Canon R7 RF-S 18-150 Replacement

[ctitanic]

Hi Team
I have a R7 with the RF-S 18-150 that I took to a recent trip. While the 18-150 range satisfy my needs when I'm on a trip taking landscape and street/candid pictures the quality of the candid or portrait pictures is not what I want or like. I own a EF70-200 which I love but being a actually a 112-320 in the R7 that range does not satisfy my landscape needs. I tried to use a speed booster with the 70-200 and that almost did the trick but the vignetting was really bad at 70mm.

So I want to replace the 18-150 with something with image quality and range that would satisfy my range and bokeh requirements.

I'm not willing to pay the RF prices, I'm looking for something in the range of $500 or less. I have researched EF lenses, mostly first generation but I'm not finding enough information about how they are working in the R7. These are my current candidates:

Canon EF 24-70 L f4 (around $500 used) I'm hesitating on this one because it's a f4, I would have preferred a f2.8 but the f2.8 Mk1 is around $600 and the Mk2 is about $800.
Canon EF 24-105 L f4 (around $700 used). This one again makes me hesitate because is an f4 and I have read comments about not working properly in the R7.
Sigma EF-S 50-100 f1.8 Art lens (around $600-$800 used). So far this is the one that pleased me, the only one is that minimum aperture is 50mm so I'm not sure if it's wide enough for landscape taking pictures of Mayan structures and buildings and 100mm is not good enough for wild life photography when you are taking pictures of Mayan structures.

I want to read what is the experience of other R7 owners. What is the best of the 3 I listed and if I missed any other lens that should be consider to replace the RF-S 18-150.

 

[ACEkin]

I remembered reading about the Canon RF-S 24-240 mm lens, and sure enough, I found the link:

Torn over the RF 24-240

For those of you who have the 24-240, and shoot it on an R5, well, are you satisfied? I'm considering it for travel use. I don't expect the same results as an L lens, but what's your opinion?

rfshooters.com

I wonder if that may be a good substitute. It's widest f-stop is not where you would like to be though.

 

[GaryM]

I can only tell you what I have experienced with my R7. My background is lots of EF-L glass and Canon DSLR's. I began the RF conversion solely for the purpose of weight and size reduction.

First of all I had the EF 24-70 F4L lens. I sold it last week. It was my go to landscape lens for many years. I had the 24-105L before that but did not like the distortion at 24mm. The 24-70mm was much better. I found that almost all my images were either 24mm or 70mm when used. The macro mode on the 24-70 was not very effective for me, but then again I had/have the 100mm 2.8L which is quite good.

I have tried the Sigma on a 7D2 and found it to be quite heavy and not well balanced. Very good image quality however. Not tried with R7.

I recently bought a refurbed R6 and canon basically threw in the 24-105 4-7.1 cheapy for $100 bucks, so that combo was a total of $1399. If you wait for canon direct store refurbish sales they can be quite good and come with a one year warranty from canon. Pretty much all I buy anymore. cpricewatch.com will steer year in that direction if you don't already do that.

When I bought the R7 a few months ago I also bought a 24mm 1.8 macro too. Thinking that would be a good combination. I ended up liking it so much that I bought the refurbed Rf50mm and 16mm too. And then a refurbed 100-400 5.6-8 too as the price was so low and reviews quite high. All quite inexpensive lenses that all have more than exceeded my expectations.

I never would have bought the Rf24-105 4-7.1 as I was kind of a EF L glass snob. And I never was very fond of EF-S glass. And quite frankly EF-S glass was really never even close to EF-L glass. The Rf lenses with the Rf cameras have changed that. I find their basic Rf primes and zooms are very acceptable to me. I have not tried any RF-S lenses. Anyway the 24-105 4-7.1 is pretty darn good. I saw zero difference between that and the EF 24-70L other than being a slower lens. Image quality was similar, in fact I would give the center sharpness to the Rf but edge sharpness to the EF. For me the only real loss was weatherproofing but I am not much of a bad weather type of photographer anymore.

