Thanks Christopher for this honest review. This lens is an insult to all who are still loyal Canon customers! In regards to your upcoming RF-S 18-150 review, it would be great to see a comparison with the nice EF-S 18-135 IS USM, as many of us already posess this lens and it might outperform the RF-S 18-150 in some areas (e.g. it has wider max apertures at given focal lengths).
@@zegzbrutal I am heavily invested in Canon L glass, I'd never buy this lens - yet it leaves me speachless. If I compare the RF-S 18-150 to its EF-S predecessor 18-135 IS USM (which I own and respect), I see: wider max apertures at mid and tele focal lengths at the 18-135, metal lens mount at the EF-S vs plastic mount at the RF-S, nano-USM focus motor at the EF-S vs STM motor at the RF-S. This all goes into the wrong direction! What's wrong at Canon?
Hahaha, I want to see your comment when Canon releases the 22mm and 32mm RF mount that pretty much ef-m lens changed mount to rf like how these two kit lens are Ah yeah, the RF 18-150 is pretty much repackaged ef-m lens. So the lens performance review is already out there in the wild
I absolutely loved using my canon cameras, felt at home with the perfect grip, the perfect touch display, the great ergonomics overall … and got those great colours. But I had to leave Canon, because again and again they decide to punish and humiliate users of non pro equipment: omitting the lens hood, using plastic mounts, crippling functionality (remember cameras without spot metering?), card slot in the battery compartment in a fullframe camera (EOS RP) etc. Parting hurts but sometimes you have to respect yourself.
Agreed. I remember the cheap mount of a Nikon 18-105 kit lens (superior to this one in range, as they also have an 18-55 equivalent to this). Sony has a mediocre 16-50 APS-C kit lens, but all their lenses (even their cheapest kit ones) have both a metal mount, and a silent, internal focusing mechanism (unlike the Canon RF 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8, for instance).
Had the same feeling when I was with Canon. I paid a very good (hefty price) for the EF-S 15-85 which deem to be the best APS-C glass on Canon, good range good IQ good focusing minus fixed aperture and it had wide 15mm (x1.6 is wide). Even after paying a premium (costs more than 17-40L) it still didn't come with a lens hood. Same for EF-S 10-22, again the same thing. Basically these 2 are my workhorse lens and they cost A LOT more than if I just bought L glass and they still didn't come with hood and all. In the end I did pro works with all those glasses and still not a CPS member because I don't have red ring glasses. No longer with Canon.
Ooomph, yeah Canon sure makes some strange arrogant business decisions. A plastic lens mount (on the body!!?!) and getting rid of the flash x-contact, it’s so unnecessary.
You're not only respecting yourself, you are also doing a service to everyone because that's exactly how we let them know that this is no longer considered acceptable.
Hi Chris. Thank you for the review and for saving me some money. I got my R10 but decided to swap this kit lens for a EF-S adapter. I recently got RF-S 55-210 and am very impressed with it. Having see this review I am going to stick to using my trusty EF-S 18-55 with the adapter.
This is yet another reason why I want to move on from Canon. I would be interested in seeing this compared to the EF-M 15-45mm version. I owned the M50 II and absolutely loved that lens. I purchased this lens with my R10 and immediately regretted it. The R10 is an amazing camera for what it is but with no support from the Canon's lens lineup and of course Canon's refusal to open the lens catalog up, I've already planned my Sony replacements.
I left Canon about 2 years ago and never looked back for Olympus/OMD. Don't concern yourself with sensor size, as long as you understand your equipment and have good glass, you can get the similar shot even during low-light-action photography.
@@Al.j.Vasquez Yea I hear you bro. My main camera is the Canon R5 and I can't wait till Oct 26th when the A7rV is announced. That will be my next camera along with Sony's M50 equivalent for travel and every day usage.
He already did test the old EF-M 15-45 mm kit lens on an 32 MP sensor. If you assume his setup is identical then the older kit lens is a bit sharper and overall brighter.
Nice video as usual! This was an odd release by Canon. Considering Christopher's tests show how bad it is on the wide end, I guess if it were at 15mm then it would have been a lot worse. Maybe there was some type of quirk dealing with the flange distance differences between EF-M and RF, presuming it's basically the same design.
Hes using it on a 32 megapixel camera. He tested the Nikon kit lens on a FAR less demanding 20 megapixel Z50. Put the Sony and Nikon kit lenses on 32 megapixel cameras and they will fall apart in tests....
@@michaelbell75 Yet he put the RF-S 18-150 on the same camera and he was impressed by it. Same for the new RF-S 55-210. So it looks like this lens is a bit of a dud.
You know, I had a joke typed out about Canon not making this cover a full APS-C frame at 18mm like they did with the 24-240 and it only covering APS-C at 24mm, but then I watched, and that's precisely what they did, just not as badly. I also think it's hilarious how Canon went right along with Nikon in saying that the larger mount meant smaller lenses that Sony couldn't do, and you'd think that would have applied to APS-C lenses too. Yet here they are with what should be one of the smallest lenses on the mount and it's substantially bigger than Sony's option.
I don't understand why Canon even bothered with this lens. They already had an equally meh EF-M 15-45mm with a slightly wider f/3.5. Canon should have just glued an RF mount on that thing and called it a day
The original M kit lens was 18 wide. Then a few years later, Canon came out with the 15-45 kit lens. I expect Canon to do the same thing with RF-S. In a few years they will come out with a 15 wide kit lens. Canon is really annoying like that.
Some engineers at Canon: "Guys listen up. For our next kit lens for the RF-S, let's combine the wide end of the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens and the long end of the EF-M 15-45mm kit lens. While we're at it let's make the aperture horribly dark to make the lens body small. But not too small that our dumb customers would think it's a flimsy lens." Honestly, the Sony 16-50mm PZ is my least favourite kit lens of all time, not so much with the IQ, but the experience of PZ. But I'd go with that rather than this horrible nonsense.
I have just been on a video watch bender of all your reviews for the RF range. I came here last as I knew it was the worst. Here is where this lens lands.... It was free with my R10.... I have not owned a camera for 13+ years and am basically starting again. It is good enough for me to practice around the house getting used to the camera settings while I wait to buy a 35 Prime.
