FIRST Sigma lens for Canon RF! 18-50mm f2.8 vs RF-S 18-45mm review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ค. 2024
- My review of Sigma's FIRST lens for Canon's EOS R mirrorless cameras, the 18-50mm f2.8 for APSC!
Buy the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 at B&H: bhpho.to/3KUGnX8 // WEX UK: tidd.ly/4cCmvUC
Sell your used gear to MPB at: bit.ly/3ULU9yL
Buy used gear from MPB at: prf.hn/l/YLqwRAP
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/camerala...
Gordon’s retro gear channel: / dinobytes
Equipment used for producing my videos
DJI Osmo Pocket 3: click.dji.com/AIOhqT-LWUFDq-b...
Panasonic Lumix S5 II: amzn.to/3Hf5IcI
Sony A6400: prf.hn/l/pRO0wp5
Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk
Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp
Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo
Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY
Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE
Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF
MacBook Pro 14in (16GB / 1TB): amzn.to/3PrKbPV
00:00 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 introduction
01:58 - Sell your old gear to MPB! Sponsorship
03:03 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 design and controls
05:14 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 coverage for photo and video
06:24 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 focusing for photo and video
08:47 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 focus breathing
09:31 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 stabilization
11:53 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Canon RF-S 18-45mm landscape quality
16:14 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Canon RF-S 18-45mm portrait quality
17:03 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Canon RF-S 18-45mm bokeh quality
17:50 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Canon RF-S 18-45mm macro quality
18:37 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 verdict and sample images
Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
My review of Sigma's FIRST lens for Canon's EOS R mirrorless cameras, the 18-50mm f2.8 for APSC!
Buy the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 at B&H: bhpho.to/3KUGnX8 // WEX UK: tidd.ly/4cCmvUC
Sell your used gear to MPB at: bit.ly/3ULU9yL
Buy used gear from MPB at: prf.hn/l/YLqwRAP
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Gordon’s retro gear channel: th-cam.com/users/dinobytes
Equipment used for producing my videos
DJI Osmo Pocket 3: click.dji.com/AIOhqT-LWUFDq-bGk8hD4Q?pm=link
Panasonic Lumix S5 II: amzn.to/3Hf5IcI
Sony A6400: prf.hn/l/pRO0wp5
Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk
Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp
Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo
Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY
Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE
Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF
MacBook Pro 14in (16GB / 1TB): amzn.to/3PrKbPV
00:00 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 introduction
01:58 - Sell your old gear to MPB! Sponsorship
03:03 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 design and controls
05:14 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 coverage for photo and video
06:24 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 focusing for photo and video
08:47 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 focus breathing
09:31 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 stabilization
11:53 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Canon RF-S 18-45mm landscape quality
16:14 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Canon RF-S 18-45mm portrait quality
17:03 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Canon RF-S 18-45mm bokeh quality
17:50 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Canon RF-S 18-45mm macro quality
18:37 - Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 verdict and sample images
Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
I heard that Sigma said it's better for them from a business point of view to make APS-C lenses. Cheaper to make and they have a massive audience that want cheaper lenses. But personally, I would really love to get full-frame Sigma RF glass in my hands
Did sigma actually say it or did you read a comment from someone else that sigma said that?
@@rws531 haven’t heard it officially, but it kinda makes sense
@@kaspergaram Then you have to ask Canon because it's them that are blocking 3rd party FF lenses.
If they could make an apsc 600 or 800mm f5.6 it would be useful....
@@Wilbafarce Over ~100mm a lens isn't going to be smaller than a full frame lens just because it's made for APS-C. The required optical formula for the entrance size completely takes over at that point. The main advantage of APS-C is in wide/normal where the size of the rear focus group can be made smaller, and makes a significant difference in the total lens size.
Canon getting their act together to allow Sigma on board. I’ve had this lens for Fujifilm and it’s awesome
Lets see how long it will take to let fullframe on their RF mount before congratulating them.
Not sure if it is similae case for full frame lineup. Maybe, canon just want to get sigma to fill the gap in their APS c rfs mmount.