I never would have thought I would say this, but I am gradually switching all my lenses to RF from EF-L. I mean some of the Rf lenses are just plastic lens but they just seem to work. At least for me.

Good Luck!

 

[ctitanic]

I remembered reading about the Canon RF-S 24-240 mm lens, and sure enough, I found the link:

Torn over the RF 24-240

For those of you who have the 24-240, and shoot it on an R5, well, are you satisfied? I'm considering it for travel use. I don't expect the same results as an L lens, but what's your opinion?

rfshooters.com

I wonder if that may be a good substitute. It's widest f-stop is not where you would like to be though.

That's a very slow lens too. It will not give me the bokeh that I'm looking for. I'm more inclined to use EF L, EF-S lenses or Sigma Art lenses.

 

[ctitanic]

Whatever lens I pick to replace the RF-S 18-150 lens has to give me a quality comparable to the EF70-200 L2.8, otherwise I would be very dissapointed.

 

[ctitanic]

I can only tell you what I have experienced with my R7. My background is lots of EF-L glass and Canon DSLR's. I began the RF conversion solely for the purpose of weight and size reduction.

First of all I had the EF 24-70 F4L lens. I sold it last week. It was my go to landscape lens for many years. I had the 24-105L before that but did not like the distortion at 24mm. The 24-70mm was much better. I found that almost all my images were either 24mm or 70mm when used. The macro mode on the 24-70 was not very effective for me, but then again I had/have the 100mm 2.8L which is quite good.

I have tried the Sigma on a 7D2 and found it to be quite heavy and not well balanced. Very good image quality however. Not tried with R7.

I recently bought a refurbed R6 and canon basically threw in the 24-105 4-7.1 cheapy for $100 bucks, so that combo was a total of $1399. If you wait for canon direct store refurbish sales they can be quite good and come with a one year warranty from canon. Pretty much all I buy anymore. cpricewatch.com will steer year in that direction if you don't already do that.

When I bought the R7 a few months ago I also bought a 24mm 1.8 macro too. Thinking that would be a good combination. I ended up liking it so much that I bought the refurbed Rf50mm and 16mm too. And then a refurbed 100-400 5.6-8 too as the price was so low and reviews quite high. All quite inexpensive lenses that all have more than exceeded my expectations.

I never would have bought the Rf24-105 4-7.1 as I was kind of a EF L glass snob. And I never was very fond of EF-S glass. And quite frankly EF-S glass was really never even close to EF-L glass. The Rf lenses with the Rf cameras have changed that. I find their basic Rf primes and zooms are very acceptable to me. I have not tried any RF-S lenses. Anyway the 24-105 4-7.1 is pretty darn good. I saw zero difference between that and the EF 24-70L other than being a slower lens. Image quality was similar, in fact I would give the center sharpness to the Rf but edge sharpness to the EF. For me the only real loss was weatherproofing but I am not much of a bad weather type of photographer anymore.

I never would have thought I would say this, but I am gradually switching all my lenses to RF from EF-L. I mean some of the Rf lenses are just plastic lens but they just seem to work. At least for me.

Good Luck!

The Sigma is an EF-S lens but it's an Art lens which for Sigma is the equivalent of a L lens. That's why I have it in my list.

 

[ctitanic]

I have found another good candidate

Sigma 24-105 f4

Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS (HSM) A (Art) Lens for Canon EF-Mount, Black {82}

The Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM Art (Sigma part# 635-101) lens is a pro grade premium standard zoom for Canon EOS cameras with full frame (35mm size) sensors. The 24-105mm is a highly versatile everyday lens with a wide to short telephoto focal ran

www.keh.com

Does anyone have tested this one in a R7?

 

[ctitanic]

Keep finding possible candidates:

Canon 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 L USM EF (around $700)

has anyone tested this lens in a R7?

