Canon 24-105mm f/4 'L', vs 18-150mm kit lens, on the R7?

[@MrDonuts10101]

How on earth you find time to do all the great work you do with these videos is beyond me. You have probably saved a lot of people some serious 💰 and at the same time given us some crucial knowledge/information which would be hard to get without this kind of dedication! Thank you!

[@luf-produkttests]

This Kit Lens is absolute impressive! Everyone thinks that this 18-150 lens is not worth mentioning, because it's only a kit lens. But this lens is the best lens for my R7 and better than every EF-L Lens i own (for sharpness).

[@barrycoleman7040]

Yes, it would be interesting to see how some EF-S lens perform on the R7. My experience is that they're OK, but a bit soft.

[@marcp.1752]

It should being half size, then it would be extraordinary onto the R50!

[@superstringsbro]

Seen so many good reviews of the 18-150 I’m gonna get it with the R10. I was planning on just getting the body.

[@Philtho]

@@barrycoleman7040 I've got a few (24 f2.8, 17-55 f2.8, 18-55, 55-250) on my R7 and they're still incredibly sharp. Used them on my 7Dmk2 before coming over, and there is no real degradation that I can tell. I use them all just as much. I also have the RF 18-150, RF 100-400. People should absolutely not discount EF-S lenses on the R7.

[@_s3mprian_987]

Chris it would also be cool to see how the Sigma 50-100 does on the R7 with its high resolution!

[@jastorfilms301]

I second this

[@IndyVisuals]

Yes please

[@jojoavairf567]

Indeed

[@karlc.5786]

Please 🙏🥺

[@tbgtom]

I had the 18-150 still sitting in the box all this time because I really just wanted the R7 body but could only get the kit. I didn't drag it out of the box until just now after watching this video because your tests looked pretty impressive. Holy cow... this little lens is actually pretty slick!

[@harrison00xXx]

I used the R7 Kit in vacation for a week and it was pretty ok. Sure not what i was used to with F1.4 and F2.8 on full frame (EOS RP) but a very compact allrounder combo. I sold the 18-150 after vacation where it was also bought, but the R7 impressed me that much to keep it for sure and i even sold my full frame EOS RP and some glass after a while. As much i loved to use full frame, i was going back to APS-C and switched from more "dedicated" lenses and stuff to just "convenient" gear. Much more enjoyable, even if i miss a little bit low light performance or very special usecases are not that enjoying anymore, totally worth the compromise! But the 18-150 RF-S lens was too much compromise, i just stick to a EF-S 17-55 2.8 which serves me a lot better than the slow RF-S kit lens can in most situations.

[@JuanCarlosRivasPerrettaOboe]

Interesting comparison! We always forget the advantage of use native APSC Lens on APSC cameras… very important !!

[@georgefabian9432]

18-150mm kit lens aperture is 3.5-6.3. Its 18-45 kit which has aperture of 4.5-6.3 I believe.

[@kmabru]

Yes, but........... the 18-150 is 3.5 only at 18mm (and it goes up pretty quickly). From 19-27mm it's 4 and by 62mm it's 6.3.

[@synura8086]

That's an impressive kit lens - it's not that cheap either at more than $500. It would really deserve a metal lens mount.

[@yankiefrankie]

It seems impressive, until you realize that Canon intentionally gimps ALL non-L lenses by not weather sealing them. IMHO weather sealing is the primary differentiator between this lens and the f/4 L. Do you really want to take your fancy weather sealed R7 out in the elements with that non-weather sealed kit lens? I wouldn't risk it.

[@Aariahjames]

I absolutely love my RF 24-70 on my R7. Hope for a review of this lens with this body one day.

[@RedshiftDougal]

Thank you for this objective video, Christopher! As a happy R7 owner who is currently being tempted by some interesting end-of-season offers, including for the RF 24-105mm f/4L, you've just saved me from spending on a less-than optimal lens for my situation. Keep up the great work!