Why I´m not at Canon today? This happens with almost every RF lens compared to Sony´s and Z´s lenses. Plus not as high standard sensor as Sony and Z ones too. Not choosing the R system made me earn 3000 dollars in 3 years. Also Dinamic range, AFocussing against sunlight (not good with R6, R7, and R3), sharp lenses lose less detail at high Isos, and more... are real use influence to me as a professional Photographer. Thank Chris for your unbiased time once again.
This lens tells us exactly what Canon think of their customer base unless they have the financial resources to buy over priced R FF glass. When it comes to APS-C Fuji is the boss.
@@STAR0SS The fuji kit lens is $200 when bought with a camera. It is more than 1 stop brighter, better zoom range (18-55mm), made out of metal, beautiful mechanism, better image quality, built in IS switch... Well worth the extra $100
@@nathanwilson58 the 18-55 is a great standard zoom that usually purchased along with the camera. It's not in the same class with other "kit" lens. The real Fuji kit is the 15-45 xc.
Thanks for reviewing the RF-S 18-45mm. I have the R7 and have been looking forward to you reviewing the RF-S 18-150 that came with my R7 kit. I enjoy the lens IQ and boy is the lens compact. I have better L grade lenses and the RF 24-240mm as an alternate to the 18-150 but with more bulk/weight and changing lenses in the field.
Hi Chris, Eagerly waiting for a video of R7 coupled with Sigma 18-35 and Sigma 50-100 because I really feel those lenses can resolve the 32MP high resolution of this sensor. Thanks for all your honest reviews...
Dear Chris, thank you a lot for this review. For me, it would be nice, if you could make a comparison to the EF-S 18-55 F4-5.6 STM. And, saying that: It would be even more nice, if there would be a comparison between the RF-S 18-150 and the EF-S 18-135 USM on the same sensor in the 18-150 review. Then it is better to decide, if the adapted 18-135 is as good as possible for a superzoom, or if the 18-150 is better. And if you could say that, in the following review: Is the 18-150 as good on the R7, as the 24-240 USM is on the old "R" (nearly same resolution)? Thank you! 🙂
The new 18-150 RF-S lens is noticeably BETTER than the older EF-S 18-135 Nano USM lens. Last week I tested them against each other on a Canon R10. The new RF-S 18-150 lens is slightly sharper in the middle and MUCH sharper on the edges and in the corners. It's not even close.
@@timwhoknowsthings1408 Last week I also had a R10 with the 18-150 to compare with my EF-S 18-135 USM. In my case, at 18mm the RF was slightly sharper, but at 135mm the EF-S was much sharper than the RF at 150mm. And that in the middle and also the edges. The next thing was, that the AF and the IS did not work properly at 150mm in dimn light conditions. When the adapted EF-S had sharp images, the RF was really blurry. I cannot tell, if I got a bad lens, but in direct comparison, the 18-135 was the better lens.
Edges are not that bad for this class. Maybe with more gentle manually correction, they will look even better. And this distortion also does not look as bad as 24-105 or 24-240. It is interesting to look at the comparison with the best of the EF-S kits. Maybe with IS or 4-5.6 stm. In general, I would not demand honest resolution from 24+ mp aps-c cameras. Not with canon noise and dynamic range. I take it just as additional data for downsizing.
There are plenty of legitimate complaints, this is not one of them. This is a kit lens. This would be made regardless of 3rd party support or not, and 3rd parties don't make an equivalent of this lens if 3rd party support was allowed.
@@trym2121 That’s the weirdest argument ever to me. There’s something to be said about being able to adapt lenses, but it highlights yet again that the current line-up simply isn’t adequate. Besides, DSLR lenses will never get the most out of that new RF mount. Mirrorless designed lenses allow for much better IQ gains, especially towards the corners. Btw, to reply to another commenter here: there are plenty of high IQ kit-lens replacements on the market that Canon mirrorless users will not be able to use. I can imagine many R7 users would be very happy to kit their body out with the Sigma 18-50 DN or Tamron 17-70.
Hi Chris. Thanks for another great review. Are you going to review the new RF 24mm 1.8 any time soon? I'd love to see a review of that (and I think it's one you'd really like, judging by how much you liked the 35mm 1.8!).
Yea this was a dumb move by canon I think. New photographers are going to buy their first canon camera with this lens, go out and use it, and think, ya know my iPhone takes better photos than this... and then never use a camera again. They should have made a good kit lens like Fuji that sucks new customers in and makes them loyal.... sell it at a loss even... they'll buy more camera stuff eventually. I think they went cheap thinking people will want to go out and upgrade their lens sooner... short sighted logic.
As it is my R50 kit lens. IMO, This lens has a very strange usable focal length and darker aperture compared to the EF-S version. The only advantage of this lens is that it has a very fast focusing system and amazing optical image stabilization. Although I don't have any problems using this lens as a kit lens, I definitely won't buy it separately.
This makes me think my M50 will be my first and only Canon. M line is essentially dead and there's no other Canon I want to upgrade to given the poor lens selection.
A distinct lack of effort from Canon. The 15-45 kit lens that came with my EOS M6 is better than this both in performance and maximum aperture. It’s a shame that 3rd party lenses from Sigma and Viltrox won’t be available as they make some very good and affordable high aperture primes.
I bet this is actually a rebranded EF-M 15-45mm, with the wide end intentionally locked from 18mm It shows similar deficiencies to the EF-M lens, including distortion, vignetting and poor close up at 45mm
Wow, this lens is DoA and PiTA , too! 🙂 My 18-55/4-5.6 STM is better, but EF-S. The 15-45 Canon M Mount was already with all kind of optical flaws, according to Ming Thein, Review is online still, since his EOS M6 review. It's funny, this plastic drastique starts at F4.5, and goes to F6.3 (!), this is much worse than usual F3.5-4.5, or F3.5-5.6 Kitlenses of that kind. This lens looks like it's being 99 bucks literally, but not 300... especially with the horrible distortion, which is in-camera digitally corrected, but costs some resolution. A clearly underdesigned, underperforming Kitlens...just enough to sell the EOS R10, i'd feel sorry for buying into a closed RF-S System, whereas no 3rd party lenses being avialable...
