UWA zoom for R7 (EF-S adapted)

Doing the exact same pondering myself. I have the rf 501.8 and ef-s 24 and like both. Though I am sad every time I put the adapter on the lovely 24 pancake and double its size and weight. 
Anyway, for what it is worth, I am a bit leery about the sigma 18-35. The Northrop’s say they have stopped recommending it for canon due to af issues. Perhaps someone with direct experience can comment.

Anyway, for what it is worth, I am a bit leery about the sigma 18-35. The Northrop’s say they have stopped recommending it for canon due to af issues. Perhaps someone with direct experience can comment.

I have the 10-18 adapted on the R7 and works very well, I have not tried other alternatives mentioned.

I also used the sigma 18-35 1.8 as my main lens on the R7 for almost a month and it worked great. Extremely sharp, great IQ, accurate and fast autofocus. I did not keep it due to its size/weight (front-heavy), and because I did not want to invest that much in an apsc lens, but I would recommend the combination if the focal lens range works for you.

I use the 10-18 on my R7, alongside the 15-85 for general landscape/family and the 18-35 Sigma for low light. All great performers in terms of AF and image quality.

If you are going to use this lens for video then go with the EF-S 10-18mm STM. Its AF was designed to work very well for video use. The others you are considering will have issues due to their age and AF systems. Plus, this lens has very good IS which is likely better than the R7's IBIS when used on a non stabilized lens. The IS allows the IBIS in the R7 to be turned off and thus avoiding some of its issues with warping/warbling the video near the edges of the frame that has been an issue, in general, with Canon cameras. The EF-S 10-18mm also performs very well as a stills lens.

dwkdnvr wrote:

I recently picked up my R7 with the 18-150 kit lens and the 100-400. My primary application will be to try to come up to speed on birding/wildlife, but I want to fill out the lens lineup a bit for more general purpose and/or video use.

I'll definitely be getting the EF-S 24mm, and probably the RF 50mm/1.8. I'm considering the RF 16mm but not immediately as I'm not really sure I need that FL in a prime.

I'm also eyeing the Sigma 18-35 as a potential future purchase.

That's cheap second-hand as it's a huge lens, equivalent to a full-frame 28-57mm f/2.9, but with the adapter it's bigger and heavier than the EF 24-70mm f/2.8.

So, that leaves an ultra-wide zoom. My original thought was the EF-S 10-18 since it's cheap and seems to be widely recommended. Browsing MPB though there are a whole bunch of wide EF-S zooms so I thought it would be worth gathering some opinions.

Canon 10-18

very plasticky, has IS but definitely a wideangle zoom range.  Possibly better edge resolution and coma with similar distortion and slightly worse vignetting compared to the earlier

Canon 10-22.

Just about a walkaround lens for wideangle enthusiasts, bigger, better finished, f/3.5-4.5 rather than f/4.5-5.6, focussing scale (but it's very very approximate as the lens isn't parfocal), metal bayonet.

Tamron 10-24 (2 different versions)

Tokina 11-16, 11-20/2.8, 11-16II

Sigma 10-20/3.5, 10-20/3.5-4.6

My thoughts: The Tokina 2.8 is the most expensive, but offers constant 2.8 which is valuable particularly for video but less so if I get the Sigma 18-35. The Tamron 10-24 has the longest reach which gets solidly up into 'normal' range. The Canon 10-18 is tiny and seems to be well regarded and seems to generally be recommended above the 10-22.

So, my question is: do any of these offer performance compelling enough to choose over the 10-18?

The 10-22mm looks and feels nicer than the 10-18mm and has a more useful range.  The 10-18mm might actually bounce better, being plastic and less than ⅔ the mass.  There are rumours of a forthcoming RF 11-22mm, slightly slower than the EF-M 11-22mm that I found a real upgrade to the EF-S 10-22mm, but you wouldn't lose much on buying the 10-18mm second-hand now,  while we wait to see if the rumours are true.

Thanks for any feedback (and apologies for re-treading what is probably well covered ground, but surprisingly my search didn't really turn up much relating to R series)

Sittatunga wrote:

The 10-22mm looks and feels nicer than the 10-18mm and has a more useful range.

Yeah, that might all be true, but the 10-22 is an ugly lens, especially with an adaptor on a modern mirrorless Canon camera. It really looks, like, 20 years old. Oh, wait, it is a 20 year-old design!

