Wow, we have both a fish-eye lens and an ultrawide lens just by turning off the auto-correction! Thank you, Canon. You make such a multi-purpose lens that no one wants to make!
Yea, I just realise I should just correct the picture of my Tokina 10-17mm fisheye in post production. Such a lovely light lens. What could possibly go wrong.....
The fact that canons non L lenses are getting so incredibly dark, but mostly te fact that they don't allow third party manufacturers to make lenses for the RF mount, lead me to the decision to switch to a different system. I am SO mad at canon for these moves. They do that apple stuff "oh we are super premium and special and untoucheable!" Hyped to see manufacturers like Panasonic and Nikon get more users tho.
@@efreutel I don't really want to have iso 6400 in a slightly low light setting... F4.5 isn't a big deal but given best quality is likely up at F5.0-5.5 that's getting pretty dark in a typical indoor setting. ISO is going to be a couple of thousand which can be grainy. I wish they had a prime lens less than 16mm, i'd buy it for sure.
This lens is not for indoors. Its for travel, street, average day wide shots. You use 6+ aperture in those situations at least. Understand the target audience. Target audience wants a small-light lens as extra in the bag, for those travel cases. Use or carry your bigger lenses, only if you know you are going to face lower light situations or want bokeh shots.
WOW that is crazy corrected. 🤣 I miss the sound effect you used to use for crazy lens corrections. It was like a BaH-ling'P or something like that. This lens sure deserves that sound.
To be honest Canon are not exactly tempting me to upgrade from my DSLR. At least my EF-S lenses, including my 10-18 stm lens are reasonably well corrected.
I highly recommend you to give it a try! E.g. R50 is 375g only, the RF 10-18mm is just 150g. So only 525g combine, you can get stabilized 16-28.8mm full frame equivalent camera with great autofocus. CRAZY!
Fair review. I own it, as my R7 kit is my "grab and go" kit versus the larger lenses I own for my ff pictures. I'm going to give it an "okay" rating. It replaced the EF-M 11-22mm I had with that kit. That lens had a better build quality, including a metal mount, and I felt better about stowing it in my hiking pack. It was also a bit faster. So, I guess this will do for now, but I hope that Canon will get a bit more serious about the RF-S line-up.
For me the EF-M 11-22mm was a great travel lens, ideal for architecture, cityscapes or landscapes. But I need to say I like this 10-18mm a bit more thanks to the absence of that extension lock switch (I hope I named it correctly). Now you just need to turn the zoom ring to "unpack" / "pack" the lens.
@@Dustyphoto915 A great deal when a wider view is required on the APS-C sensor. I wish we could share pics on RUclips. Just this morning that included shots of hook and ladder firetrucks suspending the US flag over the funeral procession for a fallen Washington State Patrol trooper.
@@Dustyphoto915 For those type of shots, I would be reaching for my EF 16-25mm f/4 on my R. The R7 can be noisy with higher apertures, so longer exposures would be required to address that, or noise clean-up in post (Which I have really good success at given the RAW files.
Hmm, that distortion correction is really pulling down the corner sharpness on this lens. The Sigma 10-18/2.8 does much better in this respect, if only it was available on RF mount.
the sigma doest have stabilization, its heavier, and cost almost twice as much. i dont think anyone who just bought an r50 is willing to spend the camera money on a vlogging lens.
@@Bayonet1809 maybe. i would have to see them side by side. the stabilization might be a huge deal breaker, for a vlogger. although r7 has ibis, but not sure its enough. but this is still a good entry lens for the price and weight. for a vlogger.
@@Eikenhorstnot as wild as sigma recently releasing fish eye lens hahaha no one canon doesnt want any 3rd party getting involved... what third party can do, canon can do itu many times better
@@mbismbismb @@mbismbismb Poor canon fanboy. I think you got your brain from your mother. Sigma has 14mm rectilinear wide lens while the latest 15mm is fisheye. Where's the canon equivalent????? vovo.
@@mbismbismb "what third party can do, canon can do itu many times better" I have no doubt. Also many times more expensive :( Canon is making two types of lenses: very cheap, very light, but very small aperture lenses, like this 10-18mm. And then they have their L line, which are great, very heavy but this is compensated by how light your wallet is after buying it.
My 11-16mm broke (I had it 8+ years) and I replaced it with the 14-20mm f2 - it's awesome an awesome lens and I don't rmiss the wider view when I use it. I do however also own a Canon EF-S 10-18mm.
Sigma 56mm F1.4 Viltrox 27mm F1.2 Viltrox 75mm F1.2 are fantastic lens for aps-c, unfortunately they still don't allow third party native option. They deserve to be the next Kodak. How I wish.. I'm switching to other system very soon. I regret that I invested so much to Canon system.
I only buy photo material if I have seen a review from you first. I also once didn't buy a 24-105 lens from Canon because you thought the version 2 was no better than the version 1. Great reviews!
Wow, I've never seen that much image correction before. Looks like the corners really suffered for it. Where was the horror movie "fright" sound when you switched to the uncorrected view? Definitely called for here. Aps-c lenses will be fairly small and light anyway; why struggle to get it down to 150g (vs 180g or 200g) when their full frame lenses are mostly monsters? They should have had a few extra grams and done less correction, and maybe focus on lightening their full frame lenses instead.
Wow! I'm really impressed with that lens! It isn't very bright but the image quality is way better than I expected. Really, the purpose of this lens is to have vloggers pointing the lens at their own face at arm's length. And in that it seems to have far exceeded expectations!
Thank you again so much for this unbiased review, Chris! Great stuff as always, precise, to the point, short and honest. As you pointed out earlier, I too was looking forward to this lens, being an R7 owner. And I'm happy I now also am a R8 owner, so I won't bother with it 🙂. To the others on this forum: the R8 costs no more than a good piece of Canon glass, it has no real competition yet, it is a fantastic camera. Pro power in your pocket without emptying them. And you can then fully use the full frame glass like the RF 28 f/2.8 or the 35mm f/1.8, which are better lens options than this overpriced dark lens. Corner sharpness is important for such wide angle lenses...disappointing. I don't see the point of putting this RF-S lens on the market for the R7 except for vloggers only. Chris, did you have AF issues with the R7 using this dark thing in anything less than good daylight? I have trouble making AF work on my R7 in low light if aperture is any higher than f/4. With the 100-400 f/5.6-8 my R7 misses focus all the time. The R8 nails focus every single time. So if I would need this RF-S 10-18, I'd fit it on the R8, not the R7! I get better performance - more keepers - out of my RF-S 18-150 f/3.5-6.3 when I put it on the R8... no joke! The f/3.5 on the wide side works well on the R7, but the 6.3 on the tele end is too dark for the AF to work reliably. So my expectation is that the f/4.5 of the 10-18 will be too dark for the R7 when you take indoor shots. Maybe it works better on the R10 or R50?
