When I began to wholesale move to mirrorless, there were certain beloved lenses that were very slow to leave my kit. I had a whole kit of Canon EF lenses, and initially I just adapted those lenses to Canon RF and even Sony. Certain third party lenses slowly began to leave my kit to be replaced with other lenses, but I had a core kit of L series lenses that I found it hard to say goodbye to. Lenses like the 24-104mm F4L IS, 100mm F2.8L Macro, the 70-300L, the 100-400L II, and the 35mm F1.4L II. One by one those lenses slowly got sold off over the years. The last of them remained until 2023, and that was the Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II. I loved that lens. Built like a tank, sharp as a tack, and with utterly reliable results that I consistently loved. It was hard for me to say goodbye to that lens, largely because there really wasn’t an RF replacement for it.
Pretty much everyone wondered when Canon would come up with a replacement, as the RF 50mm F1.2L was one of the early RF L series lenses, coming to market in 2018. I reviewed it in 2019 after finally taking the plunge and buying the extremely flawed Canon EOS R body. That means that six years have gone by without a pro series 35mm lens on RF mount, with the only 35mm prime being the RF 35mm F1.8 IS. But the wait is over, and the Canon RF 35mm F1.4L VCM has finally arrived. Is this the one you’ve been waiting for? You can get my findings in the video review here, or by reading the text review here.
Thanks to Camera Canada for sending me a review copy of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.*I have done this review on my Canon EOS R5 camera.
Canon’s earliest full frame mirrorless cameras (the EOS R and the EOS RP) were severely flawed cameras, so my early frustration in doing RF mount reviews is that it seemed that a number of the early RF lenses were so good but the cameras were so frustrating. Ironically (at least for me), the tables have turned, as Canon has been producing a number of cameras I really like (I’ve loved owning my EOS R5 for years, and have given very positive reviews to a number of other cameras from the budget R8 to the premium R3.) But I’ve found Canon’s lens design over the past few years very frustrating, as it seems like every lens I review comes with a major caveat. The RF 100mm Macro has weird focus shift issues. The RF 14-35mm F4L IS has epic levels of distortion. The 70-200mm models can’t be used with teleconverters. The RF 100-500L can only use teleconverters at 300mm+. The RF 85mm F2 Macro IS has clunky autofocus. A number of the zooms have very slow apertures. It’s a little weird, and unfortunately that trend continues with the 35L VCM lens, as while it has great autofocus and is very sharp, there are some questionable choices in the implementation of features and optical design. Sigh.
In many ways the 35L VCM seems to be a lens designed with video in mind more than stills. There is one notable new feature that only works for video unless you have a Canon camera made in 2024 or newer. But on the other hand, Canon also knows how to make a optically strong 35mm lens, and the 35L VCM actually comes to market at a $300 discount relative to the 35L II.
While aspects of the lens are a little perplexing, the simple reality is that it is easy to make beautiful images with the Canon RF 35mm F1.4L VCM. Check out some examples in the galleries below.
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
When I began to wholesale move to mirrorless, there were certain beloved lenses that were very slow to leave my kit. I had a whole kit of Canon EF lenses, and initially I just adapted those lenses to Canon RF and even Sony. Certain third party lenses slowly began to leave my kit to be replaced with other lenses, but I had a core kit of L series lenses that I found it hard to say goodbye to. Lenses like the 24-104mm F4L IS, 100mm F2.8L Macro, the 70-300L, the 100-400L II, and the 35mm F1.4L II. One by one those lenses slowly got sold off over the years. The last of them remained until 2023, and that was the Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II. I loved that lens. Built like a tank, sharp as a tack, and with utterly reliable results that I consistently loved. It was hard for me to say goodbye to that lens, largely because there really wasn’t an RF replacement for it.
Pretty much everyone wondered when Canon would come up with a replacement, as the RF 50mm F1.2L was one of the early RF L series lenses, coming to market in 2018. I reviewed it in 2019 after finally taking the plunge and buying the extremely flawed Canon EOS R body. That means that six years have gone by without a pro series 35mm lens on RF mount, with the only 35mm prime being the RF 35mm F1.8 IS. But the wait is over, and the Canon RF 35mm F1.4L VCM has finally arrived. Is this the one you’ve been waiting for? You can get my findings in the video review here, or keep reading.
Thanks to Camera Canada for sending me a review copy of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.*I have done this review on my Canon EOS R5 camera.
Canon’s earliest full frame mirrorless cameras (the EOS R and the EOS RP) were severely flawed cameras, so my early frustration in doing RF mount reviews is that it seemed that a number of the early RF lenses were so good but the cameras were so frustrating. Ironically (at least for me), the tables have turned, as Canon has been producing a number of cameras I really like (I’ve loved owning my EOS R5 for years, and have given very positive reviews to a number of other cameras from the budget R8 to the premium R3.) But I’ve found Canon’s lens design over the past few years very frustrating, as it seems like every lens I review comes with a major caveat. The RF 100mm Macro has weird focus shift issues. The RF 14-35mm F4L IS has epic levels of distortion. The 70-200mm models can’t be used with teleconverters. The RF 100-500L can only use teleconverters at 300mm+. The RF 85mm F2 Macro IS has clunky autofocus. A number of the zooms have very slow apertures. It’s a little weird, and unfortunately that trend continues with the 35L VCM lens, as while it has great autofocus and is very sharp, there are some questionable choices in the implementation of features and optical design. Sigh.
In many ways the 35L VCM seems to be a lens designed with video in mind more than stills. There is one notable new feature that only works for video unless you have a Canon camera made in 2024 or newer. But on the other hand, Canon also knows how to make a optically strong 35mm lens, and the 35L VCM actually comes to market at a $300 discount relative to the 35L II.
That makes this particular lens review a little complicated, but I’ll do my best to highlight both strengths and weaknesses with objectivity.
Build and Handling
One of the key, real world improvements of the RF 35L VCM lens is that they have managed to make it much lighter. The EF 35mm F1.4L II weighed a hefty 760g (1.67lbs), but the 35L VCM tips the scales at a leaner 555g (1.2lb). That’s a 31% difference in weight, which is pretty significant (particularly for wedding photographers who heft their cameras for 10+ hours!) That still doesn’t quite get it to the level of my current favorite 35mm lens, which is the Sony FE 35mm F1.4 GM. The GM lens is a svelte 524g, and is also a bit smaller.
The 35L VCM is 3″ in diameter x 3.9″ in length, or 76.5 x 99.3 mm. That’s about 6mm shorter than the EF lens, but about 3.5mm longer than the GM lens. The front filter threads are now 67mm rather than 72mm, a change I appreciate as lenses with 67mm filter threads are far more common.
Lens Rentals did a teardown of the 35mm F1.4L II and found that it was one of the most impressively engineered lenses they had seen at that point. To my knowledge a similar project has not been undertaken with the new VCM lens, but I suspect it too has an excellent level of build. That starts with an extremely robust level of weather sealing.
I count at least 12 seal points in that design, and there is also fluorine coatings on both the front and rear elements to help to protect those elements and make them easier to clean. The rear gasket is nice and thick, which always feels a bit reassuring to me.
I’ve seen some angst over some “clunking” in the lens if you tip it up and down, but this is nothing to worry about. I’ve reviewed (and owned) a number of lenses with floating elements, and they actually tend to be employed in higher end, more expensive lenses because this design isn’t cheap. Floating elements allow for better performance, particularly up close. You’ll find that the “clunking” or sense of movement in the lens immediately goes away when the lens is attached to the camera and the camera is powered on. Those elements become energized and ready for use. This is nothing new, by the way, as floating elements were first used in the late 1960s and have already been used in the acclaimed RF 50mm F1.2L and 85mm F1.2L lenses amongst other EF and RF lenses. I feel like people may be jumping on this with the 35L VCM largely because there’s somewhat of a negative vibe surrounding the lens.
I’m less sanguine about Canon’s odd implementation of the aperture ring. This is, (I believe), the first Canon RF prime lens to receive an aperture ring (and the second lens after the 24-105mm F2.8L IS to have one). Canon says that this is “…the latest L-Series hybrid lens featuring an iris ring for manual iris control during video capture.” Note that final phrase? “During video capture”. That’s right – for most Canon cameras, the aperture ring will only work during video mode, not stills. But, to further complicate things, a Canon rep has indicated that the aperture ring will work for stills on the EOS R5 Mark II and EOS R1 and, in theory, other future cameras. I actually find this a little frustrating, as it feels like Canon is not being strategic but rather making things up as they go. It feels a lot like their early explanations for why in-body-image-stabilization was unnecessary, and lens based stabilization was so much better. But then they switched that up and started putting IBIS in their second generation cameras. You’ll note that this is not the RF 35mm F1.4L IS!
Perhaps the aperture ring behavior can be fixed via future firmware updates, but as things stand on my Canon EOS R5, the aperture ring does nothing when capturing stills. You can turn it all day and it does nothing. In video mode it works as a declicked aperture for doing aperture racking, and, to its credit, input lag is very low, allowing you to achieve near real-time changes from what you do on the aperture ring to what happens to the aperture iris itself.
There is an iris lock that can be employed to either keep you in the manual aperture ring or in the Automatic mode beyond. Even this implementation is a bit odd, as the spring loaded lock design requires you to hold it in place while you rotate the ring either into or out of the manual aperture section. It’s actually not a very easy one handed operation.
The aperture iris itself has 11 rounded blades (like the Sony GM lens) and maintains a nicely circular shape.
Further confusing the issue is my typical setup for the Canon control ring (located at the front of the lens on the 35L VCM), as I typically assign manual aperture control to the control ring. So, when shooting stills, the control ring is my aperture ring. But when I switch to video, the camera defaults to the aperture ring on the 35L VCM, and suddenly the control ring no longer controls the aperture. That just creates muscle memory confusion, as you are very likely to reach for the wrong ring. The only way to avoid having to switch back and forth is to lock the aperture ring in A (automatic) mode, and then the control ring will continue to function to control aperture in video mode. But then, of course, you are basically pretending like the manual aperture ring isn’t there at all! Put simply, I’ve never seen such a confused implementation of an aperture ring in all of my years of lens review, and I’m left scratching my head as to why all of this was necessary.
The control ring itself remains a strong Canon RF feature, and this multipurpose ring can be programmed to a variety of different functions from the within the camera body. It has the typical diamond pattern grip on it that gives it a different tactile feel from other rings.
The manual focus ring is the largest of the three rings, and occupies a good portion of the central housing. An AF | MF switch is to the right of the ring and allows you direct control between the two options. The manual focus ring itself moves smoothly, though I do feel like there is a bit of input lag as it feels focus is just a split-second behind my movements on the focus ring. Focus input is non-linear, which means that it will be speed dependent. Turn the ring fast, and focus will move further; move it slowly, and focus will take a larger rotation to travel the same distance.
The 35L VCM does have a custom/programmable button that can be assigned a value from within the camera. There’s a broad range of functions you can choose from.
While my loaner copy did not include it (non retail packaging), the lens does ship with a attachable rear filter holder. This is for very thin gel filters only, and probably won’t get much use for most people.
The petal-shaped lens hood itself is fairly deep and robust. It has inner ribs and a locking button to ensure it doesn’t get inadvertently knocked. You can see from the photo below that it is probably 40% longer than the hood that comes with the Sony GM lens.
A typical L-series leatherette pouch is included. I prefer the nylon padded cases included with some other brands lenses, as I don’t feel like the L-series pouches have much protection value for transport.
The build quality feels pretty much like a standard L-series lens. There’s an engineered plastic housing over metal internal parts. It has a matt finish with fine flocking with a few platinum colored accent rings that marry nicely to the similar color on the lens mount of the camera, (and, of course that all important red ring near the front!). My experience is that this finish is resistant to scratches and marks. It feels tough and durable, and I’ve personally had Canon L-series lenses that I’ve used for a decade without issues.
As noted earlier, there is no lens-based stabilization (an area of differentiation from the earlier RF 35mm F1.8 IS), and you’ll have to rely on camera based stabilization if your camera is so equipped.
The minimum focus distance is 28cm (11″), and the maximum magnification figure is 0.18x. This is, unfortunately, a regression from the EF 35mm F1.4L II, which could achieve a 0.21x magnification, and is even further behind the Sony 35mm F1.4 GM, which can achieve a 0.26x magnification. Here’s what the magnification looks like:
The figure isn’t impressive, but fortunately the up close performance is good. You can produce some useful and interesting close shots.
Other than a few odd design decisions, the Canon RF 35mm F1.4L VCM is about what I would expect, namely, a well built, highly functional lens. I appreciate the weight savings and the additional features, though I do wish that Canon could do a better job of implementing some of their new design elements.
Autofocus
Canon has debuted a new focus system here interestingly at the same time as Viltrox. Both have released a new VCM (Voice Coil Motor) focus system, which is similar to what Tamron calls VXD. In the case of Canon, this new VCM is also paired with a Nano USM motor at the front of the focus group to allow for very quick, very quiet autofocus.
Canon’s earlier L series primes like the 50mm F1.2L and 85mm F1.2L actually employed older Ring USM type focus systems. This was a DSLR era technology that works fine for stills but doesn’t work as well for video, and Canon is clearly all in on this being a “hybrid” lens that focuses equally if not more on the video side of things. No complaints from me, however, as this hybrid focus system works equally well for stills and video. It’s much closer to what Sony is achieving with its GM lenses than what the early Canon RF lenses were like.
That puts some action photography on the table. The lens is quick enough to keep up with action, though this sequence was challenging at times due to the fact that Nala blends so well with the autumn foliage.
I had good success in lower light with eye tracking as well.
At this stage it shouldn’t be a surprise to get well focused results from a Canon L series lens during portrait settings, and, of course, that’s exactly what I found. Even using the Canon Connect app to remotely trigger portrait shots, I could see that tracking was always on the eye, and I was able to get consistently well focused results at F1.4:
I get asked sometimes why I use myself as a subject in some of reviews for portraits. I can say with confidence that it isn’t vanity, but rather something more practical. I use myself for a portrait subject at times because A) I’m available and B) I’m free. I’m not actually a wedding or portrait photographer these days (I will do both of those things on rare occasions, but more as a favor for friends and family), so I actually usually only do portrait sessions in the process of reviewing photography gear. I’m most interested in how the gear performs for these specific applications. In this case, I was very positive about the results I got whether my subject (myself) was facing the camera or in profile.