It's less Canon getting their act together, and more them just trying to give us the least bit of improvement to shut up some of the critics. If Canon was actually serious they would fully open their mount to third party manufacturers like Sony did.
@@amateurphotographer1096 Its probably that their APS-C are a "break even" product and they do not wish to put any money into developing new lenses. They just want a entry level drug to get people hooked so they will go full frame.
Sigma RF 16mm F1.4 will be an important lens for talking head video shooters and the 18-50mm F2.8 is best for the product photographers but lack of lens stabilization is a problem. However, in my country (Bangladesh), many small wedding photographer groups use Sony A6400 for the Sigma 16mm F1.8 or Viltrox 13mm F1.4 in a gimbal where A7c/A74 is their main shooter. Hope Canon give a firmware update to the Canon R10 to add C-log and decrease price to fight with Sony A6400. Canon must update its kit lens line and cheap lens line as well. As an owner of a Canon R8 (Previously I used M50 and then R10), I will be happy to see a Canon 28-75mm F2.8 with stabilization cheap version or a 24-50mm F2.8 L version or a good kit lens like a Panasonic 20-60mm F3.5-5.6.
Canon will have to face competition from Nikon or Panasonic as well. Once the mid-level user will become a high-end user. If someone invested in the expensive lens in another version, they will never switch back.
FINALLY ...RF MOUNT THIRD PARTY LENSES ~
Exactly!
@@cameralabshow much it cost
@@Casey-lq1vu that's in the first few seconds of the video!
awesome review. thanks
Appreciate your thoughtful reviewsGordon, and always interested to hear about developments of third party options for the RF mount, especially given my high opinion of Sigma's current line up, but I wondered whether you had tried the sigma on any full frame R body such as the R5, which would presumably switch the camera to a cropped mode, but for walk around this might be a reasonable sacrifice?
Nice!
Good to have bright crop frame lens options for the crop rf cameras!
Exactly, at last!
Great review as always! Thanks!
You're welcome!
Thanks for the quick review and comparison! I’ve been using the older 17-70 2.8-4 on my Canon aps-c cameras for quite a while (including adapting it on my R7), so I’m very eager to upgrade to this newer version. The 17-70 has been a fantastic quality lens, and I’ve captured many great shots with it (my favourite likely being a sunset shot from the Shard overlooking the Thames towards Canary Wharf that printed beautifully). I have mostly Canon and Tamron FF glass, and only two APSC Sigma lenses (the other being the now very old 8-16). The best part of these lenses is their portability for trips, or even a long local hike - I’m rarely hauling my larger L lenses. It’s one reason I’ll keep using the APS-C format, and I’m really glad that Sigma has released this, since I believe (based on my older two Sigmas), these lenses tend to be better quality than what Canon offers, and can get close to L image quality. Thanks again Gordon!
You're very welcome!
I'm very happy that sigma is doing this thank you Canon for that. In the last two years I've been researching other brands crops cameras because I'll never buy another full size crop like a r7 anymore.
That said I'm not a fan of the RFS bodies /styiling feature set and I'm not getting any better image quality compared to my M cameras.
My M cameras are the other issue because they still work absolutely great. I have a m62 in a smallrig cage to help with stabilization and attachments, and the 11th to 22, and a 22 f2. aside from a zoom which I intend to use the bigger ef 24-105, I'm pretty much covered. All very nice equipment and well made.
That said, I'm hoping that there's some updates in the next year or so for the r10 or something below that like a r9 or so, something styled like the m62. One can dream.
Waiting for sigma 18-35mm art vs this 18-50mm
They never made a native mirrorless version of that lens. Plus it's possible to adapt the old dslr version
My In-laws recently purchased a Canon R10 and I gifted them my old Sigma 24-35 F2 for EF mount and a Viltrox .7x EF-RF speed booster that I no longer use. The APSC crop of 1.6x plus the speed booster widening of .7x effectively transforms it into an almost full-frame 27-39mm F1.4 lens. It is incredibly sharp, as you'd expect Sigma's Art lenses to be, and works pretty well. One caveat is that focusing is noticeably audible for video scenarios, though.