[@tom_k_d]

Thanks Christopher, I was waiting for this comparison, too. I'd still go with the L version for it's bokeh, weather sealing, nano USM focus motor and full frame compatibility. Or, other way round, if one possesses the 24-105 F4L, there seems little need for the APS-C lens. I welcome the 77mm filter thread, as it is shared by the RF70-200 2.8L, RF50 1.2L and EF85 1.4L.

[@fonsopr51]

Please keep the R7 content coming! I would love a video with the RF 100-500z

[@MichaelFleming06]

You have a typo @ 4:20 as you start to go through image quality. Thank goodness the R7 doesnt have 42 megapixels! No lens could handle it! :P

[@martinhommel9967]

The 18 - 150mm kit lens is a good performer for this type of lens. Canon give us some more RF-s lenses, please

[@Twobarpsi]

Was not expecting this result! Good review!

[@stevewhiteley9249]

Interesting! I have used the RF 24-105 f4/7.1 on the R7 as I already have one for full frame use. It’s quite well balanced on the R7 and I’ve been happy with the results although the zoom range is a bit weird on an APS-C camera.

[@alexeinosov9441]

Thank you for a great and helpful review! It would be even more helpful to see a comparison of the performance in lower light, more examples of DOF use, and a comparison of AF performance of the two lenses with R7. I now have more than a year of experience using 18-150mm lens, first on R10 and now on R7 and I can tell that it performs poorly in low light conditions. It demands raising ISO pretty high, adding a lot of noise, losing color and sharpness in process. And I'm talking about 'golden hour' conditions here, not the dark of the night. Autofocus performs quite a bit worse in a low light as well, just more erratic overall. Finally, the bokeh on 18-150mm is just not great throughout its entire range of apertures and focal lengths. I often struggle to separate the background nicely even with wide open apertures and longer focal distances. I've been looking at RF 24-105 f/4 L as an alternative for anything indoors, contrasty (e.g., shooting in deep, but patchy shadows on a sunny day), fast action, objects, and portraiture (for when I don't have RF 50mm f1.8 STM with me). Just to get a more versatile and slightly more professional setup out of my R7. I got it primarily because of IBIS and high linear resolution because I do a lot of sports and wildlife shooting for fun. But I also want to try and make the most out of my R7 for other photography genres, without carrying a ton of prime lenses. Unfortunately, there's just not much to choose from for an R7 owner at the moment in terms of standard zooms. EF-S lenses usually don't have image stabilization and require a converter, making the whole setup heavier and bulkier, and carrying lots of prime lenses is just not an option for let's say an occasional event photographer. It also would be great to add Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM into such a comparison, just to see if that one is any sharper on R7 than RF 24-105 f/4 L. Although, I understand that most people who can buy a f/2.8 standard zoom won't be interested in using R7 for anything else but sports and wildlife.

[@cgiovanni5982]

I got both and i'm not sure you can trust that video. the 24-105 F4 delivers better results in my opinion. with that you get a good customizable lens with an incredible feel. it is worth the money.. the stabilisation is way better too. It raises up the low light capacity of the r7.. especially when you are zooming. the lens hood is also better. Now the 18-150mm is surely an amazing lens that can be surprising at times. I still use it when I want to go incognito

[@NobleEndeavours123]

Another great review and timely for me because I've been considering the 24-105 L. I am surprised that you didn't compare it with the 24-105 kit lens that comes with the canon r6 mark ii. I have that as well and so far I am not that impressed with it especially when compared to the kit lens that came with the R7. I need to check your video list but if you haven't performed a comparison of the RF 100-400 versus the RF 100-500L you might want to consider it!

[@robbytacheny3362]

I am always impressed by the sharpness of the EF-S 55-250. I have the 18-150 kit lens for the R7 and was thinking about getting the RF 24-105, but I think I'll save up for something else.

[@superstringsbro]

Good call. These reviews save us a lot of money 👍

[@SigamosLaCorrietne]

Kit Lens is a great investment if you are on a budget Or simple travel lots. Owning the R6 & R7 (sports photographer) I wanted a small travel kit and opted for the R7 kit lens. Best buy! all L lenses are safe at home and my travel kit is R7 + RF 50/f1.8 & 18-150

[@JaySilva88]

In my opinion the constant f4 aperture is worth the money. You also have a lens that will work when you upgrade to a full frame camera, contrary to the 18-150. You could also get the EF version second hand and adapt it to RF and save allot of money buying RF new.

