For those who are wondering, this 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. This new RF-S lens is slightly sharper in the middle and MUCH sharper on the edges and in the corners. It's not even close.
This is compared to the EF-S? Or the EF-M? Reports say this is the same lens as the EF-M, but it tested much better here on the R7 than it did on the M3.
So in 2022 we get 2 apsc bodies from Canon and only 2 dedicated lenses available which they both have plastic mount! Imagine putting a plastic mount lens on your new 1500$ body! Back in 2012 sony was making metal mount for it's 350$ nex bodies! Lenses which all include hoods no need to mention right?
Yes, shameful. They could argue that the new plastic is better than the old plastic, but my thought would be that the more expensive lenses have metal mounts, so clearly a metal mount is better. Would it kill Canon to put a metal mount on all of their lenses, no. It just looks cheap and tacky.
@@Mr_Glenn Huh sure but with a FULLFRAME PRICE TAG! Excuse me, what was the advantage of apsc over fullframe at the first place? It's cheaper, smaller and lighter!
@@networm64 Full frame price? Uhm, the only ones I am aware of are Canon EOS R, Nikon Z5 and Panasonic S5 for around the same price as Canon R7, apart from EOS R the Z5 and S5 have expensive glass selection, the S5 has rather mediocre AF for video but both EOS R and Z5 have awful video specs. But if you are solely interested in taking images I suppose the EOS R and Z5 are perfectly adequate as even if the S5 is cheaper, its still more expensive than those two.
Thanks for the nice review! It's better than I expected, ideal for travel. Just curious, could you test some prime lens like rf351.8 or rf501.2 on R7 as a benchmark? Really want to know the potential of this new sensor.
It's about damned time! Thank you!!! I've been holding off on ordering the bundle instead of waiting two months for the body only until I saw your review. :) Based on your review and considering that I already have the RF F4L trinity and the RF 100-400mm I feel no strong need to order the EOS R7 bundle with this lens instead of waiting 4 more weeks for the body only. To be honest, it seems like a makeover of the EF-M 18-150mm lens. From everything I have seen elsewhere the RF 100-400mm is an ideal lens when aired with the R7 and I expect that to what is almost always on my R7 body, with the RF 24-105mm F4 almost always on my EOS R. By the way, I was surprised (and disappointed) that you didn't mention its lack of an AF/MF switch or a zoom lock, or explore how the combined focus/control ring might impact use.
There's an MF switch directly on the body anyway. I use the control ring for aperture on all my lenses (including the control ring adapter on EF lenses), since the R7 only has two dials. No need for a zoom lock, it doesn't creep anyway. It's a gem of a lens. Btw, it is apparently the exact same optics as the EFm version, but everything about it performs much better on the R7, including IQ I find. I love the lens, imo it's the perfect kit lens for when you don't wanna carry that bulky F4 Trinity, but if you don't value a lightweight all-in-one perhaps it's not necessary for you. You'll love the R7 with the RF100-400. It's a beast! See my other comment up top if you want more details on my experience since release. Cheers mate!
Also by the way, you should do another review of the RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 lens but this time on the R7 body. Everyone seems to be in love with the combo! It seems like the R7, especially when paired with that lens and other good RF glass, can give the R6 a run for the money on all points.
@@harrison00xXx What? It's the opposite lol. I'd go for R6 for wildlife video, R7 wildlife alllllll day everyday for photo. Can't beat a 33mp APSC for wildlife pics, it's all about the # of pixels on the bird at the end of the day
@@simonthibodeau7082 I talked about the 18-150... And yeah, i had the R6 and i am now on the R7, i know both but i personally just dont like the R6 - too expensive, not enough resolution for stills and cropping, too limited and too much hassle for video. I found in the RP and R7 my perfect setup, much better than the thing i tried: replacing the RP with R6 for everything.
@@harrison00xXx glad to know you like them! I've heard good things on the RP sensor. And yes I meant the 100-400 the author was referencing, it's a pretty killer combo for wildlife. Love going out with the 18-150 and 100-400 for a nice lightweight hiking combo 🙂
Thanks Christopher - how would you position this lens, compared to the EF-S 18-135 nano USM? The latter has a metal lens mount, a better AF motor and wider apertures at the long end of the focal range.
This 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. This new RF-S lens is slightly sharper in the middle and MUCH sharper on the edges and in the corners. It's not even close.
@@timwhoknowsthings1408 Thanks a lot for sharing. The EF-S 18-135 Nano USM was always supposed to be sharper then the EF-M 18-150, which seems to be the basis for this new RF lens. On my 80D I find the EF-S 18-135 Nano USM to be quite a sharp lens for the zoom range it provides, and it's AF to be one of the best, even when compared to my L glass. Did you test them wide open? At which focal lengths?
@@tom_k_d I tested the 2 lenses from mid range to 135mm, but not at 18. I tested them wide open, meaning F5.6 and F6.3 when they were at 135mm. I originally bought the EF-S 18-135 with an 80D and it seemed reasonable sharp on the 80D. But when I tested both lenses on a R10, the RF-S 18-150 was better. While I didn't time the autofocus speed on both lenses, I didn't notice a difference one way or the other in my testing. They seem about the same. I know that theoretically the older Nano USM lens should focus faster then the new STM lens, but on a R10 they seemed to be about the same autofocus speed for casual every day kind of shooting. I'm guessing that the new lens has been optimized to work with the R10's more advanced autofocus system. Also, I didn't compare them against each other for sports, although I did photograph a lot of runners with the new RF-S STM lens on a R10, and ALL the photos were in focus. I was surprised. The R10's new and improved autofocus system is VERY impressive. The R10's autofocus is definitely much better than the 80D and the M50.
@@timwhoknowsthings1408 Thanks, Tim! That's very helpful, though I'm still looking forward to someone doing a one-to-one comparison with both lenses at 6.3. Yes, dual pixel AF is much more precise, and no more need to calibrate. But even if the RF STM should be sharper, this plastic lens mount, paired with a max aperture of 6.3, is a shame.
