nikon. Eventually a long tele lens and I would have been done.

It’s anyone’s guess if it when canon will provide anything comparable.

Click to expand...

It's funny you say this, because the reason I'm highly unlikely to move from Canon now is because of their RF lens selection. For me, what Canon has is very close to perfect, though it's admittedly pretty pricey.

At the wide end, I have the RF 15-35 / 2.8 L. I had the F4 for a time, which is very nice for size, but the 2.8 is just more versatile, and it's not that much heavier (though the size of the F4 is really nice)

I don't actually use the trinity RF 24-70 / 2.8 L, instead always choosing the 28-70 / 2 L. Yes, I lose lens IS, but this is a magical lens that produces magnificent photos as good as any prime. In my opinion, the versatility and excellent zoom range of the F/2, and the remarkable sharpness makes this an irreplaceable lens.

On the short telephoto side, the RF 70-200 / 2.8 L is one of my favourite lenses in any system. It's so light, so small and produces fantastic photos.

For birding, the RF 100-500 L is a great replacement for the EF 100-400 LII. The extra 100mm is really nice, and the photos it produces are fantastic.

Rather surprising for me, I almost never use a prime anymore. The problem is that the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 are amazing lenses but large enough that I might as well just use the 28-70. They're all kind of heavy-ish, but I've gotten used to the pickle jar.

The biggest problem with big aperture lenses has always been weight; specifically, carrying around a bunch of them, especially when I travel. I actually have grown fond of the Canon RF plastics that reduce this slightly. After using them for a couple years now, I don't really see any practical disadvantage compared to metal L EF lenses.

Talys said:

It's funny you say this, because the reason I'm highly unlikely to move from Canon now is because of their RF lens selection. For me, what Canon has is very close to perfect, though it's admittedly pretty pricey.

Click to expand...

I think it’s great that there are expensive/excellent lenses as well as affordable/good lenses. I understand that people want moderately expensive/very good lenses, too. Canon can’t please everyone, and given that their market share is steadily increasing (they took the #1 mirrorless rank in Japan away from Sony last year), it’s clear that Canon is pleasing the majority.

Talys said:

At the wide end, I have the RF 15-35 / 2.8 L. I had the F4 for a time, which is very nice for size, but the 2.8 is just more versatile, and it's not that much heavier (though the size of the F4 is really nice)

Click to expand...

I really like the 14-35/4. I had an EF 16-35/2.8 II but only a tiny fraction of my shots were wider than f/4, and unlike with a DSLR there’s no benefit to f/2.8 in terms of availability and accuracy of AF points with a MILC.

Talys said:

I don't actually use the trinity RF 24-70 / 2.8 L, instead always choosing the 28-70 / 2 L. Yes, I lose lens IS, but this is a magical lens that produces magnificent photos as good as any prime. In my opinion, the versatility and excellent zoom range of the F/2, and the remarkable sharpness makes this an irreplaceable lens.

On the short telephoto side, the RF 70-200 / 2.8 L is one of my favourite lenses in any system. It's so light, so small and produces fantastic photos.

Click to expand...

Agree. The 28-70/2 is the lens I leave on my R3 for general use. The RF 24-105/4 is great for travel. Having both, I see no need for the 24-70/2.8. I really like the RF 70-200/2.8, better IQ and much more portable than the EF 70-200/2.8.

Talys said:

For birding, the RF 100-500 L is a great replacement for the EF 100-400 LII. The extra 100mm is really nice, and the photos it produces are fantastic.

Click to expand...

I never used the EF 100-400 II. I had the MkI, but after getting the 600/4 II, I really didn’t use the 100-400, so I swapped it for the smaller 70-300L.

I do have the 100-500, but the adapted 600/4 II remains my primary birding lens (typically with the 1.4x TC).

The trinity of the RF 14-35/4, 24-105/4 and 100-500 is great for travel, relatively portable and all take 77mm filters. But after getting the RF 100-400, that will come on trips where I don’t expect to use a long lens much.

Talys said:

Rather surprising for me, I almost never use a prime anymore.

Click to expand...

I still have the EF 85/1.4L, but I don’t use it much and may not keep it much longer. But I do still use the 600/4 and the TS-E 17 and 24 quite a bit.

Talys said:

The biggest problem with big aperture lenses has always been weight; specifically, carrying around a bunch of them, especially when I travel.

Click to expand...

That’s my favorite thing about the RF 28-70/2, it’s like carrying a bag of L primes without the bother of changing lenses.

Talys said:

It's funny you say this, because the reason I'm highly unlikely to move from Canon now is because of their RF lens selection. For me, what Canon has is very close to perfect, though it's admittedly pretty pricey.

At the wide end, I have the RF 15-35 / 2.8 L. I had the F4 for a time, which is very nice for size, but the 2.8 is just more versatile, and it's not that much heavier (though the size of the F4 is really nice)

I don't actually use the trinity RF 24-70 / 2.8 L, instead always choosing the 28-70 / 2 L. Yes, I lose lens IS, but this is a magical lens that produces magnificent photos as good as any prime. In my opinion, the versatility and excellent zoom range of the F/2, and the remarkable sharpness makes this an irreplaceable lens.

On the short telephoto side, the RF 70-200 / 2.8 L is one of my favourite lenses in any system. It's so light, so small and produces fantastic photos.

For birding, the RF 100-500 L is a great replacement for the EF 100-400 LII. The extra 100mm is really nice, and the photos it produces are fantastic.

Rather surprising for me, I almost never use a prime anymore. The problem is that the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 are amazing lenses but large enough that I might as well just use the 28-70. They're all kind of heavy-ish, but I've gotten used to the pickle jar.