The AF worked a little better in normal light but seemed fine in lower light. It depends on how much contrast there is in the subject you're shooting for the AF mode to latch on to
There's only four, slow cheaply built lenses for RF-s, what is Canon thinking... Where's the equivalent to the Sony 16-55/2.8, the 11/1.8, the 15/1.4, etc...
Canon thinks you're stupid and should move to FF. I don't think you are, same as me, I stuck to APS-C because I was happy with the 40D. But the good lens choice is all FF on RF. So I gave up and bought an R8. Much better. Except for wildlife. I was waiting for Canon to come out with an ultrasharp bright RF-S L. And would have bought it even if it costed 1000€. Well, I spent that money on an R8 instead and now all the lenses I do have perform much better. 's another angle and I'm so happy I did. Now I'm not frustrated with the dark RF-S lenses any more, I no longer care. If I had known before, I would have left Canon for Sony.
@@ChargedPulsar That is because of the lenses I own. If you want to do wildlife with a 24MPix FF camera you will want a Full Frame 800mm lens or better. I do not have these, too expensive. My tele is the RF 100-400. On the R7 that has a 640mm field of view on a 32.5 MPix sensor. When you put the 100-400 on the R8 there are not enough pixels to crop a small bird at 25 meters. With R7 and 100-400 that works a lot better, much more detail. So it has more to do with lenses than the body. For wildlife, the 200-800 would be really good on the R8. With large enough subjects at the right distance so the subject can fill a quarter of the frame, the R8 pix would probably be superior to what one could do with the R7, because the R8's sensor is more light sensitive, would nail focus a lot better and has much better dynamic range. Wildlife pros use the R5 for its 45 Mpix, more cropping possible, and really expensive lenses. If you put these monsters on an R1 that is "only" 24 Mpix, the pictures are breathtaking because of the sensor's characteristics, which are really really good with industry leading autofocus capability (the quad pixel phase detect).
@@PhilippeDHooghe Thanks a lot for the detailed answer! I'm coming from Sony crop cameras and I'm really happy with my Canon R8, also have the 800mm f11 and 2x extender etc. Some other lenses as well. However, changing lenses is not always practical which is something I accept. However, I was eyeing a B-cam and was thinking, perhaps Canon R7 could help me there. I was thinking to offload long reach lenses to Canon R7 and handle the rest with Canon R8. And perhaps even use R7 for the longest setup which is 800mm F11 with 2x extender. But as you said, that superlong setup is already dark, R7 would struggle to provide what R8 could, most of the time, except the brightest of daylight scenarios. But that was all speculation for me, since I don't have R7. And buying another R8 as B-Cam is also an option, or Buying R5 Mk2 as main and making my R8 as B-cam. Just thinking around as taking pictures is fun.
I bought R8 out of frustration with R7. Just so you know. Sony is excellent for wildlife. My brother in law makes awesome pictures I can only dream of. He uses Sony with G lenses. Very expensive. The old R5 is lower price now. And as Duade Paton has shown, the old 45 Mpix sensor is even better with dynamic range, a bit of an enigma to me, but the old R5 is probably a bargain. The Mark II outperforms it with useful pre-capture, though.
Finally! Looks like a solid lens for the price and weight! I’m thinking of grabbing one for my R7 and the 28mm pancake lens for an ultralight hiking combo!
The 28 is really good on the R7. Highly recommended. I wouldn't bother with the 10-18 for hiking. The 18-150 would be a better fit and also a better lens in my opinion. This 10-18 is sharp in the middle and messed up in the corners, I believe this is for vloggers only. Doing architecture with this thing wouldn't get you any high fives...
@@PhilippeDHooghe I was thinking the 10-18mm range would be good for some hiking/travel videos. Nothing professional just some short video clips with music and voice over. I don’t think corner sharpness is that important for video, but that aperture is a little rough haha
Im shocked cannon comes out with that. Us Sony users been enjoying E 10-18 F/4 & PZ 10-20 F/4 & various 3rd party similar lenses from Sigma and Tamron at F/2.8. I can see why so many Connon users be frustrated
all the sony lenses are about twice as expensive and are heavier. and the third party lenses dont have stabilization. definitely wont buy them for vlogging.
@truthseeker6804 Gotta do your homework buddy, some of the Sony & Tamron lens has built in oss and the sigma lens are lighter. Both the Sigma and Tamron lens are always cheaper than the Sony ones and still sharp as hell lol Do your homework before you comment fanboy, your all wrong about this one lmao
@@HagaishiSama read my comment again. we are talking about ultra wide angle lenses only. the sony lenses are more expensive. the third party lenses dont have stabilization. provide me a tamron ultra wide with stabilization?
@truthseeker6804 Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 stabilized and is weather sealed 17mm is you ultra wide focal length. Stop being lazy and do the homework. The lens is not tiny but it's ultra wide stabilized weather sealed and it's just as optically sharp as Sony e16 to 55 F 2.8 and half the price. Do the homework and stop being arrogant entitled and lazy.
The small size is nice. It is 45 mm long when the EF-M version is 58 mm. I think the software correction is a reason. EF-M lenses do not support mandatory corrections.
Would be interesting to know if this lens suffers from field curvature when you are not shooting charts. On my EF-S 10-18 or EF-M 11-22 some parts of the image never get sharp, some are even really blurry.
thanks for the review, not too bad, actually. I do have the efs 10-18 and happy with its performance but adapted to my r7, it’s quite big. Would love to see a 11mm f1.8 rfs prime from canon, but am afraid we have to wait a long time for such a thing.
Underdesign subpar thing. I used to think that Canon had some standards, but they simply didn’t do it just because they used to be on a DSLR, and there you can’t bend the autofocus points and the picture in the viewfinders will be noticeably different.
