Noo they just want you to buy 10-18. If you have 15-45 most likely you won't buy 10-18 Also with 11-22 as on ef-m you could just add up 50mm and stick with these but now you have to buy 10-18 and 18-45 or 18-150 which is not versatile at all. They had good lenses on ef-m but don't on rf-s. Remember also 32 f1.4, 22 f2 and this 18-150 was just transferred.
That is an unnecessary test,full frame lenses on apsc doesnt give you the right focal length,like 24 200 will become roughly 40mm at the wide side,so who is going to use that,and if you are thinking of using apsc lens on fullframe,then that makes uour big expensive camera literally a cheap camera,as its image quality traits like iso performance dynamic range and even megapixels drop by a very significant 2.4x
Hi Christopher. Could you do a comparison of canon 18-150 vs nikon 18-140? it's hard for me to say unequivocally watching only YT but it seems to me that the Nikon is sharper and generally has a better image. could you make such a comparison?
They will. Just watch. In a year or two, after everyone has already gotten the lousy 18-45 RF-S lens, Canon will come out with a RF-S 15-45 as an "upgrade."
Canon RF ff and crop is not a budget option for everyone unless they willing to use adapter for EF mount. In the past nikon Z no way compair of number lens vs sony but right now. If u hate adapter pls use sony then nikon, canon not on this list. Save money for crop sigma 18-35 /50-100 and adapter
Same, I picked up the R50 kit with the 18-45mm a week ago and I’m already wanting a larger range lens like the 150mm. If you’re in the states, keh and Walmart has it on sale for $415 currently.
Thanks for the comparison review Christopher. I am very disappointed with Canon. They appear to be dropping their neglected M system to replace it with the bigger more expensive R system. The 18-45mm R is worse than the already uninspiring 15-45mm M. The 18-150mm R appears to be the same lens as the 18-150mm M but it's almost twice the price here in the UK. No wonder smartphones are eating into dedicated camera sales. I've bought several Canon cameras over the years but I cannot justify paying what Canon are asking for their new "entry level" system.
Hi Christopher: I've really enjoyed your lens reviews, very helpful. I currently have a Canon t7i and for a telephoto lens, the basic 55-250 stm. As you have notice longer telephoto lens on a aps-c body is very challenging. What telephoto lens would you recommend, if any, for a canon aps-c body? Thanks.
If you meant you want a longer lens, the 70-300mm with the nano USM focusing motor is a worthy upgrade. Longer reach, sharper and focuses a little faster.
I've tested the 55-250 STM vs the 70-300 Nano USM vs the EF-S 18-135 STM vs the EF-S 18-135 Nano USM on a Canon 80D and a Canon M50. I recommend sticking with your 55-250 STM lens. It has better image quality than the two 18-135 lenses, and about the same image quality as the 70-300 lens. The only reason to get the 70-300 Nano USM lens is if you are shooting sports and need slightly faster autofocus.
@@timwhoknowsthings1408 Thanks, on average I am pleased with the 55-250, however at zoomed in to 250 at far objects (deer, etc) it seems a little soft. Although I now understand that in summer it could be to heat waves. Do you have any experience with longer lenses on your 80D?
@@wcrofford Most telezoom lenses are slightly softer at the longer end. Vibrations also have a stronger effect; consider increasing your shutter speed to reduce motion blur.
The 18-150 sounds really like a nice universal lens if you only own R7 or R10. I tried it to like it.... but the 18mm are by far not wide enough where i just have to use my 16-35 2.8 on full frame and 150mm are even on APS-C not really anything i would call "reach". Especially since i am often around with the Sigma 150-600 the 18-150mm sounded pretty much perfect for close ups/macro. Sadly.... for macro its also not really that great (even my small 50mm 2.8 macro outperforms it, let alone the full frame 100mm 2.8 macro) If i would not have a full frame camera with proper lenses too beside the R7, i definately would love the RF-S 18-150 as always-on lens, but as nice it is for its weight, as soon you had better performing lenses (which is not hard or expensive at all) or just "usable" fullframe gear, its really not that interesting, especially considering that smartphones are already pretty much as good as a camera with a universal/superzoom.