 

[ctitanic]

Ok, I pulled the trigger

Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 di ii vc hld aps-c

Quality may not be the best but it's weather sealed and good to be used as a lens to take on trips.

 

[ctitanic]

More on this lens on a R7

 

[R7swiss]

Hi Team
I have a R7 with the RF-S 18-150 that I took to a recent trip. While the 18-150 range satisfy my needs when I'm on a trip taking landscape and street/candid pictures the quality of the candid or portrait pictures is not what I want or like. I own a EF70-200 which I love but being a actually a 112-320 in the R7 that range does not satisfy my landscape needs. I tried to use a speed booster with the 70-200 and that almost did the trick but the vignetting was really bad at 70mm.

So I want to replace the 18-150 with something with image quality and range that would satisfy my range and bokeh requirements.

I'm not willing to pay the RF prices, I'm looking for something in the range of $500 or less. I have researched EF lenses, mostly first generation but I'm not finding enough information about how they are working in the R7. These are my current candidates:

Canon EF 24-70 L f4 (around $500 used) I'm hesitating on this one because it's a f4, I would have preferred a f2.8 but the f2.8 Mk1 is around $600 and the Mk2 is about $800.
Canon EF 24-105 L f4 (around $700 used). This one again makes me hesitate because is an f4 and I have read comments about not working properly in the R7.
Sigma EF-S 50-100 f1.8 Art lens (around $600-$800 used). So far this is the one that pleased me, the only one is that minimum aperture is 50mm so I'm not sure if it's wide enough for landscape taking pictures of Mayan structures and buildings and 100mm is not good enough for wild life photography when you are taking pictures of Mayan structures.

I want to read what is the experience of other R7 owners. What is the best of the 3 I listed and if I missed any other lens that should be consider to replace the RF-S 18-150.

I also use a 18-150mm my R7 and find it quite good for landscapes, and appreciate it's wide range on travel and compact size. (I also have a RS 70-200 F4, but heavier for some trips). Personally I don't need bokeh for landscapes, and for street or portrait pictures with nice bokeh I carry with me a small RF 50mm 1.8 wich is incredibly cheap, and an old EF 85mm F 1.8, that's the cheapest alternative I found for me.

 

[KD_Reno]

My wife uses that 18-400 when we travel. Image quality is quite good for a superzoom and more than adequate for vacation photos. It does have one issue with the R7. If I take it off, use an RF lens, and put it back on, the image jumps erratically in the viewfinder. I don't know whether it's an AF or IS issue. Pulling the battery solves it. It's an older lens - a newer lens with later firmware might work better. She never changes lenses anyway, so it's not a problem for her.

 

[ctitanic]

My wife uses that 18-400 when we travel. Image quality is quite good for a superzoom and more than adequate for vacation photos. It does have one issue with the R7. If I take it off, use an RF lens, and put it back on, the image jumps erratically in the viewfinder. I don't know whether it's an AF or IS issue. Pulling the battery solves it. It's an older lens - a newer lens with later firmware might work better. She never changes lenses anyway, so it's not a problem for her.

If you are talking about the Tamron 18-400 I found that you need to upgrade the lens firmware to the latest version to have it working correctly in the R7.
Since I posted this I bought it and have used few times. It's what I call an OK lens. AF is not fast and it's not sharp compared to my other lenses, but if you need just one lens to cover all the possible ranges, this is the lens.

Here is an example of a picture taken with this lens.

​

 

[ctitanic]

Here is another example at 24mm (I try to avoid using 18mm on this lens).

​

 

[KD_Reno]

Yes, the Tamron. I thought about getting a dock to update the firmware, but it's the only Tamron lens we have, and as long as it stays on the camera it works fine.

 

[ctitanic]

Yes, the Tamron. I thought about getting a dock to update the firmware, but it's the only Tamron lens we have, and as long as it stays on the camera it works fine.

Find a Tamron dealer near you.