I also had good results in a church setting as well, with good accuracy on the speaker.
I also had no problems with focusing in a strongly backlit scene. I wanted to catch the light coming though these dried wildflowers.
In short, I had zero issues with autofocus during stills capture.
Video AF
This of course is designed to be a hybrid lens, so the autofocus performance during video is equally important. One of the great advantages of a focus system like this as compared to STM (stepping motors) is that STM motors will often show those visible steps during focus pulls. USM lens have a tendency to be jumpy and not smooth during video AF. The VCM motor is perfect, allowing for very smooth, well damped pulls that move steadily from point A to point B in a linear, consistent fashion.
There is also no sound during this transitions, just smooth performance. The only negative I can point to is that there is some focus breathing. Not as bad as the Sony 35GM, however. You may have electronic focus breathing compensation available in your Canon camera if it is a newer one, though unfortunately that technology is not in my EOS R5.
Here’s a look at a frame from one of my video clips.
My hand test (where I alternately block the lens’ view of my face with my hand and then remove it) also went well so long as I gave the lens time to make its transitions. It is not tuned to jump from one subject to another, but rather to smoothly transition from one subject to another.
When gliding along during video capture from one subject to another, I got mostly smooth results with logical transitions. All in all, focus is solid here. That’s a definite strength for the lens.
Image Quality Breakdown
The RF 35L VCM is a somewhat surprising lens optically in a few ways. The EF 35mm F1.4L II had some buzz in that Canon debuted a completely new type of glass element in it. I said this in my review, “The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM’s biggest marketing buzz centered around a completely new kind of element in the optical formula which Canon calls “Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics” or BR Optics for short. This special organic material gives a greater control over reducing axial chromatic aberrations than any substance before, and is at least partially responsible for the amazing image quality.” At the time we all thought that this would almost certainly would be a part of many future optical designs, but, surprisingly, the only one that I’m aware of personally since then was the RF 85mm F1.2L. One would think that this new 35mm F1.4 would receive something similar, but the answer is surprisingly “no”.
The optical design is similar on paper (14 elements in 11 groups), but no BR Element. We do have 2 UD (Ultra-Low Dispersion) glass elements along with 2 Aspherical elements in the design. The MTF chart looks very good, but not quite as good at that for the Sony GM lens (shown second here).
Sharpness is not a problem for the 35L VCM. It is an extremely sharp lens and able to render the fine details in a way that only the best lenses do.
There is going to be plenty of sharpness for anyone, but unfortunately there is some serious controversy in other areas.
Starting with vignette and distortion. If you look at a corrected JPEG or RAW file, things don’t look too bad.
But you know something is going on behind the scenes when, in the camera, you don’t even have the option of turning lens corrections for distortion off! The image above is what I could see in the viewfinder as I lined up the test chart.
I don’t know what is going on over at Canon, but it seems like their engineers have just given up on trying to correction distortion optically. I have been shocked by how much distortion has been left in their lenses to be cleaned up by software…and that has included a number of L series lenses. If I take an uncorrected RAW into Lightroom, there is a pretty shocking amount of distortion and vignette.
That’s just weird in a 35mm lens. Sony’s 35mm F1.4 GM has almost zero distortion. The Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II had next to no distortion. This lens requires a +26 to manually correct the distortion. It also required me to nearly max out the vignette slider (+96) to get a clean end result.
That will produce radically different results in real world shots if you have corrections off. On the distortion side of things, you will definitely see a pretty wild result if corrections are turned off.
That makes this a dubious pick for interiors and architectural work.
Likewise the sheer amount of vignette is going to be noticeable as well, radically changing the “look” of images at large apertures if not corrected.
Now, to be fair, the EF 35L II also had extremely heavy vignette, though one could hope that Canon could actually get better at this over the past nine years.
But what’s the big deal? As long as things look fine after correction, no harm done, right?
The problem is that all electronic corrections come with a penalty. Correcting distortion has a negative impact on sharpness (and sometimes geometry, if the distortion is complex). Correcting vignette is like recovering shadows in that it often comes at the cost of additional noise and even some color banding. You can get away with more at lower ISO values, but take at look at this shot of a guitar in lower light (ISO 6400). In the crops below I’ve sampled the evenly colored wall behind the guitar from the center and then the lower left area above where the natural shadow begins. Look at how much rougher the noise pattern is in the area that has had to receive vignette correction.
That noise is nearly four stops worse due to the vignette correction.
But it could be worse, because if we sample the area in the upper left, where there is some shadow, we can actually see color blotchiness taking place there due to the corrections.
Put simply, that wouldn’t be the case if the lens was optically corrected rather than relying on so much electronic correction. I’ve seen this far too often from Canon in the RF era. There is so much distortion that Canon is having to designed their lenses much wider than the stated focal length so that the electronic correction can try to bring it back to a semblance of normal. Look back at how much wider the uncorrected result is on my chart as compared to the profile corrected result. In camera I had the sides of the chart aligned, but that was only because the camera would only show me the corrected result. The actual image is considerably wider so that it can be the proper focal length after correction. Canon has repeatedly touted their new RF mount and how it offers up so many new design advantages and opportunities, and yet so many of their RF wide angle lenses are worse in some of these areas than anything I ever saw on EF.
Disappointing.
Things are a little better in the fringing department. Longitudinal chromatic aberrations (LoCA) occur before and after the plane of focus, and while I see some fringing, it isn’t severe.
You can see mild amounts of fringing after the plane of focus on high contrast surfaces.
There is, however, more fringing than what was present on the EF 35L II, which is again a bit disappointing.
There is only the tiniest amount of lateral chromatic aberrations (LaCA) near the edge of the frame, certainly not enough to be noticed in real world situations.
Obviously the performance in these areas is a bit underwhelming, as this is a worse lens than the EF lenses it replaces in most all of these metrics.
But all is not lost. Things are about to get better. The Canon RF 35mm F1.4L VCM is a very sharp lens. Here’s a look at my test chart that the crops will come from.
Here are the roughly 200% F1.4 crops from across the frame. This is on the 45MP Canon EOS R5:
That’s pretty great. Even the extreme corners look fairly good. Even landscape shots at F1.4 look crisp and high detail, and in this crop from the plane of focus you can see that the resolution is consistently good right off to the edge of the frame.
Here’s a closer distance shot that shows great detail and very nice delineation of the little frost crystals on the edge of this autumn leaf.
Obviously there is no lack of contrast and detail for portrait work even at F1.4, which is clearly going to be one of the major strengths of this lens.
35mm F1.4 lenses are fantastic for doing environmental portraits or wedding work, and I think this lens will shine for that.
Stopping down to F2 produces a bit more contrast and detail.
There’s a bit more at F2.8, and more to see at F4, which looks extremely sharp even in the corner (upper left shown here).
At landscape apertures (F4-F8), the lens is sharp from corners to corners.
Things stay that sharp through F8, with a little drop-off at F11, and more obvious softening due to diffraction at F16, which is minimum aperture.
So sharpness is great.
The EF 35mm F1.4L II was exceptional not only because it was sharp, however, but because it had great bokeh and rendering (something I also feel about the Sony FE 35mm F1.4 GM, which was the lens that allowed me to let go of the 35LII).
I’m not convinced the rendering is quite as magical here, but I do like the look of images overall. You will get the typical cat eye type deformation in the shape of specular highlights near the edge of the frame.
Stop down to F2, and the geometry looks considerably better.
Get close and the amount of background defocus is fairly strong.
Move back a little, however, and I find a little more hard edges than what I would prefer.
Some of the resulting bokeh in busier settings can look a bit “nervous” or jittery”, as shown here.
I did shoot a number of different direct comparisons with the GM lens, and I did consistently prefer the bokeh from the Sony. The bokeh is softer and creamier and with less hard edges.
I have to say I’m a little disappointed in this aspect of performance, particularly since I really did love the rendering from the EF lens.
One area where I was critical of the EF lens was when it came to flare resistance. I was surprised by the amount of ghosting I saw from such an expensive lens that was optically strong in other areas. I’m also a little surprised here, as there is definitely more ghosting and veiling present that I would have expected. The lens has Canon’s Air Sphere (ASC) Coatings, but unfortunately those don’t stop some issues at both large and small apertures.
One final area of strength is a common one for a Canon lens – great color. I liked the colors produced by the 35L VCM in the various scenarios I shot it in.
Colors are nicely saturated but without being garish. It’s nice optical glass.
All in all, this lens surprised me a bit. I went in expecting it to be great thanks to the exceptional heritage it has…and I don’t feel like this is a great lens. It is a very sharp, yes, but it actually has a surprisingly long list of optical weaknesses, particularly for a 35mm prime lens that costs $1500 USD. I do like this lens in many ways, but I’m not sure it would make my top 5 list for 35mm lenses. I feel bad because I genuinely wanted to love this lens, particularly since I feel like I’ve given a lot of Canon lenses fairly critical reviews over the past few years, and for many of the early years as a photographer and reviewer I was solely a Canon man. But my job is let the proverbial chips fall where they may. This is a unquestionably a very good lens, but it doesn’t quite feel like the lens we should have gotten. You can see more images in the gallery here.
Conclusion
The Canon RF 35mm F1.4L VCM is a rather complicated lens, and it has already become clear that it will be somewhat polarizing. Whereas the typical rating for first party lenses like this on most retail sites will be 4.5 out of 5 stars or higher, already the reviews for the 35L VCM are much more mixed. Even on Canon USA’s storefront, the rating for the lens is under 4 stars, which is extremely rare. As I’ve read the feedback from early adopters, I find that there are those who ardently defend it and feel like those critical of the lens are being unfair, while others are severely disappointed because they wanted to love the lens but feel like its flaws are unacceptable. The EF 35L II that I personally loved currently sits at 5 out of 5 stars on B&H Photo; the new RF 35L has 3.8 stars, with 15 5-star ratings, 9 4-star ratings, 2 3-star ratings, 3 2-star ratings, and 5 1-star ratings. As I said, polarizing.
But don’t let that discourage you, necessarily, as there are a number of people who are delighted with the lens. Yes, the argument that a lens this expensive shouldn’t need to rely on software corrections is valid, though, at the end of the day, if you’re happy with the end results, does that really matter? I personally was a little frustrated that the aperture ring doesn’t work during stills on my R5, but I’ve long had the control ring on RF lenses work as an aperture ring anyway, so I really wasn’t any further behind than I was with any other Canon lens.
Autofocus in particularly stands out to me as being exceptional in this lens. This is definitely the fastest focusing of the big L series primes that I’ve reviewed on RF thus far. Autofocus is near instantaneous in all situations, and the ability to keep up with fast action gives this lens further value for sports, reportage, and even in critical wedding situations. I don’t really understand Canon’s logic in this mirrorless phase, but I’m glad that the Canon RF 35mm F1.4L VCM exists nonetheless, as it fills a definite need on the platform. Let’s just hope that by the time we get to a MK II version down the road all of this ambiguity will be gone.
Pros:
Over 30% lighter than the EF lens
Great build with additional features
Advanced weather sealing
Very fast and confident autofocus
Exceptional video AF performance
Extremely sharp
Good contrast
Good color
Cheaper than the EF lens by a good margin
Cons:
A shocking amount of distortion for a 35mm lens
Very heavy vignette
Very confusion implementation of an aperture ring
Some flare issues
Bokeh and rendering isn’t at the level of the EF 35L II
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM is a cheap and lightweight kit lens for the Canon EOS R10, R50, R100, and future budget mirrorless cameras. It follows in the trend set by the similar EF-M 15-45mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM (now discontinued), though that lens had a slightly advantage in focal length (15mm vs 18mm on the wide end) and a slightly faster maximum aperture of F3.5 vs F4.5 on the wide end. The new RF lens also has a few improvements, however, like better autofocus and better image stabilization. MSRP is $299 for the lens alone or just $120 in kit. The RF-S 18-45mm has a few optical flaws, but also provides good autofocus, good sharpness, and has an image stabilizer for those cameras that lack IBIS (in body image stabilization) like the EOS R50 that I tested it on. Is it worth getting? You can get my findings in the video review here, or keep reading.
Thanks to Camera Canada for sending me a review copy of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.*I have done the majority of these tests on the 24MP Canon EOS R50.
Kit lenses need to be jack-of-all-trades, as they will sometimes be the only lens that a person owns. They will typically cover moderately wide (18mm here, or the full frame equivalent of 29mm due to Canon’s 1.6x crop factor) to telephoto (45mm, or the full frame equivalent of 72mm). The RF-S 18-45mm has lens based stabilization (IS), which is important considering that the EOS R50 that I tested it on doesn’t have camera based stabilization. That helps considerably when shooting handheld video and moderately helps to make up for the very slow maximum aperture values available here.
18-21mm = F4.5
22-30mm = F5
31-36mm = F5.6
37-45mm = F6.3
If you don’t understand what all of this aperture talk means, just know that this is a lens that is going to do best when there is plenty of light. You might want to supplement this lens with a prime lens with a faster maximum aperture. In decent lighting conditions this lens can make beautiful images.
But is this the best option for you? Dive into the details with me and let’s find out.
Build and Handling
This isn’t a very large zoom range (2.5x), but it does allow enough flexibility to significantly change the framing on a scene. You can go from this at 18mm:
to this at 45mm:
That’s undoubtedly useful, though if you want versatility of zoom range, you should probably consider the much more flexible RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM that I reviewed here. It is larger and more expensive, but that extra 105mm means that you might never need to take the lens off the camera! The biggest reason to choose the RF-S 18-45mm seems to be size and weight. The RF-S 18-45mm is just 68.9mm in diameter (2.7″) and is 44.3mm (1.7″) in length. It weighs 130g (4.6oz). Canon’s RF mount has an extremely large diameter for APS-C, so the mount of most of these new RF-S lenses really flares out to accommodate the size of the mount. It gives a slightly odd profile to the RF-S lenses that I don’t particularly like.