Good review, as always. I tested my copy of this lens against a Sigma 24-105 F4 Art and at F8 I was shocked how well the RF-S lens did. Corner sharpness was not as good as on the Sigma (which is also a full frame lens), but contrast and color were actually better on the RF-S. Of course for portraits, the Sigma will provide its signature creamy bokeh at 105mm and F4. There is no contest. That said, for travel this 300gr gem is much preferred. My only complaint with all the non-L RF lenses is that they don't have weather sealing. It's not that expensive to add. For example, my Panasonic 100-300 F5.6 Micro 4/3 lens has very acceptable weather sealing, and it's a $500 lens. So yes, it can be done, Canon! 😁
This lens is critically underrated imo. It was one of my most used lenses on EFm for walkaround and I was thrilled to find it ported over to RF-S. It's the perfect kit lens for me. A swiss army knife of focal lengths, very good close up ability in a very small, light form factor. The optical performance is very good for a superzoom like that. I don't know why the big fuss about the plastic mount, I don't see mine breaking ever and why not save that weight. Pair that with the RF100-400 and it's the perfect lightweight combo for hiking, throw in an EF 10-18 if you want a wide angle and you're good to go. I've gone out with only the kit lens even and didn't feel like I was missing much. Fun fact: I don't think the body only has ever been available On B&H since release. On the R7 forums you hear all the time about people complaining they have to buy the kit, only to realize how glad they are they have the kit lens and find it incredibly useful. I do think you should have the option to save the 400 bucks though, even though just like Chris here I wholeheartedly recommend it. They should make body only more available. Another fun fact: on the R7, this lens probably has better AF than all of my other EF lenses. That's just a bit sad really but native RF just has that magic that adapted lenses don't have. Only native RF have true IBIS+OIS coordination too, which sucks for EF glass. All the more reason to open up the mount to 3rd parties. I don't doubt for a second that the RF-S mount will be grossly neglected until it does. I've had my R7 since release and bought it mostly for that animal eye AF. I don't regret my purchase and still think it's the best camera for me. But I'm definitely struggling with the lack of affordable native lenses that are a cut above their (albeit very good) budget options. For that reason alone, unless you're primarily a wildlife shooter like me, it's hard for me to recommend this camera to others. We'll see some more EFm designs ported to RF-S, and while there's a few that I'm excited for, I know for a fact that it won't cut it for all my needs, and I'll be stuck with using suboptimal adapted EF lenses. It's the price I'm paying for that class leading animal eye AF that sadly other brands haven't caught up to yet, and is crucial to me. If that feature isn't that important for you, maybe look elsewhere for a comprehensive APSC kit. Even for wildlife shooters like myself, there are ZE-RO native lenses above 400mm, under f11, for less than 4000$. Believe me I'm salty about that, the adapted Sigma 150-600C still performs really well and I wouldn't trade my kit for any other in the price range, but I would kill for an RF version of that lens with that native goodness! So yeah, plenty of reasons to bash Canon, but this lens ain't it imo. I really love it and most people who spend some time with it seem to do as well. Just watch the vid really, Chris nailed this review imo and it comes recommended according to him. Thanks Chris!
Its not really a great lens, its a good universal lens, THATS IT! I had it for a week (from R7 Kit) but sold it because i had no real use for it. I prefer ALWAYS the EF 16-35 F2.8, 24-105 F4L and EF 100-400 II 5.6L over any other lens (on full frame camera only, ofc...) It just happens sometimes that i go for the Sigma 150-600C (stills only!) on the R7 when im more wildlife fixed since 240-960mm is crazy universal for wildlife. But as soon i am interested into video/good stabilizer too or even just BIF , the Sigma is unusable and the 100-400 II is king again.
@@harrison00xXx Yeah, I have an EFS 17-55 2.8 (got for 260 used, a steal!) and a sigma 120-300 2.8 (also got at a steal) and they're my go-to low light lenses with the R7. But if I'm out shooting with the Sigma 150-600C (love it as well!) or the RF 100-400, I always bring the kit lens for quick shots, it does nicely on insects, landscapes and a lot of things in between. It's an outdoors lens yes, but it's great for that purpose. "Good universal lens lens" is fair in terms of IQ, you're right on that. But pair that good IQ with the versatility of focal lengths and the ultralight package, that's why it's great in my book, and always stays in the bag. When out shooting in the woods, I often have just a supertelephoto on a cotton carrier, and a tiny sling bag with batteries, accessories, and often only just this lens, sometimes a small prime too. I wouldn't want to bring a bigger lens and a huge backpack to carry my whole lens kit. That's the appeal for me anyway. I totally understand it might not be for you. For me and many it definitely has a place in the bag. Seems like hobbyists like me who often shoot in broad daylight love it, hence the conclusion of Chris. It's pretty rare I see a superzoom with that IQ, let alone that lightweight package. For sure, it's miles more useful than that other kit lens, even for beginners. Many beginners will enjoy that close up ability a lot I feel. For many insect shots the 1:0.5 (ish, can't recall the exact spec) is just perfect for a full dragonfly/butterfly or a bee+flower, and that 6.3 is perfect for a tiny bit more dof, it's not that dark either even in the shade of forest cover/clouds. Even for sunsets with a subject in the foreground, I've had very good results with it at 3.5 18mm handheld, underexposing and bringing shadows back up in post. PureRaw is pretty wonderful for that. F3.5 useful as you don't want the background blurred in that case, even 4.5 is better if your hands and subject are steady enough. Anyway, enough rambling. That's the jist of why I love it and think it's indeed great. Again, I understand why the package/form factor might not be for you. But I dare you to find anither lens even in any brands that does as well as this for everything I just described! Sony has a nicer built similar kit lens that's 18-135 and 5.6 vs 6.3 (pretty negligible), but it's only around half the maximum magnification, for that reason alone I prefer the Canon for sure. Cheers mate
Can you confirm if every copy has a slight high-pitched whine to them? I have only heard it from a single other reviewer. But our local camera story copy also squeals :O
I have a real huge problem with big zooms with a dark variable aperture. 3.5 here for only about 20 percent of a zoom range. After that it darkens very rapidly, even in bright light you will see a dramatic change in the background blur during zooming in video work. Really a shame. And also a plastic mount, all this for 500$ separately really doesn't worth it. As a kit lens, bundled with a camera, maybe is good for beginners. But I think that after merely half a year of use people will think of upgrading to a couple of a constant aperture zooms or a bunch of primes. A night and day difference.
Thanks for this review, Chris, great as ever. I'm very pleased to see this lens though I had hoped for better image quality. It seems better than Canon's 18-150 for sharpness, but it cannot match the Canon RF 28mm f/2.8 at all. So I'm happy and sad at the same time. Did you see better AF performance on the R7 than with the Canon 18-150? Because that may be what sells it to me. A lens which the R7 can actually focus with in low light... I know the R7 AF works every time with the Canon RF 28mm f/2.8. Now that I have the R8 too, the urgency for this Sigma lens is mostly gone. And since it does not have IS, the attractiveness is even less. The R7 does have IBIS, though, which the R8 lacks. But since the R8 is now my go to body for portrait and indoor and the R7 is mostly for wildlife, I'm not sold on this one yet... still tempting because on a "wildlife" trip I could bring the sigma to make great portraits instead of hauling the R8 with its big FF lenses... hmmmmm... what to do? In Belgium it is not for sale to date, it is in pre-order mode.
Plastic mount lens for £500 - guess you can do that if you don't have any competition. Canon need to open this mount up... Wonder how this shapes up to the ef-s 18-135 is usm - you could get an adaptor and that lens and still have plenty of change from 500 quid.
Recently got a R10 Body Only. I got an adaptor for my collection of EF-S lenses and my EF Sigma 150-600mm. But thinking I may upgrade my "Go To, General-purpose"" EF-S 18-200mm with the RF-S 18-150mm. Is this worth doing considering the cost?