Ugh, I have been waffling on the R50, but like most who buy this camera I do not plan on buying a bunch of different lenses for it, so I was hoping the kit lens was not mediocre.
The new 18-150 RF-S lens is noticeably BETTER than the older EF-S 18-135 Nano USM lens. Last week I tested them against each other on a Canon R10. The new RF-S 18-150 lens is slightly sharper in the middle and MUCH sharper on the edges and in the corners. It's not even close.
Looks like they designed this with the opposite formula from most zoom lenses, it's like they took a 45mm Prime and made it zoom wider, whereas most other lenses use the wide end for their best image quality and zoom longer.
Considering the sensor size the lens is slower than top end phones. People often asked when will phones beat interchangeable lens cameras I have always said never. Well Canon proved me wrong with this. S23 Ultra has f/1.7 and crop 3.54 i.e. equivalent aperture of f/6.0. This has f/7.3. EOS M50 still has slightly better than the phone f/5.7. Yes, you can get additional lenses but most users never buy them so this lens is why I cannot recommend Canon even though I personally have never and any other brand.
@@michaelbell75 my comment was 7 months ago… and I’m still not wrong because the context was lenses. Canons low end lenses are very dark, rely too much on in camera corrections and seem like lazy EF/EF-M conversions.
@@kingsamvisuals ah ok. Well yea, Canon doesn’t make many crop sensor lenses, they never have. How many decades was the EF mount around? Only 11 lenses for it. That’s because most people use FF lenses on their crop sensor cameras. Most APS-C lenses are garbage and they are useless on FF cameras.
Here is why --- Nikon is a lens(optics) company first and foremost. Canon is a Printer company, first and foremost...I assure this is isnt conjecture when I say this.
Yeah, I had to rewatch Chris's review of the Z 16-50 DX and it is just so much better. It is like 2/3 stop faster, and covers up to 24mm equivalent instead of almost 29mm here while being smaller. Not sure what Canon is thinking here especially when they already have the better EF-M 15-45.
@@NoSuRReNDeR001 Canon can produce great professional lenses. They simply didn't put much effort in producing the kit lenses. How can we still use the printer company excuse when canon is currently 2nd in camera/lens sales 😅
@@NoSuRReNDeR001 Nonsense idiotic comment! Canon makes lenses for longer than Nikon. They made lenses and cameras long time before they started to make printers. They have some of the best lenses in the industry for decades. This lens is bad because of lack of effort/pricecutting.
Kind of sad that this is the quality of it's kit lens. I actually miss the days when the starting aperture for a zoom lens that starts at F3.5 was considered budget or part of a kit. Looks like when I do make the jump to mirrorless AND if I decide to stick with Canon. I'll be buying a EF-to-RF converter instead of buying new lenses while holding on to my DSLR lenses. Canon's marketing decisions this year has been disappointing to say the least. I like using my Tamron and Sigma lenses - I replaced my original 18-55mm kit with a Sigma 17-70mm not too long after I bought my first DSLR camera, a Canon Rebel T6. My lens line up for my 6D MkII comprises of mostly Tamron lenses with my F4 24-105mm being the only L lens I own. I hope Canon will change their marketing strategy to include 3rd party lenses.
Hi Christ. Thanks for your review of this lens. I can feel how you are disappointed by Canon introduce such "poor price per performance" lens in their new RF-S system because I used to a Canon shooter as a DSLR shooter with 80D and 5D Mark III few years ago. I wish Canon could sell their camera business to other company and have a new restart! 🤣
I was led to believe that mirrorless lenses would be way better than their DSLR counterparts because of the larger mounts and shorter flange distance. You'd think even kit lenses like this would be pretty good given they should be easier to design. This lens is frankly an embarrassment for Canon. I get that it's an entry level model but this is bad in pretty much every way, Canon have gone backwards in my opinion. I was starting to believe that at this point there wasn't any really truly horrendous modern lenses anymore, this Canon lens suggests I was wrong.
When will the review for the RF-S 18-150mm come out? I am waiting for the EOS R7 body to become available maybe next month since I have a good selection of RF glass including the F4L trinity and RF 100-400mm for my EOS R already but if your review of the RF-S 18-150mm is favorable I might bite the bullet and buy that bundle now so I don't have to wait. I can get the bundle in a matter of two days. :)
so they aren't able to keep the maximum f5'6 as standard in kit lenses? That's something worrying from new mirrorless lenses, they are becoming bigger or not fast enough.
F4.5 to start with?? 🤮 Hope R7 and R10 buyers know that it's nearly impossible to purchase affordable third party RF mount lenses. Either buy expensive RF lenses or adapt old EF lenses.
You buy the APSC camera and then you are forced to take the full frame lenses which have a magnification of 1.6 times these commercial moves I do not understand them
Canon's APSC lenses are terrible. they never believed in the crop sensor but they have always been a lark to push you to buy the full frame.Fujifilm is the only company that truly believes in APSC
That wasn't always the case, the 18-55mm was always a decent lens optically and its aperture at the wide end was a fine f3.5. They also had a 15-85mm which had great image quality as well as other competent prime lenses such as the 35mm f2 IS macro.
I don't like it because it honestly seems way too expensive. You can get the EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS STM for $100 less, and it has a wider aperture and zooms farther!!!
1 🙂 Thanks Chris for this as always excellent review... Definitely not buying this lens. I'd rather buy a used ef 24 105 f4l is usm mki for a couple hundred bucks and get better results, even though I lose 6*1.6=10mm at the wide end.
I bought in on the EF-M mount not long after it came out. How did they manage to mess this up. The EF-M 15-45mm has been a lens I always keep in my bag. It is a kit lense but it is pretty sharp and useful. Also while being plastic it feels good. How did Canon manage to fall on this one? Also Christopher Frost's review of the 15-45mm: ruclips.net/video/vF-sYxVBeF8/видео.html
If you compare his review of the "Sharp enough for 32.5 mp" for the efm-15-45 mm kit lens with this one I would dare to say the old one is a lot sharper overall.