@@AdventuresinNature yep, speedboosters are a great option for APSC cameras...
Thanks Gordon! I have never used third party lenses on my Canon cameras, I've been fortunate enough to be able to purchase used EF lenses in the past for my Canon DSLRs, but when I switched to the Canon R series (currently just got a R6 MkII) I have stuck to Canon RF lenses. Thanks for the review, I'm sure many viewers will appreciate this video. Keep up the good work!
Thanks!
I’ll get one of these - I use an R7 and 100-500 for wildlife work and would like a decent standard zoom to put in my bag for when I see something else I’d like to shoot. It will also make for a smaller lighter (than my full frame R6) walkabout setup with the R7. I’d still like to see a 15-80mm f2.8 to give proper wide angle to mild telephoto range - I used to like the 12-60 when I used to use MFT. Still, this is a start and I’ve preordered mine. Thanks, Gordon!
Not just optical performance and sharpness. I also tend to prefer Sigmas color rendition out of the gate. It is slightly warmer and not as blue-magenta as Canon. Nothing that can't be fixed in post of course but Sigma paints a slightly better RAW file to start with. YMMV.
Gordon with his hat off 😀 .....summer must be here !
Funny, I read the report about this on my news feed this morning and imagined I could hear you cheering all the way from Brighton to Vegas ;-) Interesting comparison. Does the FPS suffer like it does on Sony with 3rd party lenses? Not that it matters to me personally, I long abandoned Canon for MFT. I still enjoy your reviews though, cheers!
I currently use an R7 with a Canon 17-55 2.8 with an adapter for R mount, what are the differences between these lenses? Is it worth the change? The weight difference is very noticeable, but is the quality worth it for the change?
I've also been thinking about that lens for a while, one of the only times Canon made a premium-ish lens for APSC. I remember reviewing it when it came out, but that was a long time ago. I'd be surprised if it's a sharp as a modern lens, and as you know it's certainly a lot larger, even before the adapter. I may well try and see it again sometime to see if it's still as good as I remember!
Great option for photographers who want a sharp, well-built lens with a fast aperture Sir.
I was probably one of the first to pre-order this lens at B&H and I can't wait to mount it on my R10. Looking forward to the 10-18mm and the 56mm Sigma lenses as well. Just wish they could and would do full-frame... Tamron, too.
Let us know what you think of it!
I might just keep my R7, after all. What we need is an APSC tele zoom with a 5.6 minimum aperture. The trouble with the FR100-500 is that over half of it's area is wasted by the crop. (1.6*1*6=2.56) It could either be a stop brighter or half the weight, both without losing quality. As for the RF100-400, R8 is really too dark for a crop camera at high speeds. An RF-s100-400 f5.6 should be doable at a similar size, weight and cost to the RF100-400 f8. What killed the M6 MkII for me was the lack of high quality native stabilized lenes and an unstabilized body.
What a great little lens! I wish they made it in Canon EF-M mount.
I've toyed with the idea of changing systems so i can use it but that would be dumb.If i accept a larger heavier setup there are much better lenses out there, including Sigma's great f1.8 zooms.
I've been using a Canon 17-40mm L lens via an adaptor with excellent results, but perhaps this will tempt me into adding it to my collection, given its much more compact dimensions.
I remember the 17-40 f4L with fondness, and also used it on ASPC bodies back in the day, albeit DSLRs! Yes, this one would be much smaller and a stop brighter too.
Some cameras when you shoot jpegs are oversharp. I only shoot jpegs and I am searching for a camera with good jpegs. The M100 outperforms the X-T100 when you pixel peep. Gordon, have you noticed a camera with particularly good jpegs straight out of camera lately? I have a feeling it might be a Canon. Or a Panasonic?