Thanks Chris for this amazing review. This lens looks quite good, but for that price point I'd rather get the older EF 24-105 F4L IS USM with an adapter in order to use the r7's weathe r sealing.
I really wanted an R7 for bird photography. I've seen great photo's from the camera even with the cheap 800mm F11. But i just can't seem to find any good general photography lenses. Do any actually exist?
Coupled with a Sigma 10-18 f/2.8 lens, this can make for a very interesting travel combination. I personally would like to see something far more telephoto. This is fine for most things, but during travel you never know what you encounter, especially some cool animal might show itself. For this reason, the Canon APS-C is not on my list right now.
I have a Canon R100. I really like this lens for the price to performance. But I think I will have to get the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary Lens for Canon RF.
If you consider the 32.5mp sensor a challenge for lenses, I can't wait for you to start testing lenses out on the new Fuji cameras with a 40mp sensor. I suspect it's going to be carnage for Fuji's older lenses!
Well the old primes all got updates and I suspect will handle the added resolution just fine. The real conundrum is why Fuji kits the X-H2 with the notoriously mid 16-80, without even offering the 16-55 as an option.
@@amitchandra2179 Oh yes, they certainly had plenty winners from the start - after all, the red badge zoom range holds up incredibly well still as well, with only the 100-400 having become a little redundant in some respects. That said, they did become more consistent around the board, because I sincerely wouldn't want to know what that 18mm f2 looks like when combined with a 40 mpx sensor.
Not so sure on that - hope to see a comparison soon. The EF-S USM also has a better focus motor, a metal lens mount and wider apertures at the long end of the focal range.
This 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. This new RF-S lens is slightly sharper in the middle and MUCH sharper on the edges and in the corners. It's not even close.
I nearly bought into the Canon M line, But made the decision to buy a second hand Fuji XT2 instead (After buying Canon DSLRs for years). So glad i switched. There are plenty of good lens options for Fuji X.
Don't! you have so many more options for lenses than we have. My m50 isn't going anywhere, I have the R7! If you had to get something else, RF-S probably wouldn't have been it anyway.
@@thedirtygot9570 i have no issues with the m line cameras, they were great. its was just a pain to sell all my gear to move over to the R, especially considering i use a variety of lenses.
Dear sir, Big fan of your video. I would like to request you to review a mobile phone as Mate 50 Pro which have real mechanical aperture. I have a interest how this tiny window compares with traditional lens & how the sensor size differs with aperture in these high tech phones.
Hi Cristopher, I bought the R7 with this lens. I'm a bit disappointed with the sharpness of the lens. I use it for stills mainly. Am I such a pixel peeper or is it the lens?. Would like to see a 24-105 f4 rf-s. What are your thoughts in this matter?
What's with people's obsession with metal mounts? Plastic or metal, it doesn't affect your image quality. Have any of you actually broken a lens with a plastic mount in a way that it would have been perfectly fine if not for the material of the mount?
I do not get it. Most users will never remove the lens. I do get that heavy pro lenses need a metal mount but for cheap consumer lenses it really is not that necessary.
This lens is a conundrum. It's just almost good enough to live on the camera for hiking because it has such a versatile range. I've lately defaulted to just using the RF24 most of the time with the EF-S 55-250 with adapter in the backpack just in case.
I bought the R50 kit with the 18-45mm lens. If I bought this 18-150mm, does that basically make my kit lens redundant? Is there anything the 18-45mm does better or different that it would be a good idea to keep them both? (Question can be for anyone, not just Christopher.) **EDIT** and if it does make the 18-45mm redundant, would I be better buying the 55-210mm (but maybe suffering low light performance).
Did look forward to this one, thanks for the great review 😊👍🏻🙏🏻 I do have the EFS 18-135 USM and am debating to sell it and get the 8-150. get with the current one good results but a little bit more reach would be great. What do you think?
I'd say yeah, definitely. Many people are selling theirs on eBay because only the kit was available and they judged this little gem too fast. Its AF is better on the R7 than all my adapted EF glass, that's just the sad truth but native RF just has that goodness to it. See my recent comment up top if you want more info on my experience with it.
This 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. This new RF-S lens is slightly sharper in the middle and MUCH sharper on the edges and in the corners. It's not even close.
Did make the change. Have the R7 and got the r10 as a b-cam including the 18-150. it’s lighter and a lil sharper than my 18-135, which I now did sell. Thanks for your comments guys 🙏🏻
@@simonthibodeau7082just did see your comment. I do mainly video and for that the R10 was a perfect b-cam. Light weight, 4k 24 with no overheating and also picture quality was great. Even though the r7 has a higher mega pixel count, I could match them both very well. That said, I did trade in the r10 for the R8, kept the 18-150 though, it’s a great lens and until today my go to lens for exhibitions and product shoots 👍🏻
Like you say, 18mm is not anything to write home about. That 18~45 might make a good 'walkabout' tourist lens, and the 18~150 would be good for a zoo or national park, where critters are common. And at any rate, I'm not about to buy ANY RF mount body that won't work with third party lenses. Canon burned me with the FD -> EF transition all those years ago, and I see the closed RF lens mount as a similar corporate screw job.
There is the 10-18 mm if you need anything wider. I do not see any reason to get the 18-45 mm. It has a smaller aperture than top level phones. Remember even with the 18-150 mm it is smaller than a DSLR with 18-55 mm. I wish the would have ported the 15-45 mm.
They are the same lens, my friend. Why would Canon spend more time and money to design from scratch or revise when they already have plenty of lenses designed for APSC mirrorless (ef-m)?
@@trym2121 I didn't know if they had tweaked the design you can get slight improvements with similar versions. The EFM version looks nicer if nothing else
Why keep saying the plastic, this that and the other, They make Pistols out of plastic all except the barrel, and believe me having a 9mm round go off 3 times a second is a lot more abuse than a camera lens gets. They also use Glue to stick fighter jets together PLASITC is not BAD its lighter and just as strong and probably at least as wear resistant.
NO PLEASE NOT! enough all in one, except they finally focus on wide angle! Its a shame that i still have to rely on a 15 year old lens design of the EF 16-35mm 2.8L because Canon is too stupid to make a proper wide angle lens! On RF-S, so APS-C its even worse... native you cant get below 24mm yet (with the RF 15-45mm which is super expensive) Also, what the point of more all in one lenses? If you say "All in ONE(!!!!)".... there should be only ONE LENS, not multiple to choose from!
I think you were very kind with this lens performance considering other previous reviews you made for other lenses. Considering the amount Canon is asking for this lens, I think it should be avoided.
Yeap, just goes to show you how little canon values it’s consumers and expects them to pay $400 for cheap plastic. Canon kills off third party lenses and offers cheap plastic lens mounts. I am so glad that I ditched canon for sony and nikon, got tired of canon’s bs.