[@mb-watches]

Thanks for this one Chris. Was thinking about getting that L lens. Will Safe that money as i already have the 18-150🙏🏻

[@johnstatue]

the R7 is my 9th canon DSLR camera and my first MR camera. I have used the EF 24-105 L 4.0 on "all" models and have never experienced any disadvantages. I now have the 18-150 kilos on my R7 and I like it. Still, I think I will buy the RF 24-105 4.0 L

[@mikeriley1475]

Dang, wish I'd seen this before I bought. I skipped the kit lens on my R7, and picked up a used EF 24-105 L off of craigslist. The cost was the same as if I'd gotten the kit, but looks like I didn't gain anything in terms of image quality but I did lose some portability with it. I will say though, the constant F4 is pretty nice for pictures of friends/family so it's not all negative. I sure wouldn't have minded the reduced bulk however.

[@barrycoleman7040]

Great video Chris! The 24-105L feels a bit strange on an APC-C camera anyway. I'd appreciate looking at some telephoto EF lenses on the R7. My experience is that the 100-400ii and 70-200 2.8ii are still very sharp on my R7, so your opinion would be interesting.

[@evolutionhd6768]

Can confirm that the 100-400 MkII is extremely sharp on the R7!

[@Universal_Craftsman]

Does shooting on APS-C make actually sense nowadays? Given that full frame cameras have such high resolution you could crop in with them as well, or is it better to shoot on APS-C still?

[@dantsai]

a typo at 4:33? I was shocked when I saw 42.5mp APS-C! I didn't recall Canon being that aggressive with pixel density :)

[@MarcioCV]

r7 is 32.5 mp

[@Aneliuse]

Haha noticed it too

[@fusion-frosty]

Watching on my TV; the 60mm test, 24-105 L looks visibly better in the corners and same-same in the center (as opposed to the commentary: same in the corners). At 105mm the 24-105 L corners do look better throughout, even at f/8 (not huge but the contrast/fuzz difference is quite visible, looking at the squares). The practical difference is not huge though, and the loss of range on the 24-105, particularly at the wide end, rules it out for me as a travel/versatile lens. The EF-M 18-150mm was pretty bad without stopping down a couple from my memory. Would be interesting to see a comparison mounted to their native systems, R7 vs. M6 MkII (32.5 MP). There are some spec differences to the RF-S 18-150 in where the aperture drops as it zooms.

[@ME2K23]

📸 Great video once again! 👍🙂👍 It would have been nice to also have equivalent (adapted) EF or EF-S lenses in the mix. I am always curious regarding EF vs RF price, performance and weight... Autofocus speed, accuracy, tracking etc

[@fusion-frosty]

Stabilisation too, with combination IBIS + OIS when using matching R combos. Whereas I believe it's OIS only on adapted lenses? Considering trying Fuji to keep a smaller & lighter kit with most lenses being WR + 3rd Party lenses, but I do have a few EF & S lenses which makes the R7 a tempting choice, especially at the price point.

[@harrison00xXx]

@@fusion-frosty In my testing between a EF 100-400 II and a RF 100-500L i found out the stabilizer isnt much worse on the EF lens for 1/3 of the RF 1-5L price, but a 3rd party EF lens for example the Sigma 150-600C... there is definately only the (poor) optical stabilization of the lens itself. There is definately a lot IBIS support on EF(S) lenses, with or without OIS. On canon lenses, especially more modern EF models it works as intended and very good, on 3rd party i guess canon did there something on purpose luckily at least the Sigma 150-600C works somewhat usable in stabilizer terms for photo, but AF issues are also a small issue for photo (but no breathing in video modes on the sigma....) Another issue which occur especially on 3rd party EF lenses: the IBIS just wobbles around for fun on non stabilized lenses (audible and it doesnt sound healthy) so you can either: - deactivate ibis for non stabilized lenses entirely in the menu - just dont connect the lens to the camera elecrically so you can set manually the focal lenght to be stabilized by IBIS And yeah, none of this 2 options is any good since on unstabilized canon lenses and above 20mm the IBIS works like a charme and make old EF glass much more interesting to use.

