Canon RF S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Review | Worth Getting?

[@andrewb5345]

I’m an R5 and L lens user but picked up this lens with the R7 as a kit. It far exceeds my expectations. It’s very capable for its size. A great carry around lens .. no complaints from me. I use it a lot when I was something small to carry.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

For sure.

[@kornasteniker3939]

Finally someone who lists the maximum aperture ratings with different Zoom lengths, this is very useful because there are many lenses out there which handle these stops very differently. Thank you!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

You're welcome.

[@kbruff2010]

This is not meant to be pixel scrutiny lens - it’s a walk about lens for travel or family or general product images

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Exactly.

[@letni9506]

It's pretty poor considering it's still £500 I wanted the R7 for bird photography but two years later and the aps-c lenses are still a bit too meh for me to buy into it.

[@DRyangzi]

Thank you for the nice and precise review. I use this lens on R10, mainly for traveling (across Europe on motorcycle) and for hiking (some of them real challenging). I found this lens suitable for whom weight is important and those who use photos for sharing/browsing on computers or normal size printing. Every lens (variable aperture or not, professional or entry level) has their own target population (otherwise they wouldn't exists). I am not an expert, but this lens is an evolution from other APS-C lenses for canon and other third party superzooms (Tamron, Sigma) in sharpness, OIS, and focusing (quick, silent and precise even in low light). The JPEG output in tandem with Canon R10 are really amazing, and I gladly recommend it for daily non-professional traveling photography. I don't like: too plasticky (not really good quality plastic), light feed-back focus ring, unusual design with larger base at mount :))).

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's quality feedback from a real user!

[@thedirtygot9570]

Don’t listen to the pixel snobs, this lens takes excellent pictures and videos! Perfect everyday lens for my R10! I added an RF 50mm 1.8 for portraits , and those two lenses cover everything I need!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's definitely a useful lens even if the IQ isn't top tier.

[@Cutsii]

How about for R50? Is it good?

[@ax3l_d994]

Hey Dustin, first I want to thank you for your incredible job, its one of the best resources on internet for photography. Your optical reviews are simply better than anything else out there. Ive seen you mention a couple times the 3d pop and rendering of some lenses, and I know we are kinda moving into subjective territory here, but could you make a video about lenses that have that 3d rendering on Sony E mount? Or at least list me some that you consider they have good rendering? I know this is highly subjective but well it would be great if you could.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'll put it in the "considering" file.

[@wellingtoncrescent2480]

Another fabulous review. This one has again assisted me with a buying decision, as I decided to purchase my R7 with this 18-150 RF-S based on this recommendation (no pressure :). I should also mention how much I appreciate the fact that you post text versions of these reviews on your website, which I really like because my pre-video brain absorbs information better that way! I do still own an M6 II with the EOS-M 18-150, and I haven't seen much difference between the two in terms of image quality in day-to-day use. I don't know if there's a test chart that would be well suited to a more formal comparison, but I'm happy to generate some test images. With thanks from Manitoba.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Hello Manitoba! I'm glad the review helped out.

[@agathazzz-x]

Thank you for the detailed video introduction! I’m currently using the R10 with this lens (rarely using the telephoto range), and I’d like to ask: since I already own this lens, would you still recommend purchasing Canon’s new RF28-70mm f/2.8 released this year? Would the functionalities of these two lenses overlap too much? Thank you!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Hmmm, obviously there would be complete overlap in terms of focal length, so your main advantage in getting the 28-70 would be the aperture advantage. What about getting a good prime lens instead? That would give a much faster aperture (F1.8, perhaps), along with that better image quality.

[@eggegg2873]

Excellent review, appreciate how thoroughly you tested it. Im thinking of getting one for an R10 mostly for video, is this a lens you'd recommend for that?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I would say so. It's not a perfect lens, but it is probably the most flexible one you can get for a single lens solution.

[@_noahrh]

6.3 just a little after 1/3 into the focal range is a bit crazy

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's definitely not "fast" :)

[@JRFilmsAMStudio]

Thanks too much bro very informative video 💞🌹🌷🙏🙏

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

You're welcome.

[@lifetimestoriesphotography]

So if on an r10 apsc senzior i dont need to add the crop true? That mean the 18mm will stay true at 18mm for video i meant .

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Unfortunately that is a common misconception. Every lens must be magnified by the crop factor of the camera it is attached to (in this case, that is 1.6x). Thus APS-C lenses tend to have a wider starting point for the zoom range (a typical counterpart for this lens designed for full frame would be more like 28-200mm).

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

The standard is all designed around 35mm (full frame), so this lens starts at 28.8mm full frame equivalent.

