Canon RF-S 55-210mm f/5-7.1 IS STM
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2024
- A new handy little telephoto zoom lens for Canon's APS-C RF mount mirrorless cameras.
This lens will /not/ work on digital SLR cameras, or Canon EOS M cameras - only Canon EOS R system cameras, and it only gives a smaller, APS-C image circle.
All sample pictures taken by me on a Canon EOS R7 camera.
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link - thanks for the support!):
geni.us/CanonR...
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonE...
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonE...
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma5...
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonR...
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/Marumi...
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020...
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSm...
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC...
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1...
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMin...
Music:
'Sidewalk Shade', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons....
Chris Frost... the man, the myth, the legend
I seen brighter basements than this lenses’ aperture.
That lens looks like a toy from a happy meal!
Would be a real pleasure if it's also priced like a happy meal
Same as the camera Chris last reviewed
I'm waiting for the Mark II version with the f/7.1-9 aperture.😢
Or f/22
For real!!
I know Canon just make these lenses to get people into the R-system and to feel the need for more expensive lenses, but I can't help but wonder how many new photographers have had all their enthusiasm sucked right out of them starting out with this gear like this.
As they don´t often know enough yet, they don´t feel that sucked. Canon people know what the´y re doing. But none of that is good for amateur togs. Smaller sensors, darker lenses, stripped features, you name it. It´s a tragedy.
I wanted to get the R10. I am completely put off by the lens collection.
Idk man I’ll be the devil’s advocate and tell you I’d rather start with this lens rather than the EF 75-300 or 28-80 II. Even though it sucks, the point of entry gear is still better than what we started out with. This lens is probably better than most third party EF 70-300s from Sigma and Tamron.
Canon is gatekeeping its customers (?)
We all start somewhere, and this is the sort of challenging equipment that forces you to get the most out of your lower end equipment so that you appreciate the capabilities of higher end glass. I will say that I'm kind of impressed with how sharp this lens is. Not bad for a kit lens.
It's really good to have you still with us. Long may you remain! And a very helpful first look at what looks like a superb camera.
He is young guy. He should be with us in 50 more years at least. 😂
Strange how it is 1/3 f-stop slower than the EF-M 55-200 mm. The minimum focus distance is a plus. The EF-M has one meter and that has been sometimes a problem.
Great review as usual, a comparaison with the 55-250 IS STM will be very interesting
I'll be rooting for the 55-250 😁
@@Al.j.Vasquez I think the ef-s is a better value, but interested to see the difference
Same, I’m surprised he didn’t mention the older lens 🤔
A review of the 55-250mm STM on an EOS R7 is coming! In fact, Patreon subscribers can see it right now.
@@christopherfrost Fantastic 😀😀
Your videos are a joy to watch, always. I will say that Canon's rf-s offerings do nothing to make me regret trading in my R7 for a R8.
Canon loves F7.1 😒
Look around! Now even f/8 or f/11. Craaaazy!
Haha exactly
Now you can go iso6400 while you can’t even accept iso3200 in the past
@@komr323 bad take. And besides, that's just not true.
Camera noise performance has barely changed in the past 5 years, and only shows a small improvement compared to 10 years ago. (And some cameras are doing internal noise reduction to their RAWs)
What I can assure you is that camera noise performance has not improved by 1/3 of a stop in the time Canon went from f6.3 to f7.1 on these kinds of zoom lenses.
As someone who used the 800 f/11 and the 100-500 I can tell you they are both great lenses and the dark aperture is not a big deal. I love the light weight of them.
You never disappoint with reviews :) Awesome video yet again.
But the lens does
F7.1 on APS-C that is so disappointing
Tragedy.
@@CrashPCcz even on FF sensor, it’s not that good but on APC-C
I don’t get what canon doing here
The R7 32MP can’t handle F7.1 lens ..
We are in 2023 not 2014 anymore.
70-350 F4.5-6.3 IS would have been the batter option. Even if it was cost 499$ instead of 350.
