Can I just mention how much I love these R7 videos? As an R7 owner it's great not having to speculate how a lens will work on the body :) Keep em coming!
Just received it for my R7 and R10. Actually I like it for video, for talking head shots. Paired it with the 35 f1.8 which works for my needs like a charme. Would like to see more R7 content and actually would not mind seeing also your review of the R10, if you could get your hands on one. Keep up the good work Chris, its everytime really appreciated.
you can literally say: RF 16 super unsharp, RF 24 slightly better, 35mm slightly better than 24mm and RF 50mm is on par with RF 35 more or less (in terms of sharpness)
Thanks for your fun and informative reviews. I've recently purchased an R7 to complement my beloved R6 (the R7 replaces a 77D). I purchased the RF 24-105stm with the R6 and had a very enjoyable outing with that lens yesterday on my R7. I'm thinking that you and your viewers might enjoy taking some time with that combination. I prefer smaller and lighter gear, but do not (yet) own the RF-S 18-150. The 24-105 is relatively lightweight for a full frame lens and I am very happy with the results. Certain use cases might satisfy with the 38-168 focal range with near macro ability at the long end and good IS. I also highly appreciate you sharing your faith and the vital importance of spirituality.
Chris, I believe the RF 16mm has a slight field curvature. A lot of wide angle lenses have this as a feature, not a bug. Wide angle scenes are never flat but charts are. Have you tried shooting the chart with the focus point in the corner then comparing corner vs center sharpness?
You are right! Thank you for the suggestion. I immediately got my 16mm + R7 combo out an tried just that. Focus in the middle and recompose... its field curvature! @christopherfrost the corners are not as sharp as the center, but almost when you focus for them!
The lenses on R7 reviews are great and very useful for me in deciding on lens purchses. Some 3rd party EF mount reviews, such as Tamron, Sigma would be very welcome.
This is a great reason why I love 3rd party. Sigma has the amazing 16mm F1.4 for the same price as the RF 2.8, but not on the RF platform. Its on the EF-M, but you cant adapt EF-M to RF. If Canon ever makes a 16MM F1.4 it will be $2000 easy and the size of a small car.
Thank you for all these videos they are very helpful, I would love to see the full frame Kit lens 24-105 on the R7 and consider that in place of the kit lens that comes with the R7 as you can buy it used half the price…. thank you so much
I would love to see you test the Sigma 150-600mm contemporary on the R7. I've seen reviews with the combo for wildlife but would love to see your tests on it. Thank you for the great content! Keep it up!
Howdy I am wondering how the RF 24-240 performs on the EOS R7 in comparison to the RF-S 18-150, this might be interesting for people who own this lens and migt consider buying an APSC camera as a backup.
Thank you for your wonderful videos. Have you considered reviewing the ef-s 17-55 2.8 lens on the R7? Since there are few native lenses available for the aps-c R system, this maybe a worthwhile review. Thank you
When software corrections replace optical corrections... I can't say I'm a fan of canon's new strategy. Especially when this was introduced in the L line with the 14-35
I agree with you. This point is especially bad when paired with canon closing their lens mount to third parties- those two factors together bum me out a lot but if either were done away with I’d be a lot happier. Sure canon, go the “smaller lighter at the cost of optical quality” route but at least give other companies the ability to sell us a big heavy alternative that doesn’t rely on corrections that are almost extreme enough to essentially start feeling like computational photography.
The problem with Canon is that they have a dirty habit of cutting corners by designing lenses with extreme barrel distortion, then stretching the corners, cropping, and upsampling the entire image to the stated resolution of the camera. For example, if you have a 24 Mp camera, the image will be stretched, cropped by approx 16% to 20 Mp, then deceivingly upsampled back to 24 Mp using 20 Mp's worth of data. That is why no amount of stopping down can correct for the soft corners. Why even upsample to deceive the customer when the image data isn't actually 24 Mp?
Yep, there's no "sweet spot" on a fisheye lens. That level of corrections on a zoom is more forgivable (even if few zooms are as bad as the 16mm), as you can just zoom in a few mm to greatly improve it, but it's disappointing on a prime. I blame vloggers for making canon think people would be happy with this, the softness from the corrections wouldn't be an issue at 4k
The Tamron EF 18-400mm came out with new firmware this month to work better on the R7.. Any chance you'll have a video later showing how well it work on the R7.. I'm thinking of selling my 7DM2 to get an R7 and use my crop lens on.
I've been spoiled by kit lenses that start at 24mm (equivalent). Canon's APSC crop of 1.6 with the kit lens starting at 18mm gives a fov of 29mm, not quite wide enough for a kit lens these days. 16mm gets you just over 25mm fov, but you have to change lenses.
Hi Chris: I always enjoy seeing your gear reviews. I do have the Canon R6 and a small collection of the EF and RF LENSES: EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L, EF 70-300mm f4-5.6L, EF 200mm f2.8L II, RF 14-35mm f4L, RF 70-200mm f2.8L, RF 24-105mm f4L, RF 600mm f11. While your review on the RF16mm f2.8 on the R7 is not exactly favourable, is there any opportunities you may be able to test some of the above lenses on the R7. I am seriously considering the purchase of the R7 until I read your review on the R7/RF16mm f2.8 combo. I often heard the higher R7’s high mp may present problems to the lenses design for the full frame? Steve
With new RF apsc cameras is a pitty, that Canon don't support apsc more with adequate lenses (yet). Standard faster zooms like eg. 15-70f4 or 16-50f2.8 would be highly welcomed.
Glad you’ve done this test as I’ve been looking for a lighter cheap lens for use on a cruise next year (Caribbean) instead of taking the ef 16-35 f2.8 mk2 L + the ef/rf adapter was just wondering how the lens would hold out on the crop body R7 but I think I’ll stick with taking the R6 👍👍👍
Dear Christopher. Your channel is a rare island of really indipendent reviews in a sea of fals "indipendent" reviews, influencers, ambassadors... In my opinion the format of the tests is very well made; correct timings, scientific and praticall approach at the same time. Very very usefull for understand the real performance of camera lenses. Is there a way to make a small donation for support all this work? Thanks.
