Canon kit lens challenge: RF-S 18-45mm vs 18-150mm 

Just watch. In a year or two, after everyone has already gotten the lousy 18-45 RF-S lens, Canon will come out with a RF-S 15-45 as an "upgrade."

Noo they just want you to buy 10-18. If you have 15-45 most likely you won't buy 10-18 Also with 11-22 as on ef-m you could just add up 50mm and stick with these but now you have to buy 10-18 and 18-45 or 18-150 which is not versatile at all. They had good lenses on ef-m but don't on rf-s. Remember also 32 f1.4, 22 f2 and this 18-150 was just transferred.

Yes, I'm working on that video right now. No compatibility issues so far

@@christopherfrost brilliant! I wonder how that lens manages the higher resolution of the R7. I'll be waiting for that video :)

That is an unnecessary test,full frame lenses on apsc doesnt give you the right focal length,like 24 200 will become roughly 40mm at the wide side,so who is going to use that,and if you are thinking of using apsc lens on fullframe,then that makes uour big expensive camera literally a cheap camera,as its image quality traits like iso performance dynamic range and even megapixels drop by a very significant 2.4x

@@-_--le3zk Of course FF lens 24-240mm on FF bodies (R5 and R6) and APS-C lens 18-150mm on R7. They have roughly the same field of view.

Same, I picked up the R50 kit with the 18-45mm a week ago and I’m already wanting a larger range lens like the 150mm. If you’re in the states, keh and Walmart has it on sale for $415 currently.

@@Live2DyeI bought it (in EU), great lens. Now I'm thinking if it's possible to sell that new kit lens I won't ever use again - 18-45.. 😀

In a year or two, after everyone has already gotten the lousy 18-45 RF-S lens, Canon will come out with a RF-S 15-45 as an "upgrade."

They will. Just watch. In a year or two, after everyone has already gotten the lousy 18-45 RF-S lens, Canon will come out with a RF-S 15-45 as an "upgrade."

If 55-250 is too long for you then for your digital SLR the 18-135mm STM could be a solution

If you meant you want a longer lens, the 70-300mm with the nano USM focusing motor is a worthy upgrade. Longer reach, sharper and focuses a little faster.

I've tested the 55-250 STM vs the 70-300 Nano USM vs the EF-S 18-135 STM vs the EF-S 18-135 Nano USM on a Canon 80D and a Canon M50. I recommend sticking with your 55-250 STM lens. It has better image quality than the two 18-135 lenses, and about the same image quality as the 70-300 lens. The only reason to get the 70-300 Nano USM lens is if you are shooting sports and need slightly faster autofocus.

@@timwhoknowsthings1408 Thanks, on average I am pleased with the 55-250, however at zoomed in to 250 at far objects (deer, etc) it seems a little soft. Although I now understand that in summer it could be to heat waves. Do you have any experience with longer lenses on your 80D?

@@wcrofford Most telezoom lenses are slightly softer at the longer end. Vibrations also have a stronger effect; consider increasing your shutter speed to reduce motion blur.

The problem is that if you're not shooting in RAW on your phone (which almost no one does), it's almost entirely up to just pure resolution and then whatever processing the phone maker wants to program in to make up for the sensor and lens size. And even without a side-by-side, you can usually tell that something is shot with a phone just by looking for the typical oversharpening artifacts around edges and oversaturation in the sky.

There are so many camera lenses out there to review, though! 🙂

Perhaps one day we will have sites, this could be in the relatively near future, where basically new phone cameras are reviewed. Woud be pretty sterile, imagine they could have add on lens, etc, however, tbh, simply don't believe such devices would be of mainstream appeal. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of phone purchasers just want a conviently sized device . Just develop more sophisticated AI to increase the in photo capabilities. The latest Google Pixel and Apple high end phones demonstrate the ability of ever increasing AI.

@@christopherfrost No one does it quite like you though 😃

I disagree with your last sentence. Mobile phones are garbage at zooming, when you look at phones with a 'decent' focal length.

