Will EF lenses be as good as RF lenses with Canon's adaptor for the new mirrorless bodies?

You raise a perfectly valid point, about the apparent decline in MSRP over the years as being a contributor to price difference.

Nevertheless, for a person buying a 'new camera system' today, there is a very real difference in the cost of a traditional FF dSLR kit vs. a FF mirrorless kit, as exemplified by both MSRP and NYC selling prices.

[edit: I followed up with a bit more research on the matter of the MSRP for the 50mm f/1.2...]

"$1,599
The powerful and fast EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM lens will be available in November for an estimated selling price of $1,599**.
"Aug 24, 2006

The actual press release can be still found here... https://www.the-digital-picture.com …m-lens-press-release.aspx

Wilt wrote in post #19037526
You raise a perfectly valid point, about the apparent decline in MSRP over the years as being a contributor to price difference.

Nevertheless, for a person buying a 'new camera system' today, there is a very real difference in the cost of a traditional FF dSLR kit vs. a FF mirrorless kit, as exemplified by both MSRP and NYC selling prices.

[edit: I followed up with a bit more research on the matter of the MSRP for the 50mm f/1.2...]

"$1,599
The powerful and fast EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM lens will be available in November for an estimated selling price of $1,599**.
"Aug 24, 2006

The actual press release can be still found here... https://www.the-digital-picture.com …m-lens-press-release.aspx

There is also inflation and the varying yen/dollar exchange rate.

RDKirk wrote in post #19037545
There is also inflation and the varying yen/dollar exchange rate.

That raises to mind the question, just how many Canon products have had a decline in MSRP, vs. inflationary adjustements upward in price?

Wilt wrote in post #19037526
You raise a perfectly valid point, about the apparent decline in MSRP over the years as being a contributor to price difference.

Nevertheless, for a person buying a 'new camera system' today, there is a very real difference in the cost of a traditional FF dSLR kit vs. a FF mirrorless kit, as exemplified by both MSRP and NYC selling prices.

[edit: I followed up with a bit more research on the matter of the MSRP for the 50mm f/1.2...]

"$1,599
The powerful and fast EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM lens will be available in November for an estimated selling price of $1,599**.
"Aug 24, 2006

The actual press release can be still found here... https://www.the-digital-picture.com …m-lens-press-release.aspx

I hear you but there are plenty of less expensive options. also we are in a global recession/depression so I expect some great deals tho my spending priorities for the future have changed. my 5d4 and EF lenses are looking better and better to me

oh and goodbye Nikon!

RDKirk wrote in post #19037545
There is also inflation and the varying yen/dollar exchange rate.

there is no inflation according to the FED as we enter the twilight zone of "infinite quantitative easing"

ed rader wrote in post #19037566
I hear you but there are plenty of less expensive options. also we are in a global recession/depression so I expect some great deals tho my spending priorities for the future have changed. my 5d4 and EF lenses are looking better and better to me

oh and goodbye Nikon!

I have expressed before, the sentiment that Canon mirrorless needs to demonstrate some clearcut advantages over classic Canon dSLR, for me to undertake the expense of a new mirrorless body, combined with a kit full of RF lenses for their own advantages over EF, for me to even think about changing over during my retirement years.
I do not have GAS (yet), other than that which is caused by what I ate.

Wilt wrote in post #19037632
I have expressed before, the sentiment that Canon mirrorless needs to demonstrate some clearcut advantages over classic Canon dSLR, for me to undertake the expense of a new mirrorless body, combined with a kit full of RF lenses for their own advantages over EF, for me to even think about changing over during my retirement years.
I do not have GAS (yet), other than that which is caused by what I ate.

oh I hear you. for what I shoot I think the biggest advantage will be more resolution and even that isn't necessary. I really am very happy with my kit and the events of late really have me examining my wants vs needs.

ed rader wrote in post #19037504
what did the 50L sell for upon release?

now do the 24-70L EF vs RF. I know I paid $2400 for my ef upon release.

I paid 1659 euros for my 50 F/1.2L, about a year after it was launched .

Traded it in for the RF 50L, but am considering rebuying it - I just like the way it renders . The RF 50L is absolutely marvelous, but I think there is space for both versions .

Kind regards, Wim

Too date I only have one RF lens and frankly I am not using it often. I have been tempted by sales on refurb 35mm IS RF, but I have not bit because I am so enjoying my small EF lenses on the EOS R.