[@fusion-frosty]

@@harrison00xXx Thanks for sharing your experiences! It's funny because I'm pretty sure during R5 marketing they said IBIS could work together with EF lens IS but the R7 marketing says "with supported RF lenses only". I asked about the R7 IBIS coordination w/adapted lenses at my reg specialist cam store and they said it was exclusively one or the other (not together/co-ordinated): OIS only - Or IBIS w/non IS lens (which I forgot to say in earlier post).

[@harrison00xXx]

@@fusion-frosty Ofc its by far not as sophisticated as with RF lenses, but at least on: EF 100-400 II EF-S 17-55 2.8 EF 100 2.8L macro IBIS definately is doing something to be able to wobble a bit more without seeing it in the image. I dont have much more lenses with stabilizer to test except 3rd party which all SUCKS (in AF and stabilizer terms), but moderately "young" Canon lenses with OIS are definately working well with the R7s IBIS.

[@YogevMontekyo]

Excellent comparison. wow, the 18-150mm is better than what i expected. i've been using the old EF 24-105 f/4 L IS on both APS-C and now on the R7. it works very well and is very sharp. (one benefit i can think of using the newer RF is silent and faster focusing motors). One issue to check, at 04:44 you're comparing 24mm f/4 between two lenses ? but 18-150mm doesn't have f/4, starts at f4.5 ? so if that was f4 vs f4.5 perhaps that could explain the slight edge in contrast.

[@luchikana]

Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM. It starts with 3.5

[@LuigiVN]

Happy new year Chris and thanks for the amazing video!

[@boftx1]

Please give us a review of the RF 100-400mm on the R7. That is a wildly popular combination.

[@Badonicus]

I second this even tho I have a Sony 70 350 for my 6600

[@ronwilson9855]

If they said you can only have 1 lens for the R7 for the rest of your life, it would be the RF 100 - 400, brilliant, Hardly ever off the camera!

[@christof4105]

Thank you for this video! I was considering buying the RF 24-105 F4 L as a "high quality always on" lens. But i think i´ll stick with the 18-150 kit lens for now or use my EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS USM with the ef-rf adapter. I would love to see an updated RF version of this lens, which is a really awesome lens.

[@PaulVersailles]

I jumped out of my seat when the Red Letter Media production music kicked in at 8:05. 😆

[@mendeztom]

As many others have commented, this was a great video and I'm sure I wasn't the only one thinking about the "L" glass purchase when we already had a nice little APSC lens. I was wondering if my eyes were deceiving me and the pics were turning out better than they should have...but the "kit" lens does a great job on this. I'll prob be spending the money I would have on the "L" glass on a more affordable RF100-400 now...which will give me some reach. Thanks again

[@goldenearaudioreview4904]

I love all the possible references to Red Letter Media on this channel. This video has the background music of "half in the bag" shows and the next video is a best of the worst video. Even if it's unintentional, I love it.

[@borgdylan]

Why are RF-S lenses offering worse max apertures compared to the EF-M equivalent? I am glad to be an EOS M50 user for this. The L lens mentioned here (have the EF version adapted for EOS M) is great for when its dark or when you're inside and performs better than a 18-150mm optics wise in those situations. When there is plenty of sunshine the 18-150mm is king unless the extra aperture is a must.

[@okaro6595]

This has exactly same speed as the EF-M. The shorter kit is very dark likely to deliberately cripple it. The tele zooms is a third of s stop slower but also 10 mm longer. IMO if you need light then nothing beats a fast prime.

