It’s a shame Canon doesn’t offer the 18-150mm as a kit for the R50 and R100, that lens is much more useful and versatile than the 18-45. I hope you do another one of these videos for that one as well!
@@Postosuchus still embarrassing how good the EFM 22 f2 is. Canon has decided rather criminally that if you want a good prime lens you should be considering full frame cameras. 50mm on 1.6 crop is way too tight for everyday usage. The refusal to bring out even this lens that they have a formula for already tells you everything about how they feel about crop customers. They want you in their system but they don't want you as a long-term customer if you're not willing to go to full frame. I can use the 22 mm for everything except sports and birding. All around it is probably canons best crop lens they've ever created next to the 11-22.
@@zegzbrutal that's a lower 'class' of lens...and terrible aspect ratio for crop in my opinion. Even 35 mm on crop is very weird compared to full frame. I used to adapt a 35 to my crop bodies but I just stopped doing it because it didn't really make much sense after the 22 came out. And it's only 2.8. it's not comparable. I would never ever buy that, that's just me tho. 22 mm is basically just perfect. You have the wide aperture for a separation and a fairly wide view... works great together. But that's the RFS line isn't it? A series of workarounds for amount that is generally starved of preferable choices. If it wasn't for the sigma primes, I would never ever ever ever consider purchasing them especially since my M gear still works great.
I use the old Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, with adapter of course. I contend that the lens provides optical qualities close to "L" lenses, and the AF acquisition speeds are fine to excellent on the EOS R7. Optical IS works as well, although it does not support the R7 IBIS. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM works fine for my needs, and, in combination with the R7, provides excellent results. Happy camper here!
You’re right about that. I had to speak with a Canon rep because I was having issues with it connecting properly to my c300 years ago. The rep said that lens was actually considered to have the same problem grade as the L series.
I have never owned a lens slower than F4 on a full frame camera. I really struggle to put an F6.3 on an APS-C for general use unless it's literally in board daylight. If they make an RF-S 18-45mm F4 and charge 200 quid for it, the lens would at least be a somewhat useful daytime outdoor lens. You can't even be indoors during the day at f6.3.
@@mvp_kryptoniteThat's part of his point. This is a crappy lens that is vastly overpriced. For this to make sense to anyone it needs to be way cheaper or way better.
@@falxonPSN it’s the usual upsell to full frame or at least a ff lens. But being able to autofocus better than DSLR and have smaller glass (see the supported sigmas) it’s time Canon produce better lenses for APS-C no doubt
@@mvp_kryptonite It's the same piece of crap as the RF 24-50mm f5-6.3 IS STM. No one uses it. How about a more affordable constant f4? Same for the RF-S. An RF-S 16-30mm F4 is going to be more expensive, but at least it'd be a meaningful and useful lens. Rather than having a paperweight, the RF 50mm F1.8 and a non-existing RF-S 30mm F1.8 would be great affordable kit lenses.
Well... just a bit like the older EF-S 18-55 it's surprisingly sharp but pretty much unimpressive apart from that. the longer end is rather disappointing though with the small aperture and only 45mm on the "long" end.
Good morning Gordon. Being currently very happy with my rather large number of Fuji X-Mount cameras and lenses as well as a couple of Nikon Zfs, I am not in the market for a Canon. However, I have ALWAYS enjoyed your videos and this one is no exception. I love your informal, yet very thorough reviews and have learned a lot from watching you over several years now. It also helps that I love Brighton too, and have many happy memories of Brighton and Hove going back to the late 1950s. Seeing you on your walkabout talking head videos, or ones like this with occasional shots of the city, is really nice. And who knows, maybe I WILL get tempted into a new camera or lens. Best Wishes.
My main question here is why is this lens not the same as the EF-M 15-45 lens, why did they restrict both the focal range and the aperture? Is it because the 15-18 range or the wider apertures were less sharp (on 32Mpix for example)? Is it a hardware or firmware limitation? I suspect it is firmware because I strongly doubt that they modified the design and think that they have just changed the mount. I am really leaning towards the "conspiracy" theory here: I think it is to make the lens worse so that people buy more expensive lenses, I really can't think of any other explanation that would really make convicing sense. And, if that is true, it adds to my frustration as a 2 decades long Canon APS-C and full frame pro bodies owner. There are other things that annoy me like why doesn't the R10 have the same autofocus options as the R50 and why is the R50 a bit better? They both have the same gear inside, when Canon improved the algorithms for the R50, why didn't they send them through to the R10 owners as a firmware update when both cameras have the same sensor and processor combo? Especially since they didn't discontinue the R10, it is still on sale and it is still more expensive than the R50... All other major brands would have done it.... It is probably for that reason that Canon's market share decreases year after year and, instead of taking the Nikon approach, they have decided to sabotage their products (worse firmwares, worse lenses and actually almost no APS-C lenses)
kit lenses are often underrated , the fuji 15-45 is great too, perhaps sharper than this and significantly wider, I have taken so many good photos with it, so were the older Nikon f dx 18-55 zooms, how about a second chance to the Sony 16-50 II ? is it really optically the same as the first version ?
