Kit Lens Comparison; RF-S 18-45 vs EF-M 15-45, Charts, Imatest, Design

RLight wrote:

First up RF-S 18-45mm, MTF chart courtesy of Canon JP

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf-s18-45-f45-63/spec.html

And now the EF-M 15-45mm

https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/ef-m/ef-m15-45-f35-63-is-stm/spec.html

Now the design of the RF-S 18-45mm

And again, the EF-M 15-45

Our counterparts in Australia already have the Imatest Benchmark for the RF-S 18-45, reviewed on the R10 (24MP)

https://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/mirrorless-lenses/mirrorless-lenses-aps-c/canon-rf-s-18-45mm-f-4-5-6-3-is-stm-lens/

And again, the EF-M 15-45mm, reviewed on the 24MP EOS M50

Looking at the MTFs and Imatests, they're in line with expectations. To say, the RF-S 18-45mm is a "better" lens in terms of optical clarity, although it's operationally less capable on paper (2/3 stop slower on the wide end and 3mm narrower).

Providing as I've personally noticed the samples out there from the RF-S 18-45 have more oomph, than the EF-M 15-45, in my eyes. Don't get me wrong, part of that is the DPR reviewers are more seasoned and like anyone practice makes perfect, sure, and the bodies themselves being used are more capable. But, so is the glass these days, apparently.

I don’t know about “more oomph” from the RF version, and I was always surprised by how well the M version performed. However the extra 3mm on the wide end is a HUGE advantage that the M version possesses compared to the RF-S lens.

That 3mm gets me to an equivalent 24mm FOV on a crop mount, as compared to approx. 29mm with the RF-S lens. I always carried my EF-M 16-45 with me when I travelled with that lens, even though I had the 18-150 as a walk around lens. This gave me the lightest possible kit going from an equivalent 24mm on the wide end to 240mm on the long one. On my R7 I did not bother even looking at the RF-S 18-45. I purchased the kit with an 18-150 and so the 18-45 was completely superfluous. Instead i carry my old (and rather massive, especially with an adapter) EF-S 10-22 to cover wide photos.

Now, if Canon comes out with a RF-S 11-22 equivalent to the M version, then I’ll be interested.