But of course, that's my personal taste issue and does not affect other positives of the 10-22.

JoWinter wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

The 10-22mm looks and feels nicer than the 10-18mm and has a more useful range.

Yeah, that might all be true, but the 10-22 is an ugly lens, especially with an adaptor on a modern mirrorless Canon camera. It really looks, like, 20 years old. Oh, wait, it is a 20 year-old design!

But of course, that's my personal taste issue and does not affect other positives of the 10-22.

Neither lens is particularly good looking compared to what I use; https://camerasize.com/compact/#890.22.5,890.424.5,719.386,ha,t

The other possible positive with the 10-18mm on the R7 is its lack of IS, particularly as its focal lengths are short enough not to to tax the IBIS' range of movement. . You can't use the R7 with IBIS switched on and the lens IS switched off. IBIS wasn't a thing for Canon when the 10-18mm came out in 2014, so generally the EF-S and EF lens' IS wasn't designed to work in conjunction with IBIS. People have complained about this here, but I don't have first hand experience of those lenses on that body.

Sittatunga wrote:

Canon 10-18

very plasticky, has IS but definitely a wideangle zoom range. Possibly better edge resolution and coma with similar distortion and slightly worse vignetting compared to the earlier

Canon 10-22.

Just about a walkaround lens for wideangle enthusiasts, bigger, better finished, f/3.5-4.5 rather than f/4.5-5.6, focussing scale (but it's very very approximate as the lens isn't parfocal), metal bayonet.

[snip]

The 10-22mm looks and feels nicer than the 10-18mm and has a more useful range. The 10-18mm might actually bounce better, being plastic and less than ⅔ the mass. There are rumours of a forthcoming RF 11-22mm, slightly slower than the EF-M 11-22mm that I found a real upgrade to the EF-S 10-22mm, but you wouldn't lose much on buying the 10-18mm second-hand now, while we wait to see if the rumours are true.

I agree with all of that; just one thing to add which is that the 10-22 has better flare resistance than the 10-18, and that's very important for ultrawides because it's so hard to avoid bright lights in/close to the frame. It's worth picking up a lens hood for it; I have the JJC LH-83L which works well.

But yes, the R7/R10/R50 desperately need a native ultrawide, and a ported EF-M 11-22 would be perfect. Let's hope it comes soon.

KevinRA wrote:

True - but the M100 is a pain with lack of controls... M5 or M6II a fairer comparison - but yes we need that RFS 11-22

It's very different, but it's not my only camera.  I enjoy its minimalist touchscreen philosophy and find it less of a pain than the 5Ds which has buttons and controls all over the place. I use the R and the 5Ds for higher quality and the stuff the M series can't do and APS-C for size, fun and pocketability. The M50 II is just too big for what I want from APS-C and the M6 II too expensive. I don't think the R7, desirable as it is, is any replacement for the M series.

The other possible positive with the 10-18mm on the R7 is its lack of IS, particularly as its focal lengths are short enough not to to tax the IBIS' range of movement. . You can't use the R7 with IBIS switched on and the lens IS switched off. IBIS wasn't a thing for Canon when the 10-18mm came out in 2014, so generally the EF-S and EF lens' IS wasn't designed to work in conjunction with IBIS. People have complained about this here, but I don't have first hand experience of those lenses on that body.

If I did not have my M6II - a 2nd hand 10-18 with warranty from dealer seems best option and sell on at not too big loss when the RFS 11-22 comes out.

Same advice here.

drsnoopy wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Neither lens is particularly good looking compared to what I use; https://camerasize.com/compact/#890.22.5,890.424.5,719.386,ha,t

The other possible positive with the 10-18mm on the R7 is its lack of IS, particularly as its focal lengths are short enough not to to tax the IBIS' range of movement. . You can't use the R7 with IBIS switched on and the lens IS switched off. IBIS wasn't a thing for Canon when the 10-18mm came out in 2014, so generally the EF-S and EF lens' IS wasn't designed to work in conjunction with IBIS. People have complained about this here, but I don't have first hand experience of those lenses on that body.

But the EF-S 10-18mm *does* have IS…

That's exactly what I was saying.  Its IS wasn't designed to work in conjunction with IBIS though, and you can't set the R7 to have either system working without the other, so the lens's IS is potentially a disadvantage on the R7, though definitely an advantage with the R10 and the R50.