Canon's obsession with compactness goes beyond all limits. Are lenses like 55-200 4-5.6 unacceptably large for an amateur ? Or did they do it this way to make 70-200 4 for $1600 seem more reasonable?
Pal, the lens is bigger than 55-200mm EF-M and is darker, and 25% more expensive. It is a tragedy what canon does now.
It's not the size of the lens canon care about, it's the size of the elements - this is another RF-S lens that's made far cheaper than the EF-M version, but ends up with a much higher price like the 18-45
As optical quality in budget lenses increases (see the previous and excelent EF-S 50-250mm stm), Canon decided to cripple the lens via aperture, otherwise one might be a little too satisfied and never upgrade to more expensive glass. This reasoning leaves out the majority of amateurs, who will never invest in L glass anyway. Oh, and no third-party lenses either.
We need compactness! But also the quality. Who wants to take a 15 kg backpack with 10k€ of gear with them an a hike ?? My 40D with these monstrous L-glasses that have four times too much glass for an APS-C sensor ended up staying home all the time. My hiking photos were taken with the iPhones, Canon IS120 or GX5... now that I bought the R7 with its 18-150, it can fit in a small hip bag secured to one of the straps of my backpack that is filled with the more useful things like food, drinks and rain gear. So: the compactness brings back the possibility for some real photography without the lugging. I think that is great. Now we need some good quality wide aperture RF-S L glass to complete it. Otherwise Canon's sales will drop and buyers will shift to Fuji for instance. The technology allows for it, so what is Canon waiting for ?? Putting a 3 kg FF L-monster on a tiny APS-C body is ridiculous!
@@RolfReiner or what if Canon intends to gatekeep its customer base?
Great review, as always Christopher, but this is a bit of a rant for cannon.
Perhaps a question for cannon but why does it seem that all the mirrorless Lenses that are not L quality are a stop or a stop or two darker than what they used to be on the EF and EF-S mount now even M mount, with no explanation for it. Doesn't seem to be the case with any other mirrorless brand. Seems like they are trying really hard for people not to want these lenses. While keeping their customers limited by excluding third-party lenses.
If they are going to just recycle m mount lens specs to rfs, what is taking so long to make these toy quality looking lens?
I thought I am alone in this. I have no words for this. No good words to say.
Because the new sensors can handle higher ISOs much better. I've pushed the R6 to higher ISOs and gotten amazing results, recovering shadows like a champ! And that was the sensor in the older flagship 1D X Mark III. The R5 is even better! I now have the RF 100-500 L f/4.5-7.1 IS USM and I'm getting unbelievable results with it! Naturally I'd rather have the 100-300 f/2.8 with a TC but that's for the rich boys.
Even L Lenses don't escape. Look at the 100-500L which at 500mm is rather dark at F7.1
@Hayden Nettleton Yes, but only after 400MM, so no darker than the 400 f/5.6. So you go to 7.1 after that but you get an extra 100MM of reach. But the newer sensors handle higher ISOs really well.
@@swistedfilms Still F7.1 on an L lens that costs 2700usd is a joke. Nikon managed to make their 200-500mm F5.6 and it's priced at 1300usd and from the tests I've seen it's every bit as Sharp as the RF 100-500.
I really don't understand why canon makes lenses for APS-C with darker aperture than other brand ( or even their EF-S and EF-M version ), i mean... it's already a brand that suffer in low light because of their smaller APS-C and they somehow choose to make darker lenses to have even more difficulty in low light ( or to get faster shutter speed )... are they trying to kill their APS-C line ?
There are a few reasons why your reviews are the best on the internet, and I often resort to your channel to know the optical qualities of a lens.
1. They are highly scientific, and almost all the reviews since last 3 years (and may be beyond) are highly comparable.
2. You have set a standard of 42 MP to 45MP resolution for testing Canon, Nikon, and Sony Lenses. (Plus Sigma, Tamron, Laowa and other 3rd party lenses on Sony FF/Nikon APSC). You don't use Sony's 61 MP camera to keep the playing field level.
