svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - Review: Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM

    Review: Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM

    By 15 Comments1 Min Read Canon Reviews

    Bryan at The-Digital-Picture has completed his review of the Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM, the brand new “kit” lens for the EOS R7 and EOS R10.

    Bryan has also completed his review of the Canon RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM.

    From the review of the Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM

    This lens is tiny, measuring only 1.7″ (44.3mm) in length and mostly 2.5″ (62.4mm) in width.

    The 4.6 oz (130g) weight is barely noticeable.

    While the focal length range is not especially long, it has the most-used focal lengths included.

    This lens produces decent image quality and physically performs well. It even has image stabilization that coordinates with IBIS.

    Everyone will love that the price tag is lower than any other Canon RF mount zoom lens. Professional photographers will love the low financial risk of treating this lens as disposable in scenarios dangerous to the lens.

    While the Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens is a fine “Only” lens for a lightweight, low-cost kit, it is also a nice option to have available in a high-end kit. Read the full review

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    15 comments

    1. > Professional photographers will love the low financial risk of treating this lens as disposable in scenarios dangerous to the lens.

      Can I talk to these professional photographers real quick?
    2. I thought the humble zoom range would at least help making this the king of cheap kit lenses (as far as IQ) but it seems, based on the review I skimmed through, it is no better or worse than the EF-S or EF-M cousins. Guess it is all about size then…perhaps the rumored R100 will be released along the 11-22mm, or else folks will need to go for the FF 15-30 or adapt the 10-18 for vlogging.
    3. Disappointing. Its not wide enough, not any smaller than the EF-M version and optically not really better either. Nikon did a much better job with their equally small and light 16-50.

      Canon always threats APS-C as a necessary evil or something. Like they are not even trying to make something unique.
    4. Nowhere is Canon's spite for APS-C more apparent than in this cynical afterthought of a kit lens. It manages to be narrower than the EF-M kit lens at the short end, shorter than the EF-S kit lens at the long end, and slower than both. It's aimed at vloggers but terrible for vlogging.

      Don't bother with this lens because it's clear that Canon didn't either.
    6. Before the R7/R10: “Please, Canon, give us RF-mount APS-C bodies and lenses! The current RF lenses are too expensive!”

      After the R7/R10: “Canon, why did you give us this cheap, crappy kit lens? Why?!?”

      Next up: “Please, Canon, give us an affordable UWA zoom for RF-S!”

      Some people never learn.
    7. Neuroanatomist, these are valid points you are making about folks always complaining BUT Nikon has done a much better job on their Z dx lenses at a similar price point and target audience (solid 16-50, 18-140 kits). The 16-50 is not only deemed to be better IQ wise but also gives a 24 mm full frame equivalent starting point versus a 29 mm in the Canon kit, this is a big difference for many use cases.
    8. Before the R7/R10: “Please, Canon, give us RF-mount APS-C bodies and lenses! The current RF lenses are too expensive!”

      After the R7/R10: “Canon, why did you give us this cheap, crappy kit lens? Why?!?”

      Next up: “Please, Canon, give us an affordable UWA zoom for RF-S!”

      Some people never learn.

      Cheaper lens should not mean the narrowest and darkest focal length range ever. Even the ultra cheap EF-M 15-45 or EF-S kit zooms had better parameters. Will the next iteration be something like 35-70mm F5.6-F8 equivalent like compact cameras had 15 years ago?

      I don't think anyone is asking for a 12-100mm F2 for $500 but something at least matching what other manufacturers are offering, like Nikon's 16-50 (again, same size and weight and price as Canon's 18-45) or Fuji's 15-45.

      Or at least don't go backwards. At the moment Canon is offering an inferior lens (compared to 15-45) for more money.
    9. You defending Canon blindly as usual.

      Cheaper lens should not mean the narrowest and darkest focal length range ever. Even the ultra cheap EF-M 15-45 or EF-S kit zooms had better parameters. Will the next iteration be something like 35-70mm F5.6-F8 equivalent like compact cameras had 15 years ago?
      Not defending Canon, just stating an observation about people's behavior. Ask for something, then complain about it. Nothing is good enough.