The image quality is better than the original EF kit lens and a lot smaller. Too bad the build quality of this seems so cheap. Should have another bigger kit lens that has at least an extra stop of light and better build quality for an extra $100
Not defending this lens, but it is not made for a 32MP sensor for sure…should not be as bad in the R10, hopefully Chris will run a quick test with that camera
So strange to come out with such poor lens after making one of best kit lenses on EF-M mount. I own 2 copies of 15-45 for M and i have to admit that quality control is not at its best when it come to that lens. Some copies are much sharper then others so i wonder if this lens is affected by that as well? Seems almost too bad to be true. 😅
Thanks but no idea why everyone picked the R7 for this. Who is buying a $1,500 32 megapixel camera and using a kit lens on it? Pretty much no one. Would have preferred to see this on the R10. I bet it performs much better. Kit lenses have come a long way over the years.
another reason why i will never, *ever* use canon. they just make horrible decisions for build quality and value on their Non-L equipment. Look at their prime lenses. the 35mm macro and 85mm macro have AF systems that are about as loud as screwdrive autofocus technology was back in the SLR days.. those lenses are very plasticky too, and don't include lens hoods! and shame on canon for still using plastic mounts in 2022, even for kit lenses this is a low that nobody else is reaching anymore.
Correction: I see nikon is still using Plastic mounts on their DX Mirrorless lenses. But the price on theirs is half as much as canons. Sony doesn’t do this anymore though. Not sure about other brands but fuji doesn’t either
The combination of Canon not encouraging openness with their RF mount and things like this high price and low quality for what should be an appealing entry point like this is causing me to not want to move to Canon any time soon.
I think the awful specs are due to canon trying to make their Rf-s lenses skinnier at the base, pushing people to buy the larger RF lenses for the style points. It's the whole "red ring" thing but even more pronounced, cut oit the 3rd party market, make the budget options awful AND ugly as sin and then hope to rake in the cash after low-end adoptors are led to buying big money glass...
They're skinnier because they only need to project an image circle that's half the area. Would you rather have a lens that's needlessly thicker or slimmer.
Imagine if Canon cared about its users instead of worrying about making money. Then this lens would not even exist. This is frustrating, uncomfortable, and makes you feel helpless. The only reason I haven't switched to Sony yet is because I prefer to use my Sigma 18-35, but that's not enough to stick with it.
Thx for the review Chris. What a cheap looking, insulting piece of plastic crap! Performance per £ is terrible. It's like something that fell out of a Christmas cracker! I don't even own a mirrorless Apsc and I wouldn't want to if that's the standard of rubbish that fits to it!
@@DeepteshLovesTECH Well if you can call those f2.8-4 lenses a kit lens. They are so expensive, well but great. In the battle of 100$ kit lenses both Sony and specially Nikon beats this Canon lens in every aspect.
Thanks Christopher for this honest review. This lens is an insult to all who are still loyal Canon customers! In regards to your upcoming RF-S 18-150 review, it would be great to see a comparison with the nice EF-S 18-135 IS USM, as many of us already posess this lens and it might outperform the RF-S 18-150 in some areas (e.g. it has wider max apertures at given focal lengths).
Loyal Canon users aren't going to use this lens anyway. And since the 18-150 is better, most R7/R10 buyers go for that anyway
@@zegzbrutal I am heavily invested in Canon L glass, I'd never buy this lens - yet it leaves me speachless.
If I compare the RF-S 18-150 to its EF-S predecessor 18-135 IS USM (which I own and respect), I see: wider max apertures at mid and tele focal lengths at the 18-135, metal lens mount at the EF-S vs plastic mount at the RF-S, nano-USM focus motor at the EF-S vs STM motor at the RF-S. This all goes into the wrong direction! What's wrong at Canon?
This lens shouldnt exist at all.
Hahaha, I want to see your comment when Canon releases the 22mm and 32mm RF mount that pretty much ef-m lens changed mount to rf like how these two kit lens are
Ah yeah, the RF 18-150 is pretty much repackaged ef-m lens. So the lens performance review is already out there in the wild
@@trym2121 tbh I can see the APS-C Sigma prime trios will come to RF-S as they did with EF-M. Patience will do.
I absolutely loved using my canon cameras, felt at home with the perfect grip, the perfect touch display, the great ergonomics overall … and got those great colours.
But I had to leave Canon, because again and again they decide to punish and humiliate users of non pro equipment: omitting the lens hood, using plastic mounts, crippling functionality (remember cameras without spot metering?), card slot in the battery compartment in a fullframe camera (EOS RP) etc.
Parting hurts but sometimes you have to respect yourself.
Agreed. I remember the cheap mount of a Nikon 18-105 kit lens (superior to this one in range, as they also have an 18-55 equivalent to this).
Sony has a mediocre 16-50 APS-C kit lens, but all their lenses (even their cheapest kit ones) have both a metal mount, and a silent, internal focusing mechanism (unlike the Canon RF 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8, for instance).
Had the same feeling when I was with Canon.
I paid a very good (hefty price) for the EF-S 15-85 which deem to be the best APS-C glass on Canon, good range good IQ good focusing minus fixed aperture and it had wide 15mm (x1.6 is wide). Even after paying a premium (costs more than 17-40L) it still didn't come with a lens hood. Same for EF-S 10-22, again the same thing. Basically these 2 are my workhorse lens and they cost A LOT more than if I just bought L glass and they still didn't come with hood and all.
In the end I did pro works with all those glasses and still not a CPS member because I don't have red ring glasses.
No longer with Canon.
Ooomph, yeah Canon sure makes some strange arrogant business decisions. A plastic lens mount (on the body!!?!) and getting rid of the flash x-contact, it’s so unnecessary.
Maybe next: they will sue anybody who made bad reviews about their cameras and lenses
You're not only respecting yourself, you are also doing a service to everyone because that's exactly how we let them know that this is no longer considered acceptable.
Chris pretty much summed it up at 7:40 ...I'm grateful I went body only with my R7.
Hi Chris. Thank you for the review and for saving me some money. I got my R10 but decided to swap this kit lens for a EF-S adapter. I recently got RF-S 55-210 and am very impressed with it. Having see this review I am going to stick to using my trusty EF-S 18-55 with the adapter.
Can’t wait to see your review of the RF 24mm 1.8. Such mixed reviews on that one out there
Indeed as mentioned at 1:07, widest is 28.8 mm equivalent, as Canon APS-C has a 1.6 crop factor. And not 27 mm as shown on screen.
Chris said 29 haha
This is yet another reason why I want to move on from Canon. I would be interested in seeing this compared to the EF-M 15-45mm version. I owned the M50 II and absolutely loved that lens. I purchased this lens with my R10 and immediately regretted it. The R10 is an amazing camera for what it is but with no support from the Canon's lens lineup and of course Canon's refusal to open the lens catalog up, I've already planned my Sony replacements.
I left Canon about 2 years ago and never looked back for Olympus/OMD. Don't concern yourself with sensor size, as long as you understand your equipment and have good glass, you can get the similar shot even during low-light-action photography.
The RF-S mount is DOA, Dead on Arrival, as an owner of an M50, I'll probably switch to Sony for my next camera.
@@Al.j.Vasquez Yea I hear you bro. My main camera is the Canon R5 and I can't wait till Oct 26th when the A7rV is announced. That will be my next camera along with Sony's M50 equivalent for travel and every day usage.
Maybe next:
Canon will sue everyone who make a bad review on their stuff
He already did test the old EF-M 15-45 mm kit lens on an 32 MP sensor. If you assume his setup is identical then the older kit lens is a bit sharper and overall brighter.
Nice video as usual! This was an odd release by Canon. Considering Christopher's tests show how bad it is on the wide end, I guess if it were at 15mm then it would have been a lot worse. Maybe there was some type of quirk dealing with the flange distance differences between EF-M and RF, presuming it's basically the same design.
Hes using it on a 32 megapixel camera. He tested the Nikon kit lens on a FAR less demanding 20 megapixel Z50. Put the Sony and Nikon kit lenses on 32 megapixel cameras and they will fall apart in tests....
@@michaelbell75 Yet he put the RF-S 18-150 on the same camera and he was impressed by it. Same for the new RF-S 55-210. So it looks like this lens is a bit of a dud.
You know, I had a joke typed out about Canon not making this cover a full APS-C frame at 18mm like they did with the 24-240 and it only covering APS-C at 24mm, but then I watched, and that's precisely what they did, just not as badly. I also think it's hilarious how Canon went right along with Nikon in saying that the larger mount meant smaller lenses that Sony couldn't do, and you'd think that would have applied to APS-C lenses too. Yet here they are with what should be one of the smallest lenses on the mount and it's substantially bigger than Sony's option.
I don't understand why Canon even bothered with this lens. They already had an equally meh EF-M 15-45mm with a slightly wider f/3.5. Canon should have just glued an RF mount on that thing and called it a day
The original M kit lens was 18 wide. Then a few years later, Canon came out with the 15-45 kit lens. I expect Canon to do the same thing with RF-S. In a few years they will come out with a 15 wide kit lens. Canon is really annoying like that.
Some engineers at Canon: "Guys listen up. For our next kit lens for the RF-S, let's combine the wide end of the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens and the long end of the EF-M 15-45mm kit lens. While we're at it let's make the aperture horribly dark to make the lens body small. But not too small that our dumb customers would think it's a flimsy lens."
Honestly, the Sony 16-50mm PZ is my least favourite kit lens of all time, not so much with the IQ, but the experience of PZ. But I'd go with that rather than this horrible nonsense.
I have just been on a video watch bender of all your reviews for the RF range. I came here last as I knew it was the worst. Here is where this lens lands.... It was free with my R10.... I have not owned a camera for 13+ years and am basically starting again. It is good enough for me to practice around the house getting used to the camera settings while I wait to buy a 35 Prime.
Why I´m not at Canon today? This happens with almost every RF lens compared to Sony´s and Z´s lenses. Plus not as high standard sensor as Sony and Z ones too. Not choosing the R system made me earn 3000 dollars in 3 years. Also Dinamic range, AFocussing against sunlight (not good with R6, R7, and R3), sharp lenses lose less detail at high Isos, and more... are real use influence to me as a professional Photographer. Thank Chris for your unbiased time once again.
This lens tells us exactly what Canon think of their customer base unless they have the financial resources to buy over priced R FF glass.
When it comes to APS-C Fuji is the boss.
Are those lens also $100 ?
@@STAR0SS The fuji kit lens is $200 when bought with a camera. It is more than 1 stop brighter, better zoom range (18-55mm), made out of metal, beautiful mechanism, better image quality, built in IS switch... Well worth the extra $100
@@TheBEARofHIGHWAY1 You just keep telling yourself that. Stockholm syndrome is a thing.
@@nathanwilson58 the 18-55 is a great standard zoom that usually purchased along with the camera. It's not in the same class with other "kit" lens. The real Fuji kit is the 15-45 xc.
Thanks for reviewing the RF-S 18-45mm. I have the R7 and have been looking forward to you reviewing the RF-S 18-150 that came with my R7 kit. I enjoy the lens IQ and boy is the lens compact. I have better L grade lenses and the RF 24-240mm as an alternate to the 18-150 but with more bulk/weight and changing lenses in the field.
Very good kit lens
Hi Chris,
Eagerly waiting for a video of R7 coupled with Sigma 18-35 and Sigma 50-100 because I really feel those lenses can resolve the 32MP high resolution of this sensor.
Thanks for all your honest reviews...
Dear Chris, thank you a lot for this review. For me, it would be nice, if you could make a comparison to the EF-S 18-55 F4-5.6 STM. And, saying that: It would be even more nice, if there would be a comparison between the RF-S 18-150 and the EF-S 18-135 USM on the same sensor in the 18-150 review. Then it is better to decide, if the adapted 18-135 is as good as possible for a superzoom, or if the 18-150 is better. And if you could say that, in the following review: Is the 18-150 as good on the R7, as the 24-240 USM is on the old "R" (nearly same resolution)? Thank you! 🙂
The new 18-150 RF-S lens is noticeably BETTER than the older EF-S 18-135 Nano USM lens. Last week I tested them against each other on a Canon R10. The new RF-S 18-150 lens is slightly sharper in the middle and MUCH sharper on the edges and in the corners. It's not even close.
