Since taking delivery of the R5m2 I've discovered that the camera automagically goes into "crop mode" with the RF 18-150. What Canon lens do you consider to be the 'closest FF equivalent'? Yes, there are zooms in the same range that are FF ... but they are also much larger and heavier - due to being designed to be faster. Any from another mfgr you like?
FF lens similar to the RF 18-150
- Thread starter OldrockyGN
- Start date
The RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 is the closest equivalent (with the benefit of a somewhat wider wide end). 18-150mm x 1.6 = 29-240mm. Apertures are similar, but the lens is going to be bigger and heavier because it needs to cover a FF image circle. That's the price you pay for the better IQ of a FF sensor.
Upvote
0
Neuro - thanks. I was hoping to find something smaller/lighter than the 24-240. *Sigh* I use this lens for landscapes
and family 'portraits' - but I don't really want to sacrifice the pixel count resulting from "crop mode" in the R5m2. If
the replacement was slower (1 or even 2 stops) - that wouldn't really be important.
and family 'portraits' - but I don't really want to sacrifice the pixel count resulting from "crop mode" in the R5m2. If
the replacement was slower (1 or even 2 stops) - that wouldn't really be important.
Upvote
0
There are 3rd party 28-300mm full frame zooms for the EF mount that are a bit smaller and lighter...but once you add on the EF-RF adapter, there's really no difference.
Upvote
0
Saying this with kindness, you may want to reconsider your move to the R5II, and consider sticking with the R7. Many of your posts have revolved around wanting smaller/lighter lenses especially at longer focal lengths, and putting more pixels on target. The way to achieve both of those is with higher pixel densities usually found APS-C cameras. The 45 MP of the R5/R5II are very nice and a FF sensor offers IQ benefits, but it would take an 83 MP FF sensor to match the pixel density of the R7.
Upvote
0
Although the pixel density of the R7 is much higher - it doesn't have the AF the R5m2 has - and that is a game changer
for birding. I already own the R7 + RF 100-400. The R5m2 is not significantly heavier than the R7. I also own the
RF 100-500 and it is noticeably bigger and heavier than the RF 100-400. I like to walk around and shoot - "hand carry".
I like to hand hold. I'm a birding photographer first and everything else is 'catch as catch can'.
I guess that when I want to shoot landscapes I'll just use the 18-150 on the R7 since if I use in on the R5m2 I loose
pixels - a lot of them. I will test the 18-150 on the R5m2 ... maybe I don't care.
for birding. I already own the R7 + RF 100-400. The R5m2 is not significantly heavier than the R7. I also own the
RF 100-500 and it is noticeably bigger and heavier than the RF 100-400. I like to walk around and shoot - "hand carry".
I like to hand hold. I'm a birding photographer first and everything else is 'catch as catch can'.
I guess that when I want to shoot landscapes I'll just use the 18-150 on the R7 since if I use in on the R5m2 I loose
pixels - a lot of them. I will test the 18-150 on the R5m2 ... maybe I don't care.
Upvote
0
OK, I did some comparison testing of the RF 18-150 lens on the R7 and R5m2. Remember that the 18-150 is a
designed for APS-C lens and that means that when you put it on the R5 the R5 goes into "crop mode". So I
shot pics using both bodies at 18mm, 100mm, and 150mm ... and also shot pics with the RF 100-400 and the
RF 100-500 at 100mm and 150mm. All pics were taken as JPEGs (don't groan, it's what I use all the time).
And they were all taken hand held and pointed at a "big scene" (i.e. "landscape").
Finally, with a minimum amount of post I compared all the images (18s to 18s, 100s to 100s, ... etc.) and looked
at them in terms of amount of detail, sharpness, etc.
My bottom line is that "even though using the RF 18-150 on the R5 resulted in only about 17mp per image -
there wasn't enough difference to matter ... to me. For my purposes.
And -especially- after resizing the images to just 2048 pixels wide. Again, "for me" and "for my purposes".
My purposes for landscapes are sharing with family and friends. I'm never going to print huge wall filling
images of a landscape.
But I do appreciate the ability of the RF 18-150 to go to focal lengths less than 100mm - for landscapes.
And I like it in terms of size and weight - especially when comparing to the size and weight of the RF 100-500.
designed for APS-C lens and that means that when you put it on the R5 the R5 goes into "crop mode". So I
shot pics using both bodies at 18mm, 100mm, and 150mm ... and also shot pics with the RF 100-400 and the
RF 100-500 at 100mm and 150mm. All pics were taken as JPEGs (don't groan, it's what I use all the time).
And they were all taken hand held and pointed at a "big scene" (i.e. "landscape").
Finally, with a minimum amount of post I compared all the images (18s to 18s, 100s to 100s, ... etc.) and looked
at them in terms of amount of detail, sharpness, etc.
My bottom line is that "even though using the RF 18-150 on the R5 resulted in only about 17mp per image -
there wasn't enough difference to matter ... to me. For my purposes.
And -especially- after resizing the images to just 2048 pixels wide. Again, "for me" and "for my purposes".
My purposes for landscapes are sharing with family and friends. I'm never going to print huge wall filling
images of a landscape.
But I do appreciate the ability of the RF 18-150 to go to focal lengths less than 100mm - for landscapes.
And I like it in terms of size and weight - especially when comparing to the size and weight of the RF 100-500.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