@@zoneofcripplehammer1842 i was being generous, it's canon after all :) i remember I bought a Nikon 55-200 VRII for $120 brand new and that lens was crazy sharp
True, more MP don't make an image worse - the question is more: can the 32MP be used effectively with these lenses, or do we just waste storage space and prcoessing power while comprimising on high-ISO performance.
wow. canon just ripping people off right now. sony did better with the smaller one. the sony goes much more wider and zooms more and has ametal build. and other one as well. you can get 2 better metal build lens in sony line up. but the telephoto range is a little less. also thats an ugly looking lens
Same here. The only justification was that i get the R7 cheaper with it by selling the kit lens. I tried it, i really wanted to like it since 18-150mm could be nice for hiking and as single lens to take with me. In the end... i just saw my good old EF 28-150mm as the best thing to keep instead, its worth nothing and a bad lens, so its my "i dont care" lens for rough conditions (meanwhile my weather sealed "L" lenses have never seen water or dust lol) Only if you own a single good full frame lens (like EF 24-105 etc) you are already done with the weak aperture before even trying it (and i have to say that as a happy RF 800 F11 owner! F11!!!!) But it could just be that im not that lazy to think i need all the focal lenghts in a single lightweight lens and im very happy with mainly adapted EF F2.8 full frame lenses like 16-35, 70-200 and so on full frame! And they also perform better than the 18-150 on my R7 for example so absolutely no reason to have this lens. The biggest reason for this lens is in my opinion if you are a beginner or just new to canon and you dont have anything yet (from/for canon), then the R7 kit sounds reasonable. But its still a kit lens... its the first lens you will get rid of for sure. And if its just a 24-240mm you replace it with!
You're probably joking, but you should know even 70mm is more than enough reach to beat a smartphone mate. Not the tool for low light but that's not what it was made for! I love this little gem of a lens.
Which smartphone has a 110 mm equivalent lens and at what aperture? S24 Ultra has such a camera with 35 mm equivalent aperture of about f/21. That is two stops worse. This then zooms double that giving four stops advantage.
@@okaro6595 My Vivo X100 Pro has the equivalent of a full-frame 100mm ~f/12 on it, with sensor stab, it's indistinguishable from using a full frame lens at that aperture.
It's so annoying how arrogant and condescending Canon's approach to non-L owners is, basically all competition easily beats the build quality and features of these, at fraction of the price. I can hardly imagine a piece of metal and rubber gasket would increase the price or weight, yet actual effort goes into not providing those (making a mold for that plastic mount might possibly cost them more than using metal). Not even mentioning lens hoods here...
Good thing as canon owners! Imagine Canon is changing ever their course with a new mount.... the RF system will get cheap af on the 2nd hand market. I cant wait for a dying RF mount as RF user..... as soon the prices drop, the sellers will cry and the buyers and RF users will be happy! Until that day i boycott canon and use only adapted and 3rd party glass on the RF system.
Worst lens than the 18-135mm STM, darker aperture and more expensive. Only convenience is size/weight, but expectations seem to be going low with these type of lenses among reviewers...
For those who are wondering, this 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. This new RF-S lens is slightly sharper in the middle and MUCH sharper on the edges and in the corners. It's not even close.
Thank you for this information, i had read different opnions from other users. Dont think Canon would worse their kit lens for no reason
Thank you. I wish someone did a side-by-side comparison on RUclips
Is it good with filming?
This is compared to the EF-S? Or the EF-M? Reports say this is the same lens as the EF-M, but it tested much better here on the R7 than it did on the M3.
Good to know! How about Image Stabilization?
At least this one actually covers an APS-C image circle at all focal lengths. Good on them for making this one sensible.
So in 2022 we get 2 apsc bodies from Canon and only 2 dedicated lenses available which they both have plastic mount! Imagine putting a plastic mount lens on your new 1500$ body! Back in 2012 sony was making metal mount for it's 350$ nex bodies! Lenses which all include hoods no need to mention right?
Yes, shameful. They could argue that the new plastic is better than the old plastic, but my thought would be that the more expensive lenses have metal mounts, so clearly a metal mount is better.
Would it kill Canon to put a metal mount on all of their lenses, no. It just looks cheap and tacky.
Might as well put full frame glass on your cameras.
@@Mr_Glenn Huh sure but with a FULLFRAME PRICE TAG! Excuse me, what was the advantage of apsc over fullframe at the first place? It's cheaper, smaller and lighter!
@@networm64
Full frame price? Uhm, the only ones I am aware of are Canon EOS R, Nikon Z5 and Panasonic S5 for around the same price as Canon R7, apart from EOS R the Z5 and S5 have expensive glass selection, the S5 has rather mediocre AF for video but both EOS R and Z5 have awful video specs.
But if you are solely interested in taking images I suppose the EOS R and Z5 are perfectly adequate as even if the S5 is cheaper, its still more expensive than those two.
No to mention F/6.3 aperture
Surprisingly good results. Bummer about the plastic lens mount.
However it’s good quality engineering plastic. Should not cause any issues considering the light weight of the lens.
Thanks for the nice review! It's better than I expected, ideal for travel. Just curious, could you test some prime lens like rf351.8 or rf501.2 on R7 as a benchmark? Really want to know the potential of this new sensor.
Would be definitely interesting topic. The 35mm 1.8 macro feels it could be perfect match as all-rounder prime for R7.
Still waiting for the old school sigma 17-50 2.8 + r7 combo 😘
It's about damned time! Thank you!!! I've been holding off on ordering the bundle instead of waiting two months for the body only until I saw your review. :) Based on your review and considering that I already have the RF F4L trinity and the RF 100-400mm I feel no strong need to order the EOS R7 bundle with this lens instead of waiting 4 more weeks for the body only. To be honest, it seems like a makeover of the EF-M 18-150mm lens. From everything I have seen elsewhere the RF 100-400mm is an ideal lens when aired with the R7 and I expect that to what is almost always on my R7 body, with the RF 24-105mm F4 almost always on my EOS R.
By the way, I was surprised (and disappointed) that you didn't mention its lack of an AF/MF switch or a zoom lock, or explore how the combined focus/control ring might impact use.
There's an MF switch directly on the body anyway. I use the control ring for aperture on all my lenses (including the control ring adapter on EF lenses), since the R7 only has two dials. No need for a zoom lock, it doesn't creep anyway. It's a gem of a lens. Btw, it is apparently the exact same optics as the EFm version, but everything about it performs much better on the R7, including IQ I find.
I love the lens, imo it's the perfect kit lens for when you don't wanna carry that bulky F4 Trinity, but if you don't value a lightweight all-in-one perhaps it's not necessary for you.
You'll love the R7 with the RF100-400. It's a beast! See my other comment up top if you want more details on my experience since release. Cheers mate!
I'd be interested in a BTS of you testing a lens.
Got it as a kit lens with R7 and actually very positively surprized. It was a no-brainer to get the kit for 200€ more with this lens. Amazing value.