R7 and the kit especially at 150mm destroys a phone imo, that's just silly. It's good enough for me for close ups but I guess it depends what you're shooting, I like the good IBIS+OIS and blazing fast AF it gets from being native, plus a 150 6.3 for close ups is useful in the field for that working distance and DOF. For me it's just when I'm out shooting with the same 150-600 or the RF100-400, often I only bring a tiny sling bag with this thing in it. Thinking of adding a wide angle like EF10-18 in the mix but I think the next RF-S lens will be a wide angle, so I'm just waiting on that. Does the job, I ain't gonna sell the pics or anything. Wouldn't want a backpack full of lenses. Just something to shoot bugs and a few landscapes. Of course a dedicated fast macro will beat it. Phone will often do, I do still take the phone for quick snaps for simplicity, but anyone will half decent editing skills can beat a smartphone with this kit lens. I have better lenses, I just don't wanna bring em with me all the time. Also want to mention, idk what EF lenses you have but that kit lens AFs and has better IS better than most if not all of my adapted EF lenses. Bunch of things suck about the RF-S mount now but this ain't it, we just need better native options for people like you who want a little bit more that's all. Yeah for optics on a budget EF lenses are killer, I got a whole bunch of em', no way I'm paying for RF L glass. Once we get third party lenses to RF though imma be replacing a lot of my EF lenses that's for sure though. Hope you're aware that most people with an R7-10 don't also have a FF body.
@@cooloox you cant call a regular 150mm lens not zoom at all… Ok its a zoom lens so its got much zoom, but not much reach Look at the galaxy S22 Ultra, its „supertele“ is impressive for its size, imagine a thicker smartphone which is more dedicated to camera than a phone and it gets a lot better
@@simonthibodeau7082 i am using also a EF 28-135mm Ofc it has less reach than the 18-150, but in overall i get on EOS RP: - more wide angle - sharper image in the corners - bigger aperture/ more bokeh - also good working ibis+ois What the 28-135 really suffers is usable autofocus for video (image is wobbling when AF motor is used which is cancerous for any video situation where i would love autofocus) Since the ef 28-135 is barely bigger or heavier (just a bit bigger with adapter and front heavy) its as good usable for me as the RF-S 18-150 with a few advantages (when i dont need video autofocus!) I got the R7 with selling the 18-150 cheaper so its a win win for me and the buyer
@@simonthibodeau7082 just the fact im using a EF RF Filter Adapter (Meike…) i prefer EF over RF a lot Its just the small primes i really love using native on EOS RP (super small and light and FULL FRAME!)
Any chance there you intend to do a comparison of the Rfs 18-150 with the full frame popular zooms on the r7? In particular, i am interested in whether the 24-105 (both L and non-L) provide a significant, or any, image quality advantage on the aspc r7. Obviously the range is lesser, but depending on image quality gains it may be a worthwhile tradeoff.
Chris, would you test the 18-45 with the R10? It does not look like it was designed with a 32MP in mind, wonder if in the 24MP sensor the results would be better…
it literally makes zero difference… unless you’re one of those pixel peepers who spend their time taking pictures of test charts instead of anything meaningful
I see the word insulting being used pretty often when referencing the build quality. That's what it really is, insulting. Canon separates its buyers into 2 categories: the ones who can afford their more expensive (sometimes extravagant) products which offer great quality and the ones who should be left to deal with all their meh products at a still rather unreasonable price. It's like they don't care about customers searching for more bidget friendly options and try to find ways to cripples their products to punish them for not being able to afford 2000$ lenses. I think they will need to learn the hard way that they cannot afford to try and place themselves in the market as a privileged brand. Assuming that they do make the best lenses and bodies (most of the time they don't), most users will still prefer to go with sony or nikkon which are open to third party lenses which have great optics and performance while offering solid build quality. Even the first party options from nikkon and sony make more sense.
I`ve commented on previous review about how really bad are these compared to kits from Fuji, Sony, and Nikon Z. This is to those who haven´t tried this lenses. On R7 EVF you are unable to see if you are focusing even making zoom in due to the extreme low quality jelly glass of both lenses. I couldn´t believe it and this happens with 40+ years old lenses, at least with character. And once again, when I compared this 2 with the Nikon Z 18-140mm, the result in favor of Z is day and night.
I don't like wearing my tin foil hat, but I'm beginning to wonder if Canon did this on purpose because they know a lot of people might go for the R7 and R10 for size reasons and look at getting the 18-45 by default, and they still want to spit in the face of anyone not buying an L lens.
@@zegzbrutal Yes, body-only will definitely change the fact that people may want to go with compact lenses and look at the 18-45 because of that and Canon made the 18-45 markedly worse than the 18-150.
