Canon R7 First Lens to Buy! RF Lens Buyers Guide!

[@PhilThach]

Canon now sells an RF-S 10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens that I would recommend for ultra-wide work instead of the adapted EF-S 10-18 that I recommend in this video.

[@andyzubia3125]

Thank you very much. I bought the r7 just last week. I mainly want to take pictures of my two year old and my teen playing basketball

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

8:30 This camera is pretty good one on high ISO. R7 beats all 5D mk3, 1d mk4 and 6d mark I (with mark II it's a draw) on ISO 6400. So 70-200 2.8 is really enough for low light sports, for outdoor sports 70-200 F4 is a good starting point

[@philiprolenick4475]

I've have the 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2 and the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II and have had the 24mm and 35mm f/1.8 primes as well as the 100-400. I've settled on an "event" kit of the Ef 24-70 f/2.8L II and the 200 - but for walk-around use, I've settled on the 28mm f/2.8 pancake lens, using cropping in the computer to zoom, since the R7 has a high pixel density. which makes that practical.

[@PhilThach]

I haven't tried that lens yet. My friend Tim has one and loves it be he only shoots full frame. Thanks for watching.

[@ashjcoronado]

Just picked the R10 with the 18-150mm kit lens, in addition I purchased the 50mm 1.8 and 100-400mm RF lenses as per your recommendation. Initially I thought about adapting my existing EF lenses but the extra bulk and hassle added by the adapter wasn’t worth it.

[@gibboian]

This was exactly what I needed having just bought an R7 with the kit lens. I really like your style, just like a mate explaining it all down the pub!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! Since I made this video, Canon has released an RF-S 10-18 mm. that is the lens that I would now recommend for ultra wide use instead of the adapted one that I recommended in this video.

[@MonikaEgerer]

Great video Phil ! Wish you will do it again in late 2024, when the APS C lenses of Sigma and Tamron , RF Mount, are available ?

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! That is a very good point. I need to update this video for sure.

[@dougmanck4149]

Great info. Just purchased the R7 with the 18-150 kit lens. After testing in our grade school gym which has good lighting, I plan to go with the 24-105 f4 for volleyball. I want a zoom without spending a mint. ISO will run around 8000 with f4 and 1/640 shutter speed.

[@jjhwang9680]

Thank you so much for your guidance. Got my R8 a few months ago and bought several lenses so far but always felt lost. This video helps a lot!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@ianmcadam9085]

Phil, this is a fantastic video and has helped me no end in deciding whether the r7 is right for me. Your no nonsense approach is refreshing and greatly appreciated

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@ksnax]

If I don't have a regular use for a lens, I try to find a way around it until I do. A person just wanting a good do-it-all kind of setup not interested in dumping loads of money into glass could be pretty happy with just the 18-150 as their only lens. Impressive range - and really does work well overall. It's a solid multi-tasker.

[@PhilThach]

Agreed.

[@tonyw3250]

A good cheap macro can also be a used EF 100mm 2.8L, works well with the R adapter. Just in case anyone is interested

[@PhilThach]

Thank is a great point, Tony. Thank you!

[@pedrovieira4895]

thnak you so much for the info i was so confused and couldnt find anything!

[@WelcometotheJones]

Phil I know it’s off topic, but I just sold my entire Canon kit(R & R6)! Just felt their lens lineup support wasn’t where I needed it to be! Currently looking at Sony for replacement. I simply believe they have the best lens support, for both full frame & crop sensor. After 25 years it pains me to leave Canon, but I shoot a lot of low light & although I love have the R7 offers, it make no sense to me to pay for L-glass to use on a sub 1K body. My daughter is a college film major & their line is to expensive for new camera users. Just my thoughts. Truly enjoy watching!

[@PhilThach]

Thanks for watching! You know there are several inexpensive and very good lenses in the Canon RF line as I mentioned in this video, I wish the R7 was sub 1000 but it's actually 1499. I'm sure you will do well with whatever brand you end up going with.

[@danham3344]

First time viewer as I am a beginner wildlife guy. My first dedicated camera is the R7 so was researching the best first lens. Sure glad I watched your video. Excellent information in a way that was easy to understand. Really appreciate it. I have a small suggestion if your open to those.😊 Since a video involving “1st lenses” is going to draw new to casual recreational photographers, it would really help to include a graphic that shows which category the lens name falls under. Either by including the category every time a lens graphic come up, or, at the end of each category section, include a list of the lenses you just discussed under the category heading. Since most beginners screenshot the info to refer back to later as opposed to re-watching the video over and over. They(me) can just pull up screenshots later and see which lens you recommended for each category. Only a suggestion on format. I absolutely loved the video. Enough to subscribe! 😃👍🏼 Thanks again.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! Graphics would be a great idea.