Canon did a great job with the EF-M lenses (and cameras) in giving them some style and a slightly premium feel, but that philosophy does not carry on to the RF-S lenses. This is an extremely “plasticky” feeling lens, and is one of the very rare modern lenses that has a plastic lens mount (I basically only see them on cheap Canon lenses).
The RF-S 18-45mm achieves its smaller size in part by being a retractable zoom. It is less than 45mm for storage, but is unusable in that form.
On screen will be a warning to “Set the lens to the shooting position”, as the lens is incapable of proper focus in the retracted position.
While doing a bit of research on the Canon site I found that the most negative reviews were from people who saw this screen but didn’t know what it meant. They were unable to take photos with their new lens and were very frustrated. And, to be fair, if you aren’t familiar with retractable zooms you will be surprised by how much force it takes to twist the zoom ring (that feels like it is locked) into the 18mm shooting position. It isn’t a very refined process.
The inner barrel will extend a significant amount (almost 27mm) to achieve the 18mm shooting position. Once extended, this is a “rocker” style zoom that is longest at 18mm, shortest near 28mm, then extends back out at 45mm, though not as far as at 18mm. I don’t love rocker type zoom action.
There are two rings on the lens. The larger is the zoom ring. It moves okay (though not as nicely as I would like when making fine zooming motions), but the action to either retract the lens or extend it from retraction feels clunky. The second ring is the control ring.
The two rings are close together, but the unique diamond texture of Canon’s control rings helps set it apart by feel. It’s a consistent touch on Canon’s lenses that I enjoy.
The control ring can serve as a control point whose function can be assigned from within the camera. It could be an aperture ring, Exposure Compensation, or any number of other things, though the default function here is as a manual focus ring. The manual focus action is lighter than what I would like and doesn’t have the precision of the similar ring on the RF 24-50mm that I tested at the same time.
Also unlike the RF 24-50mm is a completely lack of buttons on the side of the lens. You’ll have to control AF/MF switching from within the camera body.
The lens has a matte finish with a few platinum colored accent rings that marry nicely to the similar color on the lens mount of the camera.
As is standard for Canon’s non L-series lenses, the lens hood is not included and there is no weather sealing. It’s an increasingly non-competitive policy when lenses that cost less than $100 regularly come with lens hoods. The Canon spec EW-53 lens hood is a $29 accessory, which is ridiculous when it costs pennies to produce. Here’s a link to a $10 Vello hood instead.
The aperture iris has 7 rounded blades and does a reasonable job of maintaining a circular shape as the lens is stopped down.
Up front we have a common 49mm front filter thread.
The highest magnification here comes on the telephoto end where it can focus as closely as 45cm (11.8″) and produces a 0.16x magnification. You can manually focus closer, however, and by doing so increase the magnification as high as 0.26x as shown here.
That’s a more useful figure, though you can see that at this focus distance contrast is pretty strongly reduced.
The IS (Image Stabilization) system here is rated for 4 stops of assistance and up to 6 stops when used in conjunction with a camera equipped with IBIS. I primarily tested it on the Canon EOS R50 (no IBIS), and found that I was able to get stable handheld video footage along with some assistance with handholding lower shutter speeds for stills, though I find there’s always a practical limit to how long you can go before you get some shake.
The build and handling here are largely what I would expect. It’s an inexpensive lens that feels rather cheap, but gets the job done. Canon’s typical cost cutting measures with their non-L lenses are annoying, but nothing that is unique to this particular lens.
Autofocus and Video
Canon utilizes a lead-screw type STM (stepping motor) here, and it is a pretty solid implementation. Autofocus speed is quick and (mostly) quiet, with some minor whines during major focus changes. I heard little noise for stills, but did hear a bit more of the whine when doing video focus pulls.
I found that my focus speed was fairly snappy, though my indoors test revealed a completely unnecessary defocus between two focus subjects that slowed focus a bit. I didn’t see that issue outside in better light. Very low lighting conditions will slow focus down a bit further, though Canon’s robust AF systems in their cameras do a reasonable job of covering for the lens and its low light gathering potential.
Focus accuracy was good. I shot some images of Nala rolling around, and each of the photos was accurately focused.
This shot of spring buds also shows accurate focus even as the branches waved around in the breeze.
I really liked the focus motor’s performance during my focus pulls. There was a high degree of confidence, and rather than snapping back and forth the focus pulls are smooth and well damped. I would say that this lens is perhaps more useful for video than it is for stills in many ways.
This is a lens that would work well as a gimbal lens. It’s small, lightweight, focuses well, and could work for gimbals or vlogging.
My hand test (where I alternately block the lens’ view of my face with my hand and then remove it) also went well so long as I gave the lens time to make its more sedate transitions. Focus breathing is fairly minimal.
All in all, focus is solid here. That’s a definite strength for the lens.
Image Quality Breakdown
The RF-S 18-45mm sports a simple optical formula of 7 elements in 7 groups, and this includes two aspherical elements. Canon has shown a tendency to rely more on electronic rather than optical corrections in a number of their wide angle lenses, and we’ll see that unfortunate trend continue here.
In optimal conditions the RF-S is capable of producing nice looking images, though it isn’t very flexible around the edges because of its design limitations.
Starting with vignette and distortion. If you look at a corrected JPEG or RAW file, things don’t look too bad at 18mm.
But, as I mentioned, this is almost exclusively electronic correction. Here is what the uncorrected image looks like:
Now fortunately this isn’t nearly as bad as the extremes I saw on the RF 24-50mm, but you can see that once again Canon has had to leave a lot of extra room to allow for the distortion to be corrected. There is so much distortion that Canon is having to design their lenses much wider than the stated focal length so that the electronic correction can try to bring it back to a semblance of normal. If I manually correct the distortion to test the amount present, I had to use a +35 to correct it all. I then would have to crop even further to get to the framing that I had on screen (I framed with the outside lines of the test chart up against the edges of the frame on the LCD).
I had to be fairly aggressive with the vignette slider as well, as it took a +83 to correct the vignette, or about 3 stops in the corners. Fortunately the corrections are much more minimal as you move through the zoom range, with far less vignette and distortion to correct for.
In camera or in Canon DPP software you don’t even have the option of disabling the corrections…and you can see why. Software is doing a LOT of the heavy lifting here…and maybe you care about that, or maybe you don’t.
Longitudinal chromatic aberrations (LoCA) are less common on a lens with such a small maximum aperture, but I can see some green fringing if I work to shoot for it.
Likewise there is some lateral chromatic aberrations (LaCA) near the edge of the frame, but nothing that can’t be easily fixed by corrections.
So how about resolution and contrast? I’ve tested this lens on the 24 MP EOS R50 that it came in kit with. Here’s the test chart:
You will note that the test chart looks a little “dingy” despite profile corrections. Those correction profiles can’t hide the fact image quality is less than pristine here.
Here are the roughly 200% crops from across the frame at 18mm, F4.5.
Resolution looks good in the center and mid-frame, but there is some obvious softening in the corners. The copy I tested showed good centering and consistent results on both sides.
Stopping down to F5.6 and F8 does show some improvement across much of the frame, but the corners never really sharpen up too much, though they do brighten due to some improved contrast and reduced vignette.
Real world landscape images at F5.6 and F8 look fine, though the corners aren’t fantastic.
F11 looks largely the same, but after F11 the image will slightly soften due to the effects of diffraction. Expect this impact to be much higher if you use a higher resolution camera like the EOS R7.
Things are slightly improved at 24mm. The center and midframe don’t look much different, but the corners are much better.
There’s a slight bit more total improvement as you stop the lens down at 24mm, with a practical limit hit by F8.
35mm is fairly similar, though the corners have regressed again. I found the best corner results came at F11, which look okay but not pin sharp.
45mm is a little softer than 35mm, and the fact that maximum aperture is now F6.3 means that it gets harder to stop the lens down to achieve more sharpness. It’s one thing if slow lenses like this are razer sharp wide open, but another altogether if they aren’t particularly sharp. F8 was about as good as I saw, but it wasn’t fantastic.
In optimal lighting, however, real world images looked pretty good.
This real world shot of Nala also looked pretty crisp.
Obviously the corners largely leave me wanting, but for the money this lens isn’t too bad in terms of sharpness.
Flare resistance was pretty good. I shot into the sun a number of times and never saw too much damage on than a little sun spot in the lower left corner of this image.
I had fairly low expectations for bokeh with a lens like this. It has little capacity for producing much subject separation, as the maximum aperture is small, the minimum focus distance is fairly long, and the maximum focal length is only 45mm. That leaves quite a bit in focus at all times, and even being just a few feet away from this boat and shooting at 45mm, F6.3, you can see that nothing is strongly out of focus.
If you can get right on top of your subject and background is reasonably far away, you can produce a bit of blur.
There isn’t really anything that stands out about the optical performance here other than the strong vignette and distortion, but it is very rare when a kit lens like this impresses. It is the definition of “jack of all trades, master of none.”
Conclusion
The Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM serves a specific purpose, namely to provide a small, lightweight, inexpensive lens for people to add to their new mirrorless camera so that they have a lens to actually take pictures with. There will be plenty of people who buy an R100 or R50 and never buy another lens other than this one, not realizing that these days a lens is more likely to hold a camera back than the other way around. This is the kind of lens that can take pretty decent images in optimal situations, but doesn’t really bring much in terms of optical excellent to the table.
The RF-S 18-45mm has pretty good autofocus, a useful image stabilizer, and might make the most sense as a lightweight video lens for handheld video, or, better still, use on a gimbal.
But if you are interested in a one lens solution, it might make more sense to save your money and invest in the Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM lens, as it provides much more versatility. And yes, it is larger, but at 310g it is still reasonably light. The retractable zoom style of the RF-S 18-45mm makes the most sense for the person who wants to be able to carry their camera in some kind of small case (a fanny pack style case, for example), and they need as small of a profile as possible. But unless you fit the scenarios I’ve described, you can certainly choose better optical instruments for your camera.
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM is a cheap and lightweight kit lens for the Canon EOS R10, R50, R100, and future budget mirrorless cameras. It follows in the trend set by the similar EF-M 15-45mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM (now discontinued), though that lens had a slightly advantage in focal length (15mm vs 18mm on the wide end) and a slightly faster maximum aperture of F3.5 vs F4.5 on the wide end. The new RF lens also has a few improvements, however, like better autofocus and better image stabilization. MSRP is $299 for the lens alone or just $120 in kit. The RF-S 18-45mm has a few optical flaws, but also provides good autofocus, good sharpness, and has an image stabilizer for those cameras that lack IBIS (in body image stabilization) like the EOS R50 that I tested it on. Is it worth getting? You can get my findings in the video review below or by reading the text review here…or just enjoy the photos below.
Thanks to Camera Canada for sending me a review copy of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.*I have done the majority of these tests on the 24MP Canon EOS R50.
Kit lenses need to be jack-of-all-trades, as they will sometimes be the only lens that a person owns. They will typically cover moderately wide (18mm here, or the full frame equivalent of 29mm due to Canon’s 1.6x crop factor) to telephoto (45mm, or the full frame equivalent of 72mm). The RF-S 18-45mm has lens based stabilization (IS), which is important considering that the EOS R50 that I tested it on doesn’t have camera based stabilization. That helps considerably when shooting handheld video and moderately helps to make up for the very slow maximum aperture values available here.
18-21mm = F4.5
22-30mm = F5
31-36mm = F5.6
37-45mm = F6.3
If you don’t understand what all of this aperture talk means, just know that this is a lens that is going to do best when there is plenty of light. You might want to supplement this lens with a prime lens with a faster maximum aperture. In decent lighting conditions this lens can make beautiful images.
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Canon’s initial mirrorless camera (the EOS M) arrived with a bit of a thud. It arrived at an MSRP of $799, and at that more premium pricing, the focus was more on the flaws than the strengths. So Canon dramatically slashed prices, and I bought in back in 2013 by getting a kit that included the EF-M 22mm F2, a little flash, and the camera…all for just $299 USD. That obviously made things much more attractive, and my review reflected that. I developed a lot of affection for the extremely compact EOS M (particularly with that equally compact 22mm F2 lens attached, and I got a lot of great pictures with it. I later upgraded to the EOS M3 in 2015 (my review here), and then reviewed the EOS M5 in 2017. When my daughter wanted a camera, we bought her the EOS M5. But my interest in the EOS M system waned because Canon just didn’t support it. In the essentially 10 years of the EOS M’s existence, Canon released a grand total of 8!!! lenses for it, with three of those lenses being variations of slow, boring kit lenses. Three prime lenses (only one being faster than F2), one macro lens, one wide angle zoom, and one telephoto zoom. The only thing that saved the platform was that it did have some third party support, with some Sigma and Viltrox autofocus prime lenses (3 each), a Tamron autofocus zoom, and then a large number of manual focus lenses from a variety of manufacturers. The EOS M cameras could also use any EF/EF-S lenses via adapter, which also helped, though using an adapter all of the time definitely gets old.
The last M body was released in 2020, and Canon has now officially discontinued the system and is all in on their RF mount instead, which unlike EF-M mount, started with full frame and has started trickling backwards into APS-C (starting in 2022) The Canon EOS R50 (being reviewed today), is the most recent budget RF-mount APS-C camera, coming to market with an MSRP $679 USD for the camera only or in kit with the RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM for $799 USD. Both of those prices are discounted by $100 at the time of this review. The transition from EF-M to RF brings both good and bad, and we’ll explore those realities in this review. If you prefer to watch your reviews, check out my video review here.
Thanks to Camera Canada for sending me a review loaner of this camera. They have become my go-to retailer for my own purchases here in Canada. As always, this is a completely independent review, and the thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own.
The strengths of the transition to the RF mount are obvious; essentially all of Canon’s development in in the RF mount space. We haven’t seen anything new in anything with “EF” in it’s name from Canon for a long time (EF, EF-S, or EF-M). There’s a much better chance of support for the EOS R50 because of the R in its name. Canon is nailing things like autofocus in their cameras, with amazingly robust and useful autofocus systems even in these budget cameras.