I think this is pretty good, though I'd 100pct take the sigma. I would put this up there with the Lumix 12-32 MFT kit. It's small, cheap, and surprisingly good ... just not quite as good as is possible.
I just used the RF-S 10-18 and this looks like the same construction really. The collapsing state is better than Canons previous lenses that have a switch but other than that, I didn’t get on with the lens. The zoom ring and the control/focus ring are too close to each other and the later I constantly kept moving. I’m sticking with the EF-S 10-22. Canon needs to forget these basic lenses as I think now they have wide, normal ans telephoto zooms covered let’s develop some series RF-S lenses. 15-85 & 17-55 replacements please. The new sigma offering isn’t for me
The 1022 can definitely still do damage.. I never did sell mine but I might end up giving it away to a family member in the next year or so. The EFM 11 to 22 is as good as that as plus is Plus Great corners. Canon and RFS = cheap cheap cheap
If you want to test a lens IS, you should use a body that has no IBIS like the R10 you show early in the video, otherwise indeed you can't really measure the performance of the IS and by "substraction" it isn't the same (IBIS+IS - IBIS alone with another lens ... which you could have tried but haven't) and the results won't be helpful for R100, R50 or R10 users.
@@cameralabs ok you are forgiven :). I am an early fan and live in London, but probably know Brighton more than from me very few visits just by watching your videos ... In case you ever need an R10, I have one who is the more discreet and lighter partner to my R5. (And my mini classic camera home museum)
Had this lens when I got an R7. Used for a week, I tried it but it was disappointing. When the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8was released I instantly got it and its far better.
I just bought an OM 5 with its kit lens, 12-45 F4. I have an OM-D E-M1x and a kit lens, 12-100 F4. I have an OM-D E-M1 II and a kit lens, 12-40 F2.8. I like my kit lenses.. I _might_ get a 14-42. I don't think anyone will know from my photos.
@@cameralabs It would be interesting to test the flagship mirrorless cameras plus suitable lenses in various genres of photography. For example: Wedding , portrait, wildlife etc photographer, R1, RF 24-70 F2.8 (or RF 28-70 F2), 70-200, a longer zoom for those who want to shoot mobile wildlife, motor sports etc, F2.8 and whatever the ultrawide is. OM 1 II and three equivalent lenses, etc. Landscapes R1 plus F4 versions. I don't expect my S1R (is it the flagship?) would rate for motor sports, but the G9 II should do rater well. And the OM 1 II. I don't expect the last two would rate as "best," but I do think they will do a lot better than many people expect and perfectly adequate for most uses. It's worth to point out high resolution where available., live ND, live GND etc.
What adapter should we use for your MFT lenses to the RF mount. I love my MFT lenses but they are not on my r7 or r8 radar. Never knew I could use the MFT lenses on it. This is a game changer.
What adapter should we use for your MFT lenses to the RF mount. I love my MFT lenses but they are not on my r7 or r8 radar. Never knew I could use the MFT lenses on it. This is a game changer.
Canon has never and will never take the APSC format seriously. Their product line with perhaps the exception of the 7D Mark II has been utterly disappointing.
@@falxonPSN R7 is pretty good for the price. It's at the same place where 7Dii was, no native Canon lenses, but there were ton-loads of 3rd party lenses.
Im still using a EOS-M5 with the 15-45 and agree that 15mm is a good deal wider than the 18mm, ive not gone EOS-R yet as my main camera is a 5D2 and my travel is the EOS-M and at this time I dont see the need for me to upgrade, if I did I will likely go 5D4 anyway.
Man get off of that 5D2 already! The 5d3 is a far better camera and you can get it for super cheap. 5d3 is such a workhorse you deserve even just that part of it. Great body if you want to stick 2 dslrs without bells and whistles Do it!!! 🎉😊 And yes budgets are a thing, jussayin
When you upgrade from the M-5 is the time to consider ALL mirrorless cameras. I switched from Pentax to Canon for autofocus, then Canon to several mirrorless cameras, none made by Canon. Now I use a Lumix S1R and adaptor form my TS-E lenses, Olympus and Lumix G for pretty much everything else. If you buy an APS-C camera branded Canon, Nikon, Sony, you don't have a line of pro lenses designed for APS-C cameras to aspire to.