I don't get the negative commenters. Plastic mount? Is it really an issue for a non pro lens that is not being swapped on/off ten times a day? And who buys a lens like this and uses it for ten years? Everyone's swaps their gear 5 times before that would happen. Dark aperture? Probably has to do with making the lens small and light. Lens corrections in camera? Why does it matter? What makes you think the results would be any better with optical corrections? That would likely make the lens bigger, heavier, more expensive or all those. I'm actually amazed they were able to fit IS in this small of a lens.
This is one of the most uncritical reviews I've seen. The lens is all plastic, doesn't have a hood, is not weather-sealed, is breathing like hell when focusing (absolute downer for video), is not very bright considering you are shooting aps-c, the lens correction produces artefacts when correcting the distortion, the out of focus areas look cheap, but the lens is actually not cheap at all. It just seems to be cheap, because the good lenses Canon sells are just all way overpriced. I honestly don't think this strategy makes any sense.
@@maczek70pl This was not the point of my comment. Also I'm not sure if I want to use a warping lend for filming. Maybe rather not. And then the question is, why do I need IS?
@@oncanyon1610Yes it's cheaper but you need to buy an adapter for RF mount , this will make this lens quite bigger and this is also Canon lens , so you have a choice to use a bigger lens with less barrel distortion or smaller lens with distortion correction .
I took this lens with me to Cuba on my R7. It did a fair job, given what I paid for it, and brought back some great beach photos taken with this lens while being very travel friendly. I didn't get to try any close-up shots.
Did you happen to see any images affected by shutter shock? I have this lens and an R7 and with mechanical shutter I can reliably reproduce it. Sticking with EFCS or electronic.
the ef-m 11-22mm is a brighter lens, i guess they not really trying with RF-s, i do like the efm 11-22mm much better than this lens, seems like the barrel distortion is worse here too
Hi Chris. I am currently using the faithful EF-S 10-18mm via an adaptor on to my R10. I use it for large objects in tight spaces like railway and military museums. Would you recommend replacing the EF-S 10-18mm with this new RF-S 10-18mm?
I admit I haven’t used the new RF-S 10-18mm but I have the same set up as you, R10 and an adapted EF-S 10-18mm. I certainly won’t be updating as the EF-S is a brighter lens at 18mm…. f5.6 v f6.3 so unless small size is important, I don’t think it’s really worth the upgrade.
Greedy Canon Non-L lenses are getting darker and darker, relying too much on corrections, No hood, No Pouch & No native mount alternatives with auto-focus. What a shame. I'm stucked with Canon but switching to other system very soon. Canon deserves to be the next Kodak. Waiting for your downfall.
Chris is the expert here, of course. It depends what you want to do, but the R7's 83 Mpix FF equivalent sensor is too much for all but the very best lenses. Meaning the R7's usefulness in the RF mount space is quite limited. and Canon does not allow third party AF glass. Here is my personal experience. My best lenses for the R7 are full frame ones. The 28mm f/2.8 prime works very well on the R7 and is razor sharp. The EF 24-105 f/4L is OK, but it works much better on the R8. And if you stick to the R7, the RF-S 18-150 f/3.5-6.3 is cheaper, lighter and as good for sharpness as the much bigger 24-105. I did find the image colors are more "alive" with the L-lens, the coatings do work. I gave up waiting for Canon to take RF-S seriously and bought the R8. It is even smaller, more compact, and boy what a camera! The R7 is only better for birding and for this the 100-400 is a bit too dark. I have better results with the RF-S 18-150, the R7's many pixels allow for cropping. And 400 is not long enough for the R8 when birding. You need 800 mm on a 24 Mpix FF sensor. The birding pro's all use the 45 Mpix R5 for that reason. More cropping possible.
@@PhilippeDHooghe thanks for taking the time to reply. I have an r8 also but the birding images are so much better on the r7. I’m going to try the 28mm. I just want the camera to be able to do more than just birding.
I just don't understand why the camera companies are pushing lenses darker and darker. The low end is trying to compete with phones, which have been honing their low light and indoor lighting prowess for years. Yet the camera companies seem to have decided that one should only take pictures from 6-8am and 5-7pm if their subjects aren't static. I understand what up selling is, but people taking pictures with $1000 phones don't want to buy $3,000 lenses to have usable results in normal situations. And they aren't buying them, but if they buy something like this, they will swear off ILCs as a gimmick in general. I suppose you would have reviewed it poorly if it had less sharpness and more aberration at the price of a usable aperture, and then people wouldn't have bought it, because the camera reviewers on RUclips said it wasn't sharp enough in a lab....
A good performer! Glad to see sun stars are well defined compared to the EF-S 10-18, at least in the example here with artificial light. Don’t know wether it would be different with the sun. But I wish Canon would make a couple of ultra wide and normal zoom lenses with faster aperture for RF-S. Or a fast ultra wide prime. That’s all what’s needed!
Small addition: This lens also does quite impressive macro at 10mm, just be careful not to touch the thing you are taking a photo of with the lens as you are so close to it xD You have to manually focus if you want macro at 10mm.
@@mbismbismb Hey Canon fanboy. Not everything can be done thru firmware update because some are hardware. A1 is already perfect and can still outperform the Canon latest cameras R3 & R6 Mark II.
its a smart decision. because relying on software correction means they can make the lens more compact and light weight. theres no lens with this range thats this small and light weight. none. not even from sony, nikon, sigma, tamron etc. you can easily put this in your pocket with a small apsc like r50 or r10 and take everywhere. in the end most viewers cannot tell between a software corrected image or not. big cameras and lenses is why people are switching to phones, so canon is doing the right thing by going small.
@@truthseeker6804 what's smart there? As you can see when you used a third party software, you will see how bad the lens distortion is. It also affects the edge sharpness. Other manufacturers are not doing that too much and their lens equivalent is also small and light.
If you can afford it and you are considering such wide angles, I'd recommend you save some more and get an R8. You'll have much better lens options and a much better camera.
Tokina 11-18 f/2.8 - $399, Sigma 10-18 f/2.8 - $599, Tamron 11-20 f/2.8 - $699. Yes, more expensive, but f/2.8 and, more importantly, available for a bunch of mounts except for RF. So little reasons to choose Canon APS-C cameras, such a shame. Why does Canon only make either extraordinary perfect lenses for millionaires or cheap kit-level crap, and nothing interesting in between? Especially for crop sensors.
none of those lenses have stabilization. secondly, theyre heavier and not as compact. thirdly, theyre expensive. i would pick this rfs lens over them anyday for vlogging. ultrawide are gonna be used primarily for vlogging. without stabilization wont buy these.