@@timwhoknowsthings1408 Last week I also had a R10 with the 18-150 to compare with my EF-S 18-135 USM. In my case, at 18mm the RF was slightly sharper, but at 135mm the EF-S was much sharper than the RF at 150mm. And that in the middle and also the edges. The next thing was, that the AF and the IS did not work properly at 150mm in dimn light conditions. When the adapted EF-S had sharp images, the RF was really blurry. I cannot tell, if I got a bad lens, but in direct comparison, the 18-135 was the better lens.
Thanks Chris for doing a review of this. Got my R7 last month
Edges are not that bad for this class. Maybe with more gentle manually correction, they will look even better. And this distortion also does not look as bad as 24-105 or 24-240. It is interesting to look at the comparison with the best of the EF-S kits. Maybe with IS or 4-5.6 stm.
In general, I would not demand honest resolution from 24+ mp aps-c cameras. Not with canon noise and dynamic range. I take it just as additional data for downsizing.
Lens is an insult. I have the R7 (great camera) and am sticking with my old EF-S 15-85 lens with the adapter. Results have been really surprising.
Such a great lens the 15-85. Probably like a sheep in L clothing.
ah yes, we're giving up 3rd party for *this*. oh canon...
There are plenty of legitimate complaints, this is not one of them.
This is a kit lens. This would be made regardless of 3rd party support or not, and 3rd parties don't make an equivalent of this lens if 3rd party support was allowed.
@@gerrya2133 true, but look at the other APS-C options that Canon offers in the same zoom range...
EF to RF adapter is a valid option
@@trym2121 might as well stick to DSLRs then, why adopt a system when you have to use another's, in some cases unoptimized, glass
@@trym2121 That’s the weirdest argument ever to me. There’s something to be said about being able to adapt lenses,
but it highlights yet again that the current line-up simply isn’t adequate. Besides, DSLR lenses will never get the most out of that new RF mount. Mirrorless designed lenses allow for much better IQ gains, especially towards the corners.
Btw, to reply to another commenter here: there are plenty of high IQ kit-lens replacements on the market that Canon mirrorless users will not be able to use. I can imagine many R7 users would be very happy to kit their body out with the Sigma 18-50 DN or Tamron 17-70.
Hi Chris. Thanks for another great review. Are you going to review the new RF 24mm 1.8 any time soon? I'd love to see a review of that (and I think it's one you'd really like, judging by how much you liked the 35mm 1.8!).
Yea this was a dumb move by canon I think. New photographers are going to buy their first canon camera with this lens, go out and use it, and think, ya know my iPhone takes better photos than this... and then never use a camera again. They should have made a good kit lens like Fuji that sucks new customers in and makes them loyal.... sell it at a loss even... they'll buy more camera stuff eventually. I think they went cheap thinking people will want to go out and upgrade their lens sooner... short sighted logic.
As it is my R50 kit lens. IMO, This lens has a very strange usable focal length and darker aperture compared to the EF-S version. The only advantage of this lens is that it has a very fast focusing system and amazing optical image stabilization. Although I don't have any problems using this lens as a kit lens, I definitely won't buy it separately.
This makes me think my M50 will be my first and only Canon. M line is essentially dead and there's no other Canon I want to upgrade to given the poor lens selection.
Why not going to full frame
Good. And check about z kit lens. Both ff and crop got much better result.
Honest review and try to the point. This lens isn't anywhere on my list to get...
A distinct lack of effort from Canon. The 15-45 kit lens that came with my EOS M6 is better than this both in performance and maximum aperture. It’s a shame that 3rd party lenses from Sigma and Viltrox won’t be available as they make some very good and affordable high aperture primes.
I bet this is actually a rebranded EF-M 15-45mm, with the wide end intentionally locked from 18mm
It shows similar deficiencies to the EF-M lens, including distortion, vignetting and poor close up at 45mm
If so why they didn't end up with the 15mm instead of 18mm? The bigger mount shouldn't have been an excuse.
@@networm64 Just a business decision, they don't want to make the 18-150mm less appealing than the 18-45mm
@@wongkinchung9985 Well I just can say Canon is being too arrogant these days indeed
It's not. TDP has looked at them. The RF-S 18-150 is a retooled EF-M lens and this one is a new design.
Wow, this lens is DoA and PiTA , too! 🙂 My 18-55/4-5.6 STM is better, but EF-S. The 15-45 Canon M Mount was already with all kind of optical flaws, according to Ming Thein, Review is online still, since his EOS M6 review. It's funny, this plastic drastique starts at F4.5, and goes to F6.3 (!), this is much worse than usual F3.5-4.5, or F3.5-5.6 Kitlenses of that kind. This lens looks like it's being 99 bucks literally, but not 300... especially with the horrible distortion, which is in-camera digitally corrected, but costs some resolution. A clearly underdesigned, underperforming Kitlens...just enough to sell the EOS R10, i'd feel sorry for buying into a closed RF-S System, whereas no 3rd party lenses being avialable...
I've seen higher quality looking bottle tops. Probably optically superior ones too.
My holga film camera with a plastic lens looks better than this
Ugh, I have been waffling on the R50, but like most who buy this camera I do not plan on buying a bunch of different lenses for it, so I was hoping the kit lens was not mediocre.
That funny moment when you're editing photos from Tenby and meanwhile seeing photos from Tenby in the video :)
I would literally rather have an iPhone 7 as a main camera over this lens
Look forward to what you are saying about the 18-150, using at the moment then efs 18-135 which I do like on my R7. Have a great week, cheers mate
The new 18-150 RF-S lens is noticeably BETTER than the older EF-S 18-135 Nano USM lens. Last week I tested them against each other on a Canon R10. The new RF-S 18-150 lens is slightly sharper in the middle and MUCH sharper on the edges and in the corners. It's not even close.
Looks like they designed this with the opposite formula from most zoom lenses, it's like they took a 45mm Prime and made it zoom wider, whereas most other lenses use the wide end for their best image quality and zoom longer.