[@mvp_kryptonite]

It’s a great kit to get one going on the APS-C RF bodies. New all we need are 2 or 3 fast primes, a 1:1 macro and a f2.8 zoom

[@tampatrainguy8486]

Great comparison. I'm a big fan of this channel, but I found it quite surprising that the max aperture of the 18-150 was continually shown and discussed in this video as being f4.5, when it is actually f3.5. f4.5 was even mentioned in the verbal comparison as a disadvantage of the 18-150 when in reality its f3.5 is slightly better than the f4 of the 24-105. An earlier comprehensive review of this lens on the same channel has the max aperture correct, so it's odd that it wouldn't be correct here. Is there another version of this lens out there that is an RF-S 18-150mm f4.5-6.3?

[@harrison00xXx]

the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is literally the APS-C version of the 24-105 F4 L (similar in focal range, basically the same in bokeh terms), i wish canon would make a 17-55 2.8 sucessor on RF-S mount

[@dougsmit1]

I am another happy owner of the 18-150 but mine is marked f/3.5 at 18mm and stops down to f/4 immediately above that. Your review shows it as f/4.5 which is the number for the 18-45 RF-S. I had the original EF24-105 f/4L which was a dog in many respects (not sharp, focus creep, heavy) to the point I 'bricked' it when its diaphragm broke after 12 years. I do have to wonder how Canon might have made the kit lens better by limiting the range a bit or even making it a 15-85 f/4 but we got what we got and it was worth the $400.

[@alebre123]

Error in RF-S description 18-150 3.5-6.3 And you have 4.5-6.3 Correct it.

[@jremi]

Oh man, you just saved me lots of money. I was looking to buy the L version of the 24-105 mm lens for my R7, but after watching this, why would I do that? Thanks a lot!

[@dewildeeddy2127]

I have a hard time believing that for APS-C when using the center area of RF 24-105 F4 lens, where it should be sharpest, the sharpness result is worse than compared to full frame? BTW the resolution of the Canon R7 is 32.5Mp instead of the 42.5 reported in the caption. I can only say that the quality of my copy of this RF 24-105 F4 lens is excellent on my R7 and results in very sharp pictures.

[@SJAS1968]

Pardon my ignorance, but it surprised me when you said that, on the R7, the focal distance is greater on the RF-S 18-150 than on the RF 24-105. Given that the 24-105 is a full-frame lens, I would have thought that, in order for the comparison to be apples-to-apples, you would have had to take the crop factor (of 1.62, I believe) into consideration. And that would have yielded an equivalent of 38-166mm for the RF lens, right? If not, what am I missing?

[@alandargie9358]

I suppose although you are right there's no point buying the L lens if you just have the R7 but the R7 might be an additional body for someone with a full frame R camera and who already has the lens.

[@themapleafan]

Thanks So much for doing this comparison. I'm a bit surprised at the results. I wish I got the kit lens now.

[@JeneralMat-zp2ii]

Still waiting for the old school sigma 17-50 2.8 + r7 combo 😘

[@Axonteer]

i was surprised at the "bokeh" on the F4 on my R5 at 105mm when a landscape subject was reasonably close ish... sort of a couple of meters. Granted its not like F1.8 or whatever but it did surprisingly a great job on making the path in the background fade out and giving some separation on the subject. As for the sharpness, i always found the 24-105 f4L to be... fine but... its like its just a tiny bit off on the sharpness...

[@cesaraugustomargato7211]

The equivalent measure at 2:07 is wrong!

[@timlong9913]

Would be interesting to see comparo of the Canon lens here, with a Sony body and the 18-135, and a Nikon body with whatever their similar broad zoom is. For the APS-C zooms of 18-1xxx, which company's lenses are sharper?

[@dennistan6409]

Plastic mount of the RFS 18 150 vs metal mount of the RF 24 105 L and weather resistance will push some to get the full frame lens even for the APSC R7 body.

[@Samson1]

I really want to see a 24-105mm L vs non L, RF vs EF. I've searched everywhere but not seen any direct comparisons by one person.

[@mbismbismb]

4:20 i think there was a typo there R7 has 32,5 mp not 42,5mp

[@OmarSpence]

I'd love to see the 800mm f11 on the R7 for wildlife

[@Badonicus]

Looking forward to this as its relevant to me

[@vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting]

How about the 24-70?