Also by the way, you should do another review of the RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 lens but this time on the R7 body. Everyone seems to be in love with the combo! It seems like the R7, especially when paired with that lens and other good RF glass, can give the R6 a run for the money on all points.
For wildlife, especially with that lens, I'll take an R7 over an R6 anyway for sure. Agreed!
Not so sure about that, except you are mainly into video and less into photography and dont care at all about low light.
@@harrison00xXx What? It's the opposite lol. I'd go for R6 for wildlife video, R7 wildlife alllllll day everyday for photo. Can't beat a 33mp APSC for wildlife pics, it's all about the # of pixels on the bird at the end of the day
@@simonthibodeau7082 I talked about the 18-150...
And yeah, i had the R6 and i am now on the R7, i know both but i personally just dont like the R6 - too expensive, not enough resolution for stills and cropping, too limited and too much hassle for video.
I found in the RP and R7 my perfect setup, much better than the thing i tried: replacing the RP with R6 for everything.
@@harrison00xXx glad to know you like them! I've heard good things on the RP sensor. And yes I meant the 100-400 the author was referencing, it's a pretty killer combo for wildlife. Love going out with the 18-150 and 100-400 for a nice lightweight hiking combo 🙂
Thanks Christopher - how would you position this lens, compared to the EF-S 18-135 nano USM? The latter has a metal lens mount, a better AF motor and wider apertures at the long end of the focal range.
All i can tell you - The RF-S 18-150 is a rebranded EF-M 18-150.....
This 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. This new RF-S lens is slightly sharper in the middle and MUCH sharper on the edges and in the corners. It's not even close.
@@timwhoknowsthings1408 Thanks a lot for sharing. The EF-S 18-135 Nano USM was always supposed to be sharper then the EF-M 18-150, which seems to be the basis for this new RF lens. On my 80D I find the EF-S 18-135 Nano USM to be quite a sharp lens for the zoom range it provides, and it's AF to be one of the best, even when compared to my L glass. Did you test them wide open? At which focal lengths?
@@tom_k_d I tested the 2 lenses from mid range to 135mm, but not at 18. I tested them wide open, meaning F5.6 and F6.3 when they were at 135mm. I originally bought the EF-S 18-135 with an 80D and it seemed reasonable sharp on the 80D. But when I tested both lenses on a R10, the RF-S 18-150 was better.
While I didn't time the autofocus speed on both lenses, I didn't notice a difference one way or the other in my testing. They seem about the same. I know that theoretically the older Nano USM lens should focus faster then the new STM lens, but on a R10 they seemed to be about the same autofocus speed for casual every day kind of shooting. I'm guessing that the new lens has been optimized to work with the R10's more advanced autofocus system.
Also, I didn't compare them against each other for sports, although I did photograph a lot of runners with the new RF-S STM lens on a R10, and ALL the photos were in focus. I was surprised. The R10's new and improved autofocus system is VERY impressive. The R10's autofocus is definitely much better than the 80D and the M50.
@@timwhoknowsthings1408 Thanks, Tim! That's very helpful, though I'm still looking forward to someone doing a one-to-one comparison with both lenses at 6.3. Yes, dual pixel AF is much more precise, and no more need to calibrate. But even if the RF STM should be sharper, this plastic lens mount, paired with a max aperture of 6.3, is a shame.
Good review, as always. I tested my copy of this lens against a Sigma 24-105 F4 Art and at F8 I was shocked how well the RF-S lens did. Corner sharpness was not as good as on the Sigma (which is also a full frame lens), but contrast and color were actually better on the RF-S. Of course for portraits, the Sigma will provide its signature creamy bokeh at 105mm and F4. There is no contest. That said, for travel this 300gr gem is much preferred. My only complaint with all the non-L RF lenses is that they don't have weather sealing. It's not that expensive to add. For example, my Panasonic 100-300 F5.6 Micro 4/3 lens has very acceptable weather sealing, and it's a $500 lens. So yes, it can be done, Canon! 😁
love this lens on my r-10, 29-240 is all I need and its image and video quality is superb throughout the focal range!
I've been waited this too long😁
Surprisingly good! The other lens is useless compared to this.
Why not test the lens on an R10 as well at the R7?
RFS 18-150 vs RF 24-240 which one should I get?
This lens is critically underrated imo. It was one of my most used lenses on EFm for walkaround and I was thrilled to find it ported over to RF-S. It's the perfect kit lens for me. A swiss army knife of focal lengths, very good close up ability in a very small, light form factor. The optical performance is very good for a superzoom like that. I don't know why the big fuss about the plastic mount, I don't see mine breaking ever and why not save that weight.
Pair that with the RF100-400 and it's the perfect lightweight combo for hiking, throw in an EF 10-18 if you want a wide angle and you're good to go. I've gone out with only the kit lens even and didn't feel like I was missing much.
Fun fact: I don't think the body only has ever been available On B&H since release. On the R7 forums you hear all the time about people complaining they have to buy the kit, only to realize how glad they are they have the kit lens and find it incredibly useful. I do think you should have the option to save the 400 bucks though, even though just like Chris here I wholeheartedly recommend it. They should make body only more available.
Another fun fact: on the R7, this lens probably has better AF than all of my other EF lenses. That's just a bit sad really but native RF just has that magic that adapted lenses don't have. Only native RF have true IBIS+OIS coordination too, which sucks for EF glass.
All the more reason to open up the mount to 3rd parties. I don't doubt for a second that the RF-S mount will be grossly neglected until it does. I've had my R7 since release and bought it mostly for that animal eye AF. I don't regret my purchase and still think it's the best camera for me. But I'm definitely struggling with the lack of affordable native lenses that are a cut above their (albeit very good) budget options. For that reason alone, unless you're primarily a wildlife shooter like me, it's hard for me to recommend this camera to others.
We'll see some more EFm designs ported to RF-S, and while there's a few that I'm excited for, I know for a fact that it won't cut it for all my needs, and I'll be stuck with using suboptimal adapted EF lenses. It's the price I'm paying for that class leading animal eye AF that sadly other brands haven't caught up to yet, and is crucial to me. If that feature isn't that important for you, maybe look elsewhere for a comprehensive APSC kit.
Even for wildlife shooters like myself, there are ZE-RO native lenses above 400mm, under f11, for less than 4000$. Believe me I'm salty about that, the adapted Sigma 150-600C still performs really well and I wouldn't trade my kit for any other in the price range, but I would kill for an RF version of that lens with that native goodness!
So yeah, plenty of reasons to bash Canon, but this lens ain't it imo. I really love it and most people who spend some time with it seem to do as well. Just watch the vid really, Chris nailed this review imo and it comes recommended according to him. Thanks Chris!
Its not really a great lens, its a good universal lens, THATS IT!
I had it for a week (from R7 Kit) but sold it because i had no real use for it.
I prefer ALWAYS the EF 16-35 F2.8, 24-105 F4L and EF 100-400 II 5.6L over any other lens (on full frame camera only, ofc...)