But the transition to R also comes with Canon’s current policies, which means that all third party autofocus development for the platform is currently forbidden. On EF-M we had Sigma, Tamron, and Viltrox lenses; we have none of those on RF. And thus far in the first two years of APS-C RF-mount cameras we have the same problem we encountered with EF-M: a complete lack of lens development. If I go to the Canon site in April 2024 and look at the RF-S lenses available, here’s what I get:
Four lenses. Two kit lenses, one slow telephoto zoom, and one slow wide angle zoom. Three of the four have a maximum aperture of F6.3 on the telephoto end, the other has a maximum aperture of F7.1 on the telephoto end! Forgive me if I have a hard time getting excited over that lens selection. I reviewed the RF-S 18-150mm back in 2022, but found that I actually liked the EF-M version better. The only lens there I find even remotely interesting is the wide angle zoom, as that tends to be something that Canon does reasonably well. This is a severe disadvantage for Canon to compete with Sony’s APS-C cameras, as while Sony has their own difficulties, there are probably nearly 100 autofocusing APS-C lenses available for Sony E-mount. I suspect the Canon EOS R50 will be a fairly popular camera based on its merits, but Canon absolutely has to be more serious about lens development for RF-S than they were with EF-M! At some point pointing to compatibility with ever older EF lenses via adapter simply isn’t going to cut it. I ended up mostly using full frame RF mount lenses during my review for the simple reason that I don’t particularly enjoy slow kit lenses.
Put simply, I’ve been more than a little frustrated by Canon’s approach to RF on a number of levels. But we will move on from that broader discussion to looks more specifically at the EOS R50, starting with a look at its basic specs.
Spec List
What’s Here:
24.2 Megapixel APS-C Canon CMOS Imaging Sensor
DIGIC X Image Processor
ISO 100-32000, Expandable up to 51200
High-Speed Continuous Shooting at up to 12 fps with the 1st Curtain Electronic Shutter and 15 fps with the Electronic Shutter (no Full Mechanical Shutter available), up to 1/8000 shutter
Excellent Dual Pixel CMOS AF system
AF Working Range of EV -4 – 20
4K UHD 30 fps with no crop (6K oversampling, 10-bit), FHD 120 fps
Coordinated IS (Optical IS and Digital Movie IS), Aspect Ratio Markers (matching social media sites)
Focus Bracketing
0.39″ (9.9mm) OLED Color EVF, 2.36 million dots
3″ Vari-Angle LCD Touchscreen with 1.62 million dots
Single UHS-I SD Memory Card Slot
Digital 2x and 4x extender (JPEG support only)
Multi-function hot shoe
Built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
RF Lens Mount, Compatible with EF/EF-S/TS-E/MP-E Lenses with Adapter
What’s Missing:
No IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilizer)
No LCD coatings
No self-cleaning imaging sensor
No Headphone Port
No Remote Port
No highlight alert during playback
Build and Features
In many ways the EOS R50 reminds me more of Canon’s SL1 and SL2 mini-DSLRs ergonomically than any of the M cameras that I’ve used or reviewed. The most recent M camera that I used was the EOS M5, and it actually had a much more robust set of physical controls than the R50 (4 control dials). The R50 makes due to with just one control dial, with the mode dial sitting in the place that a second control dial would typically occupy. This is pretty hard to accept for someone like myself who is used to shooting with professional cameras and their more robust physical controls, and sends a pretty clear picture of who Canon is making this camera for.
Not me.
No, this camera is designed to capture the crowd who want better image quality than their camera phones can provide but who aren’t interested in a lot of technicality in the process. This is a camera designed more around those who want to put the camera in auto mode and use it like a point and shoot.
I just got finished doing my review of the Canon EOS R8, and while that is also a compact, budget model (though a more expensive full frame camera), I came away having loved the user experience of the R8. I enjoyed the handling despite a few minor limitations, and found that the camera fit my hand well despite its compact nature. That’s not true of the R50. It’s too small for my hands…but not small enough to fit everywhere in the way that the EOS M was. Now, to be fair, the EOS M had basically zero grip. It was pretty much a rectangle with a bit of grip surface on the right side. The EOS R50 has much more of a grip on it, but unfortunately the low height of the camera/grip makes it to small for my fingers to fit on it (pinky had no place to go) and the shallow depth of the grip makes it difficult for me to curl my fingers around it and feel like the grip was molding to my fingers. I feel more like I’m pinching the camera than gripping it.
I went to my wife for a second opinion. She has small hands, and so I had her grip and hold the EOS R50 and shoot with it a bit (I had the RF 28mm F2.8 attached as a nice, compact prime lens to fit the size of the camera). She found the small size and balance of the R50 an asset rather than a liability; it fit her hands better than my typical cameras.
The ergonomics of this body will largely depend on the size of your hands unless having a very small camera is a priority for you otherwise.
The EOS R50 is 4.6 [W] x 3.4 [H] x 2.7″ [D], or 132.59 x 86.11 x 70.1 mm, and weighs just 13.2 oz (375g) even with the battery and memory card installed.
The primary controls come via the one control dial (on the top of the camera behind the shutter button) and the D-pad. Pressing up on the D-Pad will change the function of the control dial in certain modes (in AV mode it switches between aperture control and exposure compensation, while in Manual it switches between aperture control and shutter speed). An additional control point can be found via the control ring on all of Canon’s RF mount lenses in some form, though that implementation varies a bit from lens to lens (it might be shared as the focus ring on some lenses, for example). It’s clear that Canon was counting on people accustomed to using touchscreens being the ones to buy this camera, as the touchscreen will provide the most direct access to many controls.
Fortunately Canon’s touchscreens are very good. The back of the camera is dominated by a comparatively large 3” articulating LCD touchscreen with a 1.62 million dot resolution. This is a very nice LCD for this class, and both the resolution and the responsiveness are very nice. Canon’s menu design is the friendliest of the brands I test to navigate by touch.
The first layer to the menus whenever you switch modes is to a simple visual representation of how the mode operates, reminding you that this camera is designed for people who might not be familiar with how cameras operate.
Unlike Canon’s higher end model, there is no main switch between video and stills setups. Video mode is just another mode on the main mode dial that sits on top of the camera. There are no custom modes on the top dial but rather an additional automatic mode that is nod towards the intended audience of the camera. There’s even a Hybrid Auto mode that captures a movie 2-4 seconds before the photo is taken, giving you something akin to Apple’s Live Photos on iPhones.
Also on top is a small video record button, a tiny, recessed ISO button, and then the shutter and the ON/OFF lever.
The front of the camera just has the lens release. There are no custom buttons there. Unlike their more expensive models, there is no option to have the shutter blades come down when the camera is powered off to protect the sensor from dust. There also isn’t auto cleaning for the sensor, so having a good blower might come in handy.
There is a Canon-standard set of buttons present on the back of the camera, most all of which can be customized to different functions. Everything is pretty much in the place I’ve come to expect on a compact Canon camera. These buttons are pretty small and quite flush, so expect them to be a little difficult to find and operate if you happen to be wearing gloves.
The viewfinder is an OLED electronic viewfinder with a 2.36 million dot resolution. It’s only 0.39″ in size, so not overly engaging, and has a magnification level of 0.96x. Pretty standard stuff.
The diopter for adjusting for your eyesight is underneath the viewfinder but is very difficult to adjust (it is quite flush and tends to make big rather than subtle adjustments).
There is a small flash on top of the viewfinder stack, though I couldn’t find any kind of guide rating for it. I would avoid using the flash whenever possible, as an on-camera flash like this rarely produces flattering results.
The ports on the EOS R50 are divided between the left and right sides of the camera. These ports unfortunately continue the trend of having flaps (hard to keep out of the way) instead of doors that can be smoothly opened (and left open when desired). On the left side there is a single port for a 3.5mm microphone end to plugged into the jack.
On the right side of the camera rests a USB Type-C port for communication along with a micro-HDMI video out. That latter is a Canon standard and is rarely anyone’s favorite for the simple reason that micro-HDMI is more flimsy than larger HDMI ports. The micro-HDMI is a bit more justified here because of the extremely small nature of the camera. You can charge the camera via the USB-C port, though you’ll need a power bank with the appropriate power delivery (PD) standard. The hot-shoe on top allows you to connect certain microphones and get digital audio through it. The most obvious missing features here are a headphone monitoring jack along with a remote shutter release port.
The lone memory card slot is unfortunately in the undesirable position of being down in the battery compartment. We have a single SD/SDHC/SDXC slot that is unfortunately of the slower UHS-I variety (which definitely contributes to the very shallow buffer that we’ll discuss in a moment). The card position isn’t surprising, per se, but certainly not welcome, either. I hate this position, myself, as it leaves you with two unpalatable choices with the memory card out. One is put the camera on it’s side to leave the battery door open. The other is to close it so that you can put the camera down normally, but then you run the risk of forgetting that the memory card is not inserted back in the camera, which can be disastrous if you are arrive on site to shoot only to realize there is no card in the camera.
The battery is the LP-E17 battery pack that has a capacity of 1040mAh. This isn’t a particularly large battery, though the rating here is much better than what I saw for the same battery pack on the EOS R8. It is rated The rating is 440 shots when using the LCD screen, though that rating drops to 310 shots when using the viewfinder. I’ve always found it a little odd that the tiny viewfinder uses more power than the much larger LCD screen! As with most Canon battery packs, it isn’t hard to exceed the rating and get more shots per charge, though I would definitely recommend buying a spare or two…particularly if you plan on shooting 4K video, which can burn through a charge pretty quickly.
The shutter is interesting, as there isn’t a fully mechanical shutter option, but rather an electronic first curtain mechanical option along with a fully electronic shutter option. The former has a shutter speed limit of 1/4000th second (and a surprisingly robust 12FPS burst rate) while the latter gives an upper limit of 1/8000th of a second and unlocks a slightly faster burst rate of 15FPS. The electronic shutter will just make a very quiet electronic click without a typical shutter sound, though you can engage a fully silent option. The EOS R50 will not have the ultrafast readout of a camera designed purely around an electronic shutter (like the EOS R3, for example), so there are some penalties for using the electronic shutter here. You can’t use it with a flash (no sync is available), can’t engage anti-flicker mode, and sometimes fast moving action might be distorted a bit (rolling shutter). Canon also uses 12bit A/D conversion with the electronic shutter rather than 14bit with the EFC shutter, but you probably won’t notice the difference.
Bottom line – the EFC option is more flexible and produces slightly better image quality, but it is much slower and has maximum shutter speed of 1/4000th. It gives you a very decent 1/250th flash sync speed. The electronic option unlocks much faster burst rates and a higher shutter speed limit, but has other limitations. Choose appropriately to your situation.
The EOS R50 does have some decent communication options including wireless LAN and Bluetooth 4.2.
The EOS R50 has bit of “plasticky” feeling to it, which is a bit surprising after the EOS M cameras that were largely made of magnesium alloy just like Canon’s bigger cameras. Again, I’m reminded more of the SL2 than the M5. You have the black option reviewed here, but also a white and grey version as well. There is no mention by Canon of any weather sealing in the body, so be careful in the rain.
Missing here is IBIS (in body image stabilization). That’s not unusual in a budget model like this, however. While there are a number of Canon lenses that do have lens based stabilization, about a third of them do not, and that number includes a number of the small, light primes that actually suit this camera (RF 16mm F2.8, 28mm F2.8, and 50mm F1.8).
There is a “Digital IS” available (for movie mode only), though this is a digital correction and will come at the cost of a crop of your video and won’t be as effective as an actual optical stabilizer.
The “kit lens” for the Canon EOS R50 is the Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM and does have lens based stabilization, though the lens is not particularly good.
Every company makes a series of choices about what compromises to make in their lower-priced options. The EOS R50 has the typical mix of questionable omissions and surprising inclusions. If small is your goal, then the R50 is a winner. It’s downright tiny compared to the compact EOS R8:
Autofocus Performance
The place you’ll see the biggest upgrade over any EOS M camera is when it comes to the autofocus system. Canon has really nailed mirrorless autofocus over time, and the EOS R50 inherits that success. The EOS R50 utilizes Canon’s Dual Pixel CMOS AF focus system which covers approximately 100% x 100% of the picture area, with up to 651 automatically-selected AF zones utilized during Whole Area AF. Bottom line is that you can compose your shot basically anywhere with impunity, and the camera will also track all across the frame, making it easy to stop action even when your subject gets close to the camera.
Available subject detection modes include People, Animals, and Vehicles, though Canon offers an “auto” mode for subject tracking that I really appreciate, as I have sometimes gotten less than excellent results on Sony or Fuji if I don’t have the right subject selected. I also really enjoy how engaging Canon’s tracking is. It is very clear on the screen what is being tracked.
Canon’s Whole Area AF works so well that you rarely need to resort to a more “precise” manual area control. On the rare occasion that the AF doesn’t grab what you want, simply touch the screen on the area you want to be in focus, and a smaller tracking box will lock over that.
It was very impressive to be using such a small camera and yet to have great subject tracking. I used the camera in an event setting and watched focus lock accurately onto the speaker every time and move with them as they moved around.
I used the R50 as a part of a portrait session where I used both the Samyang AF 85mm F1.4 (one of the early “forbidden” AF lenses released in Canon RF mount before Canon shut it down) alongside the Canon RF 28mm F2.8 STM. I got very good focus results from both lenses.
Focus sensitivity is fairly good, with focus system able to focus down to a -4 EV (which is quite dark), though that figure will vary depending on the maximum aperture available on the lens mounted. A lens with a very bright aperture (like the F1.2 lenses) gives the autofocus system the potential of much more light to work with than a lens with a dimmer aperture. Even with slower lenses, however, I was able to lock focus fairly quickly in very dim conditions.
Video mode uses the same basic AF system, though with slightly few AF zones (527 vs 651 for stills) and slightly less sensitivity (-3.5 vs -4). I also noted when doing some video work that Canon’s intelligent tracking works very well. If you click on a subject and select it you can easily move around the scene while keeping focus on the desired location.