[@adrianalfordphotography]

Nice range of lenses Phil. I think I’d be happy just with the 100-500mm and the kit lens (18-150). Should cover everything I’d be doing with an R7. Thanks for sharing the video 🤙🙏

[@PhilThach]

Thanks Adrian! Better pick up that 10-18 as well, I know you love to shoot ultra-wide.

[@tommanseau6277]

Since this video came out, Canon has come out with a native 10-18 mm RF-S APS-C lens which from what I've heard is a little better overall than the EF mount version. These lenses will also work very well with the R10.

[@PhilThach]

Yes, they have, I need to pin a comment about that.

[@stephenoconnell4479]

Great Video thank you for sharing ...i have a canon 90d ,thinking of upgrading to to the canon R7 ...

[@jeffreyhill4705]

Astro photography option: Rokinon 16mm f2 EF-S with the adapter. Full manual, but Astro requires full manual , including focus.

[@martinliu4637]

Great video Phil! And an update for folks wanna shoot landscapes and don’t want buy ef lens, Canon released their rf 10-18mm f4.5-6.3 zoom lens in Nov 2023.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@swepeuaq]

Hi Phil. I've just picked up the R10 + 18-45 kit lens with the EF adapter after watching your previous videos. Your advice has once again helped me consider other options to the RF 70-200 f2.8 and saved some pennies, too! Thank you.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@halukonc564]

Hello, I also use the R10 and the same kit lens. I'm curious about the lens and your opinion other than the kit lens and 70-200?

[@jeffolson4731]

When I got my R7, I got the kit and picked up a RF 800 from Canons refurbished store for $719. The isn’t as lens I use much but you are absolutely correct, small birds at about 30’ look great. The lens is light and easy to carry. I was using my Sigma 150-600 C and while it works and produces nice images, I felt I was losing too many pictures to focus hunt. I just picked up the RF 100-500 out of Canons refurbished store. I also got the adapter so I can use all my EF glass. Nice video with good recommendations.

[@PhilThach]

Thanks, Jeff! You are going to love that 100-500 on the R7!

[@okaro6595]

Canon has now native 10-18 mm for RF-S and it is really small, the same size as 18-45 mm kit lens. You can put it in your pocket.

[@PhilThach]

Yep, I need to make an updated version of this video.

[@TrevorDennis100]

I bought an R7 a while back specifically to travel with, so I wanted it to be light. Soo far I have used the kit lens exclusively, and while it is not bad for what it costs, it lacks the crispness and contrast of my L lenses. I worked professionally for about 20 years, and still have a 1DC and 5DS, and a full range of L lenses, and while I do have the adaptor, it feels pointless using it with the heavy professional lenses. I don't think I have even tried! So I am interested in light weight lenses designed for the Canon R series, but are as sharp as my big white lenses. Mind you, to be fair I suspect I am completely out of touch because I did not know there is a 100-500mm L lens. I have the MK2 100-400 lens which is amazing, but I rarely use it.

[@donsoley746]

Best video for this question - by far!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@unaism2742]

Worthy ❤ I was just confused buying new lenses..... Chose 100-400

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@arnaudontrack499]

It's the 2nd video i watch today in which it is said that the kit lens 18 1500 is a great lens. I wanted to sell it this morning to buy a RF 24 105 but apparently it's not well recommended on the R7. And second video in which it is said the 50 mm is a great lens too on the R7

[@ashjcoronado]

By the way, there’s now a native 10-18 mm RF lens for around 299 bucks which is significantly smaller than EF-S version (even without considering the adapter) and also offers a pretty good macro performance… probably will be my next purchase down the road for the R10.

[@PhilThach]

Yes, I made this video before that lens was announced.

[@borislavpetkov9280]

I've had this exact thought. Thank you for the video!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@ipbsoft]

What a nice video for those like me who recently got a R7 and are very lost when digging into the perfect lenses for all the situations. Thanks!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@sfink16]

I use the adapted Sigma 105mm F2.8 macro for Canon on my R7.

[@PhilThach]

I'd bet that that works nicely.

[@sfink16]

@@PhilThach I think it will but I haven't had much time to test it.

[@juliette-mansour]

Street photographer here who considers herself a purist and I promise I'm not "coo-koo"! However, I won't be using this camera for street. I'd prefer to blend in with the people I'm photographing candidly doing their own thing. I will use the kit lens though, as you suggested for events. It makes total sense to me, as you said, that if you're going to shoot without a lot of depth of field, you might as well have options. Thank you so much for helping me make my decision!

[@selkiemaine]

Great vid - I think you've really nailed it. I use some additional lenses that are fairly inexpensive, but they're niche products - manual 50mm f/1.05 for crazy bokeh and a Helios 44-2 for art stuff. I also can turn almost anything into a macro lens with an extension tube.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! I have a Helios, it’s a fun lens.

