Using EF lenses has a very important advantage for video shooters. You can use a drop in filter adaptor for your RF-EF conversion and you can put your ND filters behind the lens. So no need to change the filters everytime you change the lens. That's a game changer add-on.. Almost like using a pro video camera.. like built in ND filters.. Video shooters will understand me.. EF/S lenses are also cheaper.. And you can also use many old vintage lenses as well and all with the comfort of a drop in ND filter. RF lenses are generally a little sharper.. But other than commercial shots or beauty shots.. sharpness comes with an unwanted digital look which make you end up buying mist filters to soften the image for cinematic looks.. So.. for video I would go with the EF-S one plus a drop in filter adaptor(which you will thank me later) :)
One other detail difference not mentioned, is that if you go the EF route, although you need an adapter, you can use the control ring adapter, and have that extra control. I use the control ring on all my RF lenses for exposure compensation, and it is of real value to me, to be able to do that with the EF version.
Thanks for getting this comprehensive review out, great job! I am using this lens on an R50. My observation at 10mm is quite a bit of distortion and vignetting but it is, to my eye perfectly fixed in camera or in DPP, the latest update includes this lens profile.
The RF-S is probably a better pick overall, but that vignetting at 10mm is very noticeable on the outdoor shots The light falls off a lot more harshly than the EF-S. It is almost like the image circle doesn't quite cover the whole sensor.
I have to agree with you. If you already have the EF-S lens there is no point in "upgrading". Personally I think the old EF-S lens is better quality and that slightly brighter aperture makes a big difference. I have it with an adapter and the size is not an issue. Plus once you have the adaptor you can use many of the huge range of EF and EF-S lenses that are avalable.
The 16mm is a great lens especially if you plan to switch to full frame in the future, but on the R7 it definitely won’t compare to how wide the 10-18 is!
@@FoxTailWhipz Thanks. That’s another thing to think about. I’m also wondering if the 16mm is wide enough on an R7 for vlogging. Seems like this new one is more versatile in that regard.
@@jyloguraI have both. The quality on the 16mm is better to me but I love the wider angle on the 10-18. I have vlogged on my R7 with the R7 until the 10-18 just released. I like having both of them for vlogging. I would use my 16mm when vlogging at night because it lets more light in.
@@WhatsUpWithB Good to know. It’s a tough decision. The 16mm letting more light in is another plus. However, I’m worried about the crop. Having that extra width with 10mm makes it better for those talking-head vlogging shots.
I've been waiting to see this review! Thanks! Of course, with the R7, AF can be easily turned off and on with the switch up front. I never really liked my EF-S 10-18mm (Bad copy?), and got rid of it for the EF-M 11-22mm, and was hoping with the RF that we would get a similar build with a metal mount. But no. I want it all!
Nice review. Nice review, what I notice with the rf lens is that there is much more lens vignetting in the corners, you can also see this in your video at 2 minute 54. In Lightroom it is NOT fixed with the right lens profile. It is really very annoying and actually this is not allowed. What is your opinion?
Why is almost every RF lens slower then EF and even EF-M versions? RF-S 18-45 4.5-6.3 vs EF-M 15-45 3.5-6.3. Plus trend to remove switches and use plastic elements instead of glass is nothing to be proud of. They have descrnt cameras but in terms of system as whole RF leaves alot to be desired.
@@JamalPhoenix Yeah. RF mount is most anti-consumer they ever did and they did alot strange decisions. It all worked out in 80s in their favour because they had best autofokus technology and it was justified. RF though not so much. It feels very rushed and inferior compared to other mounts, and then alot of desperate moves to patch it up when they did it wrong in the first place. We are already almost at point where RF mount feels outdated. With mechanical shutter going way of mirrors and possible need for even bigger sensors. Would not be surprised to see new mounts with much wider diameter and half of flange distance in couple years. Nikon did much better with their mount and Sony while having slightly smaller mount making it up with excellent lenses and cameras and ton of options and variety. Canon could hold on EF little while longer.
Both eos r7 and r10 have a dedicated button on the camera body to go from auto focus to manual and vice versa. Seeing that the lenses were made primarily for these bodies (and r50 which admittedly should also have that switch) there's no reason to have a switch on the lens. As for the stabilisation switch. In almost all cases the inly reason to shut off stabilisation is when the camera is on a tripod.... Which means that speed is - probably - not a problem. So you have more than enough time to switch off from the menu ( and it becomes quite fast if you have that option in the custom menus). Anyway. These are my personal views. I don't expect others to agree (and don't care, to be honest)!
For me, the rf is worth it just to not have to use the adapter. I don’t feel that way about my big white f4 telephoto lenses, however. I got a separate adapter for each of my f4 telephoto lenses.
I would say the opposite. Because there's still people using budget DSLR cameras who use the EF-S 10-18 lens. I'm actually gonna by mine tomorrow. But I get your point, really.
It looks like the newer budget rf lenses isn't made to use whit a formatt hitech filter set or lee filter set or eny other set for that matter, because of that moving focus element. Really disappointing... Looks like it is the same whit this lens???
Here's one thing to consider, however: YOU SHOULD UPGRADE if 10-18 is something you rely on, as EOF lenses are being DISCONTINUED and will eventually be neither produced nor supported. So one day, if (god forbid) your EF-S 10-18mm breaks or otherwise malfunctions you won't be able to get it repaired (or it may cost more than a replacement anyway). This is why, although I have the EF-S 10-18mm and use it adapted on my EOS R7, I'm also getting the RF-S 10-18 - futureproofing!
Will they work on r8??? The full frame wide lenses are too expensive, and the rf cheap 15-30 lense is not better than 10-18!! I like the sharpness of 10-18 ef and the price is soo good 😮
RF-S is so ridiculously priced. I instead got second hand EF-S 10-22 for dirt cheap. With proper gimbal and in some case digital is, I didn’t even need 10-18 IS.
RFS users, you're getting screwed. They can be some differences to be looked at here, but overall it is the worst out on the market with the poorest lens selection. Anything so low of their crop sensor users that they didn't even bother bringing out the same lenses that exist for EOS M. That's how little they think of you guys. If your RFS user that's not on a r7 for birding, sell it. It's not going to get any better anytime soon. Hopes and dreams is not helping you, Canon is screwing you guys and your either going to take it or you're going to dump the gear and get something else.
@@RealAndrewBlack i learned photography on canon crop (xsi, t2i, 7d, M1, m50,++)..and still have my m62 with sigma primes. while this gains a milimeter, this is not the equiv of the 11-22 EFM. This is an altered version of the 10-18 efs. While you gain some fake macro and 1mm at the wide end, Its also slower and you lose 4mm at the other end. So then...what does RFS has? They dont want to re-house the 22f2! the 32 1.4? Embarrassing! They are worried you'd get such good images with those primes, they would rather you miss out of get the pedestrian non-L full frame ones. Lastly, Canon VP literally said go buy full frame lenses for those small RFS bodies. Basically laughing at thier customers.
