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

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.

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.

chrisis wrote:

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.

ahh, you've cut to the chase nicely!

chrisis wrote:

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

I think they will. That's the most logical, next lens, to release for RF-S. Everything else can be accomplished by something in the RF "toolkit" already. I didn't say it'd be small or light.

They should do a 22mm RF-S though, to give us small and light. But they don't have to. They don't have to give us a RF-S 11-22, either. They probably will though.

Never said the 3mm wasn't small potatoes btw

Some of the reviews don’t correspond to those “improved” MTF charts, though.  For example Chris Frost’s review of the 18-45 was very disappointing. If this is indicative of sample variation, that’s not so good.

it’s interesting that the optical formula is so much simpler, without those large rear elements.

I too bought RF-S 18-150 over the 18-45.  For WA I have the EF-S 10-18 on an adapter, which works really well and is quite light and compact.

chrisis wrote:

RLight wrote:

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.

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.

+1 - The 15-45's selling point (a decent copy) is the 24mm - equiv in standard zoom.   The only equiv lens for RF is the full frame options which are super expensive L's or reported by Chris Frost not brilliant on APS-C 15-30.  Or the large chunky 15-85 EFS.

The 18-45 RFS looks like a truly meh lens......  (18-150 becomes interesting for the wide zoom range, quite like the EF-M variant alongside a 11-22).

Hence 1 M6II has an important place still in my bag   Long live EF-M as a perfectly good small camera system, with likely access to good 2nd hand lenses for the mid term at least.

To me the 15-45 would be a clear vote. 18-45 is kind of weird FL range.

Wish Canon came with RF-S 15-65/4 as an equivalent to an extremely popular 24-105/4 on FF. But that is very unlikely to impossible.

RF-S lenses are completely out of Canon's interest.

BobKnDP wrote:

What are the units on the horizontal axis of the MTF plots?

10 cycles/mm seems low, so I assume it's something else.

The horizontal axis is distance from the center of the sensor, in mm. So the rightmost section is the corner and the left most section is the center of the sensor.

drsnoopy wrote:

Some of the reviews don’t correspond to those “improved” MTF charts, though. For example Chris Frost’s review of the 18-45 was very disappointing. If this is indicative of sample variation, that’s not so good.

Very possible. I had a spectacular EF-M 15-45 my last go. But that was a fluke compared to former copies. 3rd one I think. 3's a charm? Not a compliment for Canon's QC on kit lenses...

it’s interesting that the optical formula is so much simpler, without those large rear elements.

I too bought RF-S 18-150 over the 18-45. For WA I have the EF-S 10-18 on an adapter, which works really well and is quite light and compact.

Canon_Guy wrote:

To me the 15-45 would be a clear vote. 18-45 is kind of weird FL range.

Wish Canon came with RF-S 15-65/4 as an equivalent to an extremely popular 24-105/4 on FF. But that is very unlikely to impossible.

RF-S lenses are completely out of Canon's interest.

They are, but Canon needs cheap glass for an entry model. We'll see if they make more, this could be "it". Time will tell.

KevinRA wrote:

chrisis wrote:

RLight wrote:

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.

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.

+1 - The 15-45's selling point (a decent copy) is the 24mm - equiv in standard zoom. The only equiv lens for RF is the full frame options which are super expensive L's or reported by Chris Frost not brilliant on APS-C 15-30. Or the large chunky 15-85 EFS.

The 18-45 RFS looks like a truly meh lens...... (18-150 becomes interesting for the wide zoom range, quite like the EF-M variant alongside a 11-22).

Hence 1 M6II has an important place still in my bag Long live EF-M as a perfectly good small camera system, with likely access to good 2nd hand lenses for the mid term at least.

exactly!

MAC wrote:

KevinRA wrote:

chrisis wrote:

RLight wrote:

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.

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.

+1 - The 15-45's selling point (a decent copy) is the 24mm - equiv in standard zoom. The only equiv lens for RF is the full frame options which are super expensive L's or reported by Chris Frost not brilliant on APS-C 15-30. Or the large chunky 15-85 EFS.

The 18-45 RFS looks like a truly meh lens...... (18-150 becomes interesting for the wide zoom range, quite like the EF-M variant alongside a 11-22).

Hence 1 M6II has an important place still in my bag Long live EF-M as a perfectly good small camera system, with likely access to good 2nd hand lenses for the mid term at least.

exactly!

+1, M6II plus a good copy of the 15-45 (like mine) plus a 22 can handle most travel photography tasks!

Fjzk wrote:

MAC wrote:

KevinRA wrote:

chrisis wrote:

RLight wrote:

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.

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.

+1 - The 15-45's selling point (a decent copy) is the 24mm - equiv in standard zoom. The only equiv lens for RF is the full frame options which are super expensive L's or reported by Chris Frost not brilliant on APS-C 15-30. Or the large chunky 15-85 EFS.

The 18-45 RFS looks like a truly meh lens...... (18-150 becomes interesting for the wide zoom range, quite like the EF-M variant alongside a 11-22).

Hence 1 M6II has an important place still in my bag Long live EF-M as a perfectly good small camera system, with likely access to good 2nd hand lenses for the mid term at least.

exactly!

+1, M6II plus a good copy of the 15-45 (like mine) plus a 22 can handle most travel photography tasks!

My M6 II light travel kit currently is the EF-M 15-45, EF-M 18-150 and an adapted EF-S 55-250. This gets me from 24mm equivalent out to 400mm.

On the R7 I substitute the EF-S 10-22 for the M15-45 and I’m good to go. If I want a little better IQ, such as on an upcoming vacation to Jamaica I will be carrying my R7, EF-S 10-22, RF 18-150 and EF 70-300 L

Frankly, the only big reason the R7 is better for me than the M6II is that when weight is not an issue, but IQ and reach is, I can use my RF 14-35L, RF70-200 2.8 L and, most importantly RF 100-500L, all of which are usually in the bag with my R5

Chris

Sittatunga wrote:

[...]

Most manufacturers publish these theoretical charts in a similar format, but they're not all calculated in the same way.

And Canon did change the way they calculated their MTF a few years ago. The canon.jp website has everything calculated the new way, but e.g. Canon USA didn't update anything, they just add the new-style plots for new lenses. If you want to compare lenses, use canon.jp, as was done in this thread.