The EOS R50 has very respectable burst rates of 12FPS with the EFCs and 15FPS with the electronic shutter, but those results are severely compromised by the slow UHS-1 card slot and low amount of RAM in the camera. Even with JPEGs you will see a maximum of 42 images at the slower burst rate and just 28 with the electronic shutter. The rating for RAW files with either shutter is…7 (half a second’s worth!), though that number will boost to 15 if you shoot the CRAW (compressed RAW) format. Ouch.
That shallow buffer is definitely going to be an issue if you want to capture action. You will encounter that frame limit almost immediately if you are shooting full RAW, and even with the very slightly higher buffer of CRAW, there’s a good chance that your buffer will fill before you capture the full action sequence (you’ll have less than one second). I found that I would get gaps in the action because the buffer would fill, the camera would pause, and then I’d get another burst of a few frames before it paused again.
I also didn’t find tracking as flawless as what I saw on the EOS R8 that I reviewed at the same time. I used the same Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS on both lenses, and while every shot was nailed on the R8, I found that sometimes focus would shift to backfocus on the R50.
As long as you aren’t shooting too many bursts, this AF system is pretty fantastic for a little model like this. It’s a huge improvement over anything we ever saw on an EF-M camera. Getting well focused results in just about any setting is pretty much effortless. To get an AF system this good in a budget camera is, well, impressive.
Video Performance
The Canon EOS R50 doesn’t offer up many headline stats in the video department, but video recording capabilities are pretty solid. It can record 4K30 video with 6K oversampling. There is no crop factor, either – that is full sensor width. The main standout is that you have the option of shooting in HDR PQ to give higher dynamic range to the footage. Here’s a look at the various video formats available on the EOS R50 (from Canon’s “white paper” on the camera).
The maximum bitrate there is 120Mbps, and you’ll see that there aren’t really any recording limits outside of the constraints of your memory card, battery, or heating issues, though there is so little documentation given to the latter that I suspect it isn’t a major issue in this camera. Those recording times will shorten when shooting in HDR mode, however, as the bitrate for all of the formats increases.
As noted, 4K recording is limited to 30FPS, but up to 120FPS is available at Full HD (1080P) for slow-motion work. The EOS R50 does not get more advanced video features like LOG or the ability to output higher resolutions via HDMI.
The EOS R50 does have UVC/UAC compatibility which allows the camera to be used as a web camera to stream live video in Full HD without additional software. You have an option to shoot in vertical mode as well if so desired.
The vari-angle LCD is great for video, allowing you to shoot at waist height for more stability, down low on a gimbal, or front monitoring if you are in front of the camera.
I did see some obvious rolling shutter when panning with the camera while shooting movies, which does reduce the effectiveness of footage.
One final irk for me personally is that the main movie modes are restricted to full auto and/or full manual – no AV mode (my preferred format). There is a close up demo mode, but that is more about prioritizing focusing on close objects if you hold products towards the camera.
Sensor Performance
While I have reviewed other 24MP sensors from Canon, I haven’t reviewed this particular sensor before, as it was first used in the R10, a camera I haven’t reviewed. A quick look at Photons to Photos shows that in their tests this sensor does behave pretty identically to that found in the R10, and a little better than the older 24MP sensors found in cameras like the EOS M50 MK II. We’ll explore the highs and lows in this review, but, as expected, this is a camera capable of producing great results despite its compact size.
File options include RAW, CRAW, JPEG, and HEIF formats. Here’s a breakdown of the various aspect ratios and dimensions available along with the average file size for each.
Canon used to offer Medium and Small RAW options but in more recent years has elected utilize their extremely efficient CRAW (Compressed RAW) option, which is a lossless compressed file that delivers both great efficiency in terms of file size but also very high quality. It is my go-to option in my cameras, as a lot of tests over the years have demonstrated that it is near impossible to spot any differences from the full size uncompressed RAW options. So, while offering near equal quality, CRAW delivers files that are only about 54% of the size of the uncompressed RAW options. At ISO 100, for example, an uncompressed RAW file will be around 27MB, while the CRAW file is a relatively diminutive 14MP. Canon .CR3 “wrapper” is extremely efficient as well, delivering smaller file sizes in general relative to competitor’s RAW files. The EOS R50’s images generally look great – good detail and color.
I was able to get nice looking images (like the one above) even with the kit lens (18-45mm) even if I didn’t love shooting with it.
In my tests I found some expected things…and some unexpected ones.
Dynamic Range
I’ve taken to referring to the charts over at Photons to Photos as a quick reference to supplement my own tests. According to them, the dynamic range performance of the EOS R50 is essentially identical to that of the EOS R10 (which stands to reason, as this is the same basic sensor), and this sensor is slightly better than other Canon APS-C sensors in dynamic range. They rate the R50 at a maximum of 10.57 stops of dynamic range, which is slightly better than the recent EOS R7’s sensor (10.49 stops) but significantly better than the 24MP sensor in the EOS M6 MK II (10.08 stops), which was tops among the EOS M cameras. This is as good as you’re going to get out of a Canon sensor right now for dynamic range, though both Fuji and Sony are capable of slightly better results…particularly if you move beyond base ISO.
Bottom line is that this new Canon sensor is, by the numbers, a very competitive sensor for dynamic range performance. We’ll see how that bears out in real world testing.
For my tests, I establish a base exposure (neutral or correct) and then subsequently under and overexpose the image by progressive stops. I typically go as high as 4 stops of overexposure and 5 stops of underexposure as modern cameras tend to be better at recovering shadows than they do highlights. I then add or remove the appropriate stops of light in post to see how the sensor does in recovering the lost information. Here’s a look at the properly exposed image for reference:
We will examine how the colors are retained, the purity of the shadows and highlights, and how noise impacts the image.
Modern cameras are typically very good at recovering shadows. At four stops of underexposure the unrecovered photo shows deeply crushed shadows and very little of the subject visible, but the shadows are easily and cleanly recovered by adding those four stops of light back into the photo. The end result is a photo that looks largely like the original (correct) exposure…at least on a global level.
If we zoom in to a pixel level we can see that the shadows have a fair bit of noise and are more of a brown than black as a result.
Things look quite a bit rougher at 5 stops, with some green and magenta color blotches showing up in black areas, and more obvious/rough noise.
So, shadow recovery is good, but there is a limit to how far you can go without penalty. The sensor falls off more than competing sensors at higher ISO values, so here at ISO 400 (not very high!) I was surprised by how much noise I got when recovering the shadows on this image. It doesn’t look bad globally:
…but it is pretty noise at a pixel level:
How about highlights? We will now reverse the process. I’ve gradually overexposed a series of images, one stop at a time, and then attempted to recover the highlights in post. Typically you will start to see the image fall apart after a few stops in a couple of ways: 1) certain colors are lost and are not recoverable, and 2) information will be lost in blown highlights that isn’t recoverable.
At two stops the recovery (on the right) is near perfect. The color swatches all look correct and I don’t see lost information in the highlights. The color in the timer face on the left has been thoroughly recovered and looks even.
At three stops, however, the limits are slightly exceeded. You can see that in comparison to the 2 stop recovery (on the left) that the 3 stop recovery (on the right) on the right has missing color information on the timer face and some of the color swatches. Some of the texture is gone from the front of the Pentax camera.
The image is useless at four stops of overexposure, so don’t attempt that.
I found that there was sufficient real world dynamic range to allow me to recover both shadows and highlights enough to make real world results more pleasing, but I did see a bit more noise in the shadows than what I would prefer.
ISO Performance
In a perfect world we could all shoot in perfectly lit scenes, but reality dictates that sometimes we have to shoot in lower light situations. Raising the ISO always comes with some penalty, and surprisingly, the EOS R50 is a little worse in this regard than older Canon cameras with even higher resolution like the M6 MK II or the EOS R7.
I compared each stop of ISO in the standard range to the base ISO of 100. I was surprised to see a bit of increased noise even by ISO 1600.
Things are a bit rougher at 3200, and rougher still at 6400, where I’m starting to see a bit of banding.
Everything gets rougher still by ISO 12,800, and I started to see some rings forming in the shadow area. This becomes very obvious by ISO 25,600 along with a green color shift and some very rough noise.
The native ISO range extends up 32,000, but I wouldn’t bother with anything past ISO 12,800 unless you plan to convert to monochrome.
I shot the image above at ISO 25,600, and while the noise pattern is pretty rough, you don’t have to worry about color disfiguration and the lack of deep shadows kept the rings from showing up.
I saw much, much better results from the full frame EOS R8. I took the same shot at ISO 51,200 on the R8, and it looks much, much cleaner by comparison.
So far Canon has only produced slow maximum aperture zooms for the RF-S mount, and this shows the vulnerability of this approach. You have to increase the ISO more often with slow lenses, and unfortunately that takes more of a hit than what I would like on the R50.
Image Quality Summary
While I was reasonably happy with the sensor performance here, the fact of the matter is that both Sony and Fujifilm have had better APS-C sensors than this for years. Canon always get good marks for color performance, which certainly helps, even when using the cheap kit lens.
I also felt that skin tones were nicely reproduced, as per usual.
Unfortunately I don’t feel like the sensor has taken quite the leap ahead that the autofocus system has.
Conclusion
At $680 USD (currently $580 USD) the Canon EOS R50 will almost certainly sell well for Canon because it offers a reasonable amount of quality features for the very low price point. The only cheaper APS-C mirrorless camera is the Canon R100, and that camera comes without the articulating LCD screen and has an older focus system.
You’ll want to either have relatively small hands or else a strong desire for a compact camera, but, if that’s the case, you’ll enjoy having a decent viewfinder and an excellent touchscreen in such a compact camera. The autofocus system is very robust for this class of camera, which definitely ups the fun factor.
The biggest reason to hesitate on purchasing the Canon EOS R50 is the utter lack of native lenses available for it. Canon needs to demonstrate that they are going to support the RF-S mount in a way far better than their failure to support the EF-M mount. The current state of the EOS R system is that I really like and enjoying using many of the cameras, but I’m frustrated by the policies regarding lenses. There are very few mid-level lenses that offer great performance and features but without the premium pricing of Canon’s L series lenses. Unfortunately those are usually the lenses mostly produced by third party brands…and so far they are verboten. Here’s hoping that policy changes, as that will give cameras like the inexpensive EOS R50 a chance to shine.
Pros:
One of the cheapest APS-C mirrorless cameras on the market
Responsive touchscreen with good resolution
Better viewfinder position than Sony APS-C models
Very useful burst rate with either EFC or Electronic shutters
Autofocus system is the best out there at this price point
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The most common lenses on the market tend to be those we call “kit” lenses for the simple reason that these are the lenses sold in bundle with certain cameras. Canon has a few of these type lenses for different classes of cameras. That might be an L-series lens like the RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS (my review here) or the RF 24-105mm F4L IS (my review here) as a premium upgrade, the 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS as a cheaper option, or, if you go for the least expensive option, this lens, the Canon RF 24-50mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM. It’s not just about price, however, as Canon released the RF 24-50mm alongside the EOS R8 in 2023 to be a smaller, lighter kit lens for what was Canon’s smallest and lightest full frame mirrorless camera. The retail price of the RF 24-50mm is $299 USD, but the price when bundled with the R8 drops to $200. This review is designed to help you decide whether it is worth the money. You can get my findings in the video review here, or keep reading.
Thanks to Camera Canada for sending me a review copy of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.*I have done the majority of these tests on the Canon EOS R8, as this is the camera it is sold with for the moment.
Kit lenses need to be jack-of-all-trades, as they will sometimes be the only lens that a person owns. They will typically cover moderately wide (24mm here) to some kind of telephoto (a rather short 50mm, here). The 24-50mm has lens based stabilization (IS), which is important considering that the EOS R8 (or the EOS RP or EOS R) don’t have camera based stabilization. That helps considerably when shooting handheld video and moderately helps to make up for the very slow maximum aperture values available here.
24mm = F4.5
25-31mm = F5
32-38mm = F5.6
39-50mm = F6.3
In fact, the camera reported that the lens was still on 24mm when the maximum aperture closed to F5, so it isn’t even a full millimeter of zoom before you lose that maximum aperture of F4.5! Canon just BARELY avoided the aperture starting at F5. If you don’t understand what all of this aperture talk means, just know that this is a lens that is going to do best when there is plenty of light. Fortunately the EOS R8 has great high ISO performance, as you’ll often need to raise the ISO value in lower light situations when using this lens.
But frankly, this is a lens better suited to better light and brighter days. Get yourself one of Canon’s inexpensive prime lenses (like the 28mm F2.8 STM or the 50mm F1.8 STM) for those situations, and enjoy this lens for the areas where it works better.
Build and Handling
This isn’t a very large zoom range (slightly over 2x), but it does cover some important focal lengths (24, 28, 35, and 50mm). You can go from this at 24mm:
to this at 50mm:
That’s undoubtedly useful, though the question should be asked: would the Canon RF 24-105mm F4 IS STM be a better choice? It costs only $100 more and has a much bigger zoom range. The biggest reason to choose the RF 24-50mm seems to be size and weight. The RF 24-50mm is just 68.6mm in diameter (2.7″) and is 58.4mm (2.3″) in length. It weighs 210g (7.4oz). The RF 24-105mm IS STM is 76.6mm (3.0″) in diameter and 88.8mm (3.5″) in length, and weighs in at 395g (13.9oz). That’s far from being unusually large, obviously, but it is nearly twice as heavy and considerably larger.
The premium option here (pictured above) is the 24-105mm F4L IS, and it obviously dwarfs the much smaller 24-50mm. The 24-105L is a much better match to Canon’s larger bodies (like my EOS R5), while the 24-50mm is unquestionably a better balancing lens on the much smaller EOS R8.
Here’s a breakdown of the specs overall for the two cheaper kit lenses:
The RF 24-50mm achieves its smaller size in part by being a retractable zoom. It is less than 60mm for storage, but is unusable in that form.
On screen will be a warning to “Set the lens to the shooting position”, as the lens is incapable of proper focus in the retracted position.
The inner barrel will extend a significant amount (almost 30mm) to achieve the 24mm shooting position. Once extended, this is a “rocker” style zoom that is longest at 24mm, shortest near 35mm, then extends back out at 50mm, though not as far as at 24mm.