[@lifetimestoriesphotography]

@DustinAbbottTWI gotcha...well then is a useless less for vlogging but ok ish for some sort of portraits lol ....I may wait and keep my money till the moon and sun is in line with canon team ..maybe they will build a better vlog lense for apsc ..maybe I don't have high hopes lol

[@rip1940]

Im new to cameras and lenses of this level… Do you think this lens could replace both the RF-S 18-45mm and RF-S 55-210mm Lenses that came with my R50? Purchased it for an Alaska cruise

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I would say yes, particularly if having a one lens solution is a priority for you.

[@Dom_2444]

I just bought the R7 body only, I also got a canon RF 100mm macro lens for product photography. But what's a good lens to get for everyday use for family pics, city pics and travel? I had gotten the canon RF 35mm macro lens for everyday use but I'm not the biggest fan of this lens.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Right now I'd lean towards the 24-105mm F4L IS, though 24mm isn't incredibly wide on APS-C.

[@tom_k_d]

@@DustinAbbottTWI I own this lens and like the way it renders colours a lot, even compared to my more expensive RF-L glass. I can highly recommend it.

[@grotesmurf2011]

@@tom_k_d You mean that you own the 18-150 mm lens?

[@tom_k_d]

@@grotesmurf2011 No, the L-Series 24-105 - I'd clearly go for that one. Also, though it's a bigger investment, it will hold it's value better - and you could use it on fullframe, too. If you are in for an R7: quality glass is key to make good use of all these megapixels.

[@augustomantica]

Hi! I've just bought an R10. Should I buy this lens or an EF with adaptor?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think you'll find that you'll get tired of using an adapter, so I would recommend buying this lens.

[@augustomantica]

@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks

[@woozyjoe4703]

The most interesting comment for me was that "the images look better "at the global level than they do at the pixel level". This is quite a telling observation because it is this "pixel level performance" that we have become accustomed to using to judge lenses; it seems to me to be a serious error. I enjoy using vintage lenses and love the characterful variations they produce. This is something that the dreary perfection of computer designed digital marvels lack and so the only differentiator between them is this "pixel level performance" by which we usually mean "sharpness". Honestly I could care a lot more about sharpness. A particular modern lens I wish I had is the EF 50mm f1.2 because it oozes quality; by which I don't mean sharpness. This zoom being reviewed is a lens which I own and I am happy enough with it. It produces nice snaps and that's its purpose. Buy it as part of a lightweight travel kit and be happy.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Fair enough.

[@woozyjoe4703]

Hi Dustin. Sorry if I gave the impression of being dismissive of your excellent review. I certainly didn’t mean it in that way. I love your reviews and find them interesting and valuable. I guess I was just reflecting on the way we look at things nowadays - myself included

[@EduLongoChea]

Hello, thank you very much for your reviews, they are very complete. Could you tell me where I can download the primer to do the lens definition tests. A hug and greetings from Argentina

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Hi Eduardo, I'm not quite what your question is. What do you mean by "primer to do the lens definition tests"?

[@EduLongoChea]

@@DustinAbbottTWI la imagen para probar los objetivos, la que vos usas donde la puedo bajar para imprimir

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/how-test-your-lens

[@EduLongoChea]

@@DustinAbbottTWI That was it, thank you very much !!!

[@ericvaughan11]

I want to say you are one of best resources here on KZbin, your video's are so well done. I do have one question, the quality of your video's is amazing, now matter what camera you take them with. Do you have any learning information on how to make such beautiful video, etc? Yours would be one I wouldn't mind paying for.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I typically use either the Sony a7IV or Sony Alpha 1 for my video recordings. The biggest thing, however, is choosing the setting and lighting well.

[@borocotochacha]

Received R7 with 18-150 as well as Nikon Z 18-140 at Z50 and Z9 and the difference is almost day and night at glass in favor of Z. The RF is too expensive to be included as a kit lens at such very low standard. (Am a photography guide and use many systems).

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's interesting. I'm not familiar with Nikon products, but it does seem that their decision to open up their platform could give them some momentum vs Canon in mirrorless.

[@borocotochacha]

@@DustinAbbottTWI I think is just about time for each brand. Thanks for your unbiased time!

[@tom_k_d]

Thanks for the review. How does this lens compare with an adapted EF-S 18-135mm IS nano USM? I did not observe these telephoto shortcomings with the EF-S lens in this magnitude. Canon simply adopting an older kit lens to RF mount is a big disappointment, but they could have at least chosen their least flawed APS-C zoom, the EF-S 18-135mm IS nano USM, instead of this mediocre M-Series STM lens. This, especially in combination with Canon's third party lens policy, makes the new RF-S bodies not very attractive, despite their capabilities.

[@gtaliano]

great question, many EF-S lenses owners (inluded me) want to know how well do they perform adapted to an RF-S body.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm not convinced the 18-135mm is much sharper, from what I remember. Moving to higher resolution (like on the R7) isn't kind to lenses like these. To answer the question about adapting, however - I think you'll find they adapt pretty flawlessly.

