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

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

musicmaster wrote:

RLight wrote:

18-150 is wayyyy more useful.

as the posters are saying, no tried and true 24 mm, ouch

I appreciate the banter but even after considering, I’m sticking to the stock lenses. The alternative is the R8. Pass. Telephoto footprint is a no go. I’ll slap on a 16 pancake first.

Now sure, I wish we had the 15-45 for the R50, that’s just not here. Folks that want 24 need to stay M, which is fine, or go R8, which as I’ve stated, is fine too. Just not for my needs.

to each their own

but you'll miss out on the pop can size RF 70-200 F4L (a small telephoto footprint it is indeed) that could grow not only your R3 collection, but work lighter on an R8, and work in conjunction with the 24-105

your loss

Big picture? Add 15-35, 70-200 2.8, or their replacement, when needed.

R50 becomes an M filler.I still need something small and powerful.

Depends on your shooting style. Looking through my travel shots, probably 25-30% are shot at a 24mm equiv between my cameras over the years. While I love UWA lenses, I also hate changing lenses, especially when traveling light and would rather have a single lens that covers most of my needs on me than switching back and forth between 2.

My 15-45 was a pretty good copy too.

The other thing, at least in the APS-C space, Nikon has the really good 16-50, Sony has a 16-50 PZ and Fuji has a 15-45 (which is even wider due to the smaller 1.5x crop). 18-45 isn't wide enough or long enough to be that useful. It's also 2/3 stop slower at the wide end than any of the other lenses and larger than them all to boot.