Hi Chris - which RAW converter are you using with your images? I have found that DXO profiles are considerably better than Adobe's for this, and some other lenses. It would be interesting to know what you are using. Many thanks for your excellent reviews.
hey Christopher I have the canon r10 with the 35 macro I think it's fantasy but I'm curious what he thinks of it I was hoping for a review from you I love your video
Hello Chris! Nice to see your videos about the beautiful eos r7! It´s a pity though that we don´t have more lenses natively for the camera ... Would be great to test the oldy ef-s 17-55 2.8 with the adapter!! Would be nice to see how it holds up the quality on this 32 mp sensor and more important!! Would be nice to see how an ef stabilized lens works with the new rf cameras ... Have a nice christmas time !
the EF-S 17-55 was made back in 2006 for low resolution cameras like the 8MP Canon 30D. So i guess there will me many trouble issues on the very high demanding R7 sensor.
@@muttishelfer9122 yes ... i think so also. There is though no good native aps-c zoom lens around. Pretty problematic for the system if we want to go and film around...
@@JuanCarlosRivasPerrettaOboe Yes, f.e. the new Sigma 18-50 2,8 for Sony and Fuji would be awesome for the R7. It`s a shame, that Canon blocks third party manufactures out of the RF game.
I had the same big expectations for the lens, but what a disappointment! If you manage to get your hands on a Canon R10 it will be good to see how big the difference in performance there is.
Hi Chris. Have you found any lens that is sharp on the R7? I’m particularly interested in my EF lenses; Sigma 50mm Art, EF 100-400 ii, EF 70-200 ii. Thanks for these videos!😊
Hello Chris, it would very interesting to see, how the Canon RF 24-240mm performs on the R7! Which should be somewhat like 38-384mm equivalent. In combination with a RF 16mm, RF 14-35mm that might be very interesting for a traveling combo!? Kind regards Markus
Super expensive, not because of the 24-240 but because of the RF 16 (low IQ/quality at all for a "high" price) and RF 14-35... its a FULL FRAME wide angle, it gets on APS-C a "bad" wide angle lens! If, then the Sigma 16-35 1.8 so you have at least a nice aperture. I would rather say: Any adapted 10-18/10-22/10-20 wide angle zoom with 3.5 aperture for ultrawide and wide angle 24-240 as universal zoom and a RF 600 F11 Or the combination i would see as super affordable, universal and lightweight: Again any wide angle zoom (or prime, except the RF 16) Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8.... GREAT universal lens and also low light capable Canon RF 100-400 In case 400mm isnt enough yet replace the 100-400 with a Sigma 150-600C (sharper, longer and faster, just worse stab and autofocus) or get a proper supertele prime additionally.
imagine buying just a FF Camera and having everything from 24-240mm with one lens. might be cheaper than getting 3lenses that are not made for your sensor size…
@@boramiNYC I would rather get any regular zoom lens, probably even the kit lens and a RF 100-400... Or since this aperture sucks hard and wont be fun for long, there is no way around: 10-20/10-18/10-22mm lens, for PROPER WIDE ANGLE, on APS-C i consider 24mm somewhat "regular angle" and far off from "wide". - 17-55 2.8 Canon EF-S or any 3rd party 2.8 standard zoom version (or even the 18-35 1.8 Sigma!) - any telezoom lens, might be the 60-600 Sports Sigma, 100-400 Canon lens (EF or RF) or similar In my opinion 24 is not wide and 240mm is not long, and because its a lens with 10x zoom its still somewhat "big" and heavier. In combination with the slow aperture its by far not any lens i would consider to use. Even the RF-S 18-150 would be the better pick since its at least somewhat "wide" and lighter/smaller!
Thank you for doing such a good job with Canon R7 lens reviews. They are hard to come by and you are doing an amazing job. Keep it up. Do you have any suggestions for a sharp travel lens? Focal length up to 100mm or so?
Love your gear tests regardless of brand and build and i think your sharpness chart has set a standard. One thing puzzles me though. You keep stating that high Mp sensors are "demanding" esp in this video the term was used quite a lot. Can you explain the physics behind why this shy of 33mp sensor is more demanding than of a 20 mp sensor.
I guess he just talk about the fact that the 32MP APS-C R7 is effectively the pixel size of a 80MP FF equivalent and i guess you understand thats very demanding for a lens. Since the RF16 is very unsharp its pretty useless on 32MP APS-C (and overpriced as hell!)
@@harrison00xXx Thanx but that doen't explain the term demanding and with repect you didn't either with the 80 mp FF comparison. For me this indicates that the lens is poor compared to the higher end lenses who are capable of transferring details more uncorrupted especially when we are looking outside the center.. Given the same physical size of the sensor and regardless of the Mp count the light coming through the lens will hit the same spot on the sensor and spread the information over more pixels. You can get more details in a drawing by using a pointy thin paitnbrush over a wide outdoor brush. I would replace the demanding term with honesty where the sensor spread the light over more pixles using the finer paitbrush if you will and draw the flaws in the details destorted by the lens. The G-master series of lenses is rated to utilze a FF sensor up to 100mp. No such FF sensor is made for FF at the moment but GM lenses are utilizing the 61mp by the A74/5.
@@arildhagen3820 it does explain why he call the R7 demanding The R7 has more pixels than the lens sharpness and so the R7 is „too demanding“ for the super unsharp RF 16
Fantastic review as always 👌🏻 just wanted to know your opinion of having Sigma art 28mm on R7 as an indoor all-around lens option? Is it sharp enough to justify itself over Canon 35mm rf? Anyway, keep doing the great job and wish you and your family a fruitful year ahead
I would go for the RF 35 instead... just because of the stabilizer and less weight/size since you dont have to adapt it i would not think much about the sigma.
Still shopping? I have both of those lenses and the R7. Which is "better" depends on what you most want. For pure image quality, I find the Sigma Art to be much better--sharper edge to edge and better contrast. It is also incredible on full frame. Lack of IS (especially on a wide angle lens) is not really a big deal with the R7 IBIS. Build quality is also superior with metal body, weather sealing, and excellent locking hood. The RF 35, on the other hand, is just such a handy little lens. Much lighter and WAY smaller than the 28 Art (1/2 the length of 28+adapter.). I also like the close focus capability of the RF lens. I grab the 28 Art for serious work and the 35 for travel and general walkabout.