It just happens sometimes that i go for the Sigma 150-600C (stills only!) on the R7 when im more wildlife fixed since 240-960mm is crazy universal for wildlife.
But as soon i am interested into video/good stabilizer too or even just BIF , the Sigma is unusable and the 100-400 II is king again.
@@harrison00xXx Yeah, I have an EFS 17-55 2.8 (got for 260 used, a steal!) and a sigma 120-300 2.8 (also got at a steal) and they're my go-to low light lenses with the R7. But if I'm out shooting with the Sigma 150-600C (love it as well!) or the RF 100-400, I always bring the kit lens for quick shots, it does nicely on insects, landscapes and a lot of things in between.
It's an outdoors lens yes, but it's great for that purpose. "Good universal lens lens" is fair in terms of IQ, you're right on that. But pair that good IQ with the versatility of focal lengths and the ultralight package, that's why it's great in my book, and always stays in the bag. When out shooting in the woods, I often have just a supertelephoto on a cotton carrier, and a tiny sling bag with batteries, accessories, and often only just this lens, sometimes a small prime too. I wouldn't want to bring a bigger lens and a huge backpack to carry my whole lens kit. That's the appeal for me anyway.
I totally understand it might not be for you. For me and many it definitely has a place in the bag. Seems like hobbyists like me who often shoot in broad daylight love it, hence the conclusion of Chris. It's pretty rare I see a superzoom with that IQ, let alone that lightweight package. For sure, it's miles more useful than that other kit lens, even for beginners. Many beginners will enjoy that close up ability a lot I feel.
For many insect shots the 1:0.5 (ish, can't recall the exact spec) is just perfect for a full dragonfly/butterfly or a bee+flower, and that 6.3 is perfect for a tiny bit more dof, it's not that dark either even in the shade of forest cover/clouds.
Even for sunsets with a subject in the foreground, I've had very good results with it at 3.5 18mm handheld, underexposing and bringing shadows back up in post. PureRaw is pretty wonderful for that. F3.5 useful as you don't want the background blurred in that case, even 4.5 is better if your hands and subject are steady enough.
Anyway, enough rambling. That's the jist of why I love it and think it's indeed great. Again, I understand why the package/form factor might not be for you. But I dare you to find anither lens even in any brands that does as well as this for everything I just described! Sony has a nicer built similar kit lens that's 18-135 and 5.6 vs 6.3 (pretty negligible), but it's only around half the maximum magnification, for that reason alone I prefer the Canon for sure. Cheers mate
Can you confirm if every copy has a slight high-pitched whine to them?
I have only heard it from a single other reviewer. But our local camera story copy also squeals :O
I have a real huge problem with big zooms with a dark variable aperture. 3.5 here for only about 20 percent of a zoom range. After that it darkens very rapidly, even in bright light you will see a dramatic change in the background blur during zooming in video work. Really a shame. And also a plastic mount, all this for 500$ separately really doesn't worth it. As a kit lens, bundled with a camera, maybe is good for beginners. But I think that after merely half a year of use people will think of upgrading to a couple of a constant aperture zooms or a bunch of primes. A night and day difference.
I wanna see the RF 24-240 on an r7, since it's a full frame lens I wonder if the vignetting is better Onan apsc camera
Thanks for this review, Chris, great as ever. I'm very pleased to see this lens though I had hoped for better image quality. It seems better than Canon's 18-150 for sharpness, but it cannot match the Canon RF 28mm f/2.8 at all. So I'm happy and sad at the same time. Did you see better AF performance on the R7 than with the Canon 18-150? Because that may be what sells it to me. A lens which the R7 can actually focus with in low light... I know the R7 AF works every time with the Canon RF 28mm f/2.8. Now that I have the R8 too, the urgency for this Sigma lens is mostly gone. And since it does not have IS, the attractiveness is even less. The R7 does have IBIS, though, which the R8 lacks. But since the R8 is now my go to body for portrait and indoor and the R7 is mostly for wildlife, I'm not sold on this one yet... still tempting because on a "wildlife" trip I could bring the sigma to make great portraits instead of hauling the R8 with its big FF lenses... hmmmmm... what to do?
In Belgium it is not for sale to date, it is in pre-order mode.
Thanks for the review Chris. Would the Canon EF-S 18-135 nano be a better lens for the R7?
Definitely not. The important thing to consider is the flange distance to the sensor.
The image quality is excellent! Where these photos shot in RAW or JPEG?
Plastic mount lens for £500 - guess you can do that if you don't have any competition. Canon need to open this mount up... Wonder how this shapes up to the ef-s 18-135 is usm - you could get an adaptor and that lens and still have plenty of change from 500 quid.
Recently got a R10 Body Only. I got an adaptor for my collection of EF-S lenses and my EF Sigma 150-600mm. But thinking I may upgrade my "Go To, General-purpose"" EF-S 18-200mm with the RF-S 18-150mm. Is this worth doing considering the cost?
I think you said 11mm at vignetting test
Thanks Chris for this amazing review. This lens looks quite good, but for that price point I'd rather get the older EF 24-105 F4L IS USM with an adapter in order to use the r7's weathe r sealing.
who would do this… performance isn’t great on aps-c, you miss much wideangle and it’s way heavier
@@hardywoodaway9912 yeah the 24-105 is not a great fit on APS-C.
The EF-S 18-135 is usm lens would be a more sensible choice to be adapted.
I have this lens and it is a decent optic.
24-105 f4 is horrible compared to newer lenses, waste of money
I really wanted an R7 for bird photography. I've seen great photo's from the camera even with the cheap 800mm F11.
But i just can't seem to find any good general photography lenses. Do any actually exist?
Coupled with a Sigma 10-18 f/2.8 lens, this can make for a very interesting travel combination. I personally would like to see something far more telephoto. This is fine for most things, but during travel you never know what you encounter, especially some cool animal might show itself. For this reason, the Canon APS-C is not on my list right now.
I have a Canon R100. I really like this lens for the price to performance. But I think I will have to get the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary Lens for Canon RF.
If you consider the 32.5mp sensor a challenge for lenses, I can't wait for you to start testing lenses out on the new Fuji cameras with a 40mp sensor. I suspect it's going to be carnage for Fuji's older lenses!
Well the old primes all got updates and I suspect will handle the added resolution just fine. The real conundrum is why Fuji kits the X-H2 with the notoriously mid 16-80, without even offering the 16-55 as an option.
Not really...the old Fuji primes are pretty good IQ wise and AF is improved on newer bodies.
@@amitchandra2179 Oh yes, they certainly had plenty winners from the start - after all, the red badge zoom range holds up incredibly well still as well, with only the 100-400 having become a little redundant in some respects. That said, they did become more consistent around the board, because I sincerely wouldn't want to know what that 18mm f2 looks like when combined with a 40 mpx sensor.
ciao, questo obiettivo come risulta il bokeh ad ogni lunghezza focale? Hai qualche foto di esempio?