As you know, I prefer to shoot JPEG where possible, and remember you can always adjust the parameters, for example, tone down the sharpening on a preset. As for suggesting a camera that shoots nice looking JPEGs, thats often down to individual choice. I do like the recent Fujifilms, although sometimes the Film SIMs can be a bit heavy handed. I've quite enjoyed recent Panasonic and Canons too - check out my sample images for the Lumix S5 II for instance, or maybe the Canon R8 or R50.
@@cameralabs Yes I keep the X-T100 sharpness always at least on minus 1. Yes the SIMs are heavy handed so I use Provida/ Standard. I was shocked last week by how good the Canon 20D is. Someone tested old Minolta lenses on Z7 and Z6 and could not figure out why the Z7 pictures was a lot sharper. Turns out it was because the Z6 has AA filter and not Z7. With that in mind I turned in camera sharpness on T100 to minus 2 as an AA simulation...What is disturbing to me is that if I first go to minus 2 and then sharpen on the computer I get the sharpness I need without the wormy look at vegetation. The only Fuji camera I have that is not bayer sensor is the X-T1. Its frustrating to be a pixel peeper. If a picture does not look good zoomed in I freak out.
Looks cool.
dear Gordon, could you also make a comparison of the fuji 16 - 50 and the sigma 18 - 50, because I think, this is for many fuji users a relevant question when buying for example the new fuji xt-50
That's a comparison I'd like to make
I wonder why we didn't get Tamron 17-70 yet.. or maybe it will come later, that lens is the swiss army knife of the aps-c crop cameras
Yeah, hopefully
I'm currently using an adapted EF-S 17-55 f2.8 on my R7, and they are a great combo for low light event shooting. While the size and weight of this lens are definitely appealing, I'm not sure that's enough. I'd be giving up IS and 6mm (x 1.6) of zoom range.
Change my mind.
I'd say your mind is set! But I am interested in revisiting this lens, one of the first I tested on TH-cam. It is pretty old now, so I'd be surprised if its resolution matches newer ones, but you never know until you compare it!
The 17-55 was practically glued to my 7D back in the day, but adapted on the R7 it makes the whole setup super heavy and clunky compared to what it could be. I'm gonna rely on IBIS to be a perfectly capable alternative to IS and have absolutely no doubts about retiring the 17-55.
Looks like a nice piece of glass. Not my favored fl; I'll keep the native 70-200/2.8 for action shots on my R7, and the 18-150 as a walkabout. But if I was in the market for a normal zoom, I'd take Sigma's over Canon's in a heartbeat.
50 years of photography and FINALLY somebody who can explain focus breathing simply and easily.
Do NOT watch Tony & Chelsea to learn about focus breathing... Just watch this video starting at 21:28
21:28 is the end of the video... Maybe you meant 8:48?
I think it's a spam account or a bot. Think about it, what they're saying doesn't make sense.
A useful review of what appears to be an excellent APSC lens for Canon RF mount. I use a Canon EOS R10 so using this lens would mean that I have no IS which is quite disappointing. I suppose Canon want to limit the performance of it's competitors!
It's Sigma's choice whether to put IS in their lenses or not - they generally don't on non telephotos. But equally Canon could do with fitting more bodies with IBIS... and yes, you're right, that could be an alternative way to make third parties without IS look less attractive.
I'm thinking of replacing rf-s 18-45 mm with something better. I was considering 18-150 mm due to good reviews and range though Sigma seems very compelling. Actually it could be no brainer but... I have R50 with no in body image stabilisation :(... It could be interesting though, if you compared those 2.
DO you mean testing the Sigma lens on the R50? I didn't have a chance to do that, and yes, you won't have stabilisation for photos. But there's still digital stabilisation for movies if you want it.
@@cameralabs Yes, sorry I ment testing it on unstabilised bodies such R100 or R50. For me photography is currently priority. I ended picking up R50 due to budget constrains 😢
So what about continuous shooting speed ? When I saw the word "licensed" - this is the first question that came to my mind.
Good question - I recall testing this, but for some reason didn't include it in the video. As I recall the fastest mechanical burst speed wasn't affected, but as I show in the video, the AF coverage is a little smaller than the full frame you get with Canon's own lenses. I'll reconfirm the next time I have this combination.
