APS-C Trinity RF Lens Option for R7

[Woodsy]

I have the Canon R7 and the two Sigma RF zooms, the 10-18 and 18-50. Im looking for an RF mount lens to complement the telephoto end. The obvious choice is the RF-S 55-210, but from what I see online, that lens will struggle with the R7's sensor resolution. Then I look at the RF 100-400 f5.6 to f8, but that leaves a big gap from 50mm to 100mm. The 70-200 f4L is expensive. I already have the EF 70-300, but am looking for a quality improvement on that. Any thoughts please?

 

[Archibald]

Hi, Woodsy!

What kind of photos were you thinking of taking with the new tele zoom?

 

[StevenAunan]

What about the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3? Yes, there’s a bit of overlap, but the full frame lens gets you 38-384mm on the crop-sensor R7.

 

[MSH411]

What about the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3? Yes, there’s a bit of overlap, but the full frame lens gets you 38-384mm on the crop-sensor R7.

I don't currently use it on an R7 but would second picking up the RF24-240mm, it's a great lens at an insane price point.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I've got an R7 but I mainly use it to anchor my bird/wildlife kit. But I recently got an R10 for a small, urban-prowl kit.

I started out with that SIgma 18-50, and I like it well enough. Fast, sharp, tiny, but not much zoom range, as you're finding out. My wife and daughter have kind of appropriated that rig. My big DSLRs intimidate them, but the R10, they're into it. The R10 doesn't have IBIS, the Sigma lens doesn't have IS, and my girls, as much as I nag them about it, haven't really learned how to hold a camera. Along with the short zoom range, I decided the Sigma wasn't the lens for them.

So I got an RF-S 18-150. It's not much bigger than the Sigma, considerably slower, but plenty sharp. And it just feels easier to use, plus it's got IS. We do most of our shooting outside so slow is mostly OK. If I need it for indoors, I've still got that Sigma 2.8. I also picked up a 100-400, which pairs with the 18-150 nicely.

You mentioned concern over the 55-250 paired with the R7 sensor. I'd never thought about that. The R7 does have a jam-packed sensor. I mostly use mine with L lenses. When I did use an R7 around town I'd usually pair it with an EF-S 15-85 that I carried over from my xxD days. It's a good, sharp lens, with an ideal zoom range on an APS-C body. I wish they'd make an RF version. It's short and stubby on a DSLR, but it's long and front heavy with an RF adapter. If you're interested, I might sell you mine.

If you want to continue with what you have, and maybe add a 100-400, you can put that R7 sensor to use. It handles crops very nicely. Just shoot loose at 50mm and it will crop down to an 80mm or 100mm angle of view no problem.

I've never put my 18-150 on my R7. Now that you brought it up, I wonder how that would work on an R7 sensor. Did anyone ever mention that lens when you were looking at the 55-250?

Sadly, there are not a lot of options for APS-C lenses at the moment and I don't see that changing soon. Canon seems to have put that on the back burner.

 

[Woodsy]

Thanks all for your responses. I don't really have any specific genre I'm shooting - I have used my old EF lens at airshows, motor racing, and lately, wandering around London and using the longer focal length for picking out architectural details. Also, I quite like the idea of some street photography, where the reach can allow me to be more discrete. The old EF 70-300 just doesn't deliver the quality or speed of focus I'm looking for. Ideal focal length range though!

Marc - that shot you posted taken with the 24-240 is a great advert for the lens - a lovely image!

 

[Archibald]

Thanks for the additional detail.

For me, the 50-250mm format is a bit of a dead zone. I had the EF version of that lens and it worked great... but it got little use because of its focal length. It just didn't suit my kind of subjects very well.

That doesn't mean it will be the same for you, but it is worth thinking about.

My favorite lenses by far are the 100-500mm and the 100mm macro, both L lenses. I shoot wildlife with those. When I need wider angle, I just use my phone. Your subject matter is different, so your uses will be different too.

I also have the RF 18-150 and put it on for some situations. It's a very handy lens and sharp enough for those uses. For studio shooting, it won't suffice, so for that I go to the full frame R5 and its lenses.

The R7 sensor has a very high pixel density. To benefit from that, you need the sharpest lenses. Getting lower grade lenses will work fine, but the resolution will be limited by the lens, not the camera.