I understand your reasoning about the R7 sensor size being too demanding, but what about something like the R50 and its 24m crop sensor? A little bit better performance perhaps? Thx
ouch... i tested it and it was literally less sharp than a 10-20mm 3.5 APS-C lens, but the bigger issue: the disortion and corner sharpness is also on the "cheap" zoom lens better than on the RF 16 prime. There is only a single advantage of the RF 16... its compact, but i would rather go full frame and use the RF 24, 35 or 50 instead.
Nice review! Thank you! If you want to capture about 100 people in 3 rows for a university group photo, which lens, in your opinion, delivers the sharpest images including people in the corners on the Canon EOS R7 (crop) or Canon EOS R5 (full frame)?
please a revieuw about the difference between the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 IS STM vs the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM. I did not found eny comparis between this two lenses. Or a threesom review between the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 IS STM - vs the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM and vs - the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM. which one should I choose Pleas let me know.
Hi Christopher. Thanks for the review. Very insteresting. I am looking for a good wide angle lens for this camera. I think the sigma 14-24 f2.8 Art could be be a good choice. Could you please test it? Thanks. Greetings from Chile.
Lol me too! Hearing his words on this lens encourages me to try that lens which is a sleeper now. It's at least a pancake lens which makes your camera fully pocketable.
Hoping for a 400/500/600 review, until Canon stops being foolish I'm sticking with ef/efs for the R7, releasing cameras that they don't have the lens catalog to fully support makes no sense and not allowing third party to be involved limits just how many people may choose Canon over a more open brand, though it doesn't seem to be hurting android vs apple all that much so maybe we'll be stuck with relying on ef/efs if you want third party. Fwiw I no longer buy lenses until I've seen one of your videos and you've rated it well, my last 4 lens purchases have been done this way and I've finally got a collection of lenses that I'm thoroughly pleased with and my photography effort is now much more fulfilling. So thanks for all the work you put in, and the method with which you test, I'm entirely certain your efforts have saved viewers hundreds of thousands worth of pounds by giving out reliable and trustworthy advice.
One more thought. Please test the RF 14-35mm F4L on the R7. Although a bit pricey as you have pointed out, it might be able to stand up to the R7 sensor.
the issue with this lens: Its probably ok on full frame, but when you add the 1,6x crop it gets a pretty useless 25-50mm (F6.3 like looking!). I got for example a APS-C Sigma 10-20mm 3.5, which is in fact CHEAPER, SHARPER and more universal than the RF 16 2.8 (biggest "advantage" left for the RF16 is its size and 2.8 vs 3.5) In my opinion there are barely good RF lenses for the R7: - RF 100-400 is sharp, but not sharp enough down to pixel level, where as the EF 100-400 II is sharper at F 5.6 than the RF at F8. Sure 1600g vs 600g, but damn i had both lenses and the EF is so much prefferable (even over the RF 100-500!) - RF 600/800 F11... F11 hurts the most when using APS-C beside very long range with 960 or 1280mm minimum! - RF 24mm.... its somewhat okish, but the 2nd worse lens when it comes to sharpness (right after the RF 16).. - RF 35 1.8.... great lens, but you pay for a full frame lens and stabilizer a lot, there are some interesting EF options out there.... especially if weight/size isnt the problem..... Sigma 16-35 1.8 Art... a BEAST of a lens and worth every penny. - RF 24-70... beside the fact its heavily overpriced.... very unusual and "useless" focal range on crop camera (damn even "bad" on full frame) - RF 100-500... it is probably a very nice fit on the R7 with 160-800mm effectively with very good stabilizer, super sharp and somewhat "compact"... but the price is ridicilous and we could get away with even a lighter and shorter APS-C telezoom for much less than the 100-500L. Even the EF 100-400 II is a more affordable and in some specs (F5.6 vs 7.1) better option than the 3000$ RF lens. As much i was always thinking the hate on R10/7 was pretty unreasonable... if i would also care more about native glass i would still hate a lot on the R10/R7. Thankfully i just love and prefer EF glass and in some occasions a wide APS-C prime and zoom.
@@harrison00xXx I would hardly call an effective range of 24 - 50mm useless considering that it covers the most popular prime lenses of all (24mm, 35mm, 50mm.) And while F4 is not great, it is not a disaster in most cases.
@@boftx1 Yeah F4 and full frame is totally ok, but F4 and APS-C (at normal focal lengths!)... just no that hurts a lot! F4 is looking on APS-C like F6.3 in case you didnt know! I was already embarrassed partially by F2.8 on APS-C (thats about F4 in FF terms!)
@@harrison00xXx The best counter I can give to that would be that I think the most common use case for a wide-angle zoom would be either landscape or real estate photography. In both cases one would probably be using a tripod with F8 or f11. In either case the RF 14-35mm could be a useful lens.
@@boftx1 landscape and real estate with 24mm at the lower end? Thats already soon going to be the tele end... Sounds painful, especially real estate. Again, the Sigma is A LOT BETTER in that case. And with full frame you really enjoy the glory of these lenses, for APS-C its a waste of weight and money.
Thanks for the review. Is this lens more like 25.6mm (16 x 1.6 crop factor) on an R7 in reality? I'm thinking about getting this for my daughter's R50.
But an apsc lens work on full frame? I mean, I know there's vignette but me as Sony Zve1 user use for the most apsc lenses. If I add stabilization or clear image zoom become usable even in full frame. So I new to canon world, someone could explain to me?? Thanks
Hi Chris! I was wondering if you could take a look at the ttartisans 11mm f2.8 fisheye lens for mirrorless cameras. Apparently is outperforms it’s price by quite a bit. An astrophotographer told me it’s even good at coma performance and is quite sharp all around, all just for cca 250€. Thanks!