      I agree that 18-45mm f/slow is a pretty crappy spec for a kit lens. I think Canon took the cheap and easy path for it. Compare the EF-M 18-45 (left) to the RF-S 18-45:

      Screen Shot 2022-07-21 at 11.14.05 AM.png

      The RF-S version is a similar design, using smaller elements but lacking the rear diverging correction group. Unlike the RF-S 18-150 which simply used the EF-M 18-150 optics in a new barrel, that could not be done with the EF-M 15-45 design because the 2mm longer flange distance of the RF mount means a 15mm lens needs to be a retrofocal design (like the RF 16/2.8), and that would have resulted in a higher cost than Canon wanted.
    10. Not defending Canon, just stating an observation about people's behavior. Ask for something, then complain about it. Nothing is good enough.

      I agree that 18-45mm f/slow is a pretty crappy spec for a kit lens. I think Canon took the cheap and easy path for it. Compare the EF-M 18-45 (left) to the RF-S 18-45:

      View attachment 204793

      The RF-S version is a similar design, using smaller elements but lacking the rear diverging correction group. Unlike the RF-S 18-150 which simply used the EF-M 18-150 optics in a new barrel, that could not be done with the EF-M 15-45 design because the 2mm longer flange distance of the RF mount means a 15mm lens needs to be a retrofocal design (like the RF 16/2.8), and that would have resulted in a higher cost than Canon wanted.
      Thanks for sharing this information. Based on your knowledge, any significant differences b/w Z and R mounts that allowed Nikon to come up with a nice 16-50??
    11. Thanks for sharing this information. Based on your knowledge, any significant differences b/w Z and R mounts that allowed Nikon to come up with a nice 16-50??
      The Nikon Z mount has a 16mm flange focal distance (compared to 20mm for RF and 18mm for EF-M).
    12. The Nikon Z mount has a 16mm flange focal distance (compared to 20mm for RF and 18mm for EF-M).
      Thanks, your inputs help us understand why some decisions were made by Canon
    13. I get that this lens is all about minimizing cost and maximizing profit margin for Canon, but it's still disappointing to see them take a step backwards in performance from their existing EF-M and EF-S kit lenses.

      As a cheapskate landscape and macro EF-M shooter, I just can't see any reason for me to switch to RF-S right now. I'll admit the bodies are great for action, wildlife, and birds. They make great sense for an EF-S shooter who is happy with their current lenses and ok with using an adapter. But I think everybody else is being left out in the cold. Canon has a long hill to climb on RF-S lenses, and their first steps don't look very promising to me.
    14. I get that this lens is all about minimizing cost and maximizing profit margin for Canon, but it's still disappointing to see them take a step backwards in performance from their existing EF-M and EF-S kit lenses.

      As a cheapskate landscape and macro EF-M shooter, I just can't see any reason for me to switch to RF-S right now. I'll admit the bodies are great for action, wildlife, and birds. They make great sense for an EF-S shooter who is happy with their current lenses and ok with using an adapter. But I think everybody else is being left out in the cold. Canon has a long hill to climb on RF-S lenses, and their first steps don't look very promising to me.
      Agreed. I know the RF-S bodies are 'better' than my EF-M bodies, but man the RFS lenses are absolute stinkers in comparison.

      The sensors on the r7/r10 dont perform any better than EFM either! What a crapshow. + They have blocked 3rd parties from making AF lenses...what a travesty. If you are not already invested in canon, its just not a good time to get in.

      They made great RF FF bodies and lenses, then its been downhill ever since with uninspired, boring, lackluster designs. Old canon is back!!!(?)

      Terrible.
    15. Agreed. I know the RF-S bodies are 'better' than my EF-M bodies, but man the RFS lenses are absolute stinkers in comparison.

      The sensors on the r7/r10 dont perform any better than EFM either! What a crapshow. + They have blocked 3rd parties from making AF lenses...what a travesty. If you are not already invested in canon, its just not a good time to get in.

      They made great RF FF bodies and lenses, then its been downhill ever since with uninspired, boring, lackluster designs. Old canon is back!!!(?)

      Terrible.

      I think the sensors are fine. The R7 sensor is actually slightly better than 90D's or M6 sensor but also there is not much image quality improvement that can be done with the current technology. Sure, a stacked sensor with fast readout would have been nice in the R7 but that's probably too much to ask from Canon.

      The M mount could have been the perfect travel system but that seems dead now. The RF-S not started too well in lens department. Probably the same story will repeat again: Canon will release a cheap and slow wide angle and maybe 1 or 2 APS-C primes and that's it. Don't expect anything revolutionary or even inspiring. Even Sony is treating their APS-C system much better, having a few very good quality zooms and just released 3 wide angle lenses at the same time. Something unimaginable from Canon.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment