Canon RF-S 18-150mm review: HANDS-ON first-looks 

The magnification on this lens is reportedly 0.44x which isn't macro but much more than most. I have a 100-500 and going to try this out while carrying my 100-500 because it's a lot lighter and versatile than a pure macro lens.

@@markroberts6926 its magnification is 0.59 on APS-C, which means you get an equivalent image size that's very close to 1:1 on a full frame camera. with decent image quality, too. from my testing it has equal or better performance than my old screw-driven tamron 90mm f2.8

Can’t agree more! No reason to upgrade right now so long live EOS-M! Glad to have found a fellow M6ii user here

Glad to have found two M6 II users. Until Sigma releases some kick-ass glass, no point shifting.

RIP Eos M

I am have never had as much fun as I do with my M6 II, and the 18-150 is a perfect walk around lens. Throw in the value-for-money Sigma primes at the wide end and the flawless performance of the Canon 100-400 telephoto with their ef to m adaptor, and this isn't enough to persuade me. Though IBIS and bird eye auto-tracking are tempting,

@@ShrayChawla505 4 M6 II users now here!

Yep. RIP eos-m

Just to chime in onBenjamin’s comment- I’m one of the many that would really like to see a viable alternative to Fuji in the APSC range, with multiple quality lenses.

The IS is significantly better and talks to IBIS when available. I also have the EFS 18-135 nano USM, which is a really decent kit lens, but it is heavier and you need the EF-RF adapter when using it on the R-series bodies. My understanding is that optically it's modeled after the M-series 18-150 lens. The RF-S lens should control aberrations and distortion better than the EF lens. It's macro capabilities are much better too. The EF-S has a 0.28 magnification factor, the RF-S has 0.56x. As for pricing, the lens is valued at $400 in a kit. $499 if you want to get it separately.

It's controlled in the camera

@@cameralabs Ah ha! Many thanks for the speedy response!

I have same set up plus other lenses. My 18-135 is fabulous as a walk around lens so don't think this is going to be a worthwhile buy. I'll just get the adapter.

I love my 18-135 STM but would be very interested in a comparison between the 2 as well.

I absolutely don't like the Fujifilm or Olympus styling, it's like they are goinf for a punk retro vibe of something...they aren't Leica...

You can mount it on full-frame, but you'd need to set it to the APSC crop mode.

Good point

Will they have a kit with the 50mm f/1.8?

@@slimphotog I doubt it, but thankfully it's their most affordable lens.

I would recommend the M6ii while there are still a few around.

​@@adrianvanleeuwen Really close to getting an m6ii but I still have concerns that I will get blocked from concerts, etc. carrying it in where there is no professional photography allowed. While they let little point and shoots and cell phones in. Any experience in that regard with an m6ii?

I don't have the optical formula yet, but it may have a similar grouping.

The same lens with more rear element movement. I have original with M6ii. Totally no reason to upgrade. If this was larger starting at f2, then it would be another story.

Same filter thread size too

I hated the EF-M 18-150, cheap feeling, boring images. The 11-22mm and 22mm f2 we’re good fun and would benefit from the modern focus system… let’s see what else they’re reshelling

Yses , absolutely same len. Same optocal grouping. Same MFT chart. Same price

Sorry I should have reported that. I will when I get it back

Yep, most lenses (especially cheaper ones) will reveal some darkening in the corners when you point them at a plain colour like a white wall or blue sky.

If you have them yes but it makes little sense to buy them.

I think getting a good condition/used EF mount 70-200 f/2.8 lens for 400 pounds would be a great option. Your views?

@@prsooriyanarayana6213 If shooting sports it is a GREAT choice. As a "I'll only ever one one lens and need to shoot everything" replacement for a superzoom? Not so good.

They price it heavily to make people buy it as a kit. Its cheaper as a kit

True.

@@bunmeng007 well not cheaper than described in the video. He said as a kit it adds $400 to the price of the camera. That’s the discounted price offered as a kit. By itself its $499

That must be because it's pre-series, it will be done later...

I only saw it for a few hours

It's an easy misunderstanding - ALL lenses are described by their actual focal length regardless of the sensor behind them. So an 18mm lens is always 18mm. But the field of view changes depending on the sensor size behind it. In Canon's World, APSC sensors have a 1.6x field reduction or crop, so 18 becomes equivalent to 29 and so on. No-one labels lenses with equivalent coverage even if they're specifically designed for one format; they only quote actual focal lengths. Hope that makes sense!

@@cameralabs Thanks for the response Gordon (and yes, I'm a Canon dude so I work with the 1.6x factor). So you're saying that, even with an RF-S lens (specifically designed for APS-C crop sensors) on, say, an R7, 18mm is actually 29mm? That's pretty confusing, since I assumed that because RF-S lenses were tailor-made for crop sensors you'd get what you saw printed on the lens when you use a crop sensor (and even, say, when using this lens on a full-frame RP since it goes into crop mode as you say). OR...am I missing the point, which is that 18mm is always 18mm *relative to a 35mm frame* and that the sensor will give you different results (which I guess is restating what you just said)? I guess this is different for RF lenses? Since I know that if I put my RF 35mm on my RP I get a wider 35mm full-frame as opposed to my R7, which would give me I guess a total focal length of 56mm. Sorry for the rambling message, and thanks for the insights!