Request: Please introduce a rating system, like a likert scale, from 1-10.
For Example:
Lens: Canon RF-S 55-210mm f/5-7.1 IS STM
Sharpness: 5.5/10
Bokeh 4/10
Focus Breathing: Low
Stabilization: 7/10
Build quality: 6/10
Value: 5.5/10
"Recomended"
Christopher, you do awesome reviews, but this time, I really cannot give it to Canon. These lenses are not smaller, lighter or cheaper than EF-M 55-200mm. Yes it is 10mm longer, but it is also darker. Canon is either milking it or drops the cripple hammer. This one is halfway both. Soo, that´s that. Sad to see all that happening. Count me on support side soon though. Much appreciated!
Would be interesting to watch battle of the kit telephotos across multiple brands.
I was hoping for a more compact 90-135mm, f11-22. In pink.
Would love to know your recommendation on this lens compared to the ef-s 55-250mm since it's an F/4-5.6.
Seems like a no brainer on paper, but what are your thoughts?
Please compare it to Canon EFS 55-250mm IS STM.
A review of the 55-250mm STM on an EOS R7 is coming! In fact, Patreon subscribers can see it right now.
This is the sort of lens that gets the job done when you're a tourist in Disneyland and got a camera at Costco or Target as a step up from your camera phone.
So, the RF-S mount is going to be the new EF-S(M) indeed. With 'meh' lenses, in order to push the buyer towards full frame and the more expensive stuff...
The ef-m does at least have some highly praised primes.
Wwïth EF-S, their approach was bipolar. Some excellent, inexpensive lenses such as 10-18 stm and 50-250 stm, also 17-55 2.8. And some very frustrating omissions, like the lack of a normal fast lens for aps-c. This time around it´s really bad, there is nothing to be happy about.
Canon’s EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens is an ‘almost L’ lens for Canon APSC DSLRs. It is the senior partner in my grab and go Canon APSC trinity of EF-S lenses with Image Stabilization (IS) (EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM and EF-S 10-18 f/4-5.6 IS STM). Updated RF mount versions of that EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens, maybe as f/2, or even f/1.8, and the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM and EF-S 10-18 f/4-5.6 IS STM lenses would be a substantial base on which to build out a serious, plausible RF mount APSC system.
And potentially gatekeep the user base
Which lens would you buy,
CANON RF-S 55-210mm f/5-7.1 Telephoto Zoom Lens or the older CANON EF-S 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 IS STM LENS and Canon EF-EOS R Mount Adapter, which lens I better all around including quality of videos and photos ??
For the canon R10
Love watching your review and been a fan for years 🥳
"its brightest aperture of 7,1" !
Lightroom's recent noise reduction update might come in handy ;)
This lens would be a good match to the Canon R50 camera. As part of a double kit lens package, this lens costs US$229.
I am Canon fanboy since the start, and used EF glass, now switched to RF and already own 5 RF lenses. I also watch and read about every possible Canon lens. In every case RF versions of older EF lenses were better, but here... I would compare it to EF-S 55-250 4-5.6 IS STM. Old guy was magnificent, I loved it for the price, light weight, excellent sharpness, great stabilisation and fast AF. I would say best telephoto lens for apsc. But this? Only goes to 210, is darker, and built quality looks worse, of course it is more expensive. Even though I will never buy another apsc glass, it is sad to think that new amateurs who just want to try telephoto will have to buy this
No. EF 35/2 is better than RF 35/1.8, and everything is better than RF 24/1.8. And RF zooms f6.3, f7.1 and so on are useless, you can get same pictures with your phone.
Canon RF is absolutely worst system for amateur, even Panasonic is better. Sony is the best, but ful frame Sony cameras are too expensive. Nikon is middle ground, it has much less lenses than Sony, but much more than Canon RF.
@@dimakor5914 You are right about dark zooms, they are terrible. But I own 100-400 and even though it is dark, it is sharp and lightweight so I love it. Talking about 35, I used both and bought RF 35 1.8. I love it for the aperture, stabilisation, light weight, compact size and great image quality. If I could weld only one lens to my body, I would probably choose 35 1.8
@@pawebaran3601 35/1.8 has decent quality, but it is not 35 mm. More like 38 mm. And it is sufficient difference at this focal range.