[@dancurry3730]

Phil, very nice presentation. I feel like I know how to move forward for lens when I purchase a R7, which will be soon. Thanks so much.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@miked.5962]

Great review - thank you!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@colmranger]

Excellent video thanks for posting

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@stefanmarch]

Great video. Saved me some money. Have R7 with rf 18-150, 100-400, 50 1.8. Sold all my ef fit lenses except tamron 90mm 2.8 and ef-10-18. Bought a couple of cheap manual tt artisan lenses for fun 7.5mm and 25mm both f2. Finding that noise reduction software nowadays (dxo and topaz) is so good that high iso is not the issue it was, I have a question, I'm wondering how much noticable difference between a rf100-400 cropped to 600mm equivalent, rf100-400 with 1.4 extender and rf 600

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! I do have the 1.4 extender but haven't tried it on the RF 100-400 yet. I will say that I prefer the 800 f/11 over the 100-500 with the 1.4 extender so I imagine I would prefer the 600 f/11 over the 100-400 with the 1.4 extender.

[@stefanmarch]

@@PhilThach Thanks Phil, I guess for the time being, I'll stick with the RF100-400 and crop if necessary. Not that seriously into wildlife photography yet although that could change in which case will reconsider. I did have a Tamron 150-600 during a trip to Canada last September but the juddery focus let me down a few times while photographing grizzlies so I sold it on my return and bought the RF100-400 which I'm really enjoying. It's a lens which I'm happy to go for a walk with it on the camera something I rarely did with the heavy large Tamron

[@frankluo230]

Full frame R + 24-240 is unbeatable for walk around.

[@PhilThach]

I would imagine it would be, and I certainly would have mentioned that lens if this was a full frame video. Thank for watching!

[@SchardtCinematic]

I got my R7 about 2 months ago with the 18-55 kit lens and I was amazed how good that lens is. It's the only RF lens I own. But I also bought the adapter fir my EF lenses as well. I doubt I'll be affording another RF lens anytime soon. But as my grab and run camera it fits my small camera bag much better than my 90S with the 18-135 lens on it. I need to compare the size of the 18-150 RF-S to my original 18-55 EF-S kit lens I got with my Canon T3i way back in 2012.

[@jokoparipurno3171]

Thank you so muah for your guidance. And, how about Canon rf 15-35mm f/2.8 on eos r7?

[@PhilThach]

That lens will work just fine on the R7 but it is designed for full frame cameras and that’s a lot of money to spend for what will effectively be a 24-56 lens.

[@jokoparipurno3171]

@@PhilThach thanks sir

[@robertbohnaker9898]

Thanks. Great comparison

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Robert!

[@Chris-NZ]

Hi Phil, I’m a little late to your review and suggestions but found it really quite interesting. I started out with digital using the Canon 20D which came with a Macro EF-S 17-85 - very good lens, still have it on a 50D!! . These days I’m R5 and R7 (backup body) and shoot RF L f4 zooms and have the 16, 24, 50 and 85 primes , I’m mainly land and seascapes, parks , architecture and interiors. I really like the way you’ve given speciality based options but come back to that kit lens , if you were starting out I agree entirely it gives truck loads of versatility, sure its not the sharpest pencil in the box but if you find photography isn’t really for you then not too much sunk cost . I’m retired and been behind the lens since I was 13, but finally in a position to own and use gear I could not have even imagined back in ‘67 and I’m about to give “street” a go , never too old to try something different , right, thought I’d go the R7 with the 16 for light compact and not too “in your face” to start , being the natural introvert is provably why I haven’t given this a go in the past. 😀 Cheers from NZ .

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Chris! For me, the 16, even on a 1.6 crop R7 is just too wide for street photography. I'm an introvert too so I need some telephoto capabilities for street work. Most people prefer wider lenses than I do while doing street photography so I'm sure your 16mm choice is a good one. Cheers!

[@petemartinsphotography]

I have just invested and bought the Canon R7 and want to find a lens suitable for my zoo/wildlife photography especially when going on safaris. What would you recommend me going for?

[@PhilThach]

@@petemartinsphotography RF 100-500

[@petemartinsphotography]

@ thanks my friend much appreciated

[@midlifeadventuretravels]

Go for the Rf 100-400 - a lot cheaper and although maybe not as good in low light as you would wish you can get excellent results and with the 1.6 crop factor a lot more reach - 160 - 600 equivalent!

[@maxidrivemaxidrive4330]

Great video, very helpful! I’m switching to mirrorless and struggling to decide on getting R7 or the new R6 II. Which one would you recommend mainly for bird photography? I like the better reach with R7 and better low light handling with R6 II. Thank you!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! If birds are you main focus, I'd get the R7 for sure.