@@asystasyorg you're over-thinking it! Lens companies never quote equivalent focal lengths, only actual. So 18 is 18. Where they differ is what sensor size they are corrected for. You're right, an RF lens is 'good enough' for the larger sensors of full-frame, whereas an RF-S lens was only ever designed to be mounted on a smaller sensor. You could put it on fullframe, but the corners would look terrible. There's definitely an argument for describing a lens by its equivalent coverage if it was only ever designed for cropped APSC, but the problem is you wouldn't know if they'd factored that in or not. So they all agree to quote actual, and leave it to you to work out what the equivalent will be based on what camera and sensor you put it on. So whether you put an RF or RFS lens on your R7, or indeed an EF or EFS, or ANY lens at all, ALL of them will be reduced by 1.6x due to the sensor size. All of them, regardless of whether they were designed for full-frame, cropped or something else. This is why mounting full-frame lenses on cropped sensors effectively wastes some of their 'goodness' - it's not necessary, but it gives you flexibility of using them on full-frame as well. Plus there's the argument that a car with a top speed of 100mph, should perform well at 70mph, so a full-frame lens should look good in the corners of APSC.

@@cameralabs OK, that's good to know. Thank you for taking the time to sort me out on this!

I suspect its similar

To avoid confusion, everyone quotes the actual focal length of lenses before any crop factor has been applied. So ANY lens you mount on, say, an EOS R7 or EOS R10, will be multiplied by 1.6x due to their APSC sensor. If you mounted this lens on a full-frame body, it would be an 18-150 BUT it's only corrected for the APSC area, so the image would become dark outside that area.

@Dark Bidding: focal length (e.g. 18mm) is NOT FIELD OF VIEW. It is a physical measurement of how strongly the lens bends light. The resulting field of view depends on two more unrelated variables: how big an image circle that lens projects, and how much of that circle you record (i.e. your sensor size). An EF or RF lens at 18mm projects an image circle onto a postage stamp with the *exact same field of view* as an EF-S or RF-S lens does. 18mm focal length is 18mm. The difference is that an EF/RF (full-frame) sensor is bigger than an APS-C sensor, and so will capture a larger field of view from the same 18mm focal length lens. EF-S and RF-S lenses engineered for APS-C sensors can also get away with projecting a smaller image (note: not shrunken, but cropped) since the sensor itself is smaller, but that just saves on glass size and weight (*provided you are not also buying larger aperture glass to make up for the loss of bokeh) and DOES NOT change the focal length of 18mm. What *does* change is the 1.6:1 field of view decrease due to the sensor recording a smaller area. When people say that e.g. a 10mm focal length lens on APS-C is equivalent to a 16mm focal length lens on Full Frame (NB - ignoring bokeh differences), this is due to the *sensor* changing, not the *lens* changing. A 16mm lens is 16mm regardless of whether it is made for APS-C or Full Frame, and regardless of whether it is mounted on APS-C or Full Frame. It's an intrinsic property of the lens, just like weight or width or color. And it measures a specific optical characteristic that is only *indirectly* related to field of view.

@@gabedamien Thanks. This makes sense. As we all do, I’m learning more as I go and you taking the time to explain this helps greatly.

@@darkbidding no problem, glad you found it helpful. I used to wish that instead of focal length, lenses were labeled using a logarithmic scale corresponding to field of view. That would make it a lot easier to explain: "this number shows how much of the scene you'll capture." The problem is, field of view varies with sensor size and is limited by how big an image circle the lens projects. So in a world where a lens can be mounted on different camera bodies, you *can't* come up with just one label that accurately tells you the field of view. Whereas focal length is useful *precisely because* it doesn't change based on sensor size or anything else. So it's up to us photographers (you and me) to know how to "translate" a focal length mentally into a corresponding field of view, given a certain sensor size. And that becomes easy enough with practice!

@@cameralabs I though that for Canon you had to multiply by 1.5x, so that it would become a 27-225mm.

R7

R7, not even close!

It's meant to be bought in a bundle at discount

@@cameralabs Even when purchased as a kit lens bundle, it's about $500 add-on over the R7 body. (in Canada). I wouldn't want to spend $500 on a lens with a plastic rear flange. That''s the type of construction one would expect to find in the real bottom of the line Canon lens.

Yes it would be interesting to compare their optical formulas

watch the video, its one of the first things he talks about.

Yep, it's in the video

Hah! I was born looking 50

It's crap.

you got 2 lens to test?

But won't fit on a Canon body!

I won't be getting the RF 18-140mm , but I used to have EF-M 18-158mm

What? The RF 50mm 1.8 was released on Nov 2020. Are you sure you see what canon is doing?

This lens would force your rp to crop. Get the 24-105 stm or 24-240

I vote for the rf 24-240. Covers wide angle to telephoto.