APS-C Sigma 18-50mm/2.8 for RF-S; unboxing

[ShipleyNW]

Last Black Friday I snapped up a deal on an R10. I've been using it here and there with an adapted EF-S 15-85. That might be the greatest walking around lens ever, but no RF equivalent lens in the pipeline from what I can tell. That lens and the adapter kind of overwhelm that little R10. Since I bought the camera I've had my eye on a Sigma 18-50mm F2.8. It's kind of how I envisioned outfitting that camera. A little urban prowl kit.

Finances finally allowed me to grab that Sigma and it came yesterday. But between December and yesterday my wife and daughter have kind of appropriated that little R10, old EF-S lens and all. They haven't taken possession of it, they just borrow it and bring it back. But they use it more than I do. If we go out somewhere shooting together, I won't get to use my R10.

So when the Sigma came and I held it and mounted it up I thought, uh-oh, I bought this lens for me. It's tiny and it's sharp and it's fast. That's what I wanted. But it has some drawbacks as a general walkaround lens; features sacrificed for size.

First it's got a pretty short zoom range. Compared to that 15-85, It's longer at the short end and shorter at the long end. I understand that sometimes getting a shot means moving your feet or changing lenses. But my girls want something small, but versatile. Their biggest complaint now is that their 15-85 (24-136mm FFE) is too short. Not once have they mentioned the lens was too slow.

Second, the Sigma lens doesn't have any image stabilization. And the R10 has no IBIS. I'm riding bareback with that kit. But the lens is fast and I shoot outdoors mainly, with plenty of light, but mostly, I know how to hold a camera. That's something I wag my finger at my girls over. "HOLD IT FROM UNDERNEATH, LIKE I SHOWED YOU." I'm worried they can't handle bareback.

So I was all excited about the Sigma and was looking forward to turning it over to the girls. It's tiny, they'll love that. But thinking about it now, I'm probably going to have to buy them another lens.

I want to replace the 15-85. It was a short, stubby lens on a 90D, but it's kind of bulbous and front-heavy on an R10.

I'm thinking about an RF-S 18-150mm lens. It's a port from Canon's M-series line. In my mind, though, I compare it to an EF-S 18-135mm. Its 29-216mm FFE made it a great walking around lens. The last version of that lens, the 18-135mm nano, might have been the last EF-S lens released by Canon. I used one quite a bit on xxD bodies and made a lot of shots I liked. I sold mine when I found the 15-85.

But if the RF-S 18-150 works as well as that EF-S 18-135 nano, I'd be satisfied with it on the R10. (Nano is the focus-by-wire technology that is in most RF lenses now. I think there were only 2 EF lenses with nano-focusing technology.) The girls will appreciate the reach and won't even notice the build or even the sharpness.

Anybody looking to sell a used RF-S 18-150?

I'll get some pictures up from the Sigma when I take it out. I can always use it on my R7.

 

[Archibald]

I have the RF-S 18-150 for my R7. I don't actually use it very often (the 100mm L and 100-500mm L are usually on it), but when I use it, it is fun and works great. A friend of mine uses one extensively and very successfully for landscapes and general photography.

Everything is relative. For portrait/landscape, I get out the R5 and the RF 24-105 L. That is a fantastic rig. But the R7 and 18-150mm is very nice for its purpose.

I'm curious about your experience with the EF 15-85mm. That is a dream range for ASPC. I had one and found it soft. It was so soft, it was bothersome. Got rid of it right away. Did I have a bad copy? Unlikely, but possible I guess.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I have the RF-S 18-150 for my R7. I don't actually use it very often (the 100mm L and 100-500mm L are usually on it), but when I use it, it is fun and works great. A friend of mine uses one extensively and very successfully for landscapes and general photography.

Everything is relative. For portrait/landscape, I get out the R5 and the RF 24-105 L. That is a fantastic rig. But the R7 and 18-150mm is very nice for its purpose.

I'm curious about your experience with the EF 15-85mm. That is a dream range for ASPC. I had one and found it soft. It was so soft, it was bothersome. Got rid of it right away. Did I have a bad copy? Unlikely, but possible I guess.

Yeah, my main kit is all FF and L glass, but I do like a small kit for prowling around in public.

I don't use that 15-85 a ton, but it is my main non-bird lens on an APS-C body. I've owned it for about 3 years and it's one of only a couple of EF lenses I kept when I went mirrorless. It's the sharpest APS-C lens I've tried.

I shot this one on the R10's maiden voyage.

• Join to view EXIF data.

I went to the Seattle Mariners spring training in 2024 with an R7, the 15-85, and an RF 70-200/4. That was a nice, little walking around kit.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[Dean Wilson]

But the lens is fast and I shoot outdoors mainly, with plenty of light, but mostly, I know how to hold a camera. That's something I wag my finger at my girls over. "HOLD IT FROM UNDERNEATH, LIKE I SHOWED YOU."

The majority of stability come from holding the camera properly as you said. Sharp focus at 200mm and 1/4 second isn't possible with a casually held camera, with or without IS.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[ShipleyNW]

The majority of stability come from holding the camera properly as you said. Sharp focus at 200mm and 1/4 second isn't possible with a casually held camera, with or without IS.

I grew up when ISO 1600 was ugly-fast film. If you wanted a chance hand held, you had to learn the stance. Feet shoulder width apart, left hand under the lens, elbows tucked in, camera braced against your head while you look through the viewfinder.

I still can't use a back display or even a phone, really, to frame up a shot. Feels like I'm standing in the back of a moving pickup truck. It's a psychological thing too. When I'm in the stance, I'm ready to shoot.