I had to thumbs down 👎 this video. As a Canon user I’ve had the EF mount 10-18mm and the EF-M 11-22mm. The 10-18mm is better than this subpar offering from canon and the 11-22mm that was offered on the EF-M mount was spectacular. This is a big middle finger to Canon user’s. I’m tired of subpar glass for ridiculous prices.
These camera manufacturers need to stop making APSC lenses. Just make them for full frame and let apsc get the crop factor. The entire point is lost when the lens is ONLY compatible with a niche set of 4 cameras that very few people own.
the sigma is heavier and $250 more expensive with no stabilization. not ideal for someone who want a light setup to vlog. being two stops faster isnt the only thing a vlogger needs. i would pick this rf lens over that sigma, for vlogging.
@@mb-watches Old is bigger, yes. Weight 240g vs 150g new - probably barely noticeable in bag. But 18mm end now seems to have decent optical quality from f7.1, which is quite ridiculous. Also RF mount being bigger than EF seems pointless with this lens.
Great video as always.... I cant get why on earth would someone pay for this piece of Cr...aftmanship.... APSC canon shooters will need to look elsewhere.
You don't know seriously? It's clearly because of price, size & weight + RF-S lenses are for also crop sensor. Some RF lenses can't handle the pixel density of crop sensor cameras specially the R7. tsk tsk.
@@joliver4083 u do know the cheapest in rf prime line up is 50 1.8 which is for full frame right? About the size, who care... its not like sony or nikon 85mm is small hahaha
Kinda insane that for 380 bucks, they won't spend the extra pennies for a metal lens mount
Nikon with their Z DX 12-28 mm/3.5-5.6 VR isn't really much better when it comes to price. 340 quid for an all-plastic APS-C lens isn't exactly cheap.
Engineering plastic plenty good for this lens.
Wow, we have both a fish-eye lens and an ultrawide lens just by turning off the auto-correction! Thank you, Canon. You make such a multi-purpose lens that no one wants to make!
Yea, I just realise I should just correct the picture of my Tokina 10-17mm fisheye in post production. Such a lovely light lens. What could possibly go wrong.....
yeah!
Thanks for reviewing this one Chris, been hoping for this review for a while!
The fact that canons non L lenses are getting so incredibly dark, but mostly te fact that they don't allow third party manufacturers to make lenses for the RF mount, lead me to the decision to switch to a different system. I am SO mad at canon for these moves. They do that apple stuff "oh we are super premium and special and untoucheable!"
Hyped to see manufacturers like Panasonic and Nikon get more users tho.
Not a film camera and fast lenses are no longer necessary.
@@efreutel Every digital camera degrades image quality with high ISO values.
@@efreutel I don't really want to have iso 6400 in a slightly low light setting... F4.5 isn't a big deal but given best quality is likely up at F5.0-5.5 that's getting pretty dark in a typical indoor setting. ISO is going to be a couple of thousand which can be grainy. I wish they had a prime lens less than 16mm, i'd buy it for sure.
This lens is not for indoors. Its for travel, street, average day wide shots. You use 6+ aperture in those situations at least. Understand the target audience. Target audience wants a small-light lens as extra in the bag, for those travel cases. Use or carry your bigger lenses, only if you know you are going to face lower light situations or want bokeh shots.
Babe wake up Christopher uploaded 🗣️💯‼️🔥🔥
I've subscribed to this channel for years never expect someone put copypasta comment here 😂
@@_greylatte
XD 😂
WOW that is crazy corrected. 🤣 I miss the sound effect you used to use for crazy lens corrections. It was like a BaH-ling'P or something like that. This lens sure deserves that sound.
I think it's the alert sound from the Metal Gear game series.
To be honest Canon are not exactly tempting me to upgrade from my DSLR. At least my EF-S lenses, including my 10-18 stm lens are reasonably well corrected.
Agree
this is lighter and smaller. and if you get a smaller apsc rf camera its much easier to fit in the pocket.
@@truthseeker6804 competition has better lens offerings for the smaller form factor sensors.
Thats barely a reason to upgrade @@truthseeker6804
I highly recommend you to give it a try! E.g. R50 is 375g only, the RF 10-18mm is just 150g. So only 525g combine, you can get stabilized 16-28.8mm full frame equivalent camera with great autofocus. CRAZY!
Fair review. I own it, as my R7 kit is my "grab and go" kit versus the larger lenses I own for my ff pictures. I'm going to give it an "okay" rating. It replaced the EF-M 11-22mm I had with that kit. That lens had a better build quality, including a metal mount, and I felt better about stowing it in my hiking pack. It was also a bit faster. So, I guess this will do for now, but I hope that Canon will get a bit more serious about the RF-S line-up.
What do you shoot with that lens?
For me the EF-M 11-22mm was a great travel lens, ideal for architecture, cityscapes or landscapes. But I need to say I like this 10-18mm a bit more thanks to the absence of that extension lock switch (I hope I named it correctly). Now you just need to turn the zoom ring to "unpack" / "pack" the lens.
@@Dustyphoto915 A great deal when a wider view is required on the APS-C sensor. I wish we could share pics on RUclips. Just this morning that included shots of hook and ladder firetrucks suspending the US flag over the funeral procession for a fallen Washington State Patrol trooper.
@@speecher1959 cool. I was asking just because I worry about the darker apertures. I love shooting wide but a lot of it is indoors. Lots of it
@@Dustyphoto915 For those type of shots, I would be reaching for my EF 16-25mm f/4 on my R. The R7 can be noisy with higher apertures, so longer exposures would be required to address that, or noise clean-up in post (Which I have really good success at given the RAW files.
So good to see another Canon lens review
Hmm, that distortion correction is really pulling down the corner sharpness on this lens. The Sigma 10-18/2.8 does much better in this respect, if only it was available on RF mount.
Every day i pray
And he doesn't listen!
the sigma doest have stabilization, its heavier, and cost almost twice as much. i dont think anyone who just bought an r50 is willing to spend the camera money on a vlogging lens.
@@truthseeker6804The Sigma would obviously not be a good match for the R50, but perfect for the R7.
@@Bayonet1809 maybe. i would have to see them side by side. the stabilization might be a huge deal breaker, for a vlogger. although r7 has ibis, but not sure its enough. but this is still a good entry lens for the price and weight. for a vlogger.