Considering the sensor size the lens is slower than top end phones. People often asked when will phones beat interchangeable lens cameras I have always said never. Well Canon proved me wrong with this. S23 Ultra has f/1.7 and crop 3.54 i.e. equivalent aperture of f/6.0. This has f/7.3. EOS M50 still has slightly better than the phone f/5.7.
Yes, you can get additional lenses but most users never buy them so this lens is why I cannot recommend Canon even though I personally have never and any other brand.
I have this lens and quite like it!
To be fair this should have been done with the 24MP R10 body which is more realistic as it’s best suited to it!
The z mount kit zooms are very impressive. Canon only cares about the high end with rf mount
Right. Thats why they have released 3 new RF cameras under $1k and the cheapest APS-C mirrorless camera, the R100.
@@michaelbell75 my comment was 7 months ago… and I’m still not wrong because the context was lenses. Canons low end lenses are very dark, rely too much on in camera corrections and seem like lazy EF/EF-M conversions.
@@kingsamvisuals ah ok. Well yea, Canon doesn’t make many crop sensor lenses, they never have. How many decades was the EF mount around? Only 11 lenses for it. That’s because most people use FF lenses on their crop sensor cameras. Most APS-C lenses are garbage and they are useless on FF cameras.
Nikon kit lenses are so much better than canon ones.
Here is why --- Nikon is a lens(optics) company first and foremost. Canon is a Printer company, first and foremost...I assure this is isnt conjecture when I say this.
Yeah, I had to rewatch Chris's review of the Z 16-50 DX and it is just so much better. It is like 2/3 stop faster, and covers up to 24mm equivalent instead of almost 29mm here while being smaller. Not sure what Canon is thinking here especially when they already have the better EF-M 15-45.
@@NoSuRReNDeR001 Canon can produce great professional lenses. They simply didn't put much effort in producing the kit lenses.
How can we still use the printer company excuse when canon is currently 2nd in camera/lens sales 😅
@@NoSuRReNDeR001 Nonsense idiotic comment! Canon makes lenses for longer than Nikon. They made lenses and cameras long time before they started to make printers. They have some of the best lenses in the industry for decades. This lens is bad because of lack of effort/pricecutting.
The EF-M equivalent has better maximum aperture values.
Yes starting at f/4.5 is very, very disappointing.
Kind of sad that this is the quality of it's kit lens. I actually miss the days when the starting aperture for a zoom lens that starts at F3.5 was considered budget or part of a kit. Looks like when I do make the jump to mirrorless AND if I decide to stick with Canon. I'll be buying a EF-to-RF converter instead of buying new lenses while holding on to my DSLR lenses. Canon's marketing decisions this year has been disappointing to say the least. I like using my Tamron and Sigma lenses - I replaced my original 18-55mm kit with a Sigma 17-70mm not too long after I bought my first DSLR camera, a Canon Rebel T6. My lens line up for my 6D MkII comprises of mostly Tamron lenses with my F4 24-105mm being the only L lens I own. I hope Canon will change their marketing strategy to include 3rd party lenses.
Is this Canon’s way of saying: “if you shoot APSC, go with Fuji” ?
This kit lens is probably intended for the future lower cost mirrorless cameras.
Hi Christ. Thanks for your review of this lens. I can feel how you are disappointed by Canon introduce such "poor price per performance" lens in their new RF-S system because I used to a Canon shooter as a DSLR shooter with 80D and 5D Mark III few years ago. I wish Canon could sell their camera business to other company and have a new restart! 🤣
Am looking forward to 18-150 review
I hope you can bring the new rf 15-30mm. It would be great. Cheers
I was led to believe that mirrorless lenses would be way better than their DSLR counterparts because of the larger mounts and shorter flange distance. You'd think even kit lenses like this would be pretty good given they should be easier to design. This lens is frankly an embarrassment for Canon. I get that it's an entry level model but this is bad in pretty much every way, Canon have gone backwards in my opinion. I was starting to believe that at this point there wasn't any really truly horrendous modern lenses anymore, this Canon lens suggests I was wrong.
Some kit lenses are indeed so-so, but look at the new Sony small FF kit lens. A litle gem.
@@bluehonour02 28-60 isn't a good lens other than being small
Dziękujemy.
Thanks!
When will the review for the RF-S 18-150mm come out? I am waiting for the EOS R7 body to become available maybe next month since I have a good selection of RF glass including the F4L trinity and RF 100-400mm for my EOS R already but if your review of the RF-S 18-150mm is favorable I might bite the bullet and buy that bundle now so I don't have to wait. I can get the bundle in a matter of two days. :)
so they aren't able to keep the maximum f5'6 as standard in kit lenses? That's something worrying from new mirrorless lenses, they are becoming bigger or not fast enough.
F4.5 to start with?? 🤮 Hope R7 and R10 buyers know that it's nearly impossible to purchase affordable third party RF mount lenses. Either buy expensive RF lenses or adapt old EF lenses.
You buy the APSC camera and then you are forced to take the full frame lenses which have a magnification of 1.6 times these commercial moves I do not understand them
Canon's APSC lenses are terrible. they never believed in the crop sensor but they have always been a lark to push you to buy the full frame.Fujifilm is the only company that truly believes in APSC
That wasn't always the case, the 18-55mm was always a decent lens optically and its aperture at the wide end was a fine f3.5. They also had a 15-85mm which had great image quality as well as other competent prime lenses such as the 35mm f2 IS macro.
Thats because the vast majority of people use FF lenses on their crop cameras. APS-C lenses are garbage.
Lmao Nikon offers a 16-50mm really sharp kit lens. What is this? What casual/consumer photographer would love a canon kit over a Nikon?
Still waiting for the old school sigma 17-50 2.8 + r7 combo 😘
01:08 29 or 27 Which is right? You saying 29 but 27 on subtitles
Seems like a downgrade when the EF-M kit lens is the 15-45mm f3.5-6.3...
I don't like it because it honestly seems way too expensive. You can get the EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS STM for $100 less, and it has a wider aperture and zooms farther!!!
guys i cannot rotate my lens to shooting position what can i do?