[@paulvanderhaegen761]

That 24/105 on the R7 is not worth the money, it would be intresting to compare the 24/105 L on the R7 and on the R to see if it perform realy better on a full frame camera.

[@victorbastos5859]

Hi Chris....please try the other FF kit lens with the R7....the variable aperture RF 24-105mm. Cheers!!

[@dramaticquiz]

Great review, however I don't understand why you wrote that the aperture for RF-S 18-150 is f/4.5-6.3? I own this lens and it's f/3.5-6.3. Thanks

[@vimalneha]

This is the best comparison

[@p.9608]

Back then I had the Canon 7D with the kit 18-135 and few other lenses including some with the red ring. But then travelling I noticed a wide range good kit its such a shoulder saver 😅

[@rf7182]

I only use Canon 200D + 24-70mm f2.8L Fantastic versatile ❤

[@pat_diesel]

But what about on a full frame like the R8- would the 24-105 be better on a full frame, than the 18-150 is on an aps-c?

[@JordanIsaak]

Thanks Chris! As always, very helpful and informative. I'd be very interested in a comparison series that pitted crop vs full frame lenses that are roughly equivalent against each other. For example, Canon's 10-18mm, 55-250mm, and 18-150mm on an R7 (or M6II) against the RF 15-30mm, 100-400mm, and 24-240mm on a full frame camera. We all know the FF lenses would have advantages in equivalent aperture, build, and handling, but for the photographer on a budget that mostly cares about IQ, is the full frame setup worth it?

[@SatanSupimpa]

Some other brand should throw a little shade on Canon and name their flagship lenses as W.

[@penultimateexposures]

My prefer to have faster zooms on my r7, currently using the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 and their 24-7mm f2.8, shame Canon is blocking third party lenses on rf as I find the Sigmas are better value.

[@zegzbrutal]

Speedbooster and EF 24-70 f4L should be a decent alternative. Bigma lenses are too hvy for walk around

[@Chrisbayne18]

Thank you! Very helpful!

[@RealRaynedance]

Interesting to see that either the 18-150 has a third stop better light transmission than the aperture would suggest or the 24-105 has a third stop worse than its aperture would suggest.

[@DjimmyTrovy]

Both look nice. I have the 24-105 f4-7.1 and very happy with it too. Is the mount of the 18-150mm plastic?

[@andresvalenti93]

Interesting review, thanks! I'd like to see how performing the R7 with the RF 100 mm macro!!! I'm very interesting, if you can. Thanks.

[@russandloz]

Looks like Nikon's 24-120 would blow it away, shame they don't have the affordable bodies yet

[@loboptlu]

due to rf lens exclusivity and lack of choice i heavily regret buying my r7.and i consider the 18-150 with it lousy in image quality ,and an l lens is not better?

[@Badonicus]

A couple of typos on this one Chris are we suffering a New Year's hangover?😆

[@luchikana]

You have 2 mistakes in this video: 1. CANON 18-150MM is F3.5-6.3, not 4.5-6.3. 2. 24 mm on full-frame for 24-105 mm lens is 24 mm, because it is a full frame lens.

[@okaro6595]

A 24 mm is 24 mm whether it is full frame or not.

[@CrisURace]

r7 kit lens is really nice! Good quality, 2nd best after the Sigma 18 35mm 1.8. This sensor is reallyy picky, i need better lens for it.

[@gtaliano]

the big question is when will canon develop a fast zoom for APSC? It would be great to see a RF-S 15-45 F2.8 IS , but I guess it would be on the expensive side.

[@willemhuiskamp]

They really have no excuse. Sigma made the 18-35 f1.8 and it sells for ~800. They can do it, they just don't want to.

[@gtaliano]

@@willemhuiskamp its worse, they dont need an excuse... they just have a closed mount...

[@willemhuiskamp]

@@gtaliano Exactly: no need to compete if you simply don't allow others to develop lenses for your system.

[@fusion-frosty]

I saw a rumour site/vid listed a 16-55 f2.8, but who knows.. have they even done weather sealing on any EF-S? Actually, does the R7 have a seal on it's mount? At least that would keep the body/sensor in better shape, regardless of the lens.