[@tom_k_d]

@@DustinAbbottTWI Agree - but I guess it would be interesting for many to see a side-by-side comparison of these on a high resolution body. Owning the EF-S 18-135mm IS nano USM, I can say it's not too bad in terms of sharpness on my old 80D, and the nano USM AF is lightning fast and fully quiet, a clear advantage over the RF STM version. Plus it stays at a little wider apertures at higher focal ranges. Also, it adapts flawlessly to my R6, but of course it's only useful for 4k crop video there.

[@julaca8690]

I also would love to see a comparison side by side of those 2 lenses. As Tomkd5090, i own a 80D and the 18-135 USM and looking to move to mirrorless with the R7 (maybe R10 if my wallet talk too loud). If i choose the R7, i wondering if the 18-150 would be an upgrade or not. I will buy an adapter anyway to adapt my other lenses. The other point i have concerns about is: considering almost all my lenses are consumer grade, should i choose the R10 to remain to 24mp and save money? Is 32mp too much resolution for consumer grade lenses?

[@tom_k_d]

@@julaca8690 I'd go R7 or R6 (as I did this spring) - while I'd not see such a big advantage of the R10 over the 80D to justify a swap. Also, R10 has smaller batteries, but R7 and R6 keep the trusty 80D LPE6 battery format, and both have IBIS - a real benefit! That said, the R7's 32 megapixels are indeed very demanding, but they don't cause any harm with less capable glass either, they are just not needed. To get pixel-sharp images on the R7 however, it requires modern L-series glass or alike. So If you don't choose the APSC format specifically for its longer reach (sports, wildlife), I'd rather go fullframe (R6) now - or stay with the 80D for a while (I kept mine, too), and get some nice used EF-L glass instead. Hope this helped a little with decision-making.

[@StaticCreature22]

I was watching this video in 360p and was so confused.... You were talking so highly about the lens and I was seeing some really low quality photos 😂 I'm glad I realized my video quality was the problem lmao

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

LOL - that would definitely not help it look better.

[@PeterPanoramics]

Wow you got me on testing the lens with different sensors, Subscribed

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

My pleasure.

[@MariaJose-gc6km]

Hi! Do you think this lens would go well with my R8 with no IBIS?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm afraid not. You'd only be able to shoot it in APS-C mode, which would be very low resolution on the R8. Maybe consider the 24-105mm STM lens instead.

[@okaro6595]

That is an RF-S lens so you would be limited to about 9 megapixels. Get the RF 24-240 mm instead. It has slightly wider range (RF-S 18-150 is equivalent to 29-240 mm) but it is more expensive. Of course there are many other options.

[@MariaJose-gc6km]

@@DustinAbbottTWI wow, did not know any of that, thank you so much!

[@MariaJose-gc6km]

@@okaro6595 Thank you so much!! will look for more options then :) I did not know about RF-S and RF lenses

[@Kevon420]

Honestly this would be a phenomenal kit lens of Canon managed to keep it at f4 throughout the focal range, without any other sacrifices. It’s quite sharp, focuses very close, quick autofocus, low on aberrations, it’s compact and cheap, etc. Right now I guess we are stuck adapting lenses like the Sigma 18-35/1.8 until Canon opens up the mount or they actually release good primes for the system.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That would be a very tough ask, as keeping the aperture at F4 would result in a much, much larger lens.

[@sachitragayan1747]

Hi i have a this lens already,plan to buy rf 50mm f 1.8.is that worth?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's a nice compliment to this lens, as it gives you a faster (brighter) maximum aperture to play with.

[@billx4266]

Still no R7 here in belgium, are they shipping yet???

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Good question. I think they are just starting to ship.

[@hobbiesfordays499]

I bought the R7 kit and haven't used the lens. Keeping it pristine so I can hopefully sell it for more than average. I keep watching videos to justify keeping but so far none. I don't really use my Canon cameras for "walk around" since that's what my iPhone 13 Pro is for. I have 10+ different Canon lens already. Thanks for the video.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Glad to help out.

[@WestVirginiaWildlife]

I have the r10 and I'll probably get this lens eventually.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It's obviously a very useful walkaround lens.

[@thedirtygot9570]

I just put one on my r10! its pretty good👍

[@Trojan0304]

Can count on you for best reviews on KZbin. Keeping my 18-135 usm with old Canon for aircraft in museums

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thanks for the nice feedback.

[@arnesl929]

The eos m lenses looked much better than these rfs lenses. Canon does some weird things sometimes, and it seems they will not take aps-c seriously. Especially on the tele end it could make sense to make some good L level aps-c lenses, given the crop mode on ff.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I don't disagree.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

There is no reason to make L lenses specifically for crop sensors. Just buy an L lens and put it on your crop sensor camera. Presto - you have an L lens for your APS-C camera. It is literally the same thing as using an L lens on a full frame camera that is set to crop mode. The image projected by the lens is larger than the area of the sensor that is collecting data. On a crop sensor, the image projected by the lens is larger than the sensor itself. Same thing. The area of the sensor on the full frame is capturing the same image from the same lens as the crop sensor is capturing.