Honestly, I’m just a bit disappointed in this lens. Seems like a downgrade over the standard Dslr 18-55mm kit lenses. It surprises me that many companies are making mirrorless versions of their Dslr lenses, only to use slower aperture designs. Another informative review, however, thanks 👍
The fact that they bundle this for a $100 premium and then charge you 300 when sold separately is downright insulting for the quality of this lens. A decent lens with IS, could maybe be sold up to 200 bucks given how tiny the aperture is. And of course the usual Canon cheaping out on lens hoods etc. Even accounting for the cost of packaging the lens separately would only add maybe $10 to $15.
I bought the EOS RP some years ago with the RF 1.8 35mm and it is truely a great lens especially the "Macro" capabilities. Not only for full frame but also for APS-C where it converts to a ~50mm including 31 x 45mm image frame at the minimum focus distance!
It’s a shame Canon doesn’t offer the 18-150mm as a kit for the R50 and R100, that lens is much more useful and versatile than the 18-45. I hope you do another one of these videos for that one as well!
@@Postosuchus still embarrassing how good the EFM 22 f2 is. Canon has decided rather criminally that if you want a good prime lens you should be considering full frame cameras. 50mm on 1.6 crop is way too tight for everyday usage. The refusal to bring out even this lens that they have a formula for already tells you everything about how they feel about crop customers.
They want you in their system but they don't want you as a long-term customer if you're not willing to go to full frame.
I can use the 22 mm for everything except sports and birding. All around it is probably canons best crop lens they've ever created next to the 11-22.
@@simonmaduxx6777there’s RF28
@@zegzbrutal that's a lower 'class' of lens...and terrible aspect ratio for crop in my opinion. Even 35 mm on crop is very weird compared to full frame. I used to adapt a 35 to my crop bodies but I just stopped doing it because it didn't really make much sense after the 22 came out.
And it's only 2.8. it's not comparable. I would never ever buy that, that's just me tho.
22 mm is basically just perfect. You have the wide aperture for a separation and a fairly wide view... works great together.
But that's the RFS line isn't it? A series of workarounds for amount that is generally starved of preferable choices. If it wasn't for the sigma primes, I would never ever ever ever consider purchasing them especially since my M gear still works great.
@simonmaduxx6777 the new rf28 is sharp af, almost as good, if not better than the efm22
i prefer small form factor in my kit lens, 18-45 is winner here for me
17:15 Yeah, I find it odd they didn't take this lens to 15mm.
Also surprising Canon got the Sigma lens before Nikon.
I use the old Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, with adapter of course. I contend that the lens provides optical qualities close to "L" lenses, and the AF acquisition speeds are fine to excellent on the EOS R7. Optical IS works as well, although it does not support the R7 IBIS.
The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM works fine for my needs, and, in combination with the R7, provides excellent results. Happy camper here!
It was certainly one of their best apsc lenses, I remember testing it and you can find my ancient review of it on this channel!
You’re right about that. I had to speak with a Canon rep because I was having issues with it connecting properly to my c300 years ago. The rep said that lens was actually considered to have the same problem grade as the L series.
I have never owned a lens slower than F4 on a full frame camera. I really struggle to put an F6.3 on an APS-C for general use unless it's literally in board daylight. If they make an RF-S 18-45mm F4 and charge 200 quid for it, the lens would at least be a somewhat useful daytime outdoor lens. You can't even be indoors during the day at f6.3.
At that point why not just by the the sigma 18-50 2.8 for 600 bucks at that point.
200 quid won’t get any RF-S lens that I’m aware off let alone a constant f4
@@mvp_kryptoniteThat's part of his point. This is a crappy lens that is vastly overpriced. For this to make sense to anyone it needs to be way cheaper or way better.
@@falxonPSN it’s the usual upsell to full frame or at least a ff lens. But being able to autofocus better than DSLR and have smaller glass (see the supported sigmas) it’s time Canon produce better lenses for APS-C no doubt
@@mvp_kryptonite It's the same piece of crap as the RF 24-50mm f5-6.3 IS STM. No one uses it. How about a more affordable constant f4? Same for the RF-S. An RF-S 16-30mm F4 is going to be more expensive, but at least it'd be a meaningful and useful lens. Rather than having a paperweight, the RF 50mm F1.8 and a non-existing RF-S 30mm F1.8 would be great affordable kit lenses.
Best compact kit zoom on the market today is the Fuji 15-45. Would love to see that review.
Have you used a Olympus 12-40 or 12-45?