Chris I don’t know if you get this comment much, but I would LOOOOOVE to see you put smart phones through your usual tests. The iPhone 13 pro was a turning point for me where my phone stopped being a novelty that I only used for fun, and became an actual part of my work flow, replacing a second body and my RF 24-70... I know exactly how the “real camera” still beats the iPhone but for my own work the difference is negligible enough not to hinder- however I think it would be brilliant to see recent phones stacked up to DSLR/Mirrorless in your amazing testing format.
The problem is that if you're not shooting in RAW on your phone (which almost no one does), it's almost entirely up to just pure resolution and then whatever processing the phone maker wants to program in to make up for the sensor and lens size. And even without a side-by-side, you can usually tell that something is shot with a phone just by looking for the typical oversharpening artifacts around edges and oversaturation in the sky.
Perhaps one day we will have sites, this could be in the relatively near future, where basically new phone cameras are reviewed. Woud be pretty sterile, imagine they could have add on lens, etc, however, tbh, simply don't believe such devices would be of mainstream appeal. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of phone purchasers just want a conviently sized device . Just develop more sophisticated AI to increase the in photo capabilities. The latest Google Pixel and Apple high end phones demonstrate the ability of ever increasing AI.
I predict that in a year or two, after everyone has already gotten the lousy 18-45 RF-S lens, Canon will come out with a RF-S 15-45 as an "upgrade" so that Canon can sell everyone another kit lens. They already did the same thing with the M kit lenses, first coming with a 18mm wide lens and then later coming out with the 15mm wide lens.
Wow, that has got to be the worst kit lens on any modern camera. The EOS M series had a much better kit lens.. All they had to do was copy a design that they are already producing, it would even share a bunch of the same parts. No excuse for this mediocrity.
@@Artem-pe3sb Plastic barrel is a matter of feeling cheap, plastic mount is a matter of potentially having a useless lens due to a drop/accident. It's just bad design.
@@nSpiraliArchitectb These lenses are so light and small that drop that would damage the plastic mount like that would probably have damaged the lens in other ways if it had a metal mount. You'll have a more expensive metal mount while still having a broken lens.
Yes, but it’s all about the cost. If they make it a metal lens it will bump the price up considerably. Remember, metal lenses require different components as well so it’s not just about plastic v metal.
This is the reason why I chose R10 with 18-150mm, instead of 18-45mm. That price gap is soooo worth it!
Good comparison. I'd also like to see how they compare to the EF kit lenses.
Surprised Canon launched the 18-45 and not the 15-45. Glad I opted to dip my toes with the 18-150, it’s not bad at all
Just watch. In a year or two, after everyone has already gotten the lousy 18-45 RF-S lens, Canon will come out with a RF-S 15-45 as an "upgrade."
Noo they just want you to buy 10-18.
If you have 15-45 most likely you won't buy 10-18
Also with 11-22 as on ef-m you could just add up 50mm and stick with these but now you have to buy 10-18 and 18-45 or 18-150 which is not versatile at all.
They had good lenses on ef-m but don't on rf-s.
Remember also 32 f1.4, 22 f2 and this 18-150 was just transferred.
hi Chris, maybe you can also test the current RF lenses on the R7 if they can really resolve such demanding sensor.
Hey Christopher! Could you try your baby the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 with the R7? I wonder if it has any compatibility issues 🤔
Yes, I'm working on that video right now. No compatibility issues so far
@@christopherfrost brilliant! I wonder how that lens manages the higher resolution of the R7. I'll be waiting for that video :)
Would like to see such a comparison for Sony fullframe kit lenses, 28-70 vs the new 28-60!
I have both and love them both on my r10, the 18-150 well, I love it the most!
Thanks for the review.
The EF-M small kit version is 15-45mm and it is still tiny, while RF-S version is 18-45mm... Why so dumb, Canon?
In a year or two, after everyone has already gotten the lousy 18-45 RF-S lens, Canon will come out with a RF-S 15-45 as an "upgrade."
Thanks for this test. Next should be the super zoom test between RF full frame against APS-C. RF 18-150mm vs RF 24-240mm. Use R5, R6 and R7 bodies. 😊
That is an unnecessary test,full frame lenses on apsc doesnt give you the right focal length,like 24 200 will become roughly 40mm at the wide side,so who is going to use that,and if you are thinking of using apsc lens on fullframe,then that makes uour big expensive camera literally a cheap camera,as its image quality traits like iso performance dynamic range and even megapixels drop by a very significant 2.4x
@@-_--le3zk Of course FF lens 24-240mm on FF bodies (R5 and R6) and APS-C lens 18-150mm on R7. They have roughly the same field of view.