[@maxidrivemaxidrive4330]

@@PhilThach Thanks, that would save me some mollah! Never shot with full frame before, so kinda worry about being disappointed with a lesser reach. But, should I worry about the R7’s rolling shutter problem and low buffer?

[@olavvatne7837]

Takk!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@olavvatne7837]

@@PhilThach great video. Just replaced my 17 year old EOS 30D with an R7, and this was exactly what I was looking for. Also, great video, both in presentation and message.

[@stephenthompson1998]

Hi Phil, would like a wide angle to 300-400 35 mm equivalent to take on walks for landscape to birds photography on my R7 have you any recommendations. Enjoyed your video of lens for R7.

[@PhilThach]

You could adapt an EF mount Tamron 18-400.

[@james0706g]

Hello Master: Please help and give me some advice, The camera I am currently using is Canon EOS R10, The kit lens used with it is (RF-S18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM) My main subject matter is toy photography. The secondary shooting content is street photography or portrait photos. Now I want to buy new lenses, after watching your video, Want to be Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and RF85mm F2 Macro IS STM or RF 35mm 1.8 STM After making a choice, I would like to ask you to give me some advice on which lens is more suitable for me? Thank you.🙏🙏🙏

[@PhilThach]

Look through your photos that you have made with your 18-150. See which one of those three focal lengths most of your photos are closest to. That is the lens that will be best for you.

[@james0706g]

@@PhilThach thanks for your reply🙏🙏🙏

[@MrTmiket0007]

Thanks Phil for sharing the video and the valuable information, keep up with the awesome content 🐦❤️🤗

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Miguel! I have been planning this one for a long time and glad I finally got around to making it.

[@Alexander_Kushnarev-117]

Thank you, Phil. I currently have 18-150 mm. For wildlife photography I bought a chip lens 600mm f1. 600mm good for photo but not so good for video. I want to buy 10-18mm for landscapes and 35mm for portraits. But is it necessary to take 100-400mm or is it better to save up for 200-800mm?

[@PhilThach]

I know it’s a little more money but I actually prefer the 100-500 on the R7 over the 200-800.

[@Alexander_Kushnarev-117]

@@PhilThach Hello Phil. I bought myself a 24 mm 1.8 for portraits - I think it’s the most interesting lens than 35 mm. I will also use it in the dark. I also bought 10-18 for landscapes. And I also took 100-400 for birds. Then I will be interested in 800mm F11, but I will have to sell 600mm F11. I don’t know if I can buy 100-500 and 200-800 - very expensive.

[@mma171]

I have the RF 35mm 1.8 and it doesn't focus that great in low light. It hunts a lot and I'm using the R5. I am a little spoiled though because I also use the RF 50 1.2 which focuses far better than any lens I've ever used. It'll focus on subjects I can't even see because it's too dark.

[@PhilThach]

Hopefully the RF 35 1.2 will come out soon and you can pick up one of those. I haven't had any trouble focusing with the RF 50 1.8. I've never tried the 35 1.8.

[@tom_k_d]

I'm using the EF 35mm 2.0 IS USM adapted to my R6 - it's focussing precisely even at candle light.

[@mma171]

@@tom_k_d I used to have that lens. It was great! I thought the RF version was going to be just as good. Optically they are very close but the USM focusing system is far superior to the STM one. I vowed never to buy a lens with STM again.

[@donsoley746]

Being a bit of a novice…forgive me - would the ef-s 55-250 give some wildlife capability - faster? Hell of a lot cheaper and sharp for what it is..?

[@PhilThach]

To me 250 mm is too short for wildlife photography unless you are in a blind with perches set up very close to it and something to draw the birds in.

[@donsoley746]

@@PhilThach thanks for the reply Phil - it is appreciated! I enjoy your style of delivery.

[@peterviragphoto]

Great recommendations, super informative!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Peter!

[@clarkejones8090]

Excellent!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@unclebuck5957]

I have the ef lens for macro 100 2.8

[@PhilThach]

I’ve never used it, but I’ve also heard only good things about that lens.

[@RomanHaussener]

Wanna have the best lenses for your R7 or R10? Get a EF-RF Adapter and get/buy EF lenses and save a ton of money!

[@tom_k_d]

The R7's sharpness is defraction limited already at F8 due to it's high pixel density - I'd guess this 800mm F11 wil be quite blurry on it's 32 megapixels APS-C sensor?

[@PhilThach]

The 800 F 11 is not as sharp as the 100-500, of that I am certain but that’s also the case when that lens is compared to the 100-500 on a full frame camera. there are some situations, like the a small bird at 30 feet that the 800 is really nice to have as an option but I don’t use it nearly as much as I used to when I was using the R6.