@@oneeyedphotographer I have not shot an MFT in a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if it's also excellent knowing OM's usual quality.
Well... just a bit like the older EF-S 18-55 it's surprisingly sharp but pretty much unimpressive apart from that. the longer end is rather disappointing though with the small aperture and only 45mm on the "long" end.
Good morning Gordon. Being currently very happy with my rather large number of Fuji X-Mount cameras and lenses as well as a couple of Nikon Zfs, I am not in the market for a Canon. However, I have ALWAYS enjoyed your videos and this one is no exception. I love your informal, yet very thorough reviews and have learned a lot from watching you over several years now. It also helps that I love Brighton too, and have many happy memories of Brighton and Hove going back to the late 1950s. Seeing you on your walkabout talking head videos, or ones like this with occasional shots of the city, is really nice. And who knows, maybe I WILL get tempted into a new camera or lens. Best Wishes.
Thanks for watching and glad you're enjoying the Brighton views! Hope you get to return sometime!
My main question here is why is this lens not the same as the EF-M 15-45 lens, why did they restrict both the focal range and the aperture? Is it because the 15-18 range or the wider apertures were less sharp (on 32Mpix for example)? Is it a hardware or firmware limitation? I suspect it is firmware because I strongly doubt that they modified the design and think that they have just changed the mount.
I am really leaning towards the "conspiracy" theory here: I think it is to make the lens worse so that people buy more expensive lenses, I really can't think of any other explanation that would really make convicing sense. And, if that is true, it adds to my frustration as a 2 decades long Canon APS-C and full frame pro bodies owner. There are other things that annoy me like why doesn't the R10 have the same autofocus options as the R50 and why is the R50 a bit better? They both have the same gear inside, when Canon improved the algorithms for the R50, why didn't they send them through to the R10 owners as a firmware update when both cameras have the same sensor and processor combo? Especially since they didn't discontinue the R10, it is still on sale and it is still more expensive than the R50... All other major brands would have done it.... It is probably for that reason that Canon's market share decreases year after year and, instead of taking the Nikon approach, they have decided to sabotage their products (worse firmwares, worse lenses and actually almost no APS-C lenses)
just got the R10 with the kit lens because it was cheaper than the body alone haha
kit lenses are often underrated , the fuji 15-45 is great too, perhaps sharper than this and significantly wider, I have taken so many good photos with it, so were the older Nikon f dx 18-55 zooms, how about a second chance to the Sony 16-50 II ? is it really optically the same as the first version ?
I think this is pretty good, though I'd 100pct take the sigma. I would put this up there with the Lumix 12-32 MFT kit. It's small, cheap, and surprisingly good ... just not quite as good as is possible.
I just used the RF-S 10-18 and this looks like the same construction really. The collapsing state is better than Canons previous lenses that have a switch but other than that, I didn’t get on with the lens. The zoom ring and the control/focus ring are too close to each other and the later I constantly kept moving. I’m sticking with the EF-S 10-22.
Canon needs to forget these basic lenses as I think now they have wide, normal ans telephoto zooms covered let’s develop some series RF-S lenses. 15-85 & 17-55 replacements please. The new sigma offering isn’t for me
The 1022 can definitely still do damage.. I never did sell mine but I might end up giving it away to a family member in the next year or so.
The EFM 11 to 22 is as good as that as plus is Plus Great corners.
Canon and RFS = cheap cheap cheap
If you want to test a lens IS, you should use a body that has no IBIS like the R10 you show early in the video, otherwise indeed you can't really measure the performance of the IS and by "substraction" it isn't the same (IBIS+IS - IBIS alone with another lens ... which you could have tried but haven't) and the results won't be helpful for R100, R50 or R10 users.
I completely agree, but for this test I only had access to the R7.
@@cameralabs ok you are forgiven :). I am an early fan and live in London, but probably know Brighton more than from me very few visits just by watching your videos ... In case you ever need an R10, I have one who is the more discreet and lighter partner to my R5. (And my mini classic camera home museum)
18-45mm , but why not as previous EOSM 15-45mm ?
Who knows?
Had this lens when I got an R7. Used for a week, I tried it but it was disappointing. When the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8was released I instantly got it and its far better.
Agreed
Thank you for the review. It’s always interesting to watch your channel no matter which camera I use.
Thanks!
I just bought an OM 5 with its kit lens, 12-45 F4.
I have an OM-D E-M1x and a kit lens, 12-100 F4.
I have an OM-D E-M1 II and a kit lens, 12-40 F2.8.
I like my kit lenses.. I _might_ get a 14-42. I don't think anyone will know from my photos.