The super affordable 28mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 are amazing on the R. The AF adapter also lets me use EF-S lenses like the 18-135mm,. (albeit in "crop mode" )
My old 100mm f/2.8 macro (not the "L") is now Sooo easy to use with the R's pivoting screen.

I do not dislike the adapter at all (do get the one with the extra control ring though!)


Bottom line, don't worry about RF lenses until after you have been shooting it for some time. There is simply no rush because the adapted EF lenses leave little to improve on. Should you get the urge, then go for it, but for heavens sake don't feel like it's necessary to get RF glass.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19038369
Too date I only have one RF lens and frankly I am not using it often. I have been tempted by sales on refurb 35mm IS RF, but I have not bit because I am so enjoying my small EF lenses on the EOS R.


The super affordable 28mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 are amazing on the R. The AF adapter also lets me use EF-S lenses like the 18-135mm,. (albeit in "crop mode" )
My old 100mm f/2.8 macro (not the "L") is now Sooo easy to use with the R's pivoting screen.

I do not dislike the adapter at all (do get the one with the extra control ring though!)


Bottom line, don't worry about RF lenses until after you have been shooting it for some time. There is simply no rush because the adapted EF lenses leave little to improve on. Should you get the urge, then go for it, but for heavens sake don't feel like it's necessary to get RF glass.

This is great news to read. R5 comes out & many of us will need body and adapter only and can slowly adapt to R glass

really good news

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19038369
Too date I only have one RF lens and frankly I am not using it often. I have been tempted by sales on refurb 35mm IS RF, but I have not bit because I am so enjoying my small EF lenses on the EOS R.


The super affordable 28mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 are amazing on the R. The AF adapter also lets me use EF-S lenses like the 18-135mm,. (albeit in "crop mode" )
My old 100mm f/2.8 macro (not the "L") is now Sooo easy to use with the R's pivoting screen.

I do not dislike the adapter at all (do get the one with the extra control ring though!)


Bottom line, don't worry about RF lenses until after you have been shooting it for some time. There is simply no rush because the adapted EF lenses leave little to improve on. Should you get the urge, then go for it, but for heavens sake don't feel like it's necessary to get RF glass.

I expect to get the RF 70-200 maybe by this time next year, mostly because I've handled a rental and found it really light and well-balanced. Plus it will fit my Domke F2 bag. Perhaps by the end of this year I'll get the 24-105. Those are the two lenses I use most of the time, and they're both Mk I lenses and beyond their maintenance periods anyway. I may never get any other RF lenses. I'll just use the two adapters I have on my remaining EF lenses.

I currently own the RF 24-105L and RF 35mm f/1.8 lenses for the EOS R I purchased around the holidays. I could see eventually buying an RF replacement for my EF 16-35 f/4 L IS if/when Canon introduces one, and the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS could be tempting when the street price gets lower -- I have never owned a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom because of the size & weight. Otherwise, I will stick with my EF lenses for a long time. The RF 50L looks very nice, but is way too pricey for me. I am very happy with the EF 50L on the EOS R.

Not having a dog in this hunt (yet), from what i have heard from the folks that teach canon workshops, as well as people that have switched to the R and started using thier EF lenses first, the EF lenses perform BETTER with the Canon Adapter and the R cameras. I think they may have better quality but i have no first hand knowledge of the results.

dmead516 wrote in post #19040944
Not having a dog in this hunt (yet), from what i have heard from the folks that teach canon workshops, as well as people that have switched to the R and started using thier EF lenses first, the EF lenses perform BETTER with the Canon Adapter and the R cameras. I think they may have better quality but i have no first hand knowledge of the results.

By my experience, this is true. If the EF lenses have performed acceptably before on EF-mount cameras, they will continue to perform acceptably (if not slightly better) on the R. The adapter introduces no significant disadvantages. Canon does report that the adapter adds a fraction of a millimeter of extension, however, that macro photographers might notice.

dmead516 wrote in post #19040944
Not having a dog in this hunt (yet), from what i have heard from the folks that teach canon workshops, as well as people that have switched to the R and started using thier EF lenses first, the EF lenses perform BETTER with the Canon Adapter and the R cameras. I think they may have better quality but i have no first hand knowledge of the results.

My assumption is that any performance gains from using EF lenses on an R-mount would be from more accurate focusing -- i.e. no microfocus adjustments to worry about.

Of course, you know what happens when you assume...