Your opinion on Canon's commitment to APS-C lenses has been proven over years of neglect from Canon, even before the RF mount. Have they ever made an L-lens specifically for crop sensors? They've always treated the crop-bodies as an upgrade path to full frame, which is a shame. Fujifilm really redefined what a premium crop sensor system could be-smaller, more affordable, and still offering great image quality.
I completely agree. Apart from the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 and EF-M 32mm f1.4, all of their APSC lenses have been aimed at the budget end, and not a single one have been weather-sealed either. I understand when they're to match budget bodies, but as I said, that leaves owners of the higher-end bodies in an odd place where they generally buy full-frame lenses.
I support you Gordon you are the only one I am watching this review on. As a camera nerd I care but as someone who dumped Canon over a year ago, I have moved on.
If you own a Canon APS-C Crop camera. You owe it to yourself to buy this Sigma lens. Wow Gordon I am blown away!
I have this lens for my Sony A6600 which is a cracking combination. I purchased the sigma 18-50 f2.8 with the Sony A6600 because at this time there was no canon R7, and I wanted eye detection AF. Then few months later the R6 was announced and I had to wait 5 months before I finally got it. When got my R7 there was no decent walk around lenses in RF, or even EF for 7Dii.
Canon has never given a cap APS-C and believe customers will use it as a stepping stone to full frame. At the moment canon RF glass is way too expensive!
R7 with RF-S 18-150 or adapt Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 Contemporary is the walk-around set up.
Everyone keeps moaning about RF lenses being expensive while the awesome primes like RF28 and RF16 are viable on both FF and APS-C.
@@zegzbrutal problem with primes is you gave zoom with your feet. I have found over the years a decent zoom of 16-70 apsc or 24-105 FF in f2.8 or just f4 is all most people need. The quality of glass now is pretty good and zooms are just as good as primes for IQ. I use my sigma 18-55 f2.8 e mount all the time on my A6600, even though I have a apsc 50mm F1. 8 !
Compare with sigma 18 35 f1.8 apsc
Looks good for the R-50 body.
Yeah, sadly you won't have stabilisation, but it's still my preferred zoom for ANY of the APSC Canon bodies.
Do you think it's overkill for the R50?
Not at all, I'd want to pair this with any Canon APSC body! But remember you won't have stabilisation for photos.
Wow!
This is a lens I wished came for the ef-m system as well.
Yes, but at least efm got the primes
@@cameralabs True.
Thanks for this great review! I'm thinking of buying it but I have a Canon R10, so no ibis. Will it be a problem? I also use the rf 50 mm without any problems. Can you switch the focus ring to a control ring in the body? I hope so, it's possible with the rf 18-150 mm.
I'd say it'd be great on the R10, although as you know, unstabilised like your 50. No, the ring is for manual focus only as far as know.
I can't wait to buy the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN II for RF mount. I totally agree with you that greedy Canon will not let Sigma make full frame for a while. It might even be the third iteration of the zoom lens for Sony and Nikon when it launches on Canon.
Yeah, I fear it may never happen.
@@cameralabs 😭
because sigma now have to build in Canon Royalty, the price goes up for ALL APSC sigma glass.
It hasn't so far
Awesome video, I especially appreciate your in-depth IBIS tests and comparison with an RFS lens, though I wonder how the Sigma would fare optically against the R7’s 18-150 kit lens. Thanks for all the work put into these tests!
The glaring problem is that Canon's smaller, lighter APS-C bodies (that would really benefit from a lens like this) don't have IBIS. (The R7 is nearly FF size and weight.)
So, as a Canon FF user, my biggest problem is trying to decide between a Sony A6700, or Fuji XS-20 / XT50.
Any of those is better than a canon apsc 👍
@@superstringsbrothey are either more expensive or poor AF
It’s not a telephoto, shooting with safety shutter in mind is enough. For low light work you have to use f1.8 and brighter
@@zegzbrutal wrong. Sony AF is better than Canon and the new Fuji’s are very good.
