Canon R50 RF-S18-150 on R50

[SwampGrizz]

Just got the 18-150 lens today for my R50, and will be trying it out soon. Any tips, tricks, suggestions? Anything I need to look out for? All ideas will be greatly appreciated.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I wanted a little urban prowl kit so I got an R10 (same form factor as the R50) and anchored it with a Sigma 18-50/2.8. But then my wife and daughter kind of appropriated that camera. But the Sigma doesn't have much of a zoom range and neither the camera nor the lens has image stabilization, so it's not really the best lens for novices.

So I bought the RF-S 18-150 for my girls. Much easier to use. It's got a great zoom range, it's got IS, and is plenty sharp for knocking-around pictures, and it's tiny. It's kinda slow so we mainly use it outdoors. Even when I get to use that camera, it's still the lens I choose. I also picked up an RF-S 10-18. That makes for a great small system. Body and 2 lenses fit in a little, light shoulder bag. I love it.

I'm not sure what kind of tips or suggestions you're looking for. My advice: get out there and use it. Get a good feel for it. It's easy enough and that's what I would suggest. Come back here with some results and concerns and I'm sure you'd find advice and encouragement.

Maybe look on Amazon for a cheap lens hood. As you've found by now, Canon doesn't supply one with that lens.

 

[SwampGrizz]

Shipley,
Thanks for the response! This is the kind of feedback I’m looking for. Given that it is “kinda slow”, and I agree, at what point do you find that you need to switch to a faster lens? For example, I like to shoot at golden/blue hour, and is that enough light? I realize this is a subjective question that probably doesn’t have a hard answer, but I just want to get a feel for what I can get away with before I put on my fast prime. I’m glad to hear you use it as a knock around lens. That’s exactly what I bought it for. Also, I have a lens hood from a previous lens, so I’m good there. My plan is use it a lot, and I’m sure I’ll have more questions.

Thanks for your help and patience with a newbie.
Dale

 

[SwampGrizz]

Shipley,
Just went to your website. Wow. I humble myself before the master.

 

[ShipleyNW]

Given that it is “kinda slow”, and I agree, at what point do you find that you need to switch to a faster lens? For example, I like to shoot at golden/blue hour, and is that enough light?

I haven't really played with this lens too much in fringe lighting, so I don't have much insight on that specifically. In general, though, I shoot everything in raw and noise-reduction software has come a long way in the last 5 years or so. It's made me a little cavalier with shooting at higher ISOs. That helps solve slow-lens problems.

 

[SwampGrizz]

Ok, so I’ve had the RF 18-150 for a few weeks now, and I’m kind of underwhelmed. Maybe my expectations were too high, and it’s a decent lens, but I just don’t feel excited by it. I will be the first to admit that it may be pilot error, but I’m not excited by it like I am my 35mm F1.8 prime. Apples and oranges, I know, but I wanted something sharper. It’s not bad for what it is, but still….Im not sure I can find something sharp in an affordable mid range zoom, but I thought I would ask.
I have been looking at an RF 24-105 F4-7.1, and an EF 28-135 IS USM with an adapter. I also need something with IS, because the R50 does not have IBIS. Anything else I should consider? Many thanks for all help.

 

[MSH411]

Have you looked at the Sigma 16-300mm F3.5-6.7 DC OS {$770)? I shot with the Sigma EF 18-300mm Macro for a long time and recently gifted it to my daughter.

 

[SwampGrizz]

Thanks, I’ll take a look at them.

 

[SwampGrizz]

For what it’s worth, here’s an update.

Traded the 18-150 in on a 24-105 f4-7.1, and I’m much happier. I know I’ve lost range on both ends, but I’m okay with that. 24-105 suits what I do just fine. For a non-L lens, it’s pretty sharp. I like to shoot my outside stuff at f8/f9/f10 anyway, so it works out. It struggles a little with lower light, but I usually can work around that. Overall, I’m happy with it. For a kit lens, it ain’t bad.

 

[Archibald]

For what it’s worth, here’s an update.

Traded the 18-150 in on a 24-105 f4-7.1, and I’m much happier. I know I’ve lost range on both ends, but I’m okay with that. 24-105 suits what I do just fine. For a non-L lens, it’s pretty sharp. I like to shoot my outside stuff at f8/f9/f10 anyway, so it works out. It struggles a little with lower light, but I usually can work around that. Overall, I’m happy with it. For a kit lens, it ain’t bad.

It's great that you have found a lens that you like, but I'm mystified by your experience with the 18-150mm lens. I have that lens and find it works just fine. Here are some examples.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[SwampGrizz]

The 18-150 is a good lens. I just couldn’t get a handle on it, and that may have been more to do with me than the lens. I never felt like I could find the sweet spot with it. I just couldn’t get consistently sharp images with it. Yours look great, though.

 

[Ronomy]

The 18-150 is a good lens. I just couldn’t get a handle on it, and that may have been more to do with me than the lens. I never felt like I could find the sweet spot with it. I just couldn’t get consistently sharp images with it. Yours look great, though.

Sounds to me like you had a defective lens. This little lens surprised me. Even against my Sigma 18-35 F1.8 which is one of the best. Sure I can see the Sigmas better contrast in some settings but other than that its quite good. Only time i see some loss of detail is at the long end wide open. Right at 150 mm. Plus its very small and light. Can shoot very good 4k video with it too...

I use it with my R7!

Kind Regards,

Ron

 

[SwampGrizz]

Ron,
That may well have been the case that it was defective. There’s a lot of people that have recommended it, and it came really well reviewed, and that’s why I bought it. I just couldn’t get happy with it for whatever reason. I got the 24-105mm F4-7.1 to replace it, and have been very pleased.

 

[Ronomy]

Ron,
That may well have been the case that it was defective. There’s a lot of people that have recommended it, and it came really well reviewed, and that’s why I bought it. I just couldn’t get happy with it for whatever reason. I got the 24-105mm F4-7.1 to replace it, and have been very pleased.

I read that the 24-105 F4-F7.1 is a very good sharp lens too. Before I recently purchased my R6 Mkiii I was holding one in Best Buy and that lens was on the camera. It felt really nice and not very heavy.

But I ended up getting a used Sigma 24-105 F4 ART EF mount instead. While I have a first gen Canon EF 24-105L F4 the IS is too noisy for video. And the Sigma fit the bill at a low price and I can still use my drop in filter adapter to dial in the aperture and shutter speeds I need easier than with an RF lens.

I have several Sigma Art series lenses. And also a 6D so EF lenses allows me to still use my 6D too.

 

[Wings and Things]

Another vote for the RF 24-105 F4-7.1. I bough it to replace my old EF 24-105L which had the ribbon break. Had that repaired and got rid. Shame as it was a lovely lens but heavier than the RF and didn't have need for both as by then I'd got used to the RF and happy with the results.

 

[Ronomy]

Another vote for the RF 24-105 F4-7.1. I bough it to replace my old EF 24-105L which had the ribbon break. Had that repaired and got rid. Shame as it was a lovely lens but heavier than the RF and didn't have need for both as by then I'd got used to the RF and happy with the results.

The old RF 24-105L does get a little soft around 75mm and not only the noisy IS it has that annoying lens creep when you point the lens down. Other than that I agree it is still a decent sharp lens. Not sure how much use I will get out of it after picking up the Sigma. Although I bet it will focus better than the sigma on my 6D using the Viewfinder focus. Canon lenses were always best focusing with there DSLRs...over the Sigmas with reverse engineered focus function.