Seems a little better than the old 18-135 EF-s lens, but price is steep.
Not so sure on that - hope to see a comparison soon. The EF-S USM also has a better focus motor, a metal lens mount and wider apertures at the long end of the focal range.
This 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. This new RF-S lens is slightly sharper in the middle and MUCH sharper on the edges and in the corners. It's not even close.
So, better bought as a kit?
i feel like such a dam fool for buying in to the M line . . .
I nearly bought into the Canon M line, But made the decision to buy a second hand Fuji XT2 instead (After buying Canon DSLRs for years).
So glad i switched. There are plenty of good lens options for Fuji X.
Don't! you have so many more options for lenses than we have. My m50 isn't going anywhere, I have the R7! If you had to get something else, RF-S probably wouldn't have been it anyway.
I love my m50 and it will be my backup to my new r10
@@thedirtygot9570 i have no issues with the m line cameras, they were great. its was just a pain to sell all my gear to move over to the R, especially considering i use a variety of lenses.
The lack of CAs on this lens is just astounding for this price point.
Dear sir, Big fan of your video. I would like to request you to review a mobile phone as Mate 50 Pro which have real mechanical aperture. I have a interest how this tiny window compares with traditional lens & how the sensor size differs with aperture in these high tech phones.
Gonna grab this and the canon r50 for my 7 year old daughter . Great video
Thanks for sharing.
Good for low light or complicated light environment like partially dark partially bright in videoing?
Hi Cristopher, I bought the R7 with this lens. I'm a bit disappointed with the sharpness of the lens. I use it for stills mainly. Am I such a pixel peeper or is it the lens?. Would like to see a 24-105 f4 rf-s. What are your thoughts in this matter?
Just a cheap lens. Can't expect too much.
wow! surprisingly good performance
What's with people's obsession with metal mounts? Plastic or metal, it doesn't affect your image quality.
Have any of you actually broken a lens with a plastic mount in a way that it would have been perfectly fine if not for the material of the mount?
What with people's obsession of overpricer garbage? Can't justify even 100$ for this nonsense
@@zoneofcripplehammer1842 Is this a response to me? Or just a completely separate topic? Who are you saying is obsessing over this?
I do not get it. Most users will never remove the lens. I do get that heavy pro lenses need a metal mount but for cheap consumer lenses it really is not that necessary.
How does this compare to sigma's 18-50?
This lens is a conundrum. It's just almost good enough to live on the camera for hiking because it has such a versatile range. I've lately defaulted to just using the RF24 most of the time with the EF-S 55-250 with adapter in the backpack just in case.
For me this lens alone, often paired with the RF100-400, is the perfect combo for hiking. Many people seem to agree on that!
I bought the R50 kit with the 18-45mm lens. If I bought this 18-150mm, does that basically make my kit lens redundant? Is there anything the 18-45mm does better or different that it would be a good idea to keep them both? (Question can be for anyone, not just Christopher.) **EDIT** and if it does make the 18-45mm redundant, would I be better buying the 55-210mm (but maybe suffering low light performance).
No. the 18-45 is absolutely trash. This 18-150 lens is better in every way (image clarity, sharpness, autofocus speed).
is it glass or plastic
is this a copy of EF-M 18-150? which has some plastic/resin elements in the back
Not sure if that's true but yes it's a port of the EFm version. It's a gem of a lens imo
And somehow Chris said it had not much going on in terms of image quality. Then, this lens is recommended. I dont get it.
Did look forward to this one, thanks for the great review 😊👍🏻🙏🏻
I do have the EFS 18-135 USM and am debating to sell it and get the 8-150. get with the current one good results but a little bit more reach would be great. What do you think?
I'd say yeah, definitely. Many people are selling theirs on eBay because only the kit was available and they judged this little gem too fast. Its AF is better on the R7 than all my adapted EF glass, that's just the sad truth but native RF just has that goodness to it. See my recent comment up top if you want more info on my experience with it.
This 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. This new RF-S lens is slightly sharper in the middle and MUCH sharper on the edges and in the corners. It's not even close.
Did make the change. Have the R7 and got the r10 as a b-cam including the 18-150. it’s lighter and a lil sharper than my 18-135, which I now did sell. Thanks for your comments guys 🙏🏻
@@mb-watches glad to hear! It's a nifty little lens. How do you the R10 compares to the R7?
@@simonthibodeau7082just did see your comment. I do mainly video and for that the R10 was a perfect b-cam. Light weight, 4k 24 with no overheating and also picture quality was great. Even though the r7 has a higher mega pixel count, I could match them both very well. That said, I did trade in the r10 for the R8, kept the 18-150 though, it’s a great lens and until today my go to lens for exhibitions and product shoots 👍🏻
Canon lenses are now expected to be used with DLO only...compare jpg images with DLO and without DLO...with DLO they are much sharper.
70mm and already f/6.3? Waaaatt?
In APS-C terms: F10.... welcome to smartphone/compact camera performance.
remember old day when canon and nikon make 18-200 or any zoom lens that have f5.6 at the tele end...
Like you say, 18mm is not anything to write home about. That 18~45 might make a good 'walkabout' tourist lens, and the 18~150 would be good for a zoo or national park, where critters are common. And at any rate, I'm not about to buy ANY RF mount body that won't work with third party lenses. Canon burned me with the FD -> EF transition all those years ago, and I see the closed RF lens mount as a similar corporate screw job.
There is the 10-18 mm if you need anything wider. I do not see any reason to get the 18-45 mm. It has a smaller aperture than top level phones. Remember even with the 18-150 mm it is smaller than a DSLR with 18-55 mm.
I wish the would have ported the 15-45 mm.
¡Hola Christopher me encantaría que probarás la lente Meike 50mm f0.95!
Can i use this lens in canon EOS R
Not too shabby Canon =)
not that good, im wondering if its better than the EF-M version I have which is notoriously average
They are the same lens, my friend. Why would Canon spend more time and money to design from scratch or revise when they already have plenty of lenses designed for APSC mirrorless (ef-m)?
@@trym2121 I didn't know if they had tweaked the design you can get slight improvements with similar versions. The EFM version looks nicer if nothing else
Why keep saying the plastic, this that and the other, They make Pistols out of plastic all except the barrel, and believe me having a 9mm round go off 3 times a second is a lot more abuse than a camera lens gets. They also use Glue to stick fighter jets together PLASITC is not BAD its lighter and just as strong and probably at least as wear resistant.
and no oxidation have to remember that
This lens is fantastic. I guess its coming from EF-M 18-150mm as M series is discontinued now. Hope Canon release more all in one lens in future.
NO PLEASE NOT!
enough all in one, except they finally focus on wide angle!