The build quality here isn’t bad. Everything is plastic, but feels reasonably tough. I own the RF 28mm F2.8 STM and 50mm F1.8 STM, and the build quality feels roughly similar to those lenses. Canon remains rigidly fixed to their design philosophy for their two “classes” of lenses (non L and L-series lenses), which means that no non-L lens receives weather sealing of any kind. Canon is also the only company I know of that still utilizes plastic mounts in some of its lenses. It just feels cheap.
Also standard for Canon is the fact that the lens hood is not included, despite the proliferation of sub $200 (and even sub $100) lenses on the market that do come with the lens hood included. The Canon spec EW-63C is a $25 accessory, though here’s a link to a Vello branded hood for $10. This policy seems remarkably petty in today’s marketplace, but I’ve also been saying that for years and obviously Canon doesn’t care!
There are two rings on the lens. The larger is the zoom ring. It moves smoothly once extended, but the action to either retract the lens or extend it from retraction feels clunky. The second ring is the control ring, which we’ll explore in a moment.
The lens does have two switches on the side. One is an ON | OFF for the stabilizer, while the other is a unique three position switch that allows you to choose between AF | CONTROL | MF. Essentially this is about the control of the second ring. Choose AF, and the ring does nothing. Choose Control, and this becomes a control point whose function can be assigned from within the camera. It could be an aperture ring, Exposure Compensation, or any number of other things. Choose MF, and, as you would expect, the control ring functions as a manual focus ring. The manual focus action is fairly good, actually, with nice weight and precision.
The two rings are close together, but the unique diamond texture of Canon’s control rings helps set it apart by feel. It’s a consistent touch on Canon’s lenses that I enjoy.
The lens has a matte finish with a few platinum colored accent rings that marry nicely to the similar color on the lens mount of the camera.
The aperture iris has 7 blades, and, as you can see from the photo below, these are not particularly rounded blades, so maintaining a circular aperture shape is not a strength.
Perhaps not a big deal, as there will be few opportunities to stop this lens down and get much out of focus anyway!
Up front we have a common 58mm front filter thread.
The highest magnification here comes on the telephoto end where it can focus as closely as 30cm (11.8″) and produces a useful 0.19x magnification.
This is useful, but not nearly as useful as the 0.50x figure achievable by the 24-105mm IS STM lens.
The IS (Image Stabilization) system here is rated for 4.5 stops of assistance and up to 7 stops when used in conjunction with a camera equipped with IBIS. I primarily tested it on the Canon EOS R8 (no IBIS), and found that I was able to get stable handheld video footage along with some assistance with handholding lower shutter speeds for stills, though I find there’s always a practical limit to how long you can go before you get some shake.
The build and handling here are largely what I would expect. Nothing feels premium, but everything feels reasonably tough and functional. Canon’s typical cost cutting measures with their non-L lenses are annoying, but nothing that is unique to this particular lens.
Autofocus and Video
Canon utilizes a lead-screw type STM (stepping motor) here, and it is a pretty solid implementation. Autofocus speed is quick and (mostly) quiet, with some light clicks and whirs during major focus changes. I found that my focus speed was snappy both indoors and outdoors, though you’ll see some minor slowdowns in extreme low light conditions.
Focus accuracy was good. Though this is hardly a top portrait lens choice, I did snap a few shots with it during a portrait session and got good looking, well focused results.
Depth of field is rarely very shallow when your maximum focal length is 50mm and your maximum aperture F6.3, but I could get well focused results on this rare moments when some things were out of focus.
I really liked the focus motor’s performance during my focus pulls. There was a high degree of confidence, and rather than snapping back and forth the focus pulls are smooth and well damped. I would say that this lens is perhaps more useful for video than it is for stills in many ways.
This is a lens that would work well as a gimbal lens. It’s small, lightweight, focuses well, and could work for gimbals or vlogging.
My hand test (where I alternately block the lens’ view of my face with my hand and then remove it) also went well so long as I gave the lens time to make its more sedate transitions. There is some moderate focus breathing, though some of Canon’s cameras will compensate for that in camera.
All in all, focus is solid here. That’s a definite strength for the lens.
Image Quality Breakdown
The RF 24-50mm sports an optical formula of 8 elements in 8 groups, and this includes two aspherical elements. Canon has shown a tendency to rely more on electronic rather than optical corrections in a number of their wide angle lenses, and we’ll see that unfortunate trend continue here.
At its best, the RF 24-50mm is capable of producing perfectly nice photos, but it is also true that there are a lot of deep optical flaws here. This is no “hidden gem” that dramatically exceeds its premise.
Starting with vignette and distortion. If you look at a corrected JPEG or RAW file, things don’t look too bad at 24mm.
But, as I mentioned, this is almost exclusively electronic correction. Here is what the uncorrected image looks like:
I’ve seen this far too often from Canon in the RF era. There is so much distortion that Canon is having to designed their lenses much wider than the stated focal length so that the electronic correction can try to bring it back to a semblance of normal. If I try to manually correct that, I have to max out the correction slider in Lightroom, which I’ve NEVER had to do before. There is still some barrel distortion after a 100% correction. I then would have to crop even further to get to the framing that I had on screen (I framed with the outside lines of the test chart up against the edges of the frame on the LCD).
That’s ridiculous.
I then also had to max out of the vignette correction slider (100%) to get to this end result, which is roughly similar to what the profile correction provided…which still doesn’t look all that great.
Frankly I’m a little offended by this. Canon has repeatedly told us that their new RF mount offers up so many new design advantages and opportunities, and yet so many of their RF wide angle lenses are worse in some of these areas than anything I ever saw on EF. I test lenses from at least a dozen different brands, and these are the worst results I am seeing from anyone.
Things improve as you zoom towards the 50mm end of things, and by 50mm there is still barrel distortion, but I could correct it with a more manageable +12 while dialing in a +52 (about two stops) of vignette correction.
In camera or in Canon DPP software you don’t even have the option of disabling the corrections…and you can see why. Software is doing a LOT of the heavy lifting here, which will have an impact on corner performance on the wide end as we’ll see in a moment.
Longitudinal chromatic aberrations (LoCA) are less common on a lens with such a small maximum aperture (the depth of field is almost never incredibly small), so while there is some fringing when I torture test for it, there will be very few situations where you’ll see it in normal shooting.
Likewise there is some lateral chromatic aberrations (LaCA) near the edge of the frame, but nothing that can’t be easily fixed by corrections.
So how about resolution and contrast? I’ll primarily be testing this lens on the platform it is sold for (the EOS R8) with a quick peak on how it holds up on a higher resolution camera like the Canon EOS R5. Here’s the test chart:
You will note that the test chart looks a little “dingy” despite profile corrections. That’s a LOT of vignette to correct for.
Here are the roughly 200% crops from across the frame at 24mm, F4.5. This is on the 24MP Canon EOS R8:
At this resolution point the lens looks pretty decent. The sharpness profile is pretty consistent across the frame, with the mid frame standing out as looking the best. The copy I tested showed good centering and consistent results on both sides.
Stopping down to F5.6 does show some improved contrast and slightly better resolution. The lifting of the some of the vignette makes for a more consistent image. Better still is F8, as while resolution isn’t dramatically improved, the improved contrast and reduced vignette makes for the best looking image to this point.
Real world landscape images at F5.6 and F8 look fine, though the details don’t necessarily “pop” anywhere. Most owners of the lens would probably be happy with this, though.
F11 looks largely the same, but after F11 the image will slightly soften due to the effects of diffraction. Expect this impact to be much higher if you use a higher resolution camera.
Things are slightly improved at 28mm. The distortion and vignette aren’t as extreme, so the electronic corrections aren’t having to work quite as hard!
There’s a slight bit more total improvement as you stop the lens down, though again you can’t expect this lens to achieve L series levels of sharpness.
35mm is fairly similar, though just a few percentage points behind the performance at 28mm. When stopped down the results are acceptably sharp on the EOS R8:
Results are largely the same at 50mm. The slow maximum aperture of F6.3 means that F8 arrives only 2/3rds of a stop later, so there isn’t a lot of stopping down options. There is a slight improvement by F8:
I did a comparison test on the EOS R5 (45MP) and found, to my surprise, that the RF 24-50mm did okay in that transition. Rather than looking softer, the high resolution sensor exposed more detail and I actually preferred the higher resolution result.
Resolution is not really the problem here. This lens is fairly sharp and consistent throughout the zoom range.
Flare resistance was a bit of mixed bag. Shooting directly into the sun wasn’t bad. There’s a few ghosting blobs, but nothing too bad. You’ll notice that the wide open sunstar (on the left) is rather weird, but the stopped down, F11 result on the right is pretty decent.
I noticed more of an issue with veiling (loss of contrast) when the sun was right out of the frame.
This is the kind of situation where a lens hood might help…now if only Canon included one!
I had fairly low expectations for bokeh with a lens like this. It has little capacity for producing much subject separation, as the maximum aperture is small, the minimum focus distance is fairly long, and the maximum focal length is only 50mm. That leaves quite a bit in focus at all times, and you can see here that the bokeh isn’t terrible, but it is busy and there is some definite distortion of specular highlights into lemon shapes along the edges of the frame.
This snowy image works a little better largely because the specular highlights aren’t very, ahem, highlighted in the overcast conditions.
Reasonable sharpness is the best optical quality here, but the distortion and vignette at 24mm is amongst the worst I’ve ever seen. The RF 24-50mm is a hard sell from a purely optical standpoint. You can see more images in the gallery here.
Conclusion
The Canon RF 24-50mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM serves a specific purpose, namely to provide a small, lightweight, inexpensive lens for people to add to their Canon EOS R8 (and future cameras) so that they have a lens to actually take pictures with. I remember my first Canon DSLR purchase (the Rebel T1i) and it came with an EF-S 18-55mm IS lens. I didn’t love the lens (sold it fairly quickly), but it gave me something to use in the first couple of months so that I could use my new camera. There are places where Canon has improved things (autofocus is definitely better), but there are also some really frustrating areas of regression. Canon’s maximum aperture range on these type lenses has become decidedly worse, as Canon clearly banks on the improved ISO performance in modern cameras covering for the slower maximum apertures. They’ve also become increasingly reliant on software to cover for the hardware shortcomings, with massive amounts of optical correction needed to make the image usable.
I find it hard to recommend the RF 24-50mm to someone lens shopping for an existing camera, so the question is whether it is worth purchasing in kit with the EOS R8 or future bodies. One pro is that the lens adds image stabilization, and that will be particularly beneficial if you want to shoot some handheld video. It also has very solid autofocus for both stills and video, so at the least you should get reliably focused results. Best case scenario might be as a light, inexpensive gimbal lens.
But during my time with the EOS R8 I found that I preferred to just use the even smaller, much higher performing Canon RF 28mm F2.8 STM that is similarly priced and just zoom with my feet. Your mileage may vary, obviously, and there are applications where the RF 24-50mm will do just fine. If you value versatility, you might want to consider the RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM instead. It’s only $100 more expensive and offers up a much larger zoom range and has a faster maximum aperture over the shared focal lengths.
Pros:
Has IS
Compact and lightweight
Good autofocus performance
Reasonably sharp throughout the zoom range
Has Canon’s useful control ring option with a decent implementation
Cons:
Obscene amounts of vignette and distortion at 24mm
Some flare issues and no included lens hood
Retractable zoom is a pain, and the mechanical process is not refined
Keywords: Canon, Canon RF 24-50mm, 24-50mm, F4.5-6.3, IS, STM, Canon EOS R8, EOS, R, R5, Review, R8, RF, mirrorless, Canon EOS R7 Review, Sports, Tracking, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Focus, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, 45MP, 24MP, Canon, #letthelightin, #DA, #EOSR8, #Canon
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The most common lenses on the market tend to be those we call “kit” lenses for the simple reason that these are the lenses sold in bundle with certain cameras. Canon has a few of these type lenses for different classes of cameras. That might be an L-series lens like the RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS (my review here) or the RF 24-105mm F4L IS (my review here) as a premium upgrade, the 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS as a cheaper option, or, if you go for the least expensive option, this lens, the Canon RF 24-50mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM. It’s not just about price, however, as Canon released the RF 24-50mm alongside the EOS R8 in 2023 to be a smaller, lighter kit lens for what was Canon’s smallest and lightest full frame mirrorless camera. The retail price of the RF 24-50mm is $299 USD, but the price when bundled with the R8 drops to $200. This review is designed to help you decide whether it is worth the money. You can get my findings in the video review below or by reading my text review by clicking this link.
Thanks to Camera Canada for sending me a review copy of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.*I have done the majority of these tests on the Canon EOS R8, as this is the camera it is sold with for the moment.
Kit lenses need to be jack-of-all-trades, as they will sometimes be the only lens that a person owns. They will typically cover moderately wide (24mm here) to some kind of telephoto (a rather short 50mm, here). The 24-50mm has lens based stabilization (IS), which is important considering that the EOS R8 (or the EOS RP or EOS R) don’t have camera based stabilization. That helps considerably when shooting handheld video and moderately helps to make up for the very slow maximum aperture values available here.
24mm = F4.5
25-31mm = F5
32-38mm = F5.6
39-50mm = F6.3
In fact, the camera reported that the lens was still on 24mm when the maximum aperture closed to F5, so it isn’t even a full millimeter of zoom before you lose that maximum aperture of F4.5! Canon just BARELY avoided the aperture starting at F5. If you don’t understand what all of this aperture talk means, just know that this is a lens that is going to do best when there is plenty of light. Fortunately the EOS R8 has great high ISO performance, as you’ll often need to raise the ISO value in lower light situations when using this lens.
But frankly, this is a lens better suited to better light and brighter days. Get yourself one of Canon’s inexpensive prime lenses (like the 28mm F2.8 STM or the 50mm F1.8 STM) for those situations, and enjoy this lens for the areas where it works better.
Keywords: Canon, Canon RF 24-50mm, 24-50mm, F4.5-6.3, IS, STM, Canon EOS R8, EOS, R, R5, Review, R8, RF, mirrorless, Canon EOS R7 Review, Sports, Tracking, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Focus, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, 45MP, 24MP, Canon, #letthelightin, #DA, #EOSR8, #Canon
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
About a year ago I reviewed what in many ways is the progenitor of this camera – the Canon EOS R6 MK II. The Canon EOS R8 inherits the sensor and autofocus system of that model, though the Canon EOS R8 is in many ways the second generation of the Canon EOS RP, Canon’s first entry level full frame mirrorless camera. The RP had its strengths, though it was also severely compromised in many ways. There are certainly places where I can see the cost cutting here, too, but despite those intentional places where features are chiseled away to allow for both market separation and cost cutting to allow Canon to sell this camera for $1500 USD ($1300 at the moment of this review due to a discount), the EOS R8 has a clear advantage that the RP did not. The EOS RP came very early in Canon’s mirrorless development, and, as a byproduct, it borrowed Canon’s DSLR technology. It’s sensor was the rather disappointing one from the Canon EOS 6D MK II, whereas the EOS R8 has inherited the vastly superior sensor and autofocus system of the Canon EOS R6 MK II. The R6MK II was the “poor man’s” EOS R3, which I guess makes the EOS R8 the poor man’s EOS R6 MK II.
But the EOS R8 benefits from inheriting from a very good camera, and the end result is a camera I had a lot of fun using despite its limitations. You can find my full thoughts by watching my video review here…or reading on.
Thanks to Camera Canada for sending me a review loaner of this camera. They have become my go-to retailer for my own purchases here in Canada. As always, this is a completely independent review, and the thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own.
A quick summary of strengths and weaknesses before we dive into the details. Strengths include an excellent sensor, excellent autofocus, a nicely executed compact body that retains good ergonomics, a vari-angle touchscreen with good responsiveness, and fairly good video specs including 4K60. This is a compact, lightweight camera that doesn’t skimp on performance or usability. Major weaknesses include a lack of IBIS (In-Body-Image-Stabilization), a smaller battery, no navigational joystick, a single SD card (and correspondingly shallow buffers), and a shutter speed limit of 1/4000th second.
Unfortunately the EOS R8 suffers from a blight shared by all Canon RF cameras: the Canon RF mount remains closed to third party autofocusing lens development. I still own two very early Samyang RF mount lenses (14mm F2.8 and 85mm F1.4) that fortunately still work fine on the EOS R8 but were quickly shut down by Canon. Samyang no longer sells them, and there have been no new lenses from Samyang, Sigma, Tamron, or Viltrox. It’s very unfortunate, as there are now hundreds of lenses for Sony E-mount available from a wide variety of lens makers that aren’t available to Canon RF. It is a significant disadvantage, as while there are some excellent RF mount lenses, there are far fewer choices available. I continue to love using the Samyang RF 85mm F1.4 on my own EOS R5 (and on this EOS R8), and it is pretty irritating that this reasonably priced fantastic portrait lens existed but doesn’t now other than the rare second hand copy out there.
That rant aside, I had a lot of fun with the EOS R8. Here’s why…
Spec List
24.2MP Full-Frame CMOS Sensor
4K60p 10-Bit Internal Video, Canon Log 3
2.36m-Dot OLED Electronic Viewfinder
3.0″ 1.62m-Dot Vari-Angle Touchscreen
Dual Pixel CMOS AF II
40 fps Electronic Shutter
Movie Digital IS
Vertical Movie Mode
Microphone Input, Headphone Output
Multi-Function Shoe, Wi-Fi & Bluetooth
Build and Features
Canon is one of the absolute best in the business at making ergonomically pleasing cameras. I was incredibly impressed at how the EOS R8 manages to be both extremely compact and lightweight while also being very comfortable to hold and use. I typically prefer a larger camera, as my hands are a bit bigger, but the EOS R8 felt better in my grip than my high end Sony cameras (a7RV and Alpha 1). I had my wife hold the camera, and she loved the way it felt in her smaller hands. Part of that is that Canon does a much better job of creating space between the grip and the lens mount, whereas Sony has stubbornly refused to widen their cameras and that problem remains. The EOS R8 is 5.22 [W] x 3.39 [H] x 2.76″ [D] (132.59 x 86.11 x 70.1 mm) and weighs only one pound (461g) even with the battery and memory card installed.
The EOS R8 feels excellent in the hand, and the grip is substantial enough that it doesn’t feel like any of my fingers have no place to rest.
The primary controls come via two wheels and a D-pad. The first control wheel is located right behind the shutter button with the second at the back of the top plate that is connected to the On/LOCK/Off lever. Rather than traditional third around the SET button on the back of the camera we have the directional pad that Canon puts on its less expensive cameras instead. The movement of the two wheels feels good (familiar and substantial), but I also miss having that third wheel. Also missed here is a navigational joystick. You’ll have to make due with either the D-pad or by using the touchscreen to navigate.
On the left side of the viewfinder is the Stills/Video switch. I like having this type of control as it does allow you to have a completely different setup for your video controls, including a separate customization set for buttons and wheels. I devoted some digital ink in my R6 II review complaining about how this switch is the exact same spot as the ON/OFF switch on my EOS R5, so I ended up switching between stills and video rather than turning the camera on and off many times. That’s still true, but at least Canon is showing some consistency. The ON/OFF button is also on the right side on the EOS R50 I’m reviewing as well, so this seems to be their new position.
On the right side of the top plate there is a mode dial along with the record button and an M-Fn button that can be customized to a variety of functions. Canon’s higher end cameras have a secondary LCD on top, but I actually find that the old-fashioned mode dial is still the fastest way to get to different functions. There are a wide variety of options on the mode dial, including two different custom configurations.
The front of the camera just has the lens release. There are no custom buttons there. Unlike their more expensive models, there is no option to have the shutter blades come down when the camera is powered off to protect the sensor from dust. What is there is a very aggressive sensor cleaning cycle that doesn’t just come on when you power the camera off but also whenever a lens is released or attached. This is a new one for me, and at first it didn’t register what the clicking noise was whenever I attached/released a lens.
There is a Canon-standard set of buttons present on the back of the camera, most all of which can be customized to different functions. Everything is pretty much in the place I’ve come to expect on a Canon camera, with the menu button to the left of the viewfinder, a cluster of three buttons near the grip, and another above and under the directional pad. There are no dedicated custom buttons, however, so you’ll have to reassign a value to an existing button if you want to add a quick access function. The back of the camera looks very similar to the EOS RP.
You’ll also find a 3” articulating LCD touchscreen with a 1.62 million dot resolution. This is nothing special, these days, but Canon’s LCD screens remain the best in terms of touch performance, with very quick reaction times and good sensitivity. Canon’s menu design is the friendliest of the brands I test to navigate by touch.
The viewfinder is an OLED electronic viewfinder with a 2.36 million dot resolution. It’s only 0.39″ in size, so not overly engaging, and has a magnification level of 0.70x. Pretty unimpressive, really, though on par with something like Sony’s a7C series.
The left size port organization is highly similar to many of Canon’s cameras and unfortunately continues the trend of having flaps (hard to keep out of the way) instead of doors that can be smoothly opened (and left open when desired). There is a USB Type-C port for communication along with a micro-HDMI video out. That latter is a Canon standard and is rarely anyone’s favorite for the simple reason that micro-HDMI is more flimsy than larger HDMI ports. The EOS R8 has some decent video specs, but no serious videographer wants to deal with a micro-HDMI. You can charge the camera via the USB-C port, though you’ll need a power bank with the appropriate power delivery (PD) standard. Another flap covers a 3.5mm microphone jack along with a similar headphone monitoring jack, while the final smaller flaps covers a remote release cable port. The hot-shoe on top allows you to connect certain microphones and get digital audio through it.
There is nothing on the right side of the camera, as the lone memory card slot is unfortunately in the undesirable position of being down in the battery compartment. We have a single SD/SDHC/SDXC slot that is UHS-II compatible for increased speed. This isn’t surprising, per se, but certainly not welcome, either. I hate this position, myself, as it leaves you with two unpalatable choices with the memory card out. One is put the camera on it’s side to leave the battery door open. The other is to close it so that you can put the camera down normally, but then you run the risk of forgetting that the memory card is not inserted back in the camera, which can be disastrous if you are arrive on site to shoot only to realize there is no card in the camera.
The EOS R8 is saddled with the smaller LP-E17 battery pack rather than the more common Canon LP-E6NH used in most of the other full frame Canon cameras. This smaller battery has a capacity of just 1040mAh, which is less than 50% of the rating of the LP-E6NH. The rating is just 150 shots, though it isn’t hard to exceed that. The bigger issue will be long format video recording, as that burns through batteries pretty quickly. The camera is capable of recording up to 120 minutes of 4K, according to Canon, but don’t expect the battery to last that long. I would definite buying a spare or two…
The shutter is interesting, as there isn’t a fully mechanical shutter option, but rather an electronic first curtain mechanical option along with a fully electronic shutter option. The former has a shutter speed limit of 1/4000th second (and also a pretty pedestrian 6FPS burst rate) while the latter gives an upper limit of 1/8000th of a second and unlocks a MUCH faster burst rate of up to 40FPS, though that will be constrained by the shallow buffer depth available here. The electronic shutter will just make a very quiet electronic click without a typical shutter sound. The EOS R8 will not have the ultrafast readout of a camera designed purely around an electronic shutter (like the EOS R3, for example), so there are some penalties for using the electronic shutter here. You can’t use it with a flash (no sync is available), can’t engage anti-flicker mode, and sometimes fast moving action might be distorted a bit (rolling shutter). Canon also uses 12bit A/D conversion with the electronic shutter rather than 14bit with the EFC shutter, but you probably won’t notice the difference.
Bottom line – the EFC option is more flexible and produces slightly better image quality, but it is much slower and has maximum shutter speed of 1/4000th. The electronic option unlocks much faster burst rates and a higher shutter speed limit, but has other limitations. Choose appropriately to your situation.
The EOS R8 does have some decent communication options including wireless LAN and Bluetooth 4.2. Interestingly, you can plug it directly into a phone with a MiFI-certified cable (USB-C port).
Canon uses a few more plastics in this body than their more premium models, but everything feels very good here. The camera feels tough and durable, and I’ve used a lot of Canon cameras for the long haul and they’ve held up fine. There is some measure of weather sealing in the camera body, though Canon reports that the sealing is less than what is found on the EOS R6/R6II.
Perhaps the biggest missing feature in the EOS R8 is the lack of IBIS (in body image stabilization). That has become increasingly rare, and competing models like the Sony a7C/II or the Nikon Z5 are equipped with IBIS. Early in the mirrorless cycle Canon was adamant that lens based stabilization was superior (neither the EOS R or RP had IBIS), but market pressure eventually pushed them into including this incredibly useful feature in the next generation of camera bodies. It is an unfortunate omission, as I personally will not buy a camera without IBIS at this stage. While there are a number of Canon lenses that do have lens based stabilization, about a third of them do not, and that number includes a number of the small, light primes that suit this camera so well (RF 16mm F2.8, 28mm F2.8, and 50mm F1.8).
There is a “Digital IS” available (for movie mode only), though this is a digital correction and will come at the cost of a crop of your video and won’t be as effective as an actual optical stabilizer.
The “kit lens” for the Canon EOS R8 is the Canon RF 24-50mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM, and while it is nothing special, it is inexpensive (an additional $200 in kit) and does give you an image stabilizer.
Every company makes a series of choices about what compromises to make in their lower-priced options. They have to include enough to keep the cameras competitive and marketable, but not so much as to rob sales from more premium cameras. There will always be areas where you or I will disagree with some of those decisions, and that’s true here. What’s also true is that the EOS R8 is a very usable camera that handles well overall.
Autofocus Performance
There were areas where Canon has cut features from the EOS R8, but autofocus is not one of them. The EOS R8 utilizes Canon’s Dual Pixel CMOS AF II focus system just like the EOS R6 MK II, which inherited a similar system from the high end EOS R3. This is a robust focus system that covers approximately 100% x 100% of the picture area, with up to 1,053 automatically-selected AF zones utilized during Whole Area AF. Bottom line is that you can compose your shot basically anywhere with impunity, and the camera will also track all across the frame, making it easy to stop action.
Canon offers an “auto” mode for subject tracking that I really appreciate, as I have sometimes gotten less than excellent results on Sony or Fuji if I don’t have the right subject selected. I also really enjoy how engaging Canon’s tracking is. It is very clear on the screen what is being tracked.
Eye AF worked very well whether it was animal, bird, or human subjects. The wide range of focus points means that you really don’t have to worry about where in the frame the subject is. It wasn’t that long ago that I was using a Canon EOS 6D pretty much exclusively with the center focus point – focus and recompose. The fact that a budget camera has an autofocus system that even a 1D level camera would have loved to have is a testament to how much better autofocus is on mirrorless. This camera was a delight to use in a portrait session, nailing focus every time.
Focus sensitivity is excellent, as the focus system can focus down to a -6.5 EV (which is VERY dark), though that figure will vary depending on the maximum aperture available on the lens mounted. A lens with a very bright aperture (like the F1.2 lenses) gives the autofocus system the potential of much more light to work with than a lens with a dimmer aperture. I found that I could still quickly lock onto a subject even in a nearly dark room. This shot was taken at ISO 51,200.
I also noted when doing some video work that Canon’s intelligent tracking works very well. If you click on a subject and select it you can easily move around the scene while keeping focus on the desired location.
For tracking purposes this is the same AF system as the R6 MK II, which is largely the same focus system as in the top tier EOS R3 sports camera. Tracking works very well, and you have the option of firing off a ridiculous amount of frames with the electronic shutter. I took about 100 photos in less than 3 seconds during a burst of Nala dashing towards me through the rain. At 40FPS you can afford to be very selective about what moment of action you choose. Here’s a few examples.
What’s amazing is that every shot at 40FPS is perfectly in focus despite the rapid movement (this burst shot with the Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS). I’ve found that there are camera/lens combination that can’t keep up with a cat walking towards the camera much less running full tilt. This is a very impressively focusing camera.
As is typical with lesser cameras that inherit the focus systems of more sports oriented cameras, the weak link is the buffer depth. If you use the Electronic First Curtain shutter and its slow 6FPS burst rate, you’ll have no problems. Throw a fast card in there and you can capture 1000+ RAW images. But with the faster 40FPS burst rate of the Electronic shutter, the amount of information that must be processed is vastly different. A high speed card (UHS-II) is rated for up to 56 uncompressed RAW images, but if you shoot in CRAW (and you definitely should in those situations!) the buffer depth climbs to 100 images, which is enough to be useful. I got that many in the burst above (actually CRAW + JPEG) without any hint of slowdown, though I was using a very good Sony Tough UHS-II SD card (my cards of choice).
Throttle back to a still very fast 20FPS in electronic mode, and I think you could capture most of the action that you need even if you need to hold the shutter longer than a few seconds. I find this performance fairly impressive for this level of camera. And, for a little perspective, the Canon EOS 5D MKIV (a camera that cost more than 2.5x as much) had a maximum buffer depth of 17 RAW images and a maximum burst rate of 7FPs…and that was considered pretty good for the time. We’ve come a LONG way!
The EOS R8 also has another trick up its sleeve to help you get that crucial shot. There is a new option called RAW Burst Mode, and it functions by starting shooting slightly before (about 0.5 seconds earlier) the shutter button is fully pressed at a 30FPS burst rate to make sure you don’t miss the shot.
All told, this is an amazingly good focus system that is a real joy to use. Getting well focused results in just about any setting is pretty much effortless. To get an AF system this good in a budget camera is, well, impressive.
Video Performance
The Canon EOS RP was a fun camera for stills in many ways, but I found it utterly frustrating for video work. The autofocus for video reverted to a very primitive contrast AF system (it was terrible!) and 4K was only achievable at a very big 1.7x crop factor. Fortunately the EOS R8 is a completely different kettle of fish, utilizing the same fantastic AF system for video and offering very useful video specs.
The highlight spec here is that the EOS R8 can record 4K60 video with 6K oversampling. There is no crop factor, either – that is full sensor width. That 60FPS produces highly detailed footage that is further benefitted from the great autofocus in the camera. Here’s a look at the various video formats available on the EOS R8 (from Canon’s “white paper” on the camera).
You do have the option for shooting with an APS-C crop at 60FPS as well, which could be useful if you have some APS-C lenses kicking around or want to tighten your framing (Canon’s APS-C crop is 1.6x).
We have thankfully passed the era where video recordings were artificially limited at the 29:59 minute mark, so recording will (in theory) continue until the memory card is filled, as shown by this chart.
At higher bitrates where more heat is generated, you might see an earlier shutdown due to heat (if you have a large memory card). The shortest estimated recording time is 30 minutes at 4K60, but that jumps to 2 hours if you shoot 4K30 instead, so that shouldn’t be a major issue for many people. There is a Heat Control submenu that gives you options on how you want the camera to handle heat related issues.
As noted, 4K recording is limited to 60FPS, but up to 180FPS is available at Full HD (1080P) for serious slow-motion work. We would all love to have 4K120, of course, but these video specs are well in line with the competition in the market. The EOS R8 also includes Canon Log 3 (enables a consistent standard for grading) and HDR PQ for higher dynamic range footage. Here’s a single frame from a 4K60 recording in the middle of that spring snowstorm…and you can see lovely detail everywhere along with nice dynamic range (a bit further I’ll show a RAW photo I took during the same sequence).
The only real feature missing here relative to the EOS R6 MK II is that model’s ability to output 6K ProRes footage via HDMI. The EOS R8 does have UVC/UAC compatibility which allows the camera to be used as a web camera to stream live video in Full HD without additional software. You have an option to shoot in vertical mode as well if so desired.
The vari-angle LCD is great for video, allowing you to shoot at waist height for more stability, down low on a gimbal, or front monitoring if you are in front of the camera.
As noted previously, the EOS R8 has the option to set up completely different menu and button options for video that can be accessed by switching the lever to the left of the viewfinder.
Sensor Performance
The Canon EOS R8 utilizes the same sensor found in the R6 MK II, and while on paper it might look like a regression from the sensor found in the EOS RP, this couldn’t be further from the proof. While on paper the RP’s sensor is a superior one in resolution (26MP) compared to the 24MP of the EOS R8, the new sensor is a thoroughly modern one with much better real world performance. The native resolution of this CMOS sensor is 6000 x 4000 pixels, and while that isn’t high resolution by modern standards, it is still suitable for most people in most situations. It’s also worth noting that not all sensors are created equally, and Canon claims that this sensor can deliver resolution and detail that exceeds that of the higher resolution 30MP sensor found in the EOS R. I can attest to the fact that this sensor does produce beautifully detailed images. (This one courtesy of a freak spring snowstorm that briefly reset us to winter).
File options include RAW, CRAW, JPEG, and HEIF formats. Here’s a breakdown of the various aspect ratios and dimensions available along with the average file size for each.
Canon used to offer Medium and Small RAW options but in more recent years has elected utilize their extremely efficient CRAW (Compressed RAW) option, which is a lossless compressed file that delivers both great efficiency in terms of file size but also very high quality. It is my go-to option in my cameras, as a lot of tests over the years have demonstrated that it is near impossible to spot any differences from the full size uncompressed RAW options. So, while offering near equal quality, CRAW delivers files that are only about 54% of the size of the uncompressed RAW options. At ISO 100, for example, an uncompressed RAW file will be around 26MB, while the CRAW file is a relatively diminutive 13.2MP. Canon .CR3 “wrapper” is extremely efficient as well, delivering smaller file sizes in general relative to competitor’s RAW files. The EOS R8’s images generally look great – good detail and color.
This sensor is kinder to lenses like the RF 24-50mm F4.5-6.3 kit lens than my EOS R5 (45MP), which tends to really reveal the flaws and shortcomings of “lesser” lenses. I found while I could tell that the detail and contrast wasn’t as good if I compared it side by side with, say, the RF 28mm F2.8 STM (a surprisingly strong little lens), I still found images acceptably good.
Typically high resolution sensors come with some baggage like increased noise at higher ISO levels, while a lower resolution sensor like this allows for more robust low light work. I’m used to working with higher resolution levels, so I do miss the extra pixels, but this is a sensor that will allow for good resolution, good dynamic range, and also a strong performance at higher ISO settings.
We’ll break those things down in a little more detail here.
Dynamic Range
I’ve taken to referring to the charts over at Photons to Photos as a quick reference to supplement my own tests. According to them, the dynamic range performance of the EOS R8 is essentially identical to that of the EOS R6 MKII (which stands to reason, as this is the same basic sensor). That is very competitive among Canon’s recent sensors, besting the original R6 and falling only slightly behind the R3 and R5 sensors. They rate the R8 at a maximum of 11.58 stops of dynamic range. The RP’s sensor? Only 9.1 stops – more than 2 1/2 stops less! The EOS R8 produces more dynamic range at basically every ISO setting, but particularly at lower ISO settings.
This is competitive with the sensor in the Sony a7C/2 and bests the one found in the Z5. Bottom line is that this new Canon sensor is, by the numbers, a very good sensor for dynamic range performance. We’ll see how that bears out in real world testing.
For my tests, I establish a base exposure (neutral or correct) and then subsequently under and overexpose the image by progressive stops. I typically go as high as 4 stops of overexposure and 5 stops of underexposure as modern cameras tend to be better at recovering shadows than they do highlights. I then add or remove the appropriate stops of light in post to see how the sensor does in recovering the lost information. Here’s a look at the properly exposed image for reference:
We will examine how the colors are retained, the purity of the shadows and highlights, and how noise impacts the image.
Modern cameras are typically very good at recovering shadows. At four stops of underexposure the unrecovered photo shows deeply crushed shadows and very little of the subject visible, but the shadows are easily and cleanly recovered by adding those four stops of light back into the photo. The end result is a photo that looks largely like the original (correct) exposure.
We find the limit between 4 and 5 stops, however, where I start to see the familiar signs of things falling apart. I don’t see a lot of additional noise, but I do see more evidence of “smoothing” by the sensor to try to defeat the noise. There’s a little less detail, and I also see color shift along with some blotchy color banding scattered throughout the image. You can see how clean the 4-stop recovery on the left is relative to the 5-stop recovery on the right.
So, shadow recovery is good, but there is a limit to how far you can go without penalty.
How about highlights? We will now reverse the process. I’ve gradually overexposed a series of images, one stop at a time, and then attempted to recover the highlights in post. Typically you will start to see the image fall apart after a few stops in a couple of ways: 1) certain colors are lost and are not recoverable, and 2) information will be lost in blown highlights that isn’t recoverable.
At two stops the recovery (on the right) is near perfect. The color swatches all look correct and I don’t see lost information in the highlights. The color in the timer face on the left has been thoroughly recovered and looks even.
At three stops, however, the limits are slightly exceeded. You can see that in comparison to the 2 stop recovery (on the left) that the 3 stop recovery (on the right) on the right has missing color information on the timer face and some of the color swatches. The brightness on the spine of the Heisler book on the bottom hasn’t been regained, and that’s true of the Pentax camera as well.
The image is useless at four stops of overexposure, so don’t attempt that. I found that there was sufficient real world dynamic range to allow me to recover both shadows and highlights enough to make real world results more pleasing. I’ve taken this broad dynamic range shot on the left and recovered information in both the shadows and highlights to make for a much nicer, brighter end result.
This is a competitive performance that I found entirely useful for real world use.
ISO Performance
In a perfect world we could all shoot in perfectly lit scenes, but reality dictates that sometimes we have to shoot in lower light situations. The EOS R8 has amazing low light autofocus (with sensitivity down to EV -6.5, though that requires having an F1.2 lens attached), but raising the ISO always comes with some penalty. Improving technologies help to mitigate some of that, and we will find out how much in our tests. We saw from the chart above that while the dynamic range at ISO 100 is about 11.5 stops, by ISO 25,600 that DR has dropped to just 4.3 stops. Raising the ISO also results in increased noise, potential color banding and color shift, and loss of contrast.
I compared each stop of ISO in the standard range to the base ISO of 100. Through ISO 3200 the results remain extremely clean, with an almost imperceptible amount of noise.
At ISO 6400 things look fine on a global level with no real apparent difference between base ISO and ISO 6400:
At a pixel level you can see how clean the image the still is, with a bit of noise in the color swatches and timer face, but good color consistency and contrast in the grip of the camera.
Through ISO 12,800 results continue to be very clean. There’s a bit more noise, but the pixels are still quite even in the black levels which allow contrast and color saturation to remain quite consistent:
By ISO 25,600 the image is still usable in some situations. The image when viewed globally looks largely the same as at ISO 12,800, but when you look closer you can see slightly reduced black levels and contrast due to some “hot” pixel noise. The noise pattern is more obviously rough at a pixel level, though I would say the end result is still as good or better as some cameras at ISO 12,800, making this one of the better low light sensors.
ISO 51,200 might be usable in a pinch, though with the cost of reduced contrast and more visible noise, but ISO 102,400 crosses the threshold into the unusable, with a bit of a green shift, some honeycombing in the shadows, and very rough noise levels.
Real world results at high ISO varied according to the backgrounds and textures, and I always prefer high ISO shots in monochrome, like this shot at ISO 51,200 of some knickknacks on a shelf.
Another shot in a near dark bathroom shows some pattern in the areas that should be even along with a few color blotches, but it isn’t terrible, either.
This is a camera where you could easily use the F4 zooms rather than the F2.8 zooms for event work as the low light performance is so solid. Shooting at ISOs like 3200 or 6400 is effortless. You could definitely get away with some of the “weird” RF lenses like the 600mm/800mm F11 primes or the RF 100-400mm (which is F8 on the telephoto end) because you can jack the ISO up with less consequence.
Image Quality Summary
While I am more accustomed to have more resolution on tap, I generally found the EOS R8’s sensor to be a joy to use. In some ways I’m reminded of my Sony a9 that I used for years, as it had a similar resolution and there was something about the images I took with it that I always liked. Canon’s color science remains excellent, and I was happy with the look and color of images in a wide variety of settings.
The dynamic range and high ISO performance is excellent, which allows you to focus on just taking images that make you happy…in all seasons!
If you own an EOS RP, it this sensor that will be one of the top reasons to upgrade.
Conclusion
At $1500 USD (currently $1300 USD) the EOS R8 is destined to be one of Canon’s best selling cameras. Most of the time the camera options near this price point have a smaller APS-C sensor, so this will almost certainly entice some people to take the plunge to the larger full frame sensor and the resulting image quality that comes with it.
If you like the form factor of the EOS RP but are ready for an upgrade, the EOS R8 is a great option. It has a much better sensor, a much better focus system, and far better video specs (this was a real weakness in the EOS RP). There are still some limitations, but this camera does a lot of things really well and can make beautiful images…and be a lot of fun doing it.
My single greatest regret here is the lack of in-body-image-stabilization, as this has become a fairly ubiquitous feature on competing cameras and some of Canon’s best lens matches for this camera don’t have lens stabilization. But other than that I definitely prefer the Canon EOS R8’s ergonomics to, say, Sony’s a7C series of cameras, and the Canon costs less, too. But Canon also has a severe liability compared to the Sony options – there are only a fraction of the lens options available on Canon relative to what is available on Sony. I have a list of 25+ compact, relatively inexpensive lenses on Sony E-mount listed in my a7C series of reviews…and that’s only the primes that I could think of at the moment. I couldn’t put together a similar list with even seven options on Canon RF at the time of this review. That’s not a problem if you tend to get a few favorite lenses and use them exclusively, but if you like options, Canon’s “closed door” policies aren’t doing them any favors. It’s a shame, as the EOS R8 is a lot of fun.
Keywords: Canon EOS R8, EOS, R, R8, Review, Canon EOS R6 MK II, Canon EOS R6 II, EOS R6 II Review, RF, mirrorless, Canon EOS R7 Review, Sports, Tracking, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Focus, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, 45MP, 24MP, Canon, #letthelightin, #DA, #EOSR8
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Sirui Aurora 85mm F1.4 AF Gallery 
Sirui Aurora 85mm F1.4 Review 
Yongnuo YN 33mm F1.4 DA DSM WL Pro Gallery 
Yongnuo YN 33mm F1.4 DA DSM WL Pro Review 