After 10 YEARS of the EFS 55-250 4 - 5.6 is stm this is an INSULT for the ones who want the rfs system.
Meh, this thing seems like a waste of money. You could easily find an EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens and pair it with an adapter for around £200, with the benefit of wider apertures, a longer zoom range and what seems to be basically the same image quality.
I have that lens and it's great, the 55-210 just seems like a total downgrade of the same lens with a new mount slapped on it, nice video though Chris.
Indeed. Going again with 55-250mm IS STM and even 1,4x TC on it. It works great and center sharpness is good enough after posprocessing. That is equivalent of 560mm. For PEANUTS. Canon is shooting itself into both feet now. Even aiming for "the third one in between" :-)
@@CrashPCcz It’s good enough to use with a teleconverter?? I’ve not been using mine as much lately since I got an 18-135 but that would certainly make it worth picking up again.
@@MudkipOnYT It takes some work, and is plagued by CAs in corners, but with good TC, it takes great quality and detailed shots. I am a pixel peeper and demanding person, but still can make do with very acceptable quality for 4K display. Definitely going to buy that combo again for my M6 II. Next station is only 150-600mm or some L grade lens, for 5-10x as much.
A review of the 55-250mm STM on an EOS R7 is coming! In fact, Patreon subscribers can see it right now.
@@christopherfrost Oh great! Will you do the 18-135 at some point too?
Christopher, the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM vs. Canon RF-S 55-210mm f/5-7.1 IS STM. Your review from nine years ago sings the praises of the EF-S 55-250 lens. I used this lens on my Canon 90D. I traded in the 90D and bought the Canon R7.
For what I gather the new RF-S 55-210mm is optically no better, maybe even a little inferior, to the EF-S 55-250 lens while the 55-210mm sacrifices 40mm and an f-stop to make the lens slightly smaller and lighter.
Of course, I need to use the EF-RF convertor but it is probably a worthwhile sacrifice on my part.
What say you?
A review of the 55-250mm STM on an EOS R7 is coming! In fact, Patreon subscribers can see it right now.
I guess this is intended to be the equivalent of the EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM, which you reviewed some years ago. I'm not sure having an even smaller aperture is a good way to convince someone to switch to RF-S (and by that I mean "reinvest" since the lenses are mutually incompatible) if they already have a fair bit of EF-M gear, even if this one can focus closer and is much better about resisting flare.
f/7.1 is the new f/5.6 for Canon.
Canon's approach to their new apsc RF lenses is disapointing to me. I understand their target to attract most users to FF, but I believe, that apsc market is important too. I would like to see basic kit lens set something like 15-45 f3.5-f5.6 and 45-210 f4.5-f6.3. And a more premium apsc offer like 15-70f4 or similar. This would be nice first step to RF world for a lot of users I believe.
First? First 😌😌😌 grateful for your videos, Chris!!!
Hi!! I have canon a canon EOS r10 and the lens canon rf18-45mm, which lens do you recommende me, rf18-150mm or 55-210mm? Thanks!!
Hi I'm trying to make the same decision right now! Did you ever decide? I'm leaning towards the 55-210 because I can get it refurbished for just 200 but the brighter aperture and better macro capabilities of the 18-150 seem more appealing
Could you do a re-review of the EF-S 15-85 IS USM on the R7? I'm wondering how it compares to the kit lens RF-S 18-150 and can't find much online as to how the lens handles the R7's sensor. Cheers!
focal range reminds me of the old 50 200 L loved that lens like shooting in the 1970's
Chris, can you tell me where you got your test chart ? I’d like to test my lenses and see how they compare to the lenses you have tested to see if and what I need to upgrade
I know it might be a littlw too late, but maybe you will consider reviewing all Canon 70 200 F2.8 L IS lenses for DSLR, also compared to the RF version.