Thanks for this review. I had pondered this but I’ll stick with the USM and STM EF-S versions. Bigger yes but my least used focal range
Holy shit, this is basically a fisheye lens! That distortion is wild!
I do think it is a lens many Canon RF users will like, but I also guess they would much rather have the option to get a Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8.
@@Eikenhorstnot as wild as sigma recently releasing fish eye lens hahaha no one canon doesnt want any 3rd party getting involved... what third party can do, canon can do itu many times better
@@mbismbismb @@mbismbismb Poor canon fanboy. I think you got your brain from your mother. Sigma has 14mm rectilinear wide lens while the latest 15mm is fisheye. Where's the canon equivalent????? vovo.
@@joliver4083that "vovo" are you pinoy bro haha
@@mbismbismb "what third party can do, canon can do itu many times better" I have no doubt. Also many times more expensive :( Canon is making two types of lenses: very cheap, very light, but very small aperture lenses, like this 10-18mm. And then they have their L line, which are great, very heavy but this is compensated by how light your wallet is after buying it.
Great review could you do a review of Tokina 11-16 f2.8. Or 11-20 f2.8 On the R7. Interesting to see that. Again great review
My 11-16mm broke (I had it 8+ years) and I replaced it with the 14-20mm f2 - it's awesome an awesome lens and I don't rmiss the wider view when I use it. I do however also own a Canon EF-S 10-18mm.
Very versatile. Ultrawide, macro, and fisheye all in one lens. /s
The SIGMA 10-18mm and 18-50mm F2.8 DC DN | C are coming to the RF-S Mount later this year. Please do a review of them on the R7!
New 18-50 f 2.8 already a disappointment 👎
@@superstringsbro why?
That mount looks like it was 3D printed 😋
Canon's negligence of their aps-c system is such a waste of two fantastic bodies in the r10 & r7.
I agree. And Canon's arrogant answer to this is to use RF full frame lenses.
Sigma 56mm F1.4
Viltrox 27mm F1.2
Viltrox 75mm F1.2
are fantastic lens for aps-c, unfortunately they still don't allow third party native option. They deserve to be the next Kodak. How I wish..
I'm switching to other system very soon. I regret that I invested so much to Canon system.
@@joliver4083maybe someone must go to Canon's HQ and launch a protest there
@@GungKrisna12 no need since many photographers/videographers are switching to other system already. they don't care about canon anymore.
@@joliver4083Canon still have twice as many users as the distant #2 competitor which is Sony.
I only buy photo material if I have seen a review from you first. I also once didn't buy a 24-105 lens from Canon because you thought the version 2 was no better than the version 1. Great reviews!
Wow, I've never seen that much image correction before. Looks like the corners really suffered for it. Where was the horror movie "fright" sound when you switched to the uncorrected view? Definitely called for here.
Aps-c lenses will be fairly small and light anyway; why struggle to get it down to 150g (vs 180g or 200g) when their full frame lenses are mostly monsters? They should have had a few extra grams and done less correction, and maybe focus on lightening their full frame lenses instead.
This is the lens that has me seriously considering switching to something other than Canon.
How does this compare to the EF-S 10-18 IS STM?
Wow! I'm really impressed with that lens! It isn't very bright but the image quality is way better than I expected. Really, the purpose of this lens is to have vloggers pointing the lens at their own face at arm's length. And in that it seems to have far exceeded expectations!
Thank you again so much for this unbiased review, Chris! Great stuff as always, precise, to the point, short and honest.
As you pointed out earlier, I too was looking forward to this lens, being an R7 owner. And I'm happy I now also am a R8 owner, so I won't bother with it 🙂.
To the others on this forum: the R8 costs no more than a good piece of Canon glass, it has no real competition yet, it is a fantastic camera. Pro power in your pocket without emptying them. And you can then fully use the full frame glass like the RF 28 f/2.8 or the 35mm f/1.8, which are better lens options than this overpriced dark lens. Corner sharpness is important for such wide angle lenses...disappointing. I don't see the point of putting this RF-S lens on the market for the R7 except for vloggers only.
Chris, did you have AF issues with the R7 using this dark thing in anything less than good daylight? I have trouble making AF work on my R7 in low light if aperture is any higher than f/4. With the 100-400 f/5.6-8 my R7 misses focus all the time. The R8 nails focus every single time. So if I would need this RF-S 10-18, I'd fit it on the R8, not the R7! I get better performance - more keepers - out of my RF-S 18-150 f/3.5-6.3 when I put it on the R8... no joke! The f/3.5 on the wide side works well on the R7, but the 6.3 on the tele end is too dark for the AF to work reliably. So my expectation is that the f/4.5 of the 10-18 will be too dark for the R7 when you take indoor shots. Maybe it works better on the R10 or R50?
The AF worked a little better in normal light but seemed fine in lower light. It depends on how much contrast there is in the subject you're shooting for the AF mode to latch on to
Thanks, that is good to know!
The only interesting focal length of the lens is the 10-12mm range, just make a fast prime next time
There's only four, slow cheaply built lenses for RF-s, what is Canon thinking... Where's the equivalent to the Sony 16-55/2.8, the 11/1.8, the 15/1.4, etc...
Canon thinks you're stupid and should move to FF. I don't think you are, same as me, I stuck to APS-C because I was happy with the 40D. But the good lens choice is all FF on RF. So I gave up and bought an R8. Much better. Except for wildlife. I was waiting for Canon to come out with an ultrasharp bright RF-S L. And would have bought it even if it costed 1000€. Well, I spent that money on an R8 instead and now all the lenses I do have perform much better. 's another angle and I'm so happy I did. Now I'm not frustrated with the dark RF-S lenses any more, I no longer care. If I had known before, I would have left Canon for Sony.
@@PhilippeDHoogheMay i ask on which cases r8 underperformed for you in wildlife topic you mentioned? Compared to your aps-c setup and experience.
@@ChargedPulsar That is because of the lenses I own. If you want to do wildlife with a 24MPix FF camera you will want a Full Frame 800mm lens or better. I do not have these, too expensive. My tele is the RF 100-400. On the R7 that has a 640mm field of view on a 32.5 MPix sensor. When you put the 100-400 on the R8 there are not enough pixels to crop a small bird at 25 meters. With R7 and 100-400 that works a lot better, much more detail. So it has more to do with lenses than the body. For wildlife, the 200-800 would be really good on the R8. With large enough subjects at the right distance so the subject can fill a quarter of the frame, the R8 pix would probably be superior to what one could do with the R7, because the R8's sensor is more light sensitive, would nail focus a lot better and has much better dynamic range. Wildlife pros use the R5 for its 45 Mpix, more cropping possible, and really expensive lenses. If you put these monsters on an R1 that is "only" 24 Mpix, the pictures are breathtaking because of the sensor's characteristics, which are really really good with industry leading autofocus capability (the quad pixel phase detect).
