Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Review | Should You Buy the Kit?

[@horusbay]

You earned not only a new subscriber, but my most utter respect. This was a highly detailed review of the product. Canon should hire you!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

LOL - if Canon hired me, then I wouldn't be objective anymore ;)

[@horusbay]

@@DustinAbbottTWI 😂 you've made a bold statement there, maybe they need brutality honest folks like you in their team. It's a necessary evil 🙈 😉😜

[@hedley.bradstone-unbridled]

Another thorough review. To answer some of the comments below the line, this is a basic, inexpensive lens for those starting out with their first camera - most of whom will become bored with photography quickly and then only use their camera on holidays and high days. For them, the images captured will be more than good enough and better than their iPhones. Most don't even buy a second lens. Those who "catch the bug" will become savvy and move up to a higher-end camera with better lenses. They won't regret having bought an entry level camera with a "challenged" lens - in fact they will remain very fond of it.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think that is a perfect synopsis.

[@shann2285]

Sir...i have r50 with this lense....could you suggest me which best lense for me as i m looking for best immage quality. Use it for home parties and while traveling

[@hedley.bradstone-unbridled]

@@shann2285 - This is a bit of a, “how long is a piece of string?” question because there are so many factors to take into consideration. Even though your question wasn’t directed at me, I’ll try to give a partial “answer”. Firstly, I don’t know anything about RF-S lenses as my R50 borrows full frame RF lenses from my full frame cameras. Most KZbin influencers seem to think that Canon APS-C lenses, namely the RF-S line, are “a bit average”. Thus, it might be worth checking out reviews of the new Sigma RF-S 10-18mm F2.8 lens, which although not having image stabilisation, has a lower, fixed aperture and apparently slightly better optics than the Canon version. Alternately, you can wait for Canon to issue some RF-S primes such as a 22mm F2 or 32mm F1.4, which in the EF-M line, were pretty impressive for APS-C lenses.

[@EXkurogane]

Possibly the crappiest kit lens across all mirrorless camera brands out there. Canon found ways to castrate their EF and EFM kit lenses further, not that I'm surprised. Making it "smaller" isn't really a legit reason to me when nikon z 16-50 is just as small if not smaller.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I for one hate the continually darker lenses. Mirrorless has allowed it in the sense that autofocus works much better in dimmer light, but that's scarcely an excuse to make the lenses dark all the time!

[@gregsullivan7408]

Another factor is that today's sensors perform so well in low light in terms of image quality too. Ken Rockwell said something recently that I found to be very enlightening - the main reason lenses were "fast" back in the film days is that the good film had an ISO of 50, and simply moving to 100 started to be an issue!

[@JasonParkerMagic]

what 24-50mm lens were you referring to throughout the video?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

The RF 24-50mm, which is essentially the full frame kit lens that is the equivalent of this lens.

[@levischuurmans9400]

I think I might find a use for it when taking videos of streets in cities or paths in forests, since it doesn't blur much it leaves the eyes to wander more. I bought this one in combination with the 55-210 lens, so for the more creative and focused shots, I'll probably be relying on this telephoto lens until *I got a better wide angle lens.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Fair enough.

[@9Mtikcus]

I wonder if Canon is relying on their market position to sell products that are not quite up to the competition standards, the slide in maximum aperture seems more and more common. Yes F/5.6 to F/6.3 is not a massive difference. This seems to be an absolute entry level lens that should maybe only be on the R100/50 If I was a novice and didn't know any different I'd be gutted to have got this in a Kit with the EOS R10 for £1099 then realised for £100 more I could have got a Fujifilm X-S10 with 18-55 F/2.8 - F/4 or 16-80 F/4. Yes the X-S20 has been released but I think the X-S10 and R10 are a fare comparison. Granted Fuji offers nothing as cheap as the R50 and R100

[@zegzbrutal]

Using fuji = poor AF. No good&cheap tele zoom lenses

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm not enchanted with the 18-55mm in the way that many people seem to be, but there are definitely many, many more lens options for Fuji at this point.