I want to buy a 70-200 f2.8 with IS, but can't still afford the RF version. I was considering to get a second hand IS mk ii or IS mk iii. Can't find a reliable comparison, so maybe you will take that in consideration sometime.
Bro, try to save up. You will regret not getting fresh RF 70-200. Its a beast, and your back and arms will thank you later. Becaues once you buy it, you will keep it till death, or at least next 20 years
@@pawebaran3601 i see, but I can get a IS MK iii for half the RF. I know it's litterally the best option on Canon, but is it twice as good though?
@@andreigheorghe2709 I don't own neither but used both in rental house I worked in for 3 months. I think RF is worth the price difference like nearly every RF full frame lens
@@pawebaran3601 awesome than. It's settled than! Thank you a lot!
From what I know, the original 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM is not all that sharp. The Mark II version was a lot better and apparently the Mark III is excellent.
Unfortunately my current finances mean that I can think about buying a new lens for my EOS R7, so here I am checking Mr. Frost's reviews in one tab and Amazon in another, trying to narrow down the choices.
I probably shouldn't buy a new lens right now. The camera is having a focus problem that seems to be more than just a bad setting or something else simple to fix, so I might need to send it in for medical care. Still, it's a nice camera, and it seems there are some nice-enough, affordable lenses that would be fun to try.
Do you suggest to use it on my canon r50?
Junk, darker,less reach and more expensive than the older ef-s 55-250mm
Hi there love your honest reviews they have helped me choose sone of the best gear I’ve had over the past few years ,
well I’ve got a bit of a review comparirson I’d like you to look into doing sometime and that is a canon R7 with the rf 100-500 verses the stacked sensor Olympus OM-1 paired with the awesome 150-400 f4.5 with the inbuilt teleconverter primarily to see if the tiny sensor and the top notch 150-400 mm at 400 mm with its 2x crop =800mm to see how that compares with canons set up as the 100-500 with the 1.6x crop is also 800 mm would love to see you review these 2
Keep up the great videos 👍👍👍
We need some 1.8 RF primes that have no focus breathing and a usm motor that dont make noise. The stm motors are crap.
would you recommend this lens or the adapted ef-s 55-250?
A review of the 55-250mm STM on an EOS R7 is coming! In fact, Patreon subscribers can see it right now.
Lol, f7.1. APS-C cameras already have less light than FF now this lens is even 1/3 stop darker than the EF-S version.
Hi Chris, thanks for the review, appreciate you reviewing the 3 RF-S lenses with the R50 now, results should be better
How big of an issue is the dark aperture? Is it just bad for low light (night), or does it also complicate indoor shots? Does it have any effect when shooting outdoors in day light?
In low light with dark aperture you will need a tripod or a flash . In bright light it doesn't matter that much , you can blur the background in post processing .
Wonder how this Canon RF-S 55-210mm f/5-7.1 IS STM would compare to Canon’s surprisingly good EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens with an adapter. That lens has been budget-priced high performer on APSC Canon DSLRs.
Thanks, the kens works great on a R50.
The other comments seem to be negative overall, but I'm actually quite impressed. At $350 USD it's very affordable, and it looks like the image quality is pretty sharp throughout, especially considering the R7's 32MP sensor. I plan on getting it for use primarily in motorsports with a bit of wildlife thrown in there. Considering I hardly shoot in low light I don't mind the aperture too much. I also don't mind the plastic build, in fact I think the lightness is a big plus personally. This with an R10 would be nearly as compact as a m43 system while still having much better image quality. The fact that a cheap lens can have this much reach and sharpness while weighing only 270g is quite impressive. You really have to take that in mind too when comparing this to other apsc lenses
The EF-S version used to go as far as 250mm while retaining an F5.6 aperture. Instead of progressing, Canon is making a great job of taking a step back with their new lenses. Adapting the old lens is prbably the wiser thing to do... it's like you either go with the very expensive L series lenses or the boring consumer grade lenses that have a freaking plastic mount! Also the design of these RF-S lenses is terrible.