Thanks for the review. Short and sweet and to the point. Can you review their RF15-35mm zoom?
There is a reason the 18-45 is only £100 !! No surprise to me! I won’t be investing in this system. Nice comparison though!
can I use these lens with Canon M200?
The thing is, what is a better alternative to the 18-150mm, I don't know of one at a reasonable price
Hi Christopher. Could you do a comparison of canon 18-150 vs nikon 18-140? it's hard for me to say unequivocally watching only YT but it seems to me that the Nikon is sharper and generally has a better image. could you make such a comparison?
Pretty disappointing they weren't able to use the 15-45mm EF-M design on the RF-S body
They will. Just watch. In a year or two, after everyone has already gotten the lousy 18-45 RF-S lens, Canon will come out with a RF-S 15-45 as an "upgrade."
Nice video...Good comparison
This is very helpful and informative! Thank you so much!
Canon RF ff and crop is not a budget option for everyone unless they willing to use adapter for EF mount. In the past nikon Z no way compair of number lens vs sony but right now. If u hate adapter pls use sony then nikon, canon not on this list. Save money for crop sigma 18-35 /50-100 and adapter
Good review but I was left waiting for the comparison with the lens corrections turned off.
Chris, that was the most intellectual way I've ever seen to insult the poor quality of that 18-45mm lens...and I loved every second of it. 🤣💯🔥🔥🔥
Although I don't need either of which, it's good to know, that even 60€ is so so price for used 18-45mm.
Nice comparison, I'm strongly considering now to buy that 18-150mm lens... great value for hobbyist photographer I suppose...
Same, I picked up the R50 kit with the 18-45mm a week ago and I’m already wanting a larger range lens like the 150mm. If you’re in the states, keh and Walmart has it on sale for $415 currently.
@@Live2DyeI bought it (in EU), great lens. Now I'm thinking if it's possible to sell that new kit lens I won't ever use again - 18-45.. 😀
Спасибо.Помогли определиться с выбором.
Thanks for the comparison review Christopher. I am very disappointed with Canon. They appear to be dropping their neglected M system to replace it with the bigger more expensive R system. The 18-45mm R is worse than the already uninspiring 15-45mm M. The 18-150mm R appears to be the same lens as the 18-150mm M but it's almost twice the price here in the UK. No wonder smartphones are eating into dedicated camera sales. I've bought several Canon cameras over the years but I cannot justify paying what Canon are asking for their new "entry level" system.
Any chance of a comparison video of the RF 18-45 v EFM 15-45. R7 and M6ii are similar sensor wise, so seems fair.
They won’t work on the RED Komodo aps-c RF mount camera?
apakah bisa di pasang di kamera full frame eos rp?
Hi Christopher: I've really enjoyed your lens reviews, very helpful. I currently have a Canon t7i and for a telephoto lens, the basic 55-250 stm. As you have notice longer telephoto lens on a aps-c body is very challenging. What telephoto lens would you recommend, if any, for a canon aps-c body? Thanks.
If 55-250 is too long for you then for your digital SLR the 18-135mm STM could be a solution
If you meant you want a longer lens, the 70-300mm with the nano USM focusing motor is a worthy upgrade. Longer reach, sharper and focuses a little faster.
I've tested the 55-250 STM vs the 70-300 Nano USM vs the EF-S 18-135 STM vs the EF-S 18-135 Nano USM on a Canon 80D and a Canon M50. I recommend sticking with your 55-250 STM lens. It has better image quality than the two 18-135 lenses, and about the same image quality as the 70-300 lens. The only reason to get the 70-300 Nano USM lens is if you are shooting sports and need slightly faster autofocus.
@@timwhoknowsthings1408 Thanks, on average I am pleased with the 55-250, however at zoomed in to 250 at far objects (deer, etc) it seems a little soft. Although I now understand that in summer it could be to heat waves. Do you have any experience with longer lenses on your 80D?
@@wcrofford Most telezoom lenses are slightly softer at the longer end. Vibrations also have a stronger effect; consider increasing your shutter speed to reduce motion blur.
what's your recommadation, r7 or r8?
This review is really good
"tchal, for now".. hahahahha thanks Chris! Brazil say ! we love you!
this lens on r10 o r7 (apc camera) give you real 18mm ? or because sensor..................... is 29mm?