@@PhilippeDHooghe Thanks a lot for the detailed answer! I'm coming from Sony crop cameras and I'm really happy with my Canon R8, also have the 800mm f11 and 2x extender etc. Some other lenses as well. However, changing lenses is not always practical which is something I accept. However, I was eyeing a B-cam and was thinking, perhaps Canon R7 could help me there. I was thinking to offload long reach lenses to Canon R7 and handle the rest with Canon R8. And perhaps even use R7 for the longest setup which is 800mm F11 with 2x extender. But as you said, that superlong setup is already dark, R7 would struggle to provide what R8 could, most of the time, except the brightest of daylight scenarios. But that was all speculation for me, since I don't have R7. And buying another R8 as B-Cam is also an option, or Buying R5 Mk2 as main and making my R8 as B-cam. Just thinking around as taking pictures is fun.
I bought R8 out of frustration with R7. Just so you know. Sony is excellent for wildlife. My brother in law makes awesome pictures I can only dream of. He uses Sony with G lenses. Very expensive. The old R5 is lower price now. And as Duade Paton has shown, the old 45 Mpix sensor is even better with dynamic range, a bit of an enigma to me, but the old R5 is probably a bargain. The Mark II outperforms it with useful pre-capture, though.
Is there any way to use an RFS lens on a full frame RF camera in full frame mode?
Finally! Looks like a solid lens for the price and weight! I’m thinking of grabbing one for my R7 and the 28mm pancake lens for an ultralight hiking combo!
The 28 is really good on the R7. Highly recommended. I wouldn't bother with the 10-18 for hiking. The 18-150 would be a better fit and also a better lens in my opinion. This 10-18 is sharp in the middle and messed up in the corners, I believe this is for vloggers only. Doing architecture with this thing wouldn't get you any high fives...
@@PhilippeDHooghe I was thinking the 10-18mm range would be good for some hiking/travel videos. Nothing professional just some short video clips with music and voice over. I don’t think corner sharpness is that important for video, but that aperture is a little rough haha
@@sircas1224 Ah, I see. Vlogging or something of the sort… that is indeed the use case for this lens.
I have the feeling that this lens is a step back comparing with the old 10-18 EF-S STM. And the older lens is much cheaper used !
Im shocked cannon comes out with that. Us Sony users been enjoying E 10-18 F/4 & PZ 10-20 F/4 & various 3rd party similar lenses from Sigma and Tamron at F/2.8.
I can see why so many Connon users be frustrated
all the sony lenses are about twice as expensive and are heavier. and the third party lenses dont have stabilization. definitely wont buy them for vlogging.
@truthseeker6804 Gotta do your homework buddy, some of the Sony & Tamron lens has built in oss and the sigma lens are lighter. Both the Sigma and Tamron lens are always cheaper than the Sony ones and still sharp as hell lol
Do your homework before you comment fanboy, your all wrong about this one lmao
@@truthseeker6804 And the Sony E 10-18mm F/4 oss is perfect for vlogging
@@HagaishiSama read my comment again. we are talking about ultra wide angle lenses only. the sony lenses are more expensive. the third party lenses dont have stabilization. provide me a tamron ultra wide with stabilization?
@truthseeker6804 Tamron 17-70mm F/2.8 stabilized and is weather sealed
17mm is you ultra wide focal length. Stop being lazy and do the homework. The lens is not tiny but it's ultra wide stabilized weather sealed and it's just as optically sharp as Sony e16 to 55 F 2.8 and half the price.
Do the homework and stop being arrogant entitled and lazy.
The small size is nice. It is 45 mm long when the EF-M version is 58 mm. I think the software correction is a reason. EF-M lenses do not support mandatory corrections.
Nice Review. Waiting for a fast 1.4 wide angle on APS-C for astro. Fingers Crossed this summer Canon or Sigma will announce.
Ok all for all-plastic lenses. I don't see it as a build quality issue. I love small and light gear.
Would be interesting to know if this lens suffers from field curvature when you are not shooting charts.
On my EF-S 10-18 or EF-M 11-22 some parts of the image never get sharp, some are even really blurry.
I would have bought the R7 if Canon supported third-party lenses and the first-party lenses weren't as horrendous as this overly corrected mess.
It's fine with the corrections.The corrections are part of the system.
Yep, you're smarter than I was.
I know, but you didn't need to say it@@PhilippeDHooghe
Is it so obvious? Jee... 🤥
@@PhilippeDHooghe sadly yes
thanks for the review, not too bad, actually. I do have the efs 10-18 and happy with its performance but adapted to my r7, it’s quite big.
Would love to see a 11mm f1.8 rfs prime from canon, but am afraid we have to wait a long time for such a thing.
That is what I use on my R10. I do love that lens and its the only one I kept when I moved to mirrorless.
You will never see such a thing from Canon
Underdesign subpar thing. I used to think that Canon had some standards, but they simply didn’t do it just because they used to be on a DSLR, and there you can’t bend the autofocus points and the picture in the viewfinders will be noticeably different.
It’s a shame Canon don’t offer it as the main kit lens for the R50. I think that would be a fantastic combination!
I believe it's too wide to be considered a kit lens. but the combo would be nice for sure
Recommended? With that crazy amount of softening and correction? No thanks.
I don't get the negative commenters.
Plastic mount? Is it really an issue for a non pro lens that is not being swapped on/off ten times a day? And who buys a lens like this and uses it for ten years? Everyone's swaps their gear 5 times before that would happen.
Dark aperture? Probably has to do with making the lens small and light.
Lens corrections in camera? Why does it matter? What makes you think the results would be any better with optical corrections? That would likely make the lens bigger, heavier, more expensive or all those.
I'm actually amazed they were able to fit IS in this small of a lens.
I am going travelling at the end of the year and am wondering would this lens work for night photography? Such as city, landscapes, etc?
I would like to know how much vignetting there is with a polarizer. I guess it would be best to use a setup ring with a larger diameter filter?
