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

Canon_Guy wrote:

MAC wrote:

KevinRA wrote:

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

I dont get why the 70-200 f/4 at the huge price it is - is so exciting? OK good IQ but only f/4 and narrow range. 70-200 2.8 RF I get (albeit very pricy) - and the 24-240 if one want versality. Or the 100-500. The 70-200 f/4 seems very limited application.

$1399 in the US

with -3.2 EV @ F4 focus acquisition on R8 and -4.2 EV on RLight's R3, this lens is both fast to focus and will focus in moonlight on both of these bodies and will keep up with the auto subject tracking systems of these great bodies. Also this lens would compliment his RF 28-70. Then combined with class leading dxo PL6 deep prime, the user gains an additional 1-2 stops of noise performance in low light

All of these factors combined makes this setup as good (albeit dof), if not better than an f2.8 in the old days. And it stays as light as it gets with f4L between 70-200, a range that RLight does not have covered

you shoot wildlife in good light so your recommendation

RLight shoots kids indoors and outdoors - so my recommendation

Especially for kids and especially indoors the f/2.8 is a clear vote for many, including me. The separation and rendering of f/2.8 is much different and more appealing.

Even for the great modern R camera's AF it is still valid that the more light senzor gets the more reliable the AF is.

It is also always better rather to keep the ISO as low as it is reasonably possible to avoid creating excessive noise than smear the picture with noise reduction in post and spend unnecesarry time at the computer.

for $1300 more and 400 g more, if that is what you want, go for it, which you did, congrats

On the other hand, there is no need for any concern about the noise with ISOs upt to 3200-6400 for the typical output on a TV, monitor or A4 prints.

with sharp lenses like my 32 f1.4 and dxo PL deep prime NR I'm getting usable images from my m6II up to iso 12,800

with the R8 I have ordered and dxo PL and sharp lenses I expect useable images up to iso 25, 600

to each their own, enjoy