Really helpful; thank you.
The 18-150 sounds really like a nice universal lens if you only own R7 or R10.
I tried it to like it.... but the 18mm are by far not wide enough where i just have to use my 16-35 2.8 on full frame and 150mm are even on APS-C not really anything i would call "reach".
Especially since i am often around with the Sigma 150-600 the 18-150mm sounded pretty much perfect for close ups/macro.
Sadly.... for macro its also not really that great (even my small 50mm 2.8 macro outperforms it, let alone the full frame 100mm 2.8 macro)
If i would not have a full frame camera with proper lenses too beside the R7, i definately would love the RF-S 18-150 as always-on lens, but as nice it is for its weight, as soon you had better performing lenses (which is not hard or expensive at all) or just "usable" fullframe gear, its really not that interesting, especially considering that smartphones are already pretty much as good as a camera with a universal/superzoom.
I disagree with your last sentence. Mobile phones are garbage at zooming, when you look at phones with a 'decent' focal length.
R7 and the kit especially at 150mm destroys a phone imo, that's just silly. It's good enough for me for close ups but I guess it depends what you're shooting, I like the good IBIS+OIS and blazing fast AF it gets from being native, plus a 150 6.3 for close ups is useful in the field for that working distance and DOF. For me it's just when I'm out shooting with the same 150-600 or the RF100-400, often I only bring a tiny sling bag with this thing in it. Thinking of adding a wide angle like EF10-18 in the mix but I think the next RF-S lens will be a wide angle, so I'm just waiting on that. Does the job, I ain't gonna sell the pics or anything. Wouldn't want a backpack full of lenses. Just something to shoot bugs and a few landscapes. Of course a dedicated fast macro will beat it. Phone will often do, I do still take the phone for quick snaps for simplicity, but anyone will half decent editing skills can beat a smartphone with this kit lens.
I have better lenses, I just don't wanna bring em with me all the time. Also want to mention, idk what EF lenses you have but that kit lens AFs and has better IS better than most if not all of my adapted EF lenses. Bunch of things suck about the RF-S mount now but this ain't it, we just need better native options for people like you who want a little bit more that's all.
Yeah for optics on a budget EF lenses are killer, I got a whole bunch of em', no way I'm paying for RF L glass. Once we get third party lenses to RF though imma be replacing a lot of my EF lenses that's for sure though.
Hope you're aware that most people with an R7-10 don't also have a FF body.
@@cooloox you cant call a regular 150mm lens not zoom at all…
Ok its a zoom lens so its got much zoom, but not much reach
Look at the galaxy S22 Ultra, its „supertele“ is impressive for its size, imagine a thicker smartphone which is more dedicated to camera than a phone and it gets a lot better
@@simonthibodeau7082 i am using also a EF 28-135mm
Ofc it has less reach than the 18-150, but in overall i get on EOS RP:
- more wide angle
- sharper image in the corners
- bigger aperture/ more bokeh
- also good working ibis+ois
What the 28-135 really suffers is usable autofocus for video (image is wobbling when AF motor is used which is cancerous for any video situation where i would love autofocus)
Since the ef 28-135 is barely bigger or heavier (just a bit bigger with adapter and front heavy) its as good usable for me as the RF-S 18-150 with a few advantages (when i dont need video autofocus!)
I got the R7 with selling the 18-150 cheaper so its a win win for me and the buyer
@@simonthibodeau7082 just the fact im using a EF RF Filter Adapter (Meike…) i prefer EF over RF a lot
Its just the small primes i really love using native on EOS RP (super small and light and FULL FRAME!)
First. I have the R7 so looking forward to this
Just get the 35mm already!
Any chance there you intend to do a comparison of the Rfs 18-150 with the full frame popular zooms on the r7? In particular, i am interested in whether the 24-105 (both L and non-L) provide a significant, or any, image quality advantage on the aspc r7. Obviously the range is lesser, but depending on image quality gains it may be a worthwhile tradeoff.
Chris, would you test the 18-45 with the R10? It does not look like it was designed with a 32MP in mind, wonder if in the 24MP sensor the results would be better…
it literally makes zero difference… unless you’re one of those pixel peepers who spend their time taking pictures of test charts instead of anything meaningful
It's unlikely, since he doesn't own a R10.
