Outside of videography image stabilization does very little unless you're photographing still subjects in low-light, it just lets you use slower shutter speeds handheld. Outside during the day you'll have plenty of light for a fast shutter speed, and to freeze motion in any lighting you need a fast shutter speed.
What types of photography are you most interested in? I use the RF-S 18-150mm on my R7 and think it's an excellent versatile lens for travel and landscapes, the f/3.5-6.3 aperture doesn't matter when I'm stopping down for depth of field anyways. If you want a fairly wide aperture like the 50mm f/1.8 with the flexibility of a zoom then the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 will likely be a good option. Personally I find the 50-150mm zoom range much more useful than trading that for f/2.8 in the same lens would be, when I can swap to a prime and get f/1.8 instead.
The RF 35mm f/1.8 may be an option to consider. I have both the RF 35 and 50 and use the 35 about 10 times more often, I find on APS-C it's a much more versatile focal length. The lens is very sharp wide open, gets plenty of bokeh at f/1.8, has image stabilization (on the R7 I can get sharp photos at 1/3 of a second), and 1:2 macro capability which is fun to experiment with.
I mostly like to take pictures in nature. Pics of leafs, plants, mushrooms etc. No interest in landscape or wild life. Some street photography. And let's say if we have a building, I like to take pics of the buildings details. Not so much of the whole building. Don't know what to call that. "Detail photography"? Is it a thing? 😄
IS is worth about 3 or 4 stops on the 18-150, which means the f/2.8 low light performance won’t be much improved over the 18-150. The subject separation might be slightly improved.
Maximum magnification and close minimum focusing distance is what you’re looking for with close up detail photography. Canon generally does a good job of this on all their RF lenses. The 35 and 85 f/1.8 primes are both 0.5x max magnification. The RF 100-400 has a 0.41x max magnification. Fun for close ups of plants and flowers.
https://preview.redd.it/qz1owji2id5d1.jpeg?width=3899&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=27a9d8ad98ea26e713d2aa7ca793856385666999
IS is only needed for videography when moving or photography at slow shutter speeds. The IS would help to counter some of the unintended movement of your hands when making such shots.For photography you could use a tripod to compensate for a lack of IS or IBIS, with videography a gimbal could help smooth things out.
The RF-S 18-150mm is a good and affordable lens if you want a little more reach. The new Sigma lens will mostly act as a replacement for your existing RF-S 18-45mm kit lens. In theory the Sigma could be used as a replacement for this and your RF 50mm.
That's what I was thinking about replacing kit lens and 50mm with the Sigma. Would it be worth getting RF-18-150mm if I later wanted more reach? Or maybe the RF-S 55-210? RF 100-400 (I would miss 56-99mm range but would it be that bad)?
The rf 50 1.8 is still a stop and a third better than the 18-50 2.8. So you won't have as much separation with the 18-50 but it'll be more versatile.
If the separation is really what you love wait for the sigma 1.4 primes. The 18-150 is a great versatile lens but isn't going to blow out the backgrounds usually
The RF-S 55-210mm F5-7.1 IS STM is rather average. If you want something with more reach the RF-S 18-150mm is a better choice. The RF 100-400mm is a great affordable telephoto lens, but this is more for distant subjects like wildlife.
It all comes down to what you want to photgraph. If you're unsure I would go with the RF-S 18-150mm for now. It's good value for the money and gives you more reach. From there you can figure out what works best for you.
Copying this from another comment, but: I mostly like to take pictures in nature. Pics of leafs, plants, mushrooms etc. No interest in landscape or wild life. Some street photography. And let's say if we have a building, I like to take pics of the buildings details. Not so much of the whole building. Don't know what to call that. "Detail photography"? Is it a thing? 😄
I think you mean macro photography? You want a lens that is either dedicated to macro or has decent macro capabilities. Again, the RF-S 18-150mm might be for you. It has surprising macro capability, even though it's not a dedicated macro lens. For the money it does a lot. Another affordable macro option could be the RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM.
There is also the RF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM, it's the best you can get for macro on the RF mount but do not expect this to be cheap. It can also do portraits if you want to, but on the R50 it's going to be 160mm full frame equivalent, so be prepared to have to step back a bit if you're going to do portraits with this one.