[@9Mtikcus]

@@DustinAbbottTWI Neither am I but given the choice at the same price point for a kit i'd take the fuji 10 times out of 10. However, I'd probably buy both body only and if i had to get a "kit lens", i'd find a few extra £ and get the sigma 18-50 F/2.8

[@marcp.1752]

@@zegzbrutal AF is way good enough. Always those paid pro shooters, aren't you? /sarcasm. Even my T1 with last FW does have decent enough AF, and the IQ is still great.

[@zegzbrutal]

@@marcp.1752 good enough is relative, once I moved onto Canon/Sony level of AF-C, it's difficult for me to go back.

[@animusfault]

Hey Dustin, appreciate the content. Do you think you'll be able to review the RF 200-800?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I hope so, but getting Canon loaners has been difficult.

[@craigcarlson4022]

I’ve left Canon for Nikon due in large part to the huge gulf between their true quality lenses (and price and weight) and all this common fodder they offer us, apsc or full frame.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I'm hearing things like this often enough to make me concerned for Canon if there isn't a course correction.

[@robertcudlipp3426]

Canon doesn't seem keen to either impress or win friends.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

I think they may be starting to slowly get the message, but I think they've done their brand some damage with their policies.

[@juhaaavalaakso455]

What do you think about sigma rf-s 18-50 2.8 without IS ?

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

That obviously depends on your camera. The Sigma is a WAY better lens, but if your camera doesn't have IBIS, you'll have to decide if you can live without it. My review of the Sigma is coming later this week.

[@juhaaavalaakso455]

@@DustinAbbottTWI R50

[@juhaaavalaakso455]

@@DustinAbbottTWI 16, 28 and 50 does not have IS either. Thats why considering sigma on R50.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

If you're comfortable with those lenses, you'll be fine with the Sigma.

[@juhaaavalaakso455]

@@DustinAbbottTWI This was the response I wanted to hear :) I kinda miss zoom when using primes. Because many situations like in kids school seremony etc. zoom is essential because we have no idea where going to sit. So that is not possible to hassle with lenses. But 2.8 indoor is way better than 6+...

[@PhilippeDHooghe]

Respect! Another great review of a pretty mediocre dark optic. Thanks for the correct recommendation: buy something else. I have the RF-S 18-150 on the very demanding R7. As Chris Frost has shown, it performs as good as the RF 24-105 f/4 L on resolution. I also have the L and I agree. The L has better colour though. 300 Dollar for this, must be a test for how uninformed a consumer can get. Even if Canon would throw it in with a box of Tide PODS, probably more appropriate, I would still give it away. At a similar price point you have the RF 28 f/2.8 pancake, boy that is a whole different ball game. Now that Tamron and Sigma are entering the RF-S AF arena, how will this lens look? I really don't get it, Canon. Your marketing looks like a stochastic process...

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

There are definitely a number of much stronger performers among the zooms coming from Tamron and Sigma.

[@dannymolns3573]

So is there no switch for AF/MF on this lens? Is it able to autofocus at all? Or just manual focus Cheers

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

There's no switch, but you can switch between autofocus and manual focus from within the camera.

[@dannymolns3573]

@@DustinAbbottTWI ahhh okay! Thanks for clarifying!

[@kuroexmachina]

canon kit lenses are honestly a spit to the face of consumers compared to other brands

[@zegzbrutal]

Not really, Sony 16-50 is equally bad

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

They are hardly exceptional.

[@marcp.1752]

@@zegzbrutal Its better. brighter, does have some subject separation. I never liked it, hated it, but was happy with the results with my NEX6, when bought into it's heyday, shortly after release back then. Had some decent landscape shots with the 16-50.

[@Pharesm]

I'd never buy Canon out of principle, with their attempt to block 3rd party lenses, while they have the worst selection of RF glass, and their lens roadmap is a joke.

[@zegzbrutal]

Are you still stuck in 2022? Sigma&Tamron RF are coming before the end of the year.

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

While it is true that some third party lenses are coming to Canon RF-S, they are thus far limited to APS-C lenses that have been available for years on other platforms. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Canon over other platforms.

[@PNWDOM]

First!

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Yes you are.