R7 and the kit especially at 150mm destroys a phone imo, that's just silly. It's good enough for me for close ups but I guess it depends what you're shooting, I like the good IBIS+OIS and blazing fast AF it gets from being native, plus a 150 6.3 for close ups is useful in the field for that working distance and DOF. For me it's just when I'm out shooting with the same 150-600 or the RF100-400, often I only bring a tiny sling bag with this thing in it. Thinking of adding a wide angle like EF10-18 in the mix but I think the next RF-S lens will be a wide angle, so I'm just waiting on that. Does the job, I ain't gonna sell the pics or anything. Wouldn't want a backpack full of lenses. Just something to shoot bugs and a few landscapes. Of course a dedicated fast macro will beat it. Phone will often do, I do still take the phone for quick snaps for simplicity, but anyone will half decent editing skills can beat a smartphone with this kit lens. I have better lenses, I just don't wanna bring em with me all the time. Also want to mention, idk what EF lenses you have but that kit lens AFs and has better IS better than most if not all of my adapted EF lenses. Bunch of things suck about the RF-S mount now but this ain't it, we just need better native options for people like you who want a little bit more that's all. Yeah for optics on a budget EF lenses are killer, I got a whole bunch of em', no way I'm paying for RF L glass. Once we get third party lenses to RF though imma be replacing a lot of my EF lenses that's for sure though. Hope you're aware that most people with an R7-10 don't also have a FF body.

@@cooloox you cant call a regular 150mm lens not zoom at all… Ok its a zoom lens so its got much zoom, but not much reach Look at the galaxy S22 Ultra, its „supertele“ is impressive for its size, imagine a thicker smartphone which is more dedicated to camera than a phone and it gets a lot better

@@simonthibodeau7082 i am using also a EF 28-135mm Ofc it has less reach than the 18-150, but in overall i get on EOS RP: - more wide angle - sharper image in the corners - bigger aperture/ more bokeh - also good working ibis+ois What the 28-135 really suffers is usable autofocus for video (image is wobbling when AF motor is used which is cancerous for any video situation where i would love autofocus) Since the ef 28-135 is barely bigger or heavier (just a bit bigger with adapter and front heavy) its as good usable for me as the RF-S 18-150 with a few advantages (when i dont need video autofocus!) I got the R7 with selling the 18-150 cheaper so its a win win for me and the buyer

@@simonthibodeau7082 just the fact im using a EF RF Filter Adapter (Meike…) i prefer EF over RF a lot Its just the small primes i really love using native on EOS RP (super small and light and FULL FRAME!)

it literally makes zero difference… unless you’re one of those pixel peepers who spend their time taking pictures of test charts instead of anything meaningful

It's unlikely, since he doesn't own a R10.

No... You can always go for body only.

​@@zegzbrutal Yes, body-only will definitely change the fact that people may want to go with compact lenses and look at the 18-45 because of that and Canon made the 18-45 markedly worse than the 18-150.

What alternative would you recommend?

Have you used either the R7 or R10. Dont knock if you haven't tried them.

@@colmranger Fuji or Sony have a better native lens lineup, And I do shoot Canon....

@@Badonicus both bodies are great, but you need a prosumer APSC lens lineup that matches them...

@@gtaliano it comes with an adaptor and I use EF L lenses with mine

..almost

What's wrong with plastic? Majority of APS-C lenses with metal mounts still have plastic barrels and nobody complaints.

@@Artem-pe3sb Plastic barrel is a matter of feeling cheap, plastic mount is a matter of potentially having a useless lens due to a drop/accident. It's just bad design.

@@Artem-pe3sb A small crack on the plastic mount then your lens will be useless.

@@nSpiraliArchitectb These lenses are so light and small that drop that would damage the plastic mount like that would probably have damaged the lens in other ways if it had a metal mount. You'll have a more expensive metal mount while still having a broken lens.

Agreed

I do