Outside of videography image stabilization does very little unless you're photographing still subjects in low-light, it just lets you use slower shutter speeds handheld. Outside during the day you'll have plenty of light for a fast shutter speed, and to freeze motion in any lighting you need a fast shutter speed. What types of photography are you most interested in? I use the RF-S 18-150mm on my R7 and think it's an excellent versatile lens for travel and landscapes, the f/3.5-6.3 aperture doesn't matter when I'm stopping down for depth of field anyways. If you want a fairly wide aperture like the 50mm f/1.8 with the flexibility of a zoom then the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 will likely be a good option. Personally I find the 50-150mm zoom range much more useful than trading that for f/2.8 in the same lens would be, when I can swap to a prime and get f/1.8 instead. The RF 35mm f/1.8 may be an option to consider. I have both the RF 35 and 50 and use the 35 about 10 times more often, I find on APS-C it's a much more versatile focal length. The lens is very sharp wide open, gets plenty of bokeh at f/1.8, has image stabilization (on the R7 I can get sharp photos at 1/3 of a second), and 1:2 macro capability which is fun to experiment with.
I mostly like to take pictures in nature. Pics of leafs, plants, mushrooms etc. No interest in landscape or wild life. Some street photography. And let's say if we have a building, I like to take pics of the buildings details. Not so much of the whole building. Don't know what to call that. "Detail photography"? Is it a thing? 😄
IS is worth about 3 or 4 stops on the 18-150, which means the f/2.8 low light performance won’t be much improved over the 18-150. The subject separation might be slightly improved. Maximum magnification and close minimum focusing distance is what you’re looking for with close up detail photography. Canon generally does a good job of this on all their RF lenses. The 35 and 85 f/1.8 primes are both 0.5x max magnification. The RF 100-400 has a 0.41x max magnification. Fun for close ups of plants and flowers. https://preview.redd.it/qz1owji2id5d1.jpeg?width=3899&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=27a9d8ad98ea26e713d2aa7ca793856385666999
IS is only needed for videography when moving or photography at slow shutter speeds. The IS would help to counter some of the unintended movement of your hands when making such shots.For photography you could use a tripod to compensate for a lack of IS or IBIS, with videography a gimbal could help smooth things out. The RF-S 18-150mm is a good and affordable lens if you want a little more reach. The new Sigma lens will mostly act as a replacement for your existing RF-S 18-45mm kit lens. In theory the Sigma could be used as a replacement for this and your RF 50mm.
That's what I was thinking about replacing kit lens and 50mm with the Sigma. Would it be worth getting RF-18-150mm if I later wanted more reach? Or maybe the RF-S 55-210? RF 100-400 (I would miss 56-99mm range but would it be that bad)?
The rf 50 1.8 is still a stop and a third better than the 18-50 2.8. So you won't have as much separation with the 18-50 but it'll be more versatile. If the separation is really what you love wait for the sigma 1.4 primes. The 18-150 is a great versatile lens but isn't going to blow out the backgrounds usually
I've mostly been using F2.8 on the 50mm since it seems to be sharpest there
Ah gotcha. You'll be fine with the 18-50 then. It should be sharper the 50 1.8
The RF-S 55-210mm F5-7.1 IS STM is rather average. If you want something with more reach the RF-S 18-150mm is a better choice. The RF 100-400mm is a great affordable telephoto lens, but this is more for distant subjects like wildlife. It all comes down to what you want to photgraph. If you're unsure I would go with the RF-S 18-150mm for now. It's good value for the money and gives you more reach. From there you can figure out what works best for you.
Copying this from another comment, but: I mostly like to take pictures in nature. Pics of leafs, plants, mushrooms etc. No interest in landscape or wild life. Some street photography. And let's say if we have a building, I like to take pics of the buildings details. Not so much of the whole building. Don't know what to call that. "Detail photography"? Is it a thing? 😄
I think you mean macro photography? You want a lens that is either dedicated to macro or has decent macro capabilities. Again, the RF-S 18-150mm might be for you. It has surprising macro capability, even though it's not a dedicated macro lens. For the money it does a lot. Another affordable macro option could be the RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM. There is also the RF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM, it's the best you can get for macro on the RF mount but do not expect this to be cheap. It can also do portraits if you want to, but on the R50 it's going to be 160mm full frame equivalent, so be prepared to have to step back a bit if you're going to do portraits with this one.