I own this lens for Z mount. I can confirm what you heard about this lens' optical performance - quite good, though I was using it on only a z6. Coma level is indeed low. I can't speak for how it'll perform on higher resolution sensors though.
There is a scientific reason why full-frame lenses do not work well on crop-sensor bodies. Gerald Undone released an excellent video about four years ago titled "crop lenses on crop bodies: how it works vs full frame". Basically, it has to do with the larger size of the image circle that full-frame lenses project. When projected on the smaller aps-c sensors it spills over with the result that a lot of the light gets wasted producing lower quality images. Whereas, APS-C lenses project all of the light gathered onto the cropped-sensor body.
Just brought myself an r7 upgraded from a 1300d but having to use my older ef lenses would love to see some more reviews on other lenses on the r7. I do abit of everything photography wise but love taking photos down the local raf bases
I’m really dissapointed in the RF16mm. For landscapes on the R5 sensor. The lens is just not sharp enough. My RF 15-35mm is very heavy and big. The RF 14-35 has unacceptable mechanical vignet for the price. I really hope Canon wil make a prime wide angle with filterring and better image quality.
@@groundhoppingwlkp3622 thanks for the reply, but what I mean is will sigma makes 16mm f1.4 with RF-S mount. Since 16mm, 30mm, and 56mm is a great sigma lineup for crop sensor cameras. This canon RF 16mm f2.8 in full frame is equal to f1.8 in aps-c tho. but since the R7 is apsc, so i think 16mm f1.4 is gonna be a perfect fit based on the lens cost.
@@ferdyrp Currenly Canon rf mount is closed for third party companies. Even production of already made Samyang 15mm or Viltrox 85mm was halted due to Canon request. So chances for any Sigma lens with RF mount in near future are very slim
Would be curious about the Sigma 18-35 F1.8, love that lens on my 80d. Also wondering how the old ef-s 55-250 handles the more demanding sensor as that is definitely my favorite telefocal zoom I've used.
sharp enough the Sigma, but i would always remember: it gets a 29-56mm looking like F2,8 but i guess you are used to APS-C anyways. Well 80D isnt much more MP than 90D/R7... you are for sure fine i havent noticed sharpness problems (just focus breathing in photo mode with eyetracking and AF-C!) I had the sigma on full frame and to get the real potential out of the 18-35 you NEED full frame. It was one of the no brainers to sell as i sold my full frame gear. And the EF-S 55-250... its sharp from about 80mm up to about 160-180mm, 200mm+ are getting noticable less sharp and the aperture goes the slowest. I used the EF 75-300 IS USM on APS-C and it was more or less unusable on APS-C and 200mm+, but somewhat "ok" on full frame.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Can I just mention how much I love these R7 videos? As an R7 owner it's great not having to speculate how a lens will work on the body :) Keep em coming!
Couldn’t say this any better
Just received it for my R7 and R10. Actually I like it for video, for talking head shots. Paired it with the 35 f1.8 which works for my needs like a charme. Would like to see more R7 content and actually would not mind seeing also your review of the R10, if you could get your hands on one. Keep up the good work Chris, its everytime really appreciated.
Do the corners look better on the r10?
Have you done a test with the RF 100-400mm on the R7? That seems to be a wildly popular combination for birding and sports.
Agreed. And a comparison with the 100-500L would be interesting. I wonder if the gap between the two closes when on an APSC sensor.
Thanks for the review! Loving the R7 reviews! Would love to see both the 24mm and 35mm prime lenses on the R7!
you can literally say: RF 16 super unsharp, RF 24 slightly better, 35mm slightly better than 24mm and RF 50mm is on par with RF 35 more or less (in terms of sharpness)
Please test the 35mm F1.8 and the 50mm F1.8 lenses in the R7 Chris. I have both, but your tests are so comprehensive
Thank you for the review. I wonder how the RF 15-35mm L lens will do on the R7.
Thanks for your fun and informative reviews. I've recently purchased an R7 to complement my beloved R6 (the R7 replaces a 77D). I purchased the RF 24-105stm with the R6 and had a very enjoyable outing with that lens yesterday on my R7. I'm thinking that you and your viewers might enjoy taking some time with that combination. I prefer smaller and lighter gear, but do not (yet) own the RF-S 18-150. The 24-105 is relatively lightweight for a full frame lens and I am very happy with the results. Certain use cases might satisfy with the 38-168 focal range with near macro ability at the long end and good IS. I also highly appreciate you sharing your faith and the vital importance of spirituality.
Chris, I believe the RF 16mm has a slight field curvature. A lot of wide angle lenses have this as a feature, not a bug. Wide angle scenes are never flat but charts are. Have you tried shooting the chart with the focus point in the corner then comparing corner vs center sharpness?
You are right! Thank you for the suggestion. I immediately got my 16mm + R7 combo out an tried just that. Focus in the middle and recompose... its field curvature! @christopherfrost the corners are not as sharp as the center, but almost when you focus for them!
The lenses on R7 reviews are great and very useful for me in deciding on lens purchses. Some 3rd party EF mount reviews, such as Tamron, Sigma would be very welcome.
This is a great reason why I love 3rd party. Sigma has the amazing 16mm F1.4 for the same price as the RF 2.8, but not on the RF platform. Its on the EF-M, but you cant adapt EF-M to RF. If Canon ever makes a 16MM F1.4 it will be $2000 easy and the size of a small car.
I would love to see the big 50mm f/1.2 on that 32MB sensor! Merry Christmas
Thank you for all these videos they are very helpful, I would love to see the full frame Kit lens 24-105 on the R7 and consider that in place of the kit lens that comes with the R7 as you can buy it used half the price…. thank you so much
Thank you for all the R7 content! Very helpful.
Nice video. Please test the Canon RF 70-200 f4 L lens on Canon R7.
Would love to see you test the Viltrox speed booster with ef lenses
I would love to see you test the Sigma 150-600mm contemporary on the R7. I've seen reviews with the combo for wildlife but would love to see your tests on it. Thank you for the great content! Keep it up!
Howdy
I am wondering how the RF 24-240 performs on the EOS R7 in comparison to the RF-S 18-150, this might be interesting for people who own this lens and migt consider buying an APSC camera as a backup.