I see the word insulting being used pretty often when referencing the build quality. That's what it really is, insulting. Canon separates its buyers into 2 categories: the ones who can afford their more expensive (sometimes extravagant) products which offer great quality and the ones who should be left to deal with all their meh products at a still rather unreasonable price. It's like they don't care about customers searching for more bidget friendly options and try to find ways to cripples their products to punish them for not being able to afford 2000$ lenses. I think they will need to learn the hard way that they cannot afford to try and place themselves in the market as a privileged brand. Assuming that they do make the best lenses and bodies (most of the time they don't), most users will still prefer to go with sony or nikkon which are open to third party lenses which have great optics and performance while offering solid build quality. Even the first party options from nikkon and sony make more sense.
I`ve commented on previous review about how really bad are these compared to kits from Fuji, Sony, and Nikon Z. This is to those who haven´t tried this lenses. On R7 EVF you are unable to see if you are focusing even making zoom in due to the extreme low quality jelly glass of both lenses. I couldn´t believe it and this happens with 40+ years old lenses, at least with character. And once again, when I compared this 2 with the Nikon Z 18-140mm, the result in favor of Z is day and night.
I don't like wearing my tin foil hat, but I'm beginning to wonder if Canon did this on purpose because they know a lot of people might go for the R7 and R10 for size reasons and look at getting the 18-45 by default, and they still want to spit in the face of anyone not buying an L lens.
No... You can always go for body only.
@@zegzbrutal Yes, body-only will definitely change the fact that people may want to go with compact lenses and look at the 18-45 because of that and Canon made the 18-45 markedly worse than the 18-150.
Not bad
Chris I don’t know if you get this comment much, but I would LOOOOOVE to see you put smart phones through your usual tests. The iPhone 13 pro was a turning point for me where my phone stopped being a novelty that I only used for fun, and became an actual part of my work flow, replacing a second body and my RF 24-70... I know exactly how the “real camera” still beats the iPhone but for my own work the difference is negligible enough not to hinder- however I think it would be brilliant to see recent phones stacked up to DSLR/Mirrorless in your amazing testing format.
The problem is that if you're not shooting in RAW on your phone (which almost no one does), it's almost entirely up to just pure resolution and then whatever processing the phone maker wants to program in to make up for the sensor and lens size. And even without a side-by-side, you can usually tell that something is shot with a phone just by looking for the typical oversharpening artifacts around edges and oversaturation in the sky.
There are so many camera lenses out there to review, though! 🙂
Perhaps one day we will have sites, this could be in the relatively near future, where basically new phone cameras are reviewed. Woud be pretty sterile, imagine they could have add on lens, etc, however, tbh, simply don't believe such devices would be of mainstream appeal.
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of phone purchasers just want a conviently sized device .
Just develop more sophisticated AI to increase the in photo capabilities.
The latest Google Pixel and Apple high end phones demonstrate the ability of ever increasing AI.
@@christopherfrost No one does it quite like you though 😃
One is bad, the other is worse. I'm upset with Canon
I predict that in a year or two, after everyone has already gotten the lousy 18-45 RF-S lens, Canon will come out with a RF-S 15-45 as an "upgrade" so that Canon can sell everyone another kit lens. They already did the same thing with the M kit lenses, first coming with a 18mm wide lens and then later coming out with the 15mm wide lens.
Wow, that has got to be the worst kit lens on any modern camera. The EOS M series had a much better kit lens.. All they had to do was copy a design that they are already producing, it would even share a bunch of the same parts. No excuse for this mediocrity.
Built quality is pretty insulting. I wonder who wants to buy plastic mount lenses at all. Poor value compared to the M series . A missed opportunity.
What's wrong with plastic? Majority of APS-C lenses with metal mounts still have plastic barrels and nobody complaints.
@@Artem-pe3sb Plastic barrel is a matter of feeling cheap, plastic mount is a matter of potentially having a useless lens due to a drop/accident. It's just bad design.
@@Artem-pe3sb A small crack on the plastic mount then your lens will be useless.
@@nSpiraliArchitectb These lenses are so light and small that drop that would damage the plastic mount like that would probably have damaged the lens in other ways if it had a metal mount.
You'll have a more expensive metal mount while still having a broken lens.
Yes, but it’s all about the cost. If they make it a metal lens it will bump the price up considerably. Remember, metal lenses require different components as well so it’s not just about plastic v metal.
I really don't know anyone will care about Canon Cameras anymore
I do
First
..almost
WOW they really are crap aren't they!