Olympus does make some good kit zooms
@@cameralabs It would be interesting to test the flagship mirrorless cameras plus suitable lenses in various genres of photography. For example:
Wedding , portrait, wildlife etc photographer, R1, RF 24-70 F2.8 (or RF 28-70 F2), 70-200, a longer zoom for those who want to shoot mobile wildlife, motor sports etc, F2.8 and whatever the ultrawide is. OM 1 II and three equivalent lenses, etc.
Landscapes
R1 plus F4 versions.
I don't expect my S1R (is it the flagship?) would rate for motor sports, but the G9 II should do rater well. And the OM 1 II. I don't expect the last two would rate as "best," but I do think they will do a lot better than many people expect and perfectly adequate for most uses. It's worth to point out high resolution where available., live ND, live GND etc.
What adapter should we use for your MFT lenses to the RF mount.
I love my MFT lenses but they are not on my r7 or r8 radar. Never knew I could use the MFT lenses on it. This is a game changer.
What adapter should we use for your MFT lenses to the RF mount.
I love my MFT lenses but they are not on my r7 or r8 radar. Never knew I could use the MFT lenses on it. This is a game changer.
I still can’t believe and accept f6.3 even if it’s a budget option and even has a plastic mount. Sigma, Tamron you must save Canon
Sigma has already done that.😂
Canon has never and will never take the APSC format seriously. Their product line with perhaps the exception of the 7D Mark II has been utterly disappointing.
@@falxonPSN R7 is pretty good for the price. It's at the same place where 7Dii was, no native Canon lenses, but there were ton-loads of 3rd party lenses.
Im still using a EOS-M5 with the 15-45 and agree that 15mm is a good deal wider than the 18mm, ive not gone EOS-R yet as my main camera is a 5D2 and my travel is the EOS-M and at this time I dont see the need for me to upgrade, if I did I will likely go 5D4 anyway.
Man get off of that 5D2 already!
The 5d3 is a far better camera and you can get it for super cheap.
5d3 is such a workhorse you deserve even just that part of it. Great body if you want to stick 2 dslrs without bells and whistles
Do it!!! 🎉😊 And yes budgets are a thing, jussayin
When you upgrade from the M-5 is the time to consider ALL mirrorless cameras. I switched from Pentax to Canon for autofocus, then Canon to several mirrorless cameras, none made by Canon. Now I use a Lumix S1R and adaptor form my TS-E lenses, Olympus and Lumix G for pretty much everything else. If you buy an APS-C camera branded Canon, Nikon, Sony, you don't have a line of pro lenses designed for APS-C cameras to aspire to.
It's true, those companies don't seem to care much about apsc lenses. Sony does have a few better options than Canon and nikon though
Honestly, I’m just a bit disappointed in this lens. Seems like a downgrade over the standard Dslr 18-55mm kit lenses. It surprises me that many companies are making mirrorless versions of their Dslr lenses, only to use slower aperture designs. Another informative review, however, thanks 👍
Hello Gorgeous Gordon - thanks for the review 😎👍
You're welcome Michael!
Canon just keep releasing those crappy lenses, how tf do they allow themselves to do that over and over and over again
Muahahahahaha ha!
People are stupid. They're capitalising on people's stupidity (innocence if you're an optimist)
Gordon explained in the video why you might want one of these lenses in your kit. Were you not paying attention?
Nar. He didn't even watch the video. He just like to b*tch
worth it? No
The fact that they bundle this for a $100 premium and then charge you 300 when sold separately is downright insulting for the quality of this lens. A decent lens with IS, could maybe be sold up to 200 bucks given how tiny the aperture is. And of course the usual Canon cheaping out on lens hoods etc.
Even accounting for the cost of packaging the lens separately would only add maybe $10 to $15.
True, but they're not designed to be sold separately. It's made for bundles. You'll see similar strategies for most kit zooms
On a tight budget? Buy the lens WITH the camera.
Already have a camera and thinking about this lens? Save up and buy the Sigma.
Exactly
Interesting
I would prefer a bigger lens with faster f-stops, f6.3 is a bit too dark for me.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks, yes, brighter would always be nicer, but again this is designed for a size, weight and price point
👍
It's almost as if Canon are intentionally trying to make their APS-C line unexciting? But why ....
I know, it's always been like that.
After watching all canon videos, I think canon R8 body with 35mm 1.8F is the sweet spot entering mirrorless cameras. 😅
Yes that's a nice combo
I bought the EOS RP some years ago with the RF 1.8 35mm and it is truely a great lens especially the "Macro" capabilities. Not only for full frame but also for APS-C where it converts to a ~50mm including 31 x 45mm image frame at the minimum focus distance!