[@RodneyDugmore]

Diffraction while noticeable when pixel peeping is not the big deal it’s made out to be. 1st of all diffraction is a function of the diameter of the aperture not the F stop for a given pixel spacing. F8 is a different diameter at 800mm than at 18mm so while F8 might degrade your sharpness at 18mm at 800mm it will not. It’s physics I’d also suggest that by the time you sharpen and print you may not see the difference between F8 and F11 ! I have sold many landscape shots taken at F16 on a 5dsr which according to internet experts is “Diffraction limited” while in the real world is still more than sharp enough.

[@tom_k_d]

@@RodneyDugmore This seems not entirely correct: although the lens opening with a certain aperture depends on the focal length, the magnification of the lens will counteract this - focal length doesn't have a visible effect on the amount of diffraction. I'm not saying you can't get good images once diffraction gets increasingly noticeable - it's just starting to get a waste of sensor pixels at a certain point. At the R7, theoretically diffraction starts getting noticeable beginning with f5.2, so I already factored in 'real world' when quoting f8 (were it gets quite noticeable on pixel level).

[@RodneyDugmore]

@@tom_k_d you may be right but I would love to see the equation that shows F5.2 being the limit without specifying the focal length? After all F stop is ratio of focal length!

[@tom_k_d]

@@RodneyDugmore There is a nice article "A Closer Look at Lens Diffraction" at the Fstoppers site, explaining the invariance of diffraction effects in regards to focal length.

[@sris5563]

Phil - I’m looking to upgrade my 10 year old 6D.. I’m an enthusiast and generally love portrait and sports photography. I’m trying to get a bit better autofocus help shooting my daughters basketball team in the gym.. currently debating between a R6 ii and R7.. can yo make a recommendation?

[@PhilThach]

Hello! I noticed you did not list small birds as something you photograph and you dud list indoor sports and portraits. Based on that, I'd recommend the R6 Mark II for you. Full frame sensors are usually better for Portraits and Indoor sports and APSC sensors are usually better for small birds.

[@shutterbug4561]

Thank you!

[@MosleydollMUA]

Can I use my ef nifty fifty with the adapter and still get good results? Thanks

[@PhilThach]

Yes. 👍

[@MatDGVLL]

Got the 70200 F4 as it’s super compact compared to the 2.8

[@sataanass2596]

Hello Phil from France! Do you recommend me 100 400 RF or the sigma 150 600 for bird and sports ? thank you !

[@PhilThach]

The Sigma 150-600 is said to have focus pulsing issues when adapted to R mount cameras so I'll have to suggest the RF 100-400 over that lens.

[@edwardsponholz1614]

Phil, thanks again for another informative video on the R7. In spite of Canon's unwillingness to allow third party lenses into their R system, you certainly showed that there are several viable Canon R and EF lens options available. One question about your choices for landscape lenses with the R7. The EF-S 10-18 looks like an intriguing choice for a light weight super wide angle lens. Your comments about it's usability in spite of the relatively slower aperture are well put. A few months ago, you did a video where you hiked to a remote waterfall with the R7 and the EF 17-40 f4 L. Your results were beautiful. Would you recommend the EF 17-40 L as a more expensive option if one is looking for the highest IQ? How does the IQ of the EF-S 10-18 compare? The EF 17-40 L is also twice the weight I believe. Thanks. I am seriously considering investing in the R7 and the 100-500mm lens (I'm a bird photography nut).

[@PhilThach]

Thank you and thank you for the nice comment on the photos I made at fall Creek Falls State Park. The 17-40 is a nice high-quality lens for sure but it’s focal length is not that well suited for an APSC camera like the R7. 27.2-64 is it’s full frame equivalent when used on the R7. For that focal length you might as well use the 18-150 kit lens which is 28.8-240 FFE. If you want to go Ultra Wide on the R7, the EF-S 10-18 is your best bet right now and it is plenty sharp at f/8 through f/11.

[@PhilThach]

I think you will love the R7 and 100-500 combination for bird photograpy. A great three lens set up for you would be the 10-18, 18-150 and 100-500. With that you have everything you need for landscape, photography and bird photography.

[@harijs70]

thank you! Do you have also R6 full frame? If yes, which one r7 or r6 gets more good result for macro? I use Canon M50 with 65 mm Loawa 2;1 macro lens ( those satisfy me) , but at the moment I make decision about new camera / m6 mark II or R7. One or another I suppose complete with Loawa again.

[@PhilThach]

I like the R7 over the R6 or R6 Mark II for macro work.

[@eltinjones4542]

Totally agree with you about street photography 📷👍

[@PhilThach]

Thanks, Eltin!

[@sfink16]

Question for you Phil. Which is better, the R7 with 100-400 at full 400 zoom + 1.4x or the 800mm F11? The 800mm would give an extra 240mm (full frame) but require a higher ISO.

