Review of the new RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

Review of the new RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejgBDn83mVM

In short, here, Canon provides another example with this new APS-C lens for RF mount of why they urgently need to open up the RF mount to 3rd party lenses manufacturers

gaul wrote:

Review of the new RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejgBDn83mVM

In short, here, Canon provides another example with this new APS-C lens for RF mount of why they urgently need to open up the RF mount to 3rd party lenses manufacturers

Ouch.....

If I was into an APS-C and wanted to benefit from a smaller factor of the body and lens, Canon would not be my choice. And I write this as a 15+ years Canon user.

For FF we have bunch of great Sigmas.

KevinRA wrote:

gaul wrote:

Review of the new RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejgBDn83mVM

In short, here, Canon provides another example with this new APS-C lens for RF mount of why they urgently need to open up the RF mount to 3rd party lenses manufacturers

Ouch.....

You get what you pay for, at least with this lens. It's $100, when bought as a kit with the R10. The EF-M 15-45 was pretty much the only EF-M lens that got a lot of bad reviews too, though some people said they had good copies. Maybe this one is also subject to copy variation. Anyway, for about $300 more, you can get the RF-S 18-150, which is the best large range (almost superzoom range) zoom I've used. I'm not the only one who thinks that. I've seen many posts from people who got that lens mostly in order to get the R7 sooner rather than later, and have been very pleasantly surprised with how good it is. Christopher Frost hints towards the end of the above review that he also likes the 18-150. It will be interesting to see his review of that one. Given the existence of the 18-150, I would never have considered the 18-45 anyway. With EF-M, my 18-55 was actually very good (much better than any of the EF-S versions of that lens), but I never used it after I bought my M6 in a kit that came with the EF-M 18-150, so I eventually sold it (just now, actually, after not using it for about five years!). So far, I have found the RF-S 18-150 to be better than the already very good EF-M version.

I don't think we should get all doom and gloom over one not very impressive $100 lens.

CameraCarl wrote:

So, I'm just curious: how many third parties would be able to deliver any better a lens for the transaction cost of about $100?

It is not about that. The price simply reflects the lens qualities. That is fine.

It is about practically non existing comprehensive RF-S lenses lineup:

- holy trinity of f/4-7.1 budget zoom lenses

- holy trinity of f/2.8 enthusiast zoom lenses

- sweet cherry of one or two f/1.8 zooms

- wildlife f/2.8-4 telephoto zoom like 200-600mm

- lineup of f/2.8 budget primes UWA to short tele

- lineup of f/1.4 enthusiast primes UWA to short tele

- etc.