[@zegzbrutal]

@@fusion-frosty no camera mounts has rubber seals on the outside. Just metal surface, otherwise the lens's rubber sealing can't work effectively as intended

[@agandy95]

What about in low light situations?

[@musicman8942]

What about the high pitched acoustic noise from the 18-150 I see a number of reviewers mention(Josh Sattin for one)? Specifically not the focus motor noise but some think it's due to the IS of the lens.

[@dcastrod]

Should put this against the Tamron ef 18-400mm.. especially after tamron gave it a firmware update to work better on the R7.

[@AndyUrtu2]

As usual, you are fact based and show us "real World" examples. I appreciate your testing. Keep it Up!

[@megadjc192]

Can you Test the Laowa 33mm f0.95 argus on the r7? I would love to see how well that lens can cope with this level of sensor resolution.

[@zegzbrutal]

If there is a chance. Please test Viltrox EF-R3 speedbooster + EF 24-70L/16-35L f4 or EF primes trio (24/28/35) non-L USM.

[@gleddyallmighty]

would you buy the Canon 24-105mm f/4 'L' with the new R8 or the R7 with that kitlens ?

[@shafeeal-seddeeq8922]

Please make a video about R7 with RF 135mm f1.8 L 🥰

[@todanrg3]

This 18-150 would be perfect if started at 17 or 16mm and was F4-5.6. And if had a metal mount.

[@fusion-frosty]

Agree about the wider angle, 15-16mm (24mm FF equivalent) would definitely be nice. [Edit]And the mount[/Edit] Personally didn't like the EF-M 18-150 when I got it with the M6 (the lens this RF-S is ported from) and dropped it for an adapted EF-S 18-135 which performed better wide open & wider through most of the zoom range (actually I never tested with the 32.5MP M6 MkII, so maybe the 18-150 is sharper on that, but still smaller apertures). So I would like to have seen a new design 16-135/150mm & not dropping the aperture so quickly as you zoom, but they seem to be opting to port over several EF-M lenses first.

[@groundhoppingwlkp3622]

Still you can buy EF-S 15-85 3.5-5.6 and mount it by adapter - it quite a good piece of glass :)

[@mckenzietackle]

That helps a lot!

[@budthecyborg4575]

I'd love to see a re-review of the EFS 55-250 IS STM when applied to the R7, it was my go-to lens for a long time and now I wonder if it holds up against modern kits on the high resolution sensor.

[@icsesimleatsmalar133]

18 in dslr corresponds to 24 in full frame, so unfortunately your head to head doesn't seem so accurate

[@GoldtriggerDude]

Thanks Cris. You just saved me a ton of money😅

[@denispelletier4381]

Wow the R7 is 42,5 megapixel?

[@andrewbristoe1833]

Odd they didn't go for a starting focal range of 15 v happy with my r10 went with for size and weight which for wildlife a great advantage.Interesting a less weight v stab test ,now my quandary 24 and 34 rf primes are tempting me .The wide of the upcoming. rfs 22 f2 is holding me back the swings and balances would the 22 have any macro capabilities in your opinion .and what rf prime you like the rhyme few options the 3.5 starting aperture of the 18 to 150 stood out to me quite impressive

[@Philtho]

Thanks for this. The EF-S and RF-S lenses have always been "L" sharp, and this is yet another comparison proving that out. The amount of light, bokeh, and weather sealing is the only true advantage, which will leave most amateurs going for the kit lens, I think.

[@grumblewoof4721]

While Canon still sell a lot of cameras (bodies and lenses) their sales are loosing ground to others, notably Sony (as reported by other channels). One reason attributed is the suppression of third party RF AF lenses. Canon continues to produce RF lenses in order to grab the majority of revenue and profit from the RF mount but there is a problem. In this age, paid advertising is playing less of a part and social media is playing a much larger part. Excellent channels like Christopher's are widely viewed and influence future purchases. Canon fails to understand this in my opinion. The blow back from the suppression of third party RF AF lenses has hit sales of Canon bodies. So, when Influencers like Christopher review a third party lens they are also giving great reviews of the bodies and the versatility of the system as a whole. Canon bodies perform well due to Eye detect AF, IBIS and other features, like menus and hybrid capability, with all lenses. If reviews are limited to expensive Canon only RF lenses, then Canons social media exposure is severely limited compared to the competition.