[@PhilThach]

That’s an interesting question. The 100 - 400 would give you a lot more versatility. The 800 mm is kind of a one trick pony. For maximum reach you can’t beat the 800 but sometimes you don’t need all of that reach.

[@sfink16]

@@PhilThach Thanks Phil!

[@elke1317]

@@PhilThach Does the RF 100-400 really work with the 1.4 converter? I haven't found any information on this yet.

[@PhilThach]

@@elke1317 the RF 100-400 does work with the RF extenders.

[@elke1317]

@@PhilThach Thanks, Phil.

[@randybocksnick3750]

Randy Bocksnick(Mt) A lot really nice lenses< very nice presentation! You gave out a lot valuable information to your fans, much appreciated! Thanks PHIL!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Randy!

[@Shootsmith]

If you have the R10 (no IBIS), does your prime lens need IS? Asking because the RF 50mm F1.8, the RF 16mm F2.8, and the RF 28mm F2.8 (cheapest RF primes) do not have IS.

[@PhilThach]

If you absolutely need stabilization, yes, but you don’t absolutely need stabilization in my opinion

[@okaro6595]

If you photograph moving subjects you really do not need IS at those focal lengths. For stationary ones if helps but at least with f/1.8 you can get typically short enough shutter speed. The kit lens is f/4 up to 27 mm so 28 mm f/2.8 makes little sense. Buy 24 mm f/1.8 IS or 35 mm f/1.8 IS instead. The 16 mm f/2.8 might work as a small wide angle when you want to go light.

[@RICKYVFR1]

Got the Rf100-500mm, with my R7. 👍🇩🇰

[@PhilThach]

Congratulations!

[@wendyh8492]

Hi Phil what are your thoughts o nthe rf 600 f11, i already have a sigma 100-400 that I have been using on my 90D and the R7 amd I am not too sure I want to double up on the same focal lengh, although I would like the rf100-400?

[@PhilThach]

The 600 f/11 might be a good next step for you.

[@cxj1995]

Hi there, if i already have an existing EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM, and currently looking to buy the R7. Do you think i have to get the 18-150 kit lens or i can just get an adapter and use back my 18-135mm? Thanks!

[@PhilThach]

You should be fine adapting your EF-S lens or you could sell it and get the 18-150 kit. It’s up to you.

[@kain0m]

I had the 18-135 USM when I bought the R7 Kit. 18-135+Adapter is almost twice the size of the 18-150, and IQ qas basically the same - so I sold the 18-135. One thing I noticed is that the R7 doesn't focus as fast as my previous 80d did, at least with the 18-135 nano USM. It's relatively quick, but the 80d with that lens was just stupidly fast... Focus speed between 18-150 STM and 18-135 nano USM was about the same on the R7, so no reason to keep the EF-S lens.

[@steveolesen8033]

If I am given a choice to use a canon camera with a kit lens or a nifty fifty in either mount or a cell phone I would rather use my cell phone

[@PhilThach]

Cell phones are pretty amazing these days for sure. I think I'd probably still rather shoot with a camera with the kit or nifty 50 lens.

[@stephenthompson1998]

Why waste your time watching this video and make negative comments without substantiating them

[@harrison00xXx]

R7s first lens(es).... EF and EF-S all the way!

[@harrison00xXx]

And lets be true.... nearly all RF lenses are overpriced, the RF-S lenses are repurposed EF-M lenses for more money but NO advantage over the EF-Ms. On top of all that, just look at the apertures: 100-400... F8, 100-500L F7.1, just bad. The 100-400 is somewhat light and small, but the 100-500 is no real upgrade over the EF 100-400 II, just 3x as expensive. Especially on APS-C i prefer the EF 100-400 over the RF 100-500 (F5.6 vs 7.1, both super sharp wide open), on full frame i would probably go for the RF if i could afford it for the extra 100mm.

[@jeffryurbina7403]

Can anybody let me know if the EF adapter for the R7 worth it? I mean what lenses EF do you recommend if I get the adapter to attach it on my R7 Canon? Thanks if you take a quick time to share!

[@PhilThach]

The 10 to 18 makes it worth it to me just because there’s no Ultra Wide lens right now for the R7. If you have a bunch of EF lenses from your old DSLR kit, it’s definitely worth it so you can use them but other than the 10-18, you might as well buy RF lenses. One day they will make an RF-S ultra wide and at that point the adapter will be even less valuable.

[@jeffryurbina7403]

@@PhilThach what do you think about the Opteka 6.5mm f/3.5 does it works well with the Canon R7 Mirrorless? which is APS-C using the Mount adapter? Thanks if you reply!