Is it an 8mm fisheye-lens cropped to 10mm by camera corrections or a 10mm cropped to 12mm?
Hey chris, can you review the tamron sp 70-300 vc usd again? I want to buy it but I'm still not sure if the lens is still worth it this year
I think It's a very nice camera to learn how to expose correct
This is one of the most uncritical reviews I've seen. The lens is all plastic, doesn't have a hood, is not weather-sealed, is breathing like hell when focusing (absolute downer for video), is not very bright considering you are shooting aps-c, the lens correction produces artefacts when correcting the distortion, the out of focus areas look cheap, but the lens is actually not cheap at all. It just seems to be cheap, because the good lenses Canon sells are just all way overpriced. I honestly don't think this strategy makes any sense.
Can you name a cheaper lens with that focal length from any other manufacturer that is better and has IS ?
@@maczek70pl This was not the point of my comment. Also I'm not sure if I want to use a warping lend for filming. Maybe rather not. And then the question is, why do I need IS?
@@maczek70pl EF-S 10-18 IS STM is two thirds of the price, don't know about warping there though
@@oncanyon1610 That is your personal choice , and if you don't know what IS does , you can read about it and find out .
@@oncanyon1610Yes it's cheaper but you need to buy an adapter for RF mount , this will make this lens quite bigger and this is also Canon lens , so you have a choice to use a bigger lens with less barrel distortion or smaller lens with distortion correction .
Hi, do you know why canon seems never made fast lens for their apsc camera?
Got this for my R7 as well the other week. Pretty happy with it so far, though I must admit it looks a little goofy haha
I wonder if the EF version is still better even with the R7
He already tested the EF version and while is definitely held up well on the R7 it didn’t do this well.
hey when are you goin to test the sigma 10-18 2.8
I took this lens with me to Cuba on my R7. It did a fair job, given what I paid for it, and brought back some great beach photos taken with this lens while being very travel friendly. I didn't get to try any close-up shots.
Did you happen to see any images affected by shutter shock? I have this lens and an R7 and with mechanical shutter I can reliably reproduce it. Sticking with EFCS or electronic.
errr... even at these focal length ranges? I must admit I also shoot EFCS or electronic, the mechanical shutter wakes up an elephant!
Hi Chris please do review on fuji 8-16 f2.8. please
I wont be putting that in my kit bag, it's about time Canon brought out some f2.8 RF-s glass this f3.5 or f4.5 is garbage
Hey bro, don’t need fast lenses ‘cept for film, no?
the ef-m 11-22mm is a brighter lens, i guess they not really trying with RF-s, i do like the efm 11-22mm much better than this lens, seems like the barrel distortion is worse here too
If I put this lens to Canon R5, can I still record 8K or 4K HQ video?
Hi Chris. I am currently using the faithful EF-S 10-18mm via an adaptor on to my R10. I use it for large objects in tight spaces like railway and military museums. Would you recommend replacing the EF-S 10-18mm with this new RF-S 10-18mm?
yes replace it right away. this is compact and doesnt need adapter, so lighter weight. and has a nearer focus distance.
I admit I haven’t used the new RF-S 10-18mm but I have the same set up as you, R10 and an adapted EF-S 10-18mm. I certainly won’t be updating as the EF-S is a brighter lens at 18mm…. f5.6 v f6.3 so unless small size is important, I don’t think it’s really worth the upgrade.
Stick with the one you have
@@darrenambler9431 the size and weight makes it a joy it use. also its slightly sharper than the efs.
@@darrenambler9431 I was thinking that.
Hello sorry for my French, is it the same size with the r6 mark II ?
The size of the pic / vidéo or there is a crop ?
Crop, like all RF-S lenses.
Year 2034, introducing the new Canon 10-18mm F/8-16
And I thought defraction evident at maximum aperture was only for smartphone cameras🙄. Well done Canon.
its been like that for almost every lens. you need to learn more about lenses.
Greedy Canon Non-L lenses are getting darker and darker, relying too much on corrections, No hood, No Pouch & No native mount alternatives with auto-focus. What a shame. I'm stucked with Canon but switching to other system very soon. Canon deserves to be the next Kodak. Waiting for your downfall.
And anyone who still buy Canon gears are boomers?
Non L lenses have always been slow and cheap. My kit lens for 600D is way worse than this one.
@@GungKrisna12 maybe, I don't know but most of them will regret.
@@Xirpzy I think you got the non STM version kitlens, the STM kitlens is a significantly faster but yeah, it's still a poor performing lens.
This.
What RF primes give the best image quality? I have an r7 I use for birding with the Rf 100-400. I don’t own any Rfs lenses.
Chris is the expert here, of course. It depends what you want to do, but the R7's 83 Mpix FF equivalent sensor is too much for all but the very best lenses. Meaning the R7's usefulness in the RF mount space is quite limited. and Canon does not allow third party AF glass.
Here is my personal experience. My best lenses for the R7 are full frame ones. The 28mm f/2.8 prime works very well on the R7 and is razor sharp. The EF 24-105 f/4L is OK, but it works much better on the R8. And if you stick to the R7, the RF-S 18-150 f/3.5-6.3 is cheaper, lighter and as good for sharpness as the much bigger 24-105. I did find the image colors are more "alive" with the L-lens, the coatings do work.
I gave up waiting for Canon to take RF-S seriously and bought the R8. It is even smaller, more compact, and boy what a camera! The R7 is only better for birding and for this the 100-400 is a bit too dark. I have better results with the RF-S 18-150, the R7's many pixels allow for cropping. And 400 is not long enough for the R8 when birding. You need 800 mm on a 24 Mpix FF sensor. The birding pro's all use the 45 Mpix R5 for that reason. More cropping possible.
@@PhilippeDHooghe thanks for taking the time to reply. I have an r8 also but the birding images are so much better on the r7. I’m going to try the 28mm. I just want the camera to be able to do more than just birding.
mogged by the EF-M 11-22mm
Does it work on eos r?
Yes, this lens can compensate the 4k crop in video
I just don't understand why the camera companies are pushing lenses darker and darker. The low end is trying to compete with phones, which have been honing their low light and indoor lighting prowess for years. Yet the camera companies seem to have decided that one should only take pictures from 6-8am and 5-7pm if their subjects aren't static.