The biggest problem with big aperture lenses has always been weight; specifically, carrying around a bunch of them, especially when I travel. I actually have grown fond of the Canon RF plastics that reduce this slightly. After using them for a couple years now, I don't really see any practical disadvantage compared to metal L EF lenses.

Click to expand...

Well recently I want on a big trip... Singapore, Australia, Tokyo and then back to Europe. I ended up taking an X-T4 with the sigma 18-50 f2.8 and the XF 70-300. The whole kit weighted what the R5 + 24-105 would.

I can't imagine having gone on such a family vacation carrying the likes of the R5 + 28-70 f2 and the 70-200 f2.8 and sure as heck wouldn't have taken the RF 100-500 along.

Now I admit that in hind sight I would have probably been better to take the R5. 24-105 and bought the 70-200 f4. However, I am still a bit on th fence when it comes to the whole size and weight thing with canon. I really would prefer a combo which I can easily throw in a bag and take along with me all the time. When I used to shoot Sony that combo with the A7III + 28-75 f2.8 tamron. I am just a little annoyed that such an option is not there with canon.

For more purposeful shooting, I agree with you regarding the RF lenses. But those shooting days are more rare for me than just the casual spontaneous shooting I tend to do with a kit I can just take along. So these days a flip flop between taking the R5 with the 50 stm, or the XT4 with the 18-50 f2.8 sigma. Due to the versatility of the zoom it tends to be the latter more often than the former. If canon pushed out a lens or a few of them that would cater to what I am implying here, I would sell off the fuji and pick those up. Or if we can get the tamron smaller f2.8 zooms I would pick those up. I will still use my "better" canon glass when I have a specific target in mind (birding, portraiture, macro/product photography etc.) It is one thing I miss about the Sony system. The lens choices were just more spread and covered a wider range of how people want to use their gear.

I still have my fingers crossed that canon will step up.

lawny13 said:

Well recently I want on a big trip... Singapore, Australia, Tokyo and then back to Europe. I ended up taking an X-T4 with the sigma 18-50 f2.8 and the XF 70-300. The whole kit weighted what the R5 + 24-105 would.

Click to expand...

Your Fuji kit is ~1500 g. A good Canon alternative would be the R8, RF 24-105/4L and RF 100-400. You’d have a similar focal range (a bit wider FoV at the wide end, narrower on the long end; personally I think the wide end matters more because you can crop but sometimes you can’t back up). The Canon setup would give you FF image quality, and weigh 300 g more.

I never travel without an ultrawide zoom. Personally, if minimizing weight/size is important and I’m ok using APS-C on a trip, I bring the M6II, M11-22, M18-150 and M22/2. That setup is small and at less than 1 kg it’s 2/3 the weight of your Fuji kit.

lawny13 said:

I can't imagine having gone on such a family vacation carrying the likes of the R5 + 28-70 f2 and the 70-200 f2.8 and sure as heck wouldn't have taken the RF 100-500 along.

Click to expand...

No, why would you? We went to Italy this summer, and I didn’t bring my R3, 28-70/2 and 100-300/2.8, either.

I took an R8 and several lenses, but 90% of my shots were with the RF 14-35/4L and 24-105/4L. That kit weighs in at 1670 g, a difference from your Fuji kit of less than the weight of my iPhone.

lawny13 said:

However, I am still a bit on th fence when it comes to the whole size and weight thing with canon. I really would prefer a combo which I can easily throw in a bag and take along with me all the time. When I used to shoot Sony that combo with the A7III + 28-75 f2.8 tamron. I am just a little annoyed that such an option is not there with canon.

Click to expand...

The R8 + RF 24-70/2.8L is just 150 g more than the a7III + 28-75/2.8, and 4mm on the wide end adds a lot more versatility than 5mm on the long end, IMO.

lawny13 said:

I still have my fingers crossed that canon will step up.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you’ve just not been paying attention.

This thread contains quite a bit of criticism of Canon's "budget" primes. I have the RF 16, 24, 50 and 85, and have used a friend's 35. I didn't love the 35 but am very happy with the others. I have sold at least two dozen 3-foot wide prints with these lenses for good prices. Sure extreme corner resolution could be a tad better with the 16 and 24, but none of my clients have complained. Process with the lens profile off and the corners are better and I love the look, provided any horizon is through the middle of the frame and you're not shooting architecture. Would be nice if they were weather sealed.

"The 85 f2 with the extending barrel may be the most decent of the bunch, but...its an extending barrel 85..f2. Yuck."
Yes, the 85mm/2 is a great, sharp lens and the 1:2 "macro" is very useful.
I'm okay with the extending barrel if it keeps the lens smaller (as suggested by Neuro). There is one issue, though. A couple of times the lens barrel has extended when attached to a camera in my camera bag. I try to switch the camera off when placing it in the bag, because if the camera tries to focus, the lens extends and this doesn't sound healthy.

Frodo said:

"The 85 f2 with the extending barrel may be the most decent of the bunch, but...its an extending barrel 85..f2. Yuck."
Yes, the 85mm/2 is a great, sharp lens and the 1:2 "macro" is very useful.
I'm okay with the extending barrel if it keeps the lens smaller (as suggested by Neuro). There is one issue, though. A couple of times the lens barrel has extended when attached to a camera in my camera bag. I try to switch the camera off when placing it in the bag, because if the camera tries to focus, the lens extends and this doesn't sound healthy.

Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons I bough the matching lens hood and keep that in the extended position almost all the time.