@@superstringsbro I've heard the exact opposite about Fuji
Thank you for the video review.
Given Canon's attitude toward 3rd party lens makers, I cannot help but think that Canon does not care about the APS-C segment. I still have a couple M cameras, and Canon had not released any good zooms at the time M line was discontinued. The fact that Sigma is only making APS-C RF lenses and only manual Voigtlander was allowed for RF full frame makes me very suspicious of Canon's commitment in APSC segment.
I agree, Canon has never been into APSC lenses. They might have made some high-end APSC bodies, like the 7D and R7, but EF-S, EF-M and RF-S have been mostly about budget lenses for them.
Perfect lens for the c70!
Yes!
I do use the 18-35 f1.8 on my R7 which really works great. Will add the 10-18 2,8 and later on the 16 F1,4 - not sure whether it makes sense to get the 18-50 with the 18-35 already in my kit. Good to see though canon opening up, also looking forward to tamron. Thanks for the as usual great review Gordon. Keep up the great work 👍🏻👍🏻
Glad you enjoyed it! Yes, if you're happy with the 18-35 there's no need to switch to this. The 18-50 is much smaller as lighter, but obviously lacks the 1.8 aperture.
@@cameralabs yeah; the size and weight is not the best but for pure video work on a tripod it really works well. Maybe I still add the sigma 18-50 for gimbal work - so far I did use there the RF-S 18-150. on the other hand. How many 18-xx lenses I really wanna have. The joys of the hobby I guess 😂😂
The 10-18 works even in full frame. If you crop a little bit the image you get a 13-24 f2.8 in full frame mode
It also means you can apply extra digital stabilisation for video
@@cameralabs exactly. That's the point. Normally in full frame is a problem the extra crop. In this way you can have the f2.8 bokeh as a full frame lens! And even more minimum focus distance!
I think now there is no need to get a full frame camera 👌🏻
i wonder if canon change its mind and block third party lenses with future firmware updates
I'm sure they wouldn't do that, it would be a marketing disaster
It would also probably be grounds for Sigma et al to sue Canon for breach of contract given that this is now an official licensing deal. I would be shocked if the terms don't include some kind of assurance on Canon's side of continuing support, otherwise Sigma would never risk the business investment of developing RF mount lenses, right?
Canon owners have become very vocal on the message boards about the third party option, Canon is getting the message and that's a good thing.
Great review, thanks, Gordon. In low light, my R7 seems to be missing AF all the time, even with an f/4 lens. With the RF 28mm f/2.8 it nails focus every time. Do you thing that would also be the case with this Sigma? Because indeed, that would transform the R7!
Having the extra stop certainly improves AF.
Great made in Japan lens for Canon made in Japan cameras.
Finally.
Exactly!
Canon is the only Major Brand that makes its Own Sensors outside of Sony. So when folks want rattle on and on about Third Party this or that, maybe they ought to keep that in mind. It is NOT cheap to design and then build, your own sensors. Most folks are assumed to buy just the Kit Lens, regardless of Brand especially with these cropped cameras. Folks ought to keep that in mind, again when they rattle on and on about Third Party this or that. So it's one thing to talk about what is the right business choices and it's a whole different thing to actual Run, stated business.
I still dont know why Nikon still holding of this beauty for the APS-C line up.
Jeez, what a dramatically better lens! I sold off my R7 over a year ago, in large part due to the frustration over lack of viable lenses. Canon, you twiddled your thumbs too long.
Its strange that autofocus area is a little smaller vs native rf lenses(
I use Sigma art lenses on Canon rf body, using adapter and autofocus area also smaller, around 80% of native, its not a big deal, butt still
Thanks for review
That's interesting about the adapted lens having the same coverage. Have you tried adapting any of Canon's own EF lenses? Do they have the full area?
@@cameralabs Yes I tried ef lenses, using official canon rf-ef adapter, they have full autofocus area like native rf glass
@@ghbdtnbytn thanks for confirming. It's interesting isn't it? Glad I illustrated it in this review.