I understand what up selling is, but people taking pictures with $1000 phones don't want to buy $3,000 lenses to have usable results in normal situations. And they aren't buying them, but if they buy something like this, they will swear off ILCs as a gimmick in general.
I suppose you would have reviewed it poorly if it had less sharpness and more aberration at the price of a usable aperture, and then people wouldn't have bought it, because the camera reviewers on RUclips said it wasn't sharp enough in a lab....
2mm wider than z12-28，not bad.
And 10mm shorter.
A good performer! Glad to see sun stars are well defined compared to the EF-S 10-18, at least in the example here with artificial light. Don’t know wether it would be different with the sun. But I wish Canon would make a couple of ultra wide and normal zoom lenses with faster aperture for RF-S. Or a fast ultra wide prime. That’s all what’s needed!
Small addition: This lens also does quite impressive macro at 10mm, just be careful not to touch the thing you are taking a photo of with the lens as you are so close to it xD You have to manually focus if you want macro at 10mm.
Looks like a bit of a downgrade compared to the EF-s option, image quality-wise
Canon enginners nowdarys rely to much on software to correct poor glass design
Yeah not like sony engineers , faulty software app, cant even roll out an update for their A1 for additional AF features and focus breathing hahaha
@@mbismbismb Hey Canon fanboy. Not everything can be done thru firmware update because some are hardware. A1 is already perfect and can still outperform the Canon latest cameras R3 & R6 Mark II.
@@mbismbismb I own Canon
its a smart decision. because relying on software correction means they can make the lens more compact and light weight. theres no lens with this range thats this small and light weight. none. not even from sony, nikon, sigma, tamron etc. you can easily put this in your pocket with a small apsc like r50 or r10 and take everywhere. in the end most viewers cannot tell between a software corrected image or not. big cameras and lenses is why people are switching to phones, so canon is doing the right thing by going small.
@@truthseeker6804 what's smart there? As you can see when you used a third party software, you will see how bad the lens distortion is. It also affects the edge sharpness. Other manufacturers are not doing that too much and their lens equivalent is also small and light.
Definitely a lens for me when I get the RF APS-C mount camera… R10 possibly.
If you can afford it and you are considering such wide angles, I'd recommend you save some more and get an R8. You'll have much better lens options and a much better camera.
Does anyone know if the front lens element move back and forth when it focuses or is it all internal focusing?
5:30 Good magnification but mediocre image quality at MFD.
Plastic mount? Canon, why you always treat aps c like crap😢
wow made in malaysia
Tokina 11-18 f/2.8 - $399, Sigma 10-18 f/2.8 - $599, Tamron 11-20 f/2.8 - $699.
Yes, more expensive, but f/2.8 and, more importantly, available for a bunch of mounts except for RF. So little reasons to choose Canon APS-C cameras, such a shame.
Why does Canon only make either extraordinary perfect lenses for millionaires or cheap kit-level crap, and nothing interesting in between? Especially for crop sensors.
none of those lenses have stabilization. secondly, theyre heavier and not as compact. thirdly, theyre expensive. i would pick this rfs lens over them anyday for vlogging. ultrawide are gonna be used primarily for vlogging. without stabilization wont buy these.
I can’t work out why so many people are leaving Canon for Sony…..😂
I am not defending Canon but ive not see any statistics saying people are leaving Canon. Their marketshare is even increasing.
@@todanrg3 Canon doesn't value their customers. That will be a long-term effect.
It is 200 dollars on B and H!
Thank you!
So if you're looking to get into mirrorless APS-C only real option is Fuji. The rest are not even trying.
Sony? And what about micro four thirds ?
I had to thumbs down 👎 this video. As a Canon user I’ve had the EF mount 10-18mm and the EF-M 11-22mm. The 10-18mm is better than this subpar offering from canon and the 11-22mm that was offered on the EF-M mount was spectacular. This is a big middle finger to Canon user’s. I’m tired of subpar glass for ridiculous prices.
So why punish Christopher with a thumbs down on his video?
No one is forcing you to buy... This lens is supposed to be cheap for consumers. Just wait for the Sigma Tamron RF lenses as those have announced
Another 4.5? 🙄
Nah if we're being honest this lens looks like hot garbage. And the fact that canon still around making dark aperture wide lenses 😅
WHY? Just get a micro 4/3 system if you're gonna use this lens.
These camera manufacturers need to stop making APSC lenses. Just make them for full frame and let apsc get the crop factor. The entire point is lost when the lens is ONLY compatible with a niche set of 4 cameras that very few people own.
haha the sigma 10-18 destroys it
U mean that awful fish eye hahahaha
@@mbismbismb it's rectilinear. Google is free if your brain can't handle it.
@@mbismbismbit’s not a fisheye lens, it’s rectilinear, and two stops faster, and equally sharp
@@StymyParsley you can check other comments, that stu*d canon fanboy always there to defend canon 😆
the sigma is heavier and $250 more expensive with no stabilization. not ideal for someone who want a light setup to vlog. being two stops faster isnt the only thing a vlogger needs. i would pick this rf lens over that sigma, for vlogging.
So they took the old average 10-18 and made it worse.
To be fair, the 10-18 is like 3 times the size …
@@mb-watches Old is bigger, yes. Weight 240g vs 150g new - probably barely noticeable in bag. But 18mm end now seems to have decent optical quality from f7.1, which is quite ridiculous. Also RF mount being bigger than EF seems pointless with this lens.
i would take this lens over that EF lens anyday. small compact is what i prefer. this can easily fit in my pocket with an r50.
Canon is getting worse
Great video as always.... I cant get why on earth would someone pay for this piece of Cr...aftmanship.... APSC canon shooters will need to look elsewhere.
Dunno why canon wants to release rfs lens while the rf is just perfectly fine
You don't know seriously? It's clearly because of price, size & weight + RF-S lenses are for also crop sensor. Some RF lenses can't handle the pixel density of crop sensor cameras specially the R7. tsk tsk.
Because shooters are demanding for APSC lenses.
@@joliver4083 u do know the cheapest in rf prime line up is 50 1.8 which is for full frame right? About the size, who care... its not like sony or nikon 85mm is small hahaha
@@joliver4083 and btw the 50 rf and other rf lens is very sharp on the RF , mind you
@@rev.chuckshingledecker they are so demanding
What an ugly lens. That plastic looks like someone has 3d-printed a prototype at home.
1:34 It's a pity that you don't show how the stabilization works while walking. Then it would be the best view.