Please do a versus between this lens and the old 55-250 😁
A review of the 55-250mm STM on an EOS R7 is coming! In fact, Patreon subscribers can see it right now.
@@christopherfrost You're the MVP 👍🏼
The Canon R7 has very nice image quality and colors! I am having a hard time with Sony colors 😢 lol.
i feel you. thats exactly why i switched from sony
Maybe that is what Canon make it as its selling point
Is this lens good for sports?
Goodness that aperture range is pretty dreadful. I own Sonys APSC 55 - 210 f4.5 - f6.3 OSS which I thought was bad. That said, the Sony is without a doubt one of the poorest lenses optically Ive ever owned. It's a lot cheaper at just £280 new compared to this Canon lens at £430! Add to that the Sony at least has a metal lens mount. Got say this new Canon lens really is a poor effort.
So how does it compare to efs 55-250mm or efm 55-200mm in terms of IQ?
Didn´t have both, but 55-250mm IS STM is a little gem. Can be found mint cheaper than this, and can be adapted with 1,4TC with still good results. In my book, it is no contest. No comparison. It´s a massacre. :-)
@@CrashPCcz yea, I was considering it myself. This lens is amazing. And can be used on all 3 mounts. If I manage to find a good copy I will buy one.
A review of the 55-250mm STM on an EOS R7 is coming! In fact, Patreon subscribers can see it right now.
@@christopherfrost That's great! Thank you!
I would like to know if the center image quality at 55mm is sharper if you stop down a stop or 2?
No , center image quality is always the sharpest until f8 , but the smaller depth of field at lower apertures makes it look less sharp , and bigger apertures suffer from diffraction which makes them too soft . Corner sharpness is not very important if your subject is in center , because no one looks at corners except for pixel peepers .
Is this lens a good lens if i wanna record videos
It would have been good to mention the 18-150 RF-S which many people already have and which you would buy with your new body. If Canon were to make a budget wide (10-24 or 16-35?) the new lens would look better. On the other hand, if Canon had a 200-500 f/8 RF-S, the earlier zoom would seem better for that market sector. I realize all of us could go watch your 18-150 video again and try to guess what you would have said but 'likes' go to those who make videos that cover such matters rather than make us go elsewhere.
Ridiculous pricing!
I'll be sticking with my DSLRs for the foreseeable.
Same here, and I´m afraid when the time comes, it will not be Canon gear I´ll invest in.
Ditto
The EF-s 55-250 IS with an rf adaptor seems like a better option in price & quality
How was it compares to super value efs 55-250 stm?
Hey christopher, Can u do a Laowa 12-24mm f5.6 review? Ur my go to guy for lens review. =)
This lens best for Canon EOS R50...???
Can anyone help me?
I haven't been around photography for some years since I've sold my 750D, and I need a camera for general photography, especially like when I visit the zoo or take portraits of people. I've seen the Canon EOS R50 Mirrorless Camera, Black + RF-S 18-45mm IS STM Lens + RF-S 55-210mm IS STM Lens kit and I'm wondering if that's a good option for what I need? I wanted a camera that will be great for zoom in places like a zoo during daylight, but also being able to swap lens and do portrait photography for eg
I wonder how well the full frame 100-400 mm holds up against this little lens on an R7. This 55-210 looks sharp enough on an R7, contrast leaves a bit to be desired. We need a RF-S F2.8L version of this one :-).
RF100-400 is superior... The ok pricing, lightweight, nano USM and reasonable optics makes RF100-400 best in its class
@@zegzbrutal Surely on a FF camera, Doug Paton thinks also on the R7. Chris did not test IQ on the R7 yet, jury still out. I am still waiting for my big ISO test target. I have R7 and 100-400, tested on self printed ISO target but that is a very rough approximation, my printer hardly resolves 10 lines per mm. With what I was able to do with that self printed ISO tatget, the RF100-400 on the R7 seems to be doing better than the RF-S 18-150 on sharpness. Yet, the best bird photo I was able to take so far was with the RF-S 18-150 @ 150 and seriously cropped - Thanky you Canon for the wonderful R7! There is more to bird shooting then just IQ test on a tripod looking at an ISO chart...