That's what I plan to do. Not just the 16mm thought. I have plans for 35, and 50mm too.
The R7 content is awesome, thank you Chris.
Thank you for your wonderful videos. Have you considered reviewing the ef-s 17-55 2.8 lens on the R7? Since there are few native lenses available for the aps-c R system, this maybe a worthwhile review. Thank you
When software corrections replace optical corrections... I can't say I'm a fan of canon's new strategy. Especially when this was introduced in the L line with the 14-35
Sure but in the past you could not get a 14mm zoom lens in such a small package. Optical correction has a price...size and weight mostly
I agree with you. This point is especially bad when paired with canon closing their lens mount to third parties- those two factors together bum me out a lot but if either were done away with I’d be a lot happier. Sure canon, go the “smaller lighter at the cost of optical quality” route but at least give other companies the ability to sell us a big heavy alternative that doesn’t rely on corrections that are almost extreme enough to essentially start feeling like computational photography.
@@andrewdoeshair maybe Canon has even more sinister plan for closing the mount to third parties
The problem with Canon is that they have a dirty habit of cutting corners by designing lenses with extreme barrel distortion, then stretching the corners, cropping, and upsampling the entire image to the stated resolution of the camera. For example, if you have a 24 Mp camera, the image will be stretched, cropped by approx 16% to 20 Mp, then deceivingly upsampled back to 24 Mp using 20 Mp's worth of data. That is why no amount of stopping down can correct for the soft corners. Why even upsample to deceive the customer when the image data isn't actually 24 Mp?
Yep, there's no "sweet spot" on a fisheye lens. That level of corrections on a zoom is more forgivable (even if few zooms are as bad as the 16mm), as you can just zoom in a few mm to greatly improve it, but it's disappointing on a prime. I blame vloggers for making canon think people would be happy with this, the softness from the corrections wouldn't be an issue at 4k
The Tamron EF 18-400mm came out with new firmware this month to work better on the R7.. Any chance you'll have a video later showing how well it work on the R7.. I'm thinking of selling my 7DM2 to get an R7 and use my crop lens on.
Very helpful. Please more r7 tests!
I've been spoiled by kit lenses that start at 24mm (equivalent). Canon's APSC crop of 1.6 with the kit lens starting at 18mm gives a fov of 29mm, not quite wide enough for a kit lens these days. 16mm gets you just over 25mm fov, but you have to change lenses.
I’m sure canon did this on purpose so people who want to vlog have to buy 2 lenses
thank you for this amazing review again. I love how this 16mm FF on my R6 doubles as a 24mm on my R7, very handy!
Hi Chris:
I always enjoy seeing your gear reviews. I do have the Canon R6 and a small collection of the EF and RF LENSES: EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L, EF 70-300mm f4-5.6L, EF 200mm f2.8L II, RF 14-35mm f4L, RF 70-200mm f2.8L, RF 24-105mm f4L, RF 600mm f11. While your review on the RF16mm f2.8 on the R7 is not exactly favourable, is there any opportunities you may be able to test some of the above lenses on the R7. I am seriously considering the purchase of the R7 until I read your review on the R7/RF16mm f2.8 combo. I often heard the higher R7’s high mp may present problems to the lenses design for the full frame?
Steve
6:07 if my math is correct then 32.5 on R7 is equivalent to 83,2 on a full frame in terms of pixel density. That obviously requires high-end lenses.
That shows you why canon needs to open their mount for third party manufacturers. They are able to create budget lenses that are actually decent.
Exactly. It would be very interesting to be able to pair the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 with an R7... 😍
And yes it is happening
There is a new RF 28mm STM pancake lens. It would be nice to test it on R5 as well as R7 too
The perfect rf Super Wide Angle is the NiSi 9mm f/2.8 Sunstar (non fish-eye and 14.4mm equivalent in full frame)
With new RF apsc cameras is a pitty, that Canon don't support apsc more with adequate lenses (yet). Standard faster zooms like eg. 15-70f4 or 16-50f2.8 would be highly welcomed.
Very informative video Christopher!
Glad you’ve done this test as I’ve been looking for a lighter cheap lens for use on a cruise next year (Caribbean) instead of taking the ef 16-35 f2.8 mk2 L + the ef/rf adapter was just wondering how the lens would hold out on the crop body R7 but I think I’ll stick with taking the R6 👍👍👍
I was surprised you took a liking to this lens, as I always understood you were no fan of the 28mm focal length or equivalent.
This is a bit wider than that, approx. 25mm FF equivalent on a Canon APS-C camera
@@christopherfrost Well, 26 to the nearest mm. I agree this is nice compact companion for the camera, and thankyou for the review.
Dear Christopher. Your channel is a rare island of really indipendent reviews in a sea of fals "indipendent" reviews, influencers, ambassadors... In my opinion the format of the tests is very well made; correct timings, scientific and praticall approach at the same time. Very very usefull for understand the real performance of camera lenses. Is there a way to make a small donation for support all this work? Thanks.
Exactly the combo I was looking to compare (against the Sigma 10-18). Thank you very much.
thank you for detailed review
and I like photo samples too
More lenses for the R7 !! All day everyday !!
I’ve been wondering the same. Thank you 🙏
Yes, please test more lenses on EOS R7.
Tanks Chris. Would expect a better outcome on the less demanding R10 sensor?
As an R7 owner, i really love such video. Please review the behaviour of the old Ef 70 200 L. Thanks
oh wow.. I was just looking at your normal review of this lens yesterday thinking how well it would perform on my r7...
Hi Chris - which RAW converter are you using with your images? I have found that DXO profiles are considerably better than Adobe's for this, and some other lenses. It would be interesting to know what you are using. Many thanks for your excellent reviews.
hey Christopher I have the canon r10 with the 35 macro I think it's fantasy but I'm curious what he thinks of it I was hoping for a review from you
I love your video
Hello Chris! Nice to see your videos about the beautiful eos r7! It´s a pity though that we don´t have more lenses natively for the camera ... Would be great to test the oldy ef-s 17-55 2.8 with the adapter!! Would be nice to see how it holds up the quality on this 32 mp sensor and more important!! Would be nice to see how an ef stabilized lens works with the new rf cameras ...
Have a nice christmas time !
the EF-S 17-55 was made back in 2006 for low resolution cameras like the 8MP Canon 30D. So i guess there will me many trouble issues on the very high demanding R7 sensor.
@@muttishelfer9122 yes ... i think so also. There is though no good native aps-c zoom lens around. Pretty problematic for the system if we want to go and film around...
@@JuanCarlosRivasPerrettaOboe Yes, f.e. the new Sigma 18-50 2,8 for Sony and Fuji would be awesome for the R7. It`s a shame, that Canon blocks third party manufactures out of the RF game.
I had the same big expectations for the lens, but what a disappointment! If you manage to get your hands on a Canon R10 it will be good to see how big the difference in performance there is.
Very much agreed.
I just shot the work holiday party with RF24 on R7 and it performed flawlessly. Maybe I need to add the RF16 to my kit as well.
More R7 videos I will watch them all !!
Hi Chris. Have you found any lens that is sharp on the R7? I’m particularly interested in my EF lenses; Sigma 50mm Art, EF 100-400 ii, EF 70-200 ii. Thanks for these videos!😊
The Canon 50mm f1.2l
Hey Chris!
Can you please update your favourite lens videos of all time?
Also what are your favourite lenses for Canon?
An update will come in either February or March
@@christopherfrostooo I love you thanks! Maybe also the sharpest ones hehe
Hello Chris, it would very interesting to see, how the Canon RF 24-240mm performs on the R7! Which should be somewhat like 38-384mm equivalent. In combination with a RF 16mm, RF 14-35mm that might be very interesting for a traveling combo!? Kind regards Markus
Super expensive, not because of the 24-240 but because of the RF 16 (low IQ/quality at all for a "high" price) and RF 14-35... its a FULL FRAME wide angle, it gets on APS-C a "bad" wide angle lens! If, then the Sigma 16-35 1.8 so you have at least a nice aperture.
I would rather say:
Any adapted 10-18/10-22/10-20 wide angle zoom with 3.5 aperture for ultrawide and wide angle
24-240 as universal zoom and a RF 600 F11
Or the combination i would see as super affordable, universal and lightweight:
Again any wide angle zoom (or prime, except the RF 16)
Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8.... GREAT universal lens and also low light capable
Canon RF 100-400
In case 400mm isnt enough yet replace the 100-400 with a Sigma 150-600C (sharper, longer and faster, just worse stab and autofocus) or get a proper supertele prime additionally.
imagine buying just a FF Camera and having everything from 24-240mm with one lens. might be cheaper than getting 3lenses that are not made for your sensor size…
@@hardywoodaway9912 24mm is not wide, 240mm is especially on fullframe also short
24-240mm works great on R10! Except for the extremely dark AF, IQ is very good and AF super fast.
@@boramiNYC I would rather get any regular zoom lens, probably even the kit lens and a RF 100-400...
Or since this aperture sucks hard and wont be fun for long, there is no way around:
10-20/10-18/10-22mm lens, for PROPER WIDE ANGLE, on APS-C i consider 24mm somewhat "regular angle" and far off from "wide".
- 17-55 2.8 Canon EF-S or any 3rd party 2.8 standard zoom version (or even the 18-35 1.8 Sigma!)
- any telezoom lens, might be the 60-600 Sports Sigma, 100-400 Canon lens (EF or RF) or similar
In my opinion 24 is not wide and 240mm is not long, and because its a lens with 10x zoom its still somewhat "big" and heavier. In combination with the slow aperture its by far not any lens i would consider to use.
Even the RF-S 18-150 would be the better pick since its at least somewhat "wide" and lighter/smaller!
So the next is test RF 24mm f1.8 on R7... To see if it can be a 35mm full frame equivalent replacement.
Or speedbooster on R7
Thank you for doing such a good job with Canon R7 lens reviews. They are hard to come by and you are doing an amazing job. Keep it up.
Do you have any suggestions for a sharp travel lens? Focal length up to 100mm or so?
Love your gear tests regardless of brand and build and i think your sharpness chart has set a standard. One thing puzzles me though. You keep stating that high Mp sensors are "demanding" esp in this video the term was used quite a lot. Can you explain the physics behind why this shy of 33mp sensor is more demanding than of a 20 mp sensor.
I guess he just talk about the fact that the 32MP APS-C R7 is effectively the pixel size of a 80MP FF equivalent and i guess you understand thats very demanding for a lens.
Since the RF16 is very unsharp its pretty useless on 32MP APS-C (and overpriced as hell!)
@@harrison00xXx Thanx but that doen't explain the term demanding and with repect you didn't either with the 80 mp FF comparison. For me this indicates that the lens is poor compared to the higher end lenses who are capable of transferring details more uncorrupted especially when we are looking outside the center.. Given the same physical size of the sensor and regardless of the Mp count the light coming through the lens will hit the same spot on the sensor and spread the information over more pixels. You can get more details in a drawing by using a pointy thin paitnbrush over a wide outdoor brush. I would replace the demanding term with honesty where the sensor spread the light over more pixles using the finer paitbrush if you will and draw the flaws in the details destorted by the lens. The G-master series of lenses is rated to utilze a FF sensor up to 100mp. No such FF sensor is made for FF at the moment but GM lenses are utilizing the 61mp by the A74/5.
@@arildhagen3820 it does explain why he call the R7 demanding
The R7 has more pixels than the lens sharpness and so the R7 is „too demanding“ for the super unsharp RF 16
This could be good on a r50 as well the f2.8 aperture at 16mm at a cheap price is very good for a wide angle
Canon R7 is their best camera Canon has produced in a few years. It produces an exact image as the R5 for a third of the price.
Fantastic review as always 👌🏻 just wanted to know your opinion of having Sigma art 28mm on R7 as an indoor all-around lens option? Is it sharp enough to justify itself over Canon 35mm rf? Anyway, keep doing the great job and wish you and your family a fruitful year ahead
I would go for the RF 35 instead... just because of the stabilizer and less weight/size since you dont have to adapt it i would not think much about the sigma.
Still shopping? I have both of those lenses and the R7. Which is "better" depends on what you most want. For pure image quality, I find the Sigma Art to be much better--sharper edge to edge and better contrast. It is also incredible on full frame. Lack of IS (especially on a wide angle lens) is not really a big deal with the R7 IBIS. Build quality is also superior with metal body, weather sealing, and excellent locking hood. The RF 35, on the other hand, is just such a handy little lens. Much lighter and WAY smaller than the 28 Art (1/2 the length of 28+adapter.). I also like the close focus capability of the RF lens. I grab the 28 Art for serious work and the 35 for travel and general walkabout.
If you still had your Tamron 17~50 f2.8 SP Non-IS in a closet somewhere, I'd love to see how it goes on the R7.
Thanks for testing this lens on the R7. My wife and I each own R7s, so any lens you can test on an R7 would be much appreciated.
I understand your reasoning about the R7 sensor size being too demanding, but what about something like the R50 and its 24m crop sensor? A little bit better performance perhaps? Thx
R50 will be much more forgiving
I have the 16mm and absolutely love it, especially for astrophotography. Highly recommend Photo Pils app for astro also.
ouch...
i tested it and it was literally less sharp than a 10-20mm 3.5 APS-C lens, but the bigger issue: the disortion and corner sharpness is also on the "cheap" zoom lens better than on the RF 16 prime.
There is only a single advantage of the RF 16... its compact, but i would rather go full frame and use the RF 24, 35 or 50 instead.
And yea btw great video Chris 😊
Nice review! Thank you! If you want to capture about 100 people in 3 rows for a university group photo, which lens, in your opinion, delivers the sharpest images including people in the corners on the Canon EOS R7 (crop) or Canon EOS R5 (full frame)?
Is it possible the focal field isn't flat, thus the corners need to be refocussed to get better sharpness?
please a revieuw about the difference between the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 IS STM vs the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM. I did not found eny comparis between this two lenses.
Or a threesom review between the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 IS STM - vs the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM and vs - the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM. which one should I choose Pleas let me know.
which one is better the 16mm or or the 28mm Rf? in terms of quality, and corner sharpness light gathering?
Hi Christopher. Thanks for the review. Very insteresting. I am looking for a good wide angle lens for this camera. I think the sigma 14-24 f2.8 Art could be be a good choice. Could you please test it? Thanks. Greetings from Chile.
This reminded me of the Sony 16mm f2.8, especially due to the poor corner resolution.
Lol me too! Hearing his words on this lens encourages me to try that lens which is a sleeper now. It's at least a pancake lens which makes your camera fully pocketable.
The R7's 32MP sensor is "too demanding", so would the R10's 24MP be ideal for this lens?
Hoping for a 400/500/600 review, until Canon stops being foolish I'm sticking with ef/efs for the R7, releasing cameras that they don't have the lens catalog to fully support makes no sense and not allowing third party to be involved limits just how many people may choose Canon over a more open brand, though it doesn't seem to be hurting android vs apple all that much so maybe we'll be stuck with relying on ef/efs if you want third party.
Fwiw I no longer buy lenses until I've seen one of your videos and you've rated it well, my last 4 lens purchases have been done this way and I've finally got a collection of lenses that I'm thoroughly pleased with and my photography effort is now much more fulfilling. So thanks for all the work you put in, and the method with which you test, I'm entirely certain your efforts have saved viewers hundreds of thousands worth of pounds by giving out reliable and trustworthy advice.
One more thought. Please test the RF 14-35mm F4L on the R7. Although a bit pricey as you have pointed out, it might be able to stand up to the R7 sensor.
the issue with this lens:
Its probably ok on full frame, but when you add the 1,6x crop it gets a pretty useless 25-50mm (F6.3 like looking!).
I got for example a APS-C Sigma 10-20mm 3.5, which is in fact CHEAPER, SHARPER and more universal than the RF 16 2.8 (biggest "advantage" left for the RF16 is its size and 2.8 vs 3.5)
In my opinion there are barely good RF lenses for the R7:
- RF 100-400 is sharp, but not sharp enough down to pixel level, where as the EF 100-400 II is sharper at F 5.6 than the RF at F8. Sure 1600g vs 600g, but damn i had both lenses and the EF is so much prefferable (even over the RF 100-500!)
- RF 600/800 F11... F11 hurts the most when using APS-C beside very long range with 960 or 1280mm minimum!
- RF 24mm.... its somewhat okish, but the 2nd worse lens when it comes to sharpness (right after the RF 16)..
- RF 35 1.8.... great lens, but you pay for a full frame lens and stabilizer a lot, there are some interesting EF options out there.... especially if weight/size isnt the problem..... Sigma 16-35 1.8 Art... a BEAST of a lens and worth every penny.
- RF 24-70... beside the fact its heavily overpriced.... very unusual and "useless" focal range on crop camera (damn even "bad" on full frame)
- RF 100-500... it is probably a very nice fit on the R7 with 160-800mm effectively with very good stabilizer, super sharp and somewhat "compact"... but the price is ridicilous and we could get away with even a lighter and shorter APS-C telezoom for much less than the 100-500L. Even the EF 100-400 II is a more affordable and in some specs (F5.6 vs 7.1) better option than the 3000$ RF lens.
As much i was always thinking the hate on R10/7 was pretty unreasonable... if i would also care more about native glass i would still hate a lot on the R10/R7. Thankfully i just love and prefer EF glass and in some occasions a wide APS-C prime and zoom.
@@harrison00xXx I would hardly call an effective range of 24 - 50mm useless considering that it covers the most popular prime lenses of all (24mm, 35mm, 50mm.) And while F4 is not great, it is not a disaster in most cases.
@@boftx1 Yeah F4 and full frame is totally ok, but F4 and APS-C (at normal focal lengths!)... just no that hurts a lot! F4 is looking on APS-C like F6.3 in case you didnt know!
I was already embarrassed partially by F2.8 on APS-C (thats about F4 in FF terms!)