[@Ishan-official-Harjang]

Which lens is best for vlogs with canon r7

[@PhilThach]

I would say probably the adapted EF-S 10-18.

[@Ishan-official-Harjang]

@@PhilThach thanks Alot for answer

[@thakursharma159]

Thank you sir

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@DL6UK]

I use the R7 but I do not intend to support Canon´s third party politics concerning non-Canon lenses. I stick to my EF-lenses using an adaptor. I´m not going to invest in RF-lenses.

[@PhilThach]

That’s a shame because the RF lenses are fantastic, but you’ll do fine with your EF glass. Thanks for watching!

[@DL6UK]

@@PhilThach Well, I think Canon´s behaviour concerning 3rd party lenses towards all of us photographers is a shame and my decision of not accepting Canon´s attitude is a result of that. It´s a pity that you seem to support Canon´s decision in buying RF lenses. I guess many users will leave Canon and move over to Nikon or Sony as a result of this. Canon RF high quality lens prices are far over the top, sorry.

[@PhilThach]

@@DL6UK Thanks.

[@alansach8437]

Canon RF glass is outstanding, but it's not like anyone is going to look at the photo hanging on the wall and say, "It's a shame that wasn't taken with RF glass!" There are tons of very excellent EF glass out there, including third party, available at reasonable prices (new and used). Photography was once an "everyman" avocation, but Canon's current philosophy seems to be to make it a rich person's hobby. I have so much EF glass that I just leave the adapters "glued" to my cameras all the time, like they are part of the body. It would almost be an "inconvenience" to remove them for one or two lenses! At this point I think about the only RF lens I might consider would be a 150 (180 or 200) to 600 5.6-6.3 sub $2,000.00 lens to match offerings from Nikon and Sony (and others). But I don't expect that. If Canon did come out with one it would likely carry a $5,000.00 price tag!

[@jcloiseau]

Didn't nikon do the exact same thing for years? I mean it's only sony that was all full open on e mount because they were late to the dslr party right?

[@dougsmit1]

The only reason I was able to 'like' this video is you at least acknowledged the existence of Laowa for macro where I value compactness. The other area where the third party lenses could be useful is in the super wide range where you fall back to the EF-S 10-18 since Canon has so far ignored the market for a wide prime. Laowa even makes a ridiculously compact 10mm which sacrifices some corner qualities according to reviews but I am holding out for someone to release a better only slightly larger 10 or 12mm in RF mount (they exist for the other brands including EF-M Canon). Is Canon limiting contactless lenses also? Making a video showing only Canon products when Canon does not make a reasonable equivalent makes people suspect your videos are Canon sponsored. If the other options are bad, show them and explain why they are bad. For the time being, I'd suggest avoiding the R7 if super wide is a major part of your photography.

[@PhilThach]

Definitely not sponsored by Canon. I suppose that 10-18 could be described as falling back, but I think that lens is outstanding. There are plenty of contactless third-party lenses for canon RF. I believe it’s only the auto focus lenses that are presently limited. But, like I said inthe video, there are plenty of great lenses made by Canon. There is one Tamron lens that I would love to see an RF version of, that is the 35-150 f/2-2.8. I would love to use that for basketball photography on full frame. I’m glad you were able to find a way to like the video. Have a great new year, Doug!

[@dougsmit1]

@@PhilThachYou say, "There are plenty of contactless third-party lenses for canon RF." but your video was about lenses for the R7 and how the 18-150 on the crop sensor is not all that wide. Many of us have a 16mm RF lens (or adapted EF like the 16-35 options) but what is lacking IMO are the wider for those who want good corners on the R7 and the angle of view that the 16 gives on full frame without the weight and expense of the full frame capable 10-12 options. There are certainly 15mm primes for full frame but where we are weak are lenses in native RF-S mount other than the cookie. I would not have mentioned this had your review been on full frame RF cameras but the R7-10 could use a scaled down, appropriately priced 12mm like those made in EF-M by 7Artisans , Rokinon, Samyang, Brightstar etc.

[@tbgtom]

Just my opinion of course, but I feel the first lens someone should buy for the R7 is the RF 100-400. Everything else is gravy.

[@PhilThach]

I guess it all depends on what type of photography you are doing. I think that was my first lens pick for wildlife and outdoor daytime sports. It's certainly a great lens, especially for the price! Thanks, Tom!