 

[asystasy]

I have the Canon R7 and the two Sigma RF zooms, the 10-18 and 18-50. Im looking for an RF mount lens to complement the telephoto end. The obvious choice is the RF-S 55-210, but from what I see online, that lens will struggle with the R7's sensor resolution. Then I look at the RF 100-400 f5.6 to f8, but that leaves a big gap from 50mm to 100mm. The 70-200 f4L is expensive. I already have the EF 70-300, but am looking for a quality improvement on that. Any thoughts please?

The R7 and the RF-S 18-150 are a great combination: the 18-150 is very portable and exceptionally sharp for a kit lens (I don't even notice the fact that it has no IS). Without considering L-series lenses for the moment, I think the RF-S 10-18, the 18-150, and the 100-400 (all of which I own and use on the R7 quite a bit) would be a great trinity. I used the R7 and the 100-400 (which becomes 160-640mm) at the zoo all the time, and the only reason I use that combo less often is because my default zoo setup is now my R7 with a 200-800mm.

 

[ShipleyNW]

The R7 and the RF-S 18-150 are a great combination: the 18-150 is very portable and exceptionally sharp for a kit lens (I don't even notice the fact that it has no IS). Without considering L-series lenses for the moment, I think the RF-S 10-18, the 18-150, and the 100-400 (all of which I own and use on the R7 quite a bit) would be a great trinity. I used the R7 and the 100-400 (which becomes 160-640mm) at the zoo all the time, and the only reason I use that combo less often is because my default zoo setup is now my R7 with a 200-800mm.

I have an RF-S 18-150 that gets used on an R10, but I haven't used it enough to have much of an opinion about it yet. It seems very nice. It's going to be that camera's main lens. I did want to mention that it does have IS. The R10 does not have IBIS so the 18-150 addresses that problem.

 

[asystasy]

I have an RF-S 18-150 that gets used on an R10, but I haven't used it enough to have much of an opinion about it yet. It seems very nice. It's going to be that camera's main lens. I did want to mention that it does have IS. The R10 does not have IBIS so the 18-150 addresses that problem.

So it does! I stand corrected. I'm so used to IS lenses like my L-series lenses having an IS switch that I forgot it's built in to the lens. Interesting that you can't disable it for mounting on a tripod (unless you can somehow do it in-camera, which I haven't explored).

 

[Woodsy]

I have made my decision, I'm going for the Canon RF 100-400. I looked closely at some images taken with the Sigma 18-50 and there is enough resolution there for me to crop quite a bit, so not having a lens covering the 50mm to 100 mm range shouldn't be much of an issue. The reach of the 100-400 will cover my telephoto needs well. I still have the opportunity to fill the gap with the 18-150 or 24-240 if in the future I feel that would be useful; I can borrow them both through Canon's free Test The Kit program before deciding, if that's the way I want to go. Thanks all for your insights and advice!

 

[Archibald]

@Woodsy , that is a great lens and will suit you well for wildlife and many other subjects. I agree it isn't necessary to cover the focal length gap.

 

[Wings and Things]

+1 for the100-400. I replaced my EF100-400 Mk2 with this lens. Loved the EF but needed less weight and this fits the bill beautifully. If I still want L-glass quality, my wifehas the RF100-500. WIth the RF 24-105 anf 100-400 I can revrt to small bag for a day and cover most requirements.

 

[MSH411]

The RF100-400mm is a fantastic all day carry and on the R7 the extra reach will be nice. I am specifically going to purchase the R7 MkII when released to extend the reach on this lens making it more versatile for wildlife when I don't feel like packing a long lens.

Personally the only con of this lens is f8 over 300mm but on my R6 MkII it performs great. The image below was taken in some pretty dense forest, for a lens at this price point and not being an L series the IQ is pretty good.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[Woodsy]

I was hoping Sigma would release a longer lens to complement the 18-50, but no signs of that!

 

[MSH411]

I was hoping Sigma would release a longer lens to complement the 18-50, but no signs of that!

Have you looked at their RF16-300mm? I owned the old EF18-300mm macro and it had nice IQ and great range. My daughter owns it now along with my 60D.

 

[Woodsy]

Thanks Marc. I appreciate the benefits of such a wide range, but from what I have seen online, the IQ drops off at some focal lengths. I really like the quality of the two shorter Sigmas I have so I want to carry on using those, even though swapping lenses can be a pain. In any case, there is no way of me testing out the Sigma 16-300 unfortunately, and I don't want to fork out £600 without being fairly sure it will deliver. I tend to rely on a consensus of 'expert' reviews. I will count your positive experience as a plus for the lens though!