this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2025
34 points (97.2% liked)
Photography
5939 readers
89 users here now
A community to post about photography:
We allow a wide range of topics here including; your own images, technical questions, gear talk, photography blogs etc. Please be respectful and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Canon RF and RF-S lenses which can go on the R50. (https://www.canon.com.au/cameras/eos-r50) . Going into a bit of detail, the RF lenses produce a larger image which isnt necessary for your camera as it has a smaller sensor*. It was common for cameras to work around a 'full frame' size based on 35mm film, RF-S lenses were desgined for the smaller sensor, but dont have as much variety in lenses
As your on a budget, I think your options are:-
Just get the 18-45 kit lens for now. https://www.canon.com.au/camera-lenses/rf-s-18-45mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm
buy the kit lens above , but also get its larger companion lens which gives you more 'reach' to shoot birds and sports from afar 55-210mm. https://www.canon.com.au/camera-lenses/rf-s-55-210mm-f5-7-1-is-stm
buy the RF-S 18-150mm lens as 'one lens to rule them all' this is effectively the does everything lens , its even got some macro capability with a focus distance of 12cm out wide and using manual focus (https://www.canon.com.au/camera-lenses/rf-s-18-150mm-f3-5-6-3-is-stm)
There is an option for a RF-S 18 but id describe that as a super wide to wide angle lens which could work as zoomed in your about what a wide angle old school film point and shoot would be set to. https://www.canon.com.au/camera-lenses/rf-s-10-18mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm
I think it comes down to money, but if your ruling out moving animals, and sports, it sounds like you wont need to zoom in lots, so you probably wont need the second lens or extra reach of the 18-150mm.
Id say its narrowed down to Option 1, standard lens or option 4 wide angle. Id browse the lens pages to see sample shots and then search for more photos taken with those lens.
Why wouldn't the third option work best?
It also depends a lot on lighting. The third option will be good for outdoors photography on sunny and slightly overcast days and fine on a tripod for static scenes with low light. Taking photos of people and/or moving things in low light will be rough.
Lens selection is all about choosing the tradeoffs that work for you.
If you have a local photography store you might be able to borrow or rent a lens for a few days to get a feel for how you like it.
I've also been recommended a relatively cheap Sigma lens that is of high image quality but it doesn't have Image Stabilization. Would that be a concern with R50 without IBIS?
And is the 18-150mm lens much better than the basic kit 45 one?
As a rule of thumb, you don't need to worry about stabilization until your shutter speed is less than 1/full frame focal length. So for example on a 50mm lens, as long as your shutter speed is faster than 1/75 of a second you'll be fine. Stabilization doesn't fix people and/or things moving around (eg trees swaying in the wind), so IMO it's only so useful. To me, stabilization is most useful to me at longer focal lengths, say 200mm+, because it helps keep your framing and focus points consistent. If you're doing longer exposure of static things, and don't want to carry a tripod, stabilization on a wide lens makes sense.
I don't know this specific 18-150, but these types of lenses tend to sacrifice some IQ for a very wide zoom range. Generally speaking, any lens pushing more than 3x zoom is going to be more challenging to design. An 18-150 (8.3x zoom) is positioned as "one lens to walk around with all day in good to decent lightning". You'll need to look at reviews of the two lenses in question though. See my other reply with a list of bullets that impact image quality for things to watch for.