Its a shame that i still have to rely on a 15 year old lens design of the EF 16-35mm 2.8L because Canon is too stupid to make a proper wide angle lens! On RF-S, so APS-C its even worse... native you cant get below 24mm yet (with the RF 15-45mm which is super expensive)
Also, what the point of more all in one lenses? If you say "All in ONE(!!!!)".... there should be only ONE LENS, not multiple to choose from!
I think you were very kind with this lens performance considering other previous reviews you made for other lenses. Considering the amount Canon is asking for this lens, I think it should be avoided.
Nah, it's a gem! I think Chris nailed it in this review! I love this lens, perfect kit lens imo, couldn't ask for more, 400 is okay I think.
Oh wow that's very compact
0:03 hahahhaah good one
The sharpness is surprising. Its better than the previous ef-m lens for sure.
It's literally the same optical formula as the EF-M lens.
@@856pm5 Yep, identical and already proven... its as good/bad as the EF-M
@@856pm5 so the difference to the old lens ruclips.net/video/lontDJB-y9c/видео.html
Is purely down to the higher mpx camera here?
$400 for a plastic lens mount...
Thank you Canon, and thank you for killing third party lenses.
Yeap, just goes to show you how little canon values it’s consumers and expects them to pay $400 for cheap plastic. Canon kills off third party lenses and offers cheap plastic lens mounts. I am so glad that I ditched canon for sony and nikon, got tired of canon’s bs.
keeps its weight down, though. not a big issue as long as you take care of it, imo
Plastic? It’s good engineering plastic. Not inappropriate at this price point.
@@efreutel every 3rd party lenses at that price point has a metal lens mount.
Even for 250$ you can buy good phone nowadays, how much for this plastic and dark piece of kit?
Which phone has anything related to this zoom range?
I'm quite imprressed. This lens is fantastic for its price.
For now it's my sharpest lens compared to every EF-L zoom lens i own.
This should cost $250 max
What? You can buy fully packed and loaded phone with 250$, I can't justify even 100$ for this nonsense
@@zoneofcripplehammer1842 i was being generous, it's canon after all :) i remember I bought a Nikon 55-200 VRII for $120 brand new and that lens was crazy sharp
It's just a remounted EF-M lens!! CANON GREED.
A plastic mount... 😪
$400-$500 for a lens with a plastic mount... lordy...
Darker than the center of our galaxy
I do not think that 32MP renders worst photos than 24mp on any lens. You could just do this side by side for us.
Right! R5 in crop mode can make up something similar to a 24mp crop sensor.
True, more MP don't make an image worse - the question is more: can the 32MP be used effectively with these lenses, or do we just waste storage space and prcoessing power while comprimising on high-ISO performance.
no cheap APCS lense,. for canon anymore,. i feel canon is losing their tracks now,.
Yeah, I'm hoping to see their customers abandon them, just as they've abandoned their customers. I left their system.
@@13mschen they’ve gone full Slum Lord toward anyone not willing to pay top $$$
It's 2024 and RF is still dumb and expensive. Good thing EF retrofitting is easy. Only advantage for RF is being compact
wow. canon just ripping people off right now. sony did better with the smaller one. the sony goes much more wider and zooms more and has ametal build. and other one as well. you can get 2 better metal build lens in sony line up. but the telephoto range is a little less. also thats an ugly looking lens
f3.5-6.3 still too bright and too expensive
f8-16 is the best for canon
Wow wtf is canon doing?
I could never justify buying a lens like that.
It's one of my favorites personally. Depends on what you prefer I guess!
Same here.
The only justification was that i get the R7 cheaper with it by selling the kit lens.
I tried it, i really wanted to like it since 18-150mm could be nice for hiking and as single lens to take with me.
In the end... i just saw my good old EF 28-150mm as the best thing to keep instead, its worth nothing and a bad lens, so its my "i dont care" lens for rough conditions (meanwhile my weather sealed "L" lenses have never seen water or dust lol)
Only if you own a single good full frame lens (like EF 24-105 etc) you are already done with the weak aperture before even trying it (and i have to say that as a happy RF 800 F11 owner! F11!!!!)
But it could just be that im not that lazy to think i need all the focal lenghts in a single lightweight lens and im very happy with mainly adapted EF F2.8 full frame lenses like 16-35, 70-200 and so on full frame! And they also perform better than the 18-150 on my R7 for example so absolutely no reason to have this lens.
The biggest reason for this lens is in my opinion if you are a beginner or just new to canon and you dont have anything yet (from/for canon), then the R7 kit sounds reasonable.
But its still a kit lens... its the first lens you will get rid of for sure. And if its just a 24-240mm you replace it with!
@@harrison00xXx solid advice!
Canon are laughing all the way to the bank with this one. An f/6.3 lens at 70mm on APS-C? May as well use a smartphone to take that photo.
You're probably joking, but you should know even 70mm is more than enough reach to beat a smartphone mate. Not the tool for low light but that's not what it was made for! I love this little gem of a lens.
Which smartphone has a 110 mm equivalent lens and at what aperture? S24 Ultra has such a camera with 35 mm equivalent aperture of about f/21. That is two stops worse. This then zooms double that giving four stops advantage.
@@okaro6595 My Vivo X100 Pro has the equivalent of a full-frame 100mm ~f/12 on it, with sensor stab, it's indistinguishable from using a full frame lens at that aperture.
they look ridiculous with that big mount and small body... couldn't they just made the body a bit chunkier? canon is behind...
This is a bad Lens the plastic bayonet is something terrible for a 2022 lens
Actually the lens is a surprisingly good one optically. It's plastic mount is its only real negative but that is not enough to make it bad.
It's so annoying how arrogant and condescending Canon's approach to non-L owners is, basically all competition easily beats the build quality and features of these, at fraction of the price. I can hardly imagine a piece of metal and rubber gasket would increase the price or weight, yet actual effort goes into not providing those (making a mold for that plastic mount might possibly cost them more than using metal). Not even mentioning lens hoods here...
@@Gerroth agreed on that. The packaging of non L series lenses is ridiculous.
Good thing as canon owners!
Imagine Canon is changing ever their course with a new mount.... the RF system will get cheap af on the 2nd hand market.
I cant wait for a dying RF mount as RF user..... as soon the prices drop, the sellers will cry and the buyers and RF users will be happy!
Until that day i boycott canon and use only adapted and 3rd party glass on the RF system.
this was junk on ef-m and its even bigger crap on R
so true!
I just bought and instant sold this lens to get the R7 for a lower price
Mad ugky lenses by canon
I don't care how well it performs. It just looks soooooo ugly. I could not use it. You're better off with adapted EF-S glass.
AFs better than all my adapted EF/EFs glass, just saying
@@simonthibodeau7082 Sure. I run a variety of EF L series glass and ART series adapted glass and some native. I see no difference.
@@iancurrie8844 depends what you shoot I guess! EF is good enough in many/most scenarios
Plastic mount, no sale
Worst lens than the 18-135mm STM, darker aperture and more expensive. Only convenience is size/weight, but expectations seem to be going low with these type of lenses among reviewers...