Glad I switched to Sony!. Is this the nail in the coffin? Looks like the M mount kit lens
They're doing EOS-M again or what? Holding their users hostage is just part of the aps-c experience.
Aperture and range🤒 my efs 18-55 is a luxury lens 😎
Bad decisions I think.
Can’t believe it would be over £300 to buy. That’s like paying £3.50 for a packet of crisps.
Waiting for rf fullframe small kit zoom lens like this one.
1 🙂
Thanks Chris for this as always excellent review... Definitely not buying this lens. I'd rather buy a used ef 24 105 f4l is usm mki for a couple hundred bucks and get better results, even though I lose 6*1.6=10mm at the wide end.
i honestly recommend you reconsider, I had the Mk1 and Mk2, they struggled to resolve on the 18mp 1DX I had at the time, poor lenses.
I bought in on the EF-M mount not long after it came out. How did they manage to mess this up. The EF-M 15-45mm has been a lens I always keep in my bag. It is a kit lense but it is pretty sharp and useful. Also while being plastic it feels good. How did Canon manage to fall on this one?
Also Christopher Frost's review of the 15-45mm: ruclips.net/video/vF-sYxVBeF8/видео.html
If you compare his review of the "Sharp enough for 32.5 mp" for the efm-15-45 mm kit lens with this one I would dare to say the old one is a lot sharper overall.
The image quality is better than the original EF kit lens and a lot smaller. Too bad the build quality of this seems so cheap. Should have another bigger kit lens that has at least an extra stop of light and better build quality for an extra $100
Not defending this lens, but it is not made for a 32MP sensor for sure…should not be as bad in the R10, hopefully Chris will run a quick test with that camera
This lens is embarrassing in 2022.
canon has already accustomed us with its bad decisions, this lens honors the 18-55mm paperweight
So strange to come out with such poor lens after making one of best kit lenses on EF-M mount. I own 2 copies of 15-45 for M and i have to admit that quality control is not at its best when it come to that lens. Some copies are much sharper then others so i wonder if this lens is affected by that as well? Seems almost too bad to be true. 😅
I'm sure 3rf party lens makers can do better at the same price
Thanks but no idea why everyone picked the R7 for this. Who is buying a $1,500 32 megapixel camera and using a kit lens on it? Pretty much no one. Would have preferred to see this on the R10. I bet it performs much better. Kit lenses have come a long way over the years.
Canon needs a Sigma RF 17-55 2.8 soon..
Aren't those have the same design as the eos m kit lens?
another reason why i will never, *ever* use canon. they just make horrible decisions for build quality and value on their Non-L equipment. Look at their prime lenses. the 35mm macro and 85mm macro have AF systems that are about as loud as screwdrive autofocus technology was back in the SLR days.. those lenses are very plasticky too, and don't include lens hoods! and shame on canon for still using plastic mounts in 2022, even for kit lenses this is a low that nobody else is reaching anymore.
Correction: I see nikon is still using Plastic mounts on their DX Mirrorless lenses. But the price on theirs is half as much as canons. Sony doesn’t do this anymore though. Not sure about other brands but fuji doesn’t either
Fuji got the 15-45 and sony 16-50. So canon wnats to compete with 18-45 and a lower aperture lolz
How long do u have that empty Pepsi bottle ? I always see it in your video 😀
Is this lens compatible with EOS R5?
And this is how they disappoint anyone who wanted to jump from a phone to a 'real camera'. What a shame.
Thank you for your review - I should have seen it earlier. This canon lens is by far the worst I have ever used.
This lens is the answer to the question, why more and more people would buy a smartphone instead of a real camera.
is this lens worth 80$ used?
The combination of Canon not encouraging openness with their RF mount and things like this high price and low quality for what should be an appealing entry point like this is causing me to not want to move to Canon any time soon.
this lens support on eos rp?
¡Hola Christopher me encantaría que probarás el lente Meike 50mm f0.95!
I think the awful specs are due to canon trying to make their Rf-s lenses skinnier at the base, pushing people to buy the larger RF lenses for the style points. It's the whole "red ring" thing but even more pronounced, cut oit the 3rd party market, make the budget options awful AND ugly as sin and then hope to rake in the cash after low-end adoptors are led to buying big money glass...
They're skinnier because they only need to project an image circle that's half the area. Would you rather have a lens that's needlessly thicker or slimmer.
@@Drpftnst yet the image barely covers the sensor corners...
I'm at the beginning of the video and my hopes it will certainly not come "highly recommended".
not impressive. i cant be sure but my M lenses dont seem to be worse than this.
Imagine if Canon cared about its users instead of worrying about making money. Then this lens would not even exist. This is frustrating, uncomfortable, and makes you feel helpless. The only reason I haven't switched to Sony yet is because I prefer to use my Sigma 18-35, but that's not enough to stick with it.
I think Canon wants people to either go the M route or else buy RF lenses even on APS-C bodies. It's to limit self cannibalisation.
Invest in Sony it’s the Future :)
Sounds like it should've been a £150 lens at best! Really poor from Canon.
Thx for the review Chris.
What a cheap looking, insulting piece of plastic crap!
Performance per £ is terrible.
It's like something that fell out of a Christmas cracker!
I don't even own a mirrorless Apsc and I wouldn't want to if that's the standard of rubbish that fits to it!
dunno why canon release RF-S lens, while the regular RF mount cant fit both full frame or cropped RF mount lol
Definitely a cheapo lens for the R10 alone. For people who just want a basic, entry-level APS-C camera with a kit lens and nothing else.
Which manufacturer has the best kit lens for the money?
SAMSUNG used to have 16-50 f2-2.8 with the NX1. That's dead now.
Otherwise Fuji XT-3/XE-3/XS-10 have an incredible 18-55 f2.8-f4 kit zoom.
Fujifilm and their 18-55 f2.8-4 is amazing as a kit lens.
@@DeepteshLovesTECH Well if you can call those f2.8-4 lenses a kit lens. They are so expensive, well but great. In the battle of 100$ kit lenses both Sony and specially Nikon beats this Canon lens in every aspect.
Sony 16-55 2.8
@@colonelangus8247 that’s not even remotely close to a kit lens
18mm with 1.6x crop factor is stupid