[@The_NSeven]

I'm contemplating getting this or the Sigma 150-600 C, but I can't seem to figure out which one is better for me. The extra reach on the Sigma or the more optimized experience on the Canon? I'm leaning towards the Sigma

[@christopherberry8519]

I think you're very much skewed to bird photography - so I've put together a list of lenses that make APS-c photography tolerable for me. First lens - Canon L 17-40 ($250) or 16-35 IS ($650) f/4 lenses second=hand or... 18-35 f/1.8 Sigma art ($550) - would be awesome from the EF line. Winner: Sigma - It's just better at everything. a 50mm equivalent crop from this lens is sharper than a 50mm f/1.8. Go for the Canon if you're looking at full frame in the future. The EF-S 60mm macro is unbeatable for $200 second hand. For more reach the 100mm f/2.8 (Not L) is awesome at $350. Winner: 60mm - I've shot an entire wedding with this one lens. Struggled only with group shots. This lens doubles as a portrait lens - the 100mm is great for bugs (I have the 100mm macro IS L lens too) but it's the most versatile. Lastly, either the 50-100 sigma f/1.8 (800) or the canon 70-200 f/4 IS (650) - If you can carry it, the f/2.8 L II IS i(950) s also brilliant value. Tie 3 way. Probably the f/2.8 is best for beginners and video because of the IS but 100% of shots that are too noisy or dark would be improved by the Sigma. The value leader though is clearly the f/4 IS - just fast enough for indoor sports, theatre lights. Personally - and I'm in this position, you can get a fantastic 2 lens combination for $900 but $1200 gets you the sigma wide angle and the f/4 which is unbeatable. The f/4 IS statistically is my most used lens both on APS-C and FF. You'll note all are constant aperture lenses. It may be a coincidence but I find the colours are far more consistent. The bigger plus is that you're not limited to smallest common aperture when shooting in manual for consistent exposures. The quality in output from f/3.6 ISO 400 to f/5.6 is like going from an acceptable ISO 800 to ISO 2000 just by zooming in. Jumping from a long kit lens to the sigma is the difference between 1/200 becoming 1/2000 at the same ISO - 1/800 with the f/2.8 or 1/400 with the f/4

[@davidclode3601]

Excellent advice! Thank you Phil.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! :)

[@stepanbilka5826]

super

[@Mr09260]

For wild Life you need a Lens that is Native F5.6 or less and for share Quality a 70-200 F2.8 and for a bit extra reach Dx = 300 @F 2.8 and DX (APSC) 420 F4 with the 1.4 x convertor No image degradation with Nikon Z Lenses. Pity Canons RF 70-200 CANT take a convertor .. With Lenses Save for the Best you can afford and that wayyou wont get a Cheap lens at F8 or F11 >> Once you have saved >> save again for an even faster Lens Like the new 400 f4.5 Z Wow I wish but watch this space in 2 yrs time I will get it and be glad I didnt buy cheap and slow/Dark

[@PhilThach]

As I've mentioned a few times, I have the Nikon 70-200 2.8 and a TC but virtually never use the TC on it because I preferred to use the 200-500 5.6 in situations where more than 200mm was needed. So, with that in mind. The smaller storage size is worth more to me on a 70-200 than the ability to take a TC. I used to think the same thing about 5.6 being the slowest lens you can get away with for wildlife photography. I even made a comment about that on a friend's video when I first learned that the 100-500 L lens was 7.1 on the long end. But, I have learned that I was wrong. It turns out that the lower shutter speeds that you can get away with by combining the IS in these lenses with the IBIS in the camera more than compensates for the 2/3 of a stop slower lens and the small size and weight of that lens are invaluable. All that said, I really appreciate you tuning in to this Canon lens video even though you are totally a Nikon guy. I hope you have a great day and get some good photos the next time you go out shooting!

[@AndrewsGuitarChannel]

Uggg....18 to 150 I disagree... The lens is as slow as molasses in January. With an 8 to 1 zoom ratio they would have had to make so many optical sacrifices I doubt how sharp it would be. It's nothing but a budget lens for happy snaps.

[@PhilThach]

It’s definitely not fast and that is the sacrifice they made. I’m not trying to say it’s as good as a $2500 L lens. But it’s a lot better than you are giving a credit for.

[@hamsphotovlogs]

I would forget the kitlens...at some point you will not use it. it's not worth it.

[@PhilThach]

While I agree that often the kit lens isn’t the very best choice. There are some times when you need one lens that can do many things in a light weight and small package and this particular kit lens is pretty amazing in those situations.

[@stephenthompson1998]

I use it as its light to carry and as an amateur it's given me acceptable results

[@ludwigvolkel2207]

If I would own a R7, I would sell it right away. Canon's lens strategy for this segment is a bad joke.

[@PhilThach]

I’m sure someone would be happy to buy your R7 and enjoy the range of lenses available for it.

[@ashjcoronado]

By the way, there’s now a native 10-18 mm RF lens for around 299 bucks which is significantly smaller than EF-S version (even without considering the adapter) and also offers a pretty good macro performance… probably will be my next purchase down the road for the R10.

[@PhilThach]

Yes, this video was made well before that lens was announced.