@@harrison00xXx The best counter I can give to that would be that I think the most common use case for a wide-angle zoom would be either landscape or real estate photography. In both cases one would probably be using a tripod with F8 or f11. In either case the RF 14-35mm could be a useful lens.
@@boftx1 landscape and real estate with 24mm at the lower end? Thats already soon going to be the tele end... Sounds painful, especially real estate.
Again, the Sigma is A LOT BETTER in that case. And with full frame you really enjoy the glory of these lenses, for APS-C its a waste of weight and money.
Which lens do you recommend, RF 16mm 2.8 or RF 24mm 1.8 for an R7 for landscape photos and fineart printing?
thanks
Great video, I would like to see how the Samyang 16mm f2 does on the R7.
Is that an autofocus lens?
@@chucknorris8704 nope, but sharp and wide. You can zoom in on the back screen in most cameras to fine tune the focus.
Thanks for the review. Is this lens more like 25.6mm (16 x 1.6 crop factor) on an R7 in reality? I'm thinking about getting this for my daughter's R50.
Yes. And same equivalent crop factor if used on R50
please make R7 with adapted sigma 17-70 2.8-4 contemporary performance video
Tx...excellent and timely video!
I would like to see the EF-S 10-18 tested on the R7… but any test is fine by me
I'm using R7 + 10-18 EF-S for vlog, it is more easy with selfy. I've already try 16mm, but it's too much crop, and there are zero stabilisation.
Thank you very much! It will fantastic more contento of R7. Here, another owner.
Can you test the ef-s 24mm f2.8 with the adapter on the R7?
But an apsc lens work on full frame? I mean, I know there's vignette but me as Sony Zve1 user use for the most apsc lenses. If I add stabilization or clear image zoom become usable even in full frame. So I new to canon world, someone could explain to me?? Thanks
Hi Chris! I was wondering if you could take a look at the ttartisans 11mm f2.8 fisheye lens for mirrorless cameras. Apparently is outperforms it’s price by quite a bit. An astrophotographer told me it’s even good at coma performance and is quite sharp all around, all just for cca 250€.
Thanks!
I own this lens for Z mount. I can confirm what you heard about this lens' optical performance - quite good, though I was using it on only a z6. Coma level is indeed low. I can't speak for how it'll perform on higher resolution sensors though.
Xin cho biết sigma 14-24 với bộ chuyển đổi kết hợp có phù hợp không
There is a scientific reason why full-frame lenses do not work well on crop-sensor bodies. Gerald Undone released an excellent video about four years ago titled "crop lenses on crop bodies: how it works vs full frame". Basically, it has to do with the larger size of the image circle that full-frame lenses project. When projected on the smaller aps-c sensors it spills over with the result that a lot of the light gets wasted producing lower quality images. Whereas, APS-C lenses project all of the light gathered onto the cropped-sensor body.
Yo wait hold up that picture was taken by a 3 year old?? Crazy talented. She needs to shoot weddings ASAP!
would this work better in a 24mp sensor like R50?
how about sigma 16mm F1.4 art on Canon r7?
Just brought myself an r7 upgraded from a 1300d but having to use my older ef lenses would love to see some more reviews on other lenses on the r7. I do abit of everything photography wise but love taking photos down the local raf bases
Would you be better off with a Sigma ART lense on the R7 for the same?
I am wondering whether is there a big different in corner sharpness between RAW and JPEG file?
I’m really dissapointed in the RF16mm. For landscapes on the R5 sensor. The lens is just not sharp enough. My RF 15-35mm is very heavy and big. The RF 14-35 has unacceptable mechanical vignet for the price. I really hope Canon wil make a prime wide angle with filterring and better image quality.
SIGMA 28mm F1.4 DG HSM Art vs Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM on R7?
Hey Christ what’s your favourite i.e. The King of Portrait lens, you said Sigma 105mm f/1.4 is the queen, so what’s the king?
I think I made a Patreon video about that :-)
Tomorrow I will get in my mail Sigma 17-50mm 2.8. I will se how it works 😄
1:42 Chris really said 🙂👋
Will sigma make the 16mm f1.4 for this camera? Because I want more than just f2.8
As far I know there is no EF-M to RF adapter currently available. Still you can try Sigma 18-35 1.8 from EF mount
@@groundhoppingwlkp3622 thanks for the reply, but what I mean is will sigma makes 16mm f1.4 with RF-S mount. Since 16mm, 30mm, and 56mm is a great sigma lineup for crop sensor cameras.
This canon RF 16mm f2.8 in full frame is equal to f1.8 in aps-c tho. but since the R7 is apsc, so i think 16mm f1.4 is gonna be a perfect fit based on the lens cost.
@@ferdyrp Currenly Canon rf mount is closed for third party companies. Even production of already made Samyang 15mm or Viltrox 85mm was halted due to Canon request. So chances for any Sigma lens with RF mount in near future are very slim
@@groundhoppingwlkp3622 I see, that's new information for me. So the best we can do so far is use an EF adapter I guess.
Please do 50mm on R7 next!
It looked to me like the corners weren’t in focus.
Would be curious about the Sigma 18-35 F1.8, love that lens on my 80d. Also wondering how the old ef-s 55-250 handles the more demanding sensor as that is definitely my favorite telefocal zoom I've used.
Chris did a video about the sigma on the r7 just 2 weeks ago, check it out.
sharp enough the Sigma, but i would always remember: it gets a 29-56mm looking like F2,8 but i guess you are used to APS-C anyways. Well 80D isnt much more MP than 90D/R7... you are for sure fine i havent noticed sharpness problems (just focus breathing in photo mode with eyetracking and AF-C!)
I had the sigma on full frame and to get the real potential out of the 18-35 you NEED full frame. It was one of the no brainers to sell as i sold my full frame gear.
And the EF-S 55-250... its sharp from about 80mm up to about 160-180mm, 200mm+ are getting noticable less sharp and the aperture goes the slowest.
I used the EF 75-300 IS USM on APS-C and it was more or less unusable on APS-C and 200mm+, but somewhat "ok" on full frame.
Dang man. I was hoping this would be sharper.