The focus tests show the R7's terrible rolling shutter. I'm glad I didn't buy it. Rolling shutter makes me crazy.
Yeah, although to be fair, that swing back and forth on the bottle trips up almost every camera I test for rolling shutter.
These Sigma lenses are long overdue. Canon should have worked with Sigma (and others) even prior to introducing their APS-C cameras in RF mount. They have likely lost any number of customers to other brands, who were unimpressed with the mediocre RF-S lens selection. That could have been avoided simply and easily.
Nikon shooters make the switch now.
Mpb….37€ for the kit lens😂 2:24
Interesting, nice little lens. Looks like a Canon have room for an f2 version given how narrow that lens looks but we know they focus on full frame. The 10-18 for sure is appealing with such a bright aperture. Nice review, will look out for the 1.4 collection when they are posted
Thanks! I've already reviewed the 10-18 and all the primes for Sony e-mount and the optical results should be essentially the same
@@cameralabs ah i see. Ok will go look for them.
What’s interesting is the pricing. Canon new kit goes up compared to US prices, but this Sigma was as you said. I wanted to order the new EL10 flash but the UK price was silly imo
Thank you Gordon. I'm waiting for such a lens for a long time. Having a 70-200 2.8 on my main cam for sports, I always wanted to have my R7 on the "wide" end as the second cam. Now my 1DxII can retire.
Not wide enough. AND we need lens IS 💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
Thanks for this good review: Its handling of the R7 sensor is a credit and the choice is welcome. I use APSC for my on-the-hoof light travel needs (not a pro). One option is my EOS200D/SL2 and ancient 17-50 NON-IS Tamron. No IS means I need to think about that option. My question, to myself, is whether I want to ''upgrade'' to an RF-S below the R7 now this is out? As it stands I am thinking no for my small and light as possible wants. One swallow was never going to make a summer, but no RF-S 55-250, 24mm prime remains an issue although their new wide angle was welcome.....I have FF .....what to do, what to do
At least there's now more choices!
Just wanna say that the canon lens is a kit lens...
I'm pretty sure I also said it was the kit lens
@@cameralabs yeah i know, its just that u compare it sooo sooo much against this lens like they are in the same league or soemthing
@@mbismbismb I know what you mean, but I did it to show what you get if you spend more. Equally there aren't any other RF-S zooms with that short general range.
Sigma rescuing another Canon mirrorless mount. You love to see it!
Canons aps-c line up is the worst... I've no idea why anyone would buy one instead of any Sony.
I've literally just had this argument with them
They had no choice because they have zero good RF APSC lenses. Canon still suck.
It's not 8 am in the UK and 1:18 am in NY 😂. Why????
It's a Japanese launch time
Too late Canon 😂
Too late sigma to be precise 😌
@@mbismbismbhave you been living under a rock? Canon blocked them.
sorry Sigma, no interest until FF 4 RF released.
Fingers crossed, but I bet it takes longer
@@cameralabs 🤜🤛
"Best APSC zoom!" No.
For Canon RF, yes.
To those begging for sigma to make full frame glass it ain’t happening; just abandon the ship to either Nikon, Sony or Panasonic (if you’re into video hybrid stuff) canon won’t listen to their customers
I'm pretty much held bent on getting a Panasonic s52. be unable to have access to L mount lenses is going to be so nice...and I can have a modern 50 mm 1.8 that doesn't cost 2k or a modern 35 1.4 that doesn't cost $1,500.
Otherwise I'll keep my R5 ef glass.
Options are good.
now we know why canon is afraid of 3rd party manufacturers...because their glasses are overpriced garbage
Bit of a generalisation there. Most of the Canon lenses I've tested have performed very well, but I'd love to see your own tests for reference. As for their prices, that's what they think they're worth, and we can choose to buy them or not. And if there's no third party alternative, as with their full-frame, then it's easy to choose a different system if lens pricing is an issue. This Sigma becomes the most desirable zoom for Canon APSC, but some people will be satisfied by the RF-S 18-45 which is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and has IS. It's ideal for the R50 and R100 it was designed for.