This seems like a step back from the efs 55-250 is stm
Dear Canon, Please open up the RF mount to third parties. Regards, a former Canon user
Which system are you using now?
Surprisingly good performance, can’t fault this lens and this is a dream for any portable landscape kit
emmmm……. f7.1 🥴
In the flare test it looks like it suffers from a green/blue blob just to the side of the light source, same as my EF-M lenses.
How come the title is missing the usual "review with sample images" bit?
After about 12 years of doing this on UA-cam, it just feels a bit redundant now hehe
I like this one
Still waiting for the old school sigma 17-50 2.8 + r7 combo 😘
Ohh help me, plastic is for recycling!
I can bay it for my canon r 50 ?!
Actually a really impressive crop lens! Wow!
By amount of light at an equivalent focal length of about 300mm, this is the territory of large sensor bridge cameras, like Panasonic FZ-2500...
It doesn't make any sense. Buy a camera with interchangeable lenses and attach a lens to it, which reflects a small part of the bridge camera capabilities. It is just crazy !
I just don't understand those lenses. Yes, it can be a few grams lighter and a centimeter shorter. But the very idea of cameras with interchangeable lenses is not in compactness, right? But in different possibilities and potential. Even if we speak about amateurs. Who said that amateurs have no requirements at all and they want everything as compact as possible ?
I would call "a green commission for wasting glass" on them at this point. It is pathetic. Canon user here. But still more and more resentful.
Funny how they downgraded both in reach and appurture of rf-s. I thought that is because of new sensors being better in low light but still diffraktion is a thing.
Why canon doing worse the old 55 to 250 stm f3.5 to 5.6 was amazing lens why they doing the worst lens ever made now
Brightest aperture and F7.1 should never be in the same sentence. Lets see how does the EF-S 55-250 STM perform on an R7.
Older 55 250mm seems more sharper f8 center and at edge all focal lengths
rf-s is a big mistake.
Full frame is overrated
What's the logic? It is better to buy a used Sony a7iii and a used Tamron 28-200mm. Same price or cheaper with superb image quality.
The logic is this tiny, weightless combo gives you 336mm equivalent focal length, and 32.5 megapixels.
To get similar reach from a Sony a7iii you'd have to spend much more, on a much heavier setup, and this has better AF tracking, 30fps vs only 10, better ergonomics, better LCD, etc.....
Price?
Watch the video, and you'll find out :-)
@@christopherfrost sorry re-watched and you clearly said $350 or £430 apologies again
The next kit lens will be 26-45mm f11-f16!!!
It looks awfully soft at any aperture and length =o
canon rf 70-200 f4 is much better , if you can afford it ;)
Rather but the efs 55-250 and use an rf adapter than buy this.f7.1 is way to less of light hell I feel an 400mm at 5.6 is too dark
what the heck, 7.1? I thought a mirrorless system would make lens design very easier. we can expect at least the same aperture as EF-s system or better. 7.1 can not be a starting aperture for any APC camera system, as the diffraction will take a hit around 8.
We want to test a Sigma 50-100mm lens on a Canon R7
What’s with Canon’s obsession with the f7.1?
Such horrendous lens!
👍👍
Makss no sense. Just port the brilliant 55-250 or 55-200 and it would sell like hotcakes.
Just ignore this lens and just adopt the EF-S 55-250mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM.
Lol 7.1
I run my STM 55-250 on everything even my Fuji XT5
They are repeating themselves again...I do not like that at all. Seems like a cash grab this way #Greed.
Typical Canon: lots of pro stuff, lots of amateur stuff, almost no prosumer gear. Nikon is almost the same. Other brands have the gear tiers worked out better.
I disagree about Nikon,they have excellent reasonably affordable 1.8 primes and their APS-C kit Lenses are very good for what they are.
Canon is just terrible for apsc. Better stick to fujifilm