[@muratbasc8302]

Is it possible to mount rf-s lens on a full frame rf body?

[@furaxroby]

OUI mais pourquoi les objectifs L RF 100mm et RF 100/500mm fonctionnent correctement sur cet APSC ? YES but why do the L RF 100mm and RF 100/500mm lenses work correctly on this APSC?

[@stefanbadass5357]

The bitter tears of "L" fan boys brings joy and jubilation to my heart

[@andyp7787]

Thanks for this. You just saved me a pocket full of dough!,

[@christopher_2412]

Sigma 18-35 on R7 still good?

[@penultimateexposures]

Chris re-did that review a few weeks ago. I've been using it on my r7 and at 18-24 it is perfectly fine, and at 35mm it is fine for portraits since the image corners aren't requiring the sharpest focus. Still a great fun lens on the r7 and let's face it there is nothing else like it.

[@christopher_2412]

@@penultimateexposures ah, i missed that one. much appreciated!

[@JoeDaddyo]

Is there a benefit to switch from the ef-m 18-150 to the rf-s 18-150? (i.e. comparison of the eos-m and RF)

[@NobleEndeavours123]

Is there an adaptor available to put the ef-m lens on an RF mount camera? I didn't think there was so that might be the benefit.

[@fusion-frosty]

They're the same base optical design, slight differences in where the max aperture drops w/focal length. Personally, on my M6/MkII, I dropped the EF-M 18-150 for the EF-S 18-135 (STM at the time) with adapter - that was a little bit bigger & heavier (particularly w/adapter) but better wide open and the aperture remained wider throughout the zoom range. I also used a couple EF lenses so already carried the adapter anyway. [Edit]I never tested the EF-M 18-150 on the M6 MkII 32.5MP sensor, so maybe it is sharper than the EF-S 18-135 STM/USM, but still loses more aperture width as you zoom.[/Edit] Re:MAdapter :: Not aware of an EF-M to RF adapter myself, but that'd be adding weight to adapt almost exactly the same lense, and the rumours suggest they're gonna port over most of the EF-M lenses to RF-S anyway.

[@JoeDaddyo]

I guess I was thinking more about a comparison for example m6-ii+kit18-150 vs r7+kit18-150 😅

[@fusion-frosty]

@@JoeDaddyo hah well I posed the same question/comparison too in my direct comment on the vid, would be very interested to see any real improvements from EF-M to RF-S version myself. The RF-S version should have better stabilisation, if only because it has OIS co-ordination with IBIS on R bodies (R7+), and the R7 itself is a good jump up.

[@yankiefrankie]

The kit lens seems impressive, until you realize that Canon intentionally gimps ALL non-L lenses by not weather sealing them. IMHO weather sealing is the primary differentiator between this lens and the f/4 L. Do you really want to take your fancy weather sealed R7 out in the elements with that non-weather sealed kit lens? I wouldn't risk it.

[@TheStephenHaley]

Can you make the same comparison in the Nikon system please sir?

[@gerardferry3958]

I use a speed booster on the ef version it humps the kit lens

[@zegzbrutal]

Yeah... The speedbooster plus EF 24-105L II will become 27-119/f2.8. The small loss on sharpness return a stop faster is very helpful (and the 4stop lens IS is still working)

[@okaro6595]

@@zegzbrutal You are breaking the math. If you speed boost 24-105 mm f/4 it will become 17-75 mm f/2.8. That then is 35 mm equivalent to 27-120 mm f/4.5.

[@zegzbrutal]

@@okaro6595 f number doesn't go down unless you are using "equivalent f-stop rule" which is controversial. Speedbooster is a reverse extender, f-number will go brighter regardless.