[@arnesl929]

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg the reason is weight. It would be nice to have a high quality tele made for aps-c.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

@arnesl929 Well, the reason a high quality tele lens is expensive is due to the optics involved. If you made a lightweight Tele lens, it would have a design that disqualifies it from the "L" designation.

[@arnesl929]

@@willoughbykrenzteinburg what I meat by L level (I said L level specifically because I do not expect them to get the L officially) anyway If they use the same quality glass, coatings and seals and so on, I am pretty sure it would be a lighter lens than a full frame lens. Cheap:no. As good as full frame lens on full frame camera, if you are filling the frame: no. But probably better (much) than the aps-c lenses they have made so far. I have to admit I only have had and used EF FF and now EF L tele lenses. So am only judging by the tests I have seen of canon aps-c teles I don’t think they look so good.

[@konradlangwald7082]

If only Canon could make a 15-125 mm lens (24-200 at 35 mm) and F3.5-5.6. And the F5.6 would show up at no less than 80 mm. F6.3 at 62 mm is really unacceptable.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Unfortunately that lens would probably be considerably bigger and more expensive...but it's still a worthy goal. The 15-85mm was one of my favorite EF-S lenses back in the day.

[@peterebel7899]

To say it short: a usable kit lens but no enthusiasm included in the box.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's a good summation.

[@harmanpreetsingh5566]

Canon I use it in 200d

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

No. This lens is only for mirrorless cameras.

[@Jeo-What]

Thank you for reviewing this lens. The characteristic of this lens reminded me the Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-f/5.6 I had on the T2i DSLR. Only if Canon would allow 3rd party to build lenses on their RF mount than they would be able to get inexpensive lenses with much better IQ.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I totally agree on the last point.

[@hook4143]

Hi

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Hello.

[@gigxr]

bro has philippine pesos 🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭🦅🦅🦅

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

My daughter brought me those after visiting the Philippines.

[@chacmool2581]

Ok, so another serviceable though uninspiring lens.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That's a pretty fair summation.

[@iancurrie8844]

Terrible lens. Ugly as sin repurposed EF-M lens. You're far better off with the adapted EF-S Nano USM version. Longer reach and higher image quality and it doesn't look clownish.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

The lens you refer to isn't quite the same focal length (18-135mm), and I'm not sure the image quality is much better.

[@scriming]

this is the illness of BMW. Going with the commercial flow. Not even constant F stop all along, but very poor performance, and well over 4x magnification. Cheap entertainment...

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

It would be exceptionally unusual to see a constant aperture in a lens like this.

[@scriming]

@@DustinAbbottTWI thats for sure. But, what makes me sad, that even L line with shorter range is not constant

[@Aureas133]

I know its not about aesthetics but this thing looks like a strap on

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

A little crass but yes, it is not an attractive lens.

[@nogerboher5266]

Variable aperture = Not worth getting Can't believe manufacturers still make variable aperture lenses in this day and age... I've heard from a friend that used to work in one of Nikons factories in Japan, that most of the basic f1.8 prime lenses (24, 28, 35, 40, 50, 55, 58, 80, 85...) cost less than 70 EUR to manufacture and that's with all costs included. He was working on a CNC machine that made metal frames for the lenses and lens mounts. He said that the 1,700 EUR 58mm 1.4 lens for the FX mount, costs less than 400 EUR to manufacture. A 1,700 EUR lens costs less than 400 EUR to manufacture! Let that sink in!

[@zegzbrutal]

you will be missing many good lens. Sony 200-600G; 100-400mm from Canon Nikon Sony Sigma Tamron; Canon RF 100-500L, Tamron 35-150(e mount)...etc

[@nogerboher5266]

@@zegzbrutal I don't care about these mediocre lenses anyway. I shoot H5D and a7RIV. I shoot only Voigtlander, Zeiss, Leica and Hasselblad lenses. I will soon be ordering the X2D to replace my backup a7RIV, so that I can fully transition to Hasselblad systems and their glass.

[@zegzbrutal]

@@nogerboher5266 you are into static stills, so why not say this first instead of start your comment by bashing lens that you don't need to use.

[@nogerboher5266]

@@zegzbrutal Because it's a variable aperture lens made in 2022. Let me repeat that: A VARIABLE APERTURE lens made in 2022!

[@peterebel7899]

@@nogerboher5266 Your variable comments = not worth getting in 2022! I have heard from a friend Hasselblad lens costing less the 1000$ but charging you 4000. Be happy with Hasselblad shooting travel, wildlife, sports, street, ... Depp!