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

Scott M wrote in post #19041347
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.

....

Exactly that. In addition, I find AF on my EOS R to be quicker than before, with my 5D II. Very noticeable with the 85L II (but upgraded to RF 85L regardless ), and the 180L Macro.

I generally find that if a shot is OOF, it is me (user error) rather than the camera, and the amount of keepers from a focus PoV is basically 99+ %.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #19041393
Exactly that. In addition, I find AF on my EOS R to be quicker than before, with my 5D II. Very noticeable with the 85L II (but upgraded to RF 85L regardless ), and the 180L Macro.

I generally find that if a shot is OOF, it is me (user error) rather than the camera, and the amount of keepers from a focus PoV is basically 99+ %.

Kind regards, Wim

to be fair the 5d3 and 5d4 are a huge upgrade to 5d II in focusing and keeper rate. i went from 1ds Mark III to 5d3 and the jump in rate of keepers was huge.

and the 5d4 is as good or better. so i see the 5d II as a misleading comparison to EOS R.

ed rader wrote in post #19041714
to be fair the 5d3 and 5d4 are a huge upgrade to 5d II in focusing and keeper rate. i went from 1ds Mark III to 5d3 and the jump in rate of keepers was huge.

and the 5d4 is as good or better. so i see the 5d II as a misleading comparison to EOS R.

Well, that is the comparison I have. Do note that I was very happy with the 5D II, but the EOS R beats it by a mile (or two).

As to 5D II and 5D IV: The 5D III had the same problem for me as Nikon cameras I tried, namely that I could not focus manually with it (I have strange eyes, weird, uncommon, genetical problem). The 5D IV does work again, but I was waiting for the mirrorless variety by then, or go for the 5Ds or 5DsR. Been shooting mirrorless (MFT) for 9 years already, especially when not being able to carry a lot, so EOS R was a simple choice for an upgrade.

An advantage obviously is that you do not need to tune the camera to each of your lenses - had that done by Canon some years ago, but I really like that the EOS R can actually deal with it without having to do so. And as mentioned, I found it focused way more accurate than the 5D II and my calibrated lenses (24L I and II, 50 F/1.2L, 85L II), and faster too, especially with the 85L II. Spot on each time.

Kind regards, Wim

5d4 has DPAF. my point is you are a little behind in DSLRs that have been available for years

ed rader wrote in post #19041756
5d4 has DPAF. my point is you are a little behind in DSLRs that have been available for years

I am well aware of that. And you do put it very nicely, thank you for that. Been too busy with work and house renovation the last 5 years or so . Only from July or so past year I found and made some extra time for the fun stuff.

Regardless, I am very happy with the EOS R (and a couple of lenses I got / traded in around the same time) .

Cheerio!

Wim

Mike,
It's interesting thinking about a mirrorless and DSLR combo as you mentioned. I like the advantages. As a sports shooter there are pros and cons for me so I'll be following this thread and scratching my head over the coming months. Shooting with 2 identical bodies means identical controls and Menu settings, identical cards, and image files that react the same way when processing. The quest for better images, better files, better focus puts in position to make hard choices!

I just purchased the Canon R5. I have been using a 5D mk iv with the Sigma 150-600 Sports lens. I purchased the adapter Canon adaptor which allows me to use the Sports lens with the R5. It is a nice improvement over the 5D. Here are a few shots I took over the weekend

Curious, I visited photozone.de to see if there were tests of 'same FL lens' in both EF and RF mount. The 24-105mm lens (24-105 STM vs 24-105 USM) tested on 45MPixel R5 vs. 50MPixel 5DSR. In this specific case, the MTF scores are slightly higher at both ends of the FL range when using the USM lens over the STM lens. So, judging by this comparison, the RF lens is not 'always better' than the EF lens. Not conclusive, but one data point.

Wilt wrote in post #19465075
Curious, I visited photozone.de to see if there were tests of 'same FL lens' in both EF and RF mount. The 24-105mm lens (24-105 STM vs 24-105 USM) tested on 45MPixel R5 vs. 50MPixel 5DSR. In this specific case, the MTF scores are slightly higher at both ends of the FL range when using the USM lens over the STM lens. So, judging by this comparison, the RF lens is not 'always better' than the EF lens. Not conclusive, but one data point.

And may have been only a sample of 1.

Wilt wrote in post #19465075
Curious, I visited photozone.de to see if there were tests of 'same FL lens' in both EF and RF mount. The 24-105mm lens (24-105 STM vs 24-105 USM) tested on 45MPixel R5 vs. 50MPixel 5DSR. In this specific case, the MTF scores are slightly higher at both ends of the FL range when using the USM lens over the STM lens. So, judging by this comparison, the RF lens is not 'always better' than the EF lens. Not conclusive, but one data point.

Those are not the same lenses at all, however. The test should have been the EF USM vs the RF USM. I don't think anyone argues that every RF lens is better than every EF lens.

RDKirk wrote in post #19465165
Those are not the same lenses at all, however. The test should have been the EF USM vs the RF USM. I don't think anyone argues that every RF lens is better than every EF lens.

Yes, well understood USM is not same as STM. However, it is one of the few FL range lenses tested in both RF and EF mount.

Wilt wrote in post #19465171
Yes, well understood USM is not same as STM. However, it is one of the few FL range lenses tested in both RF and EF mount.

There is a number of testers who have directly compared the EF 24-105 L f/4 Mark I and Mark II with the RF 24-105 L f/4. I've followed those closely, because the RF 24-105 L f/4 will likely be the first RF lens I buy.

All the testers indicate that the image quality of the RF lens is only barely better--if at all--than the Mark II version of the EF lens. That's the reason I've been on the fence about buying the RF lens.

Can you please expand on the reason for the adapter with the control ring? ($99 vs $149 current price). I am going to buy the adapter this week and just shelf it for now.

Mike

Aronis wrote in post #19481888
Can you please expand on the reason for the adapter with the control ring? ($99 vs $149 current price). I am going to buy the adapter this week and just shelf it for now.

Mike

I have a control ring adapter for each of my three EOS R bodies. They stay on the bodies because I'm still using all EF lenses.

I have the rings set to control ISO when I'm in manual exposure (which is generally when I'm in the studio) and to control exposure compensation when I'm in an auto-exposure mode.

The EOS R makes good use of another major control...perhaps the other cameras don't need it.

But one of my uses in which it excels is when shooting stage productions with exposure simulation. While the stage lighting is constantly changing, or while I'm following a performer moving in and out of the lighting, I'm riding exposure with my left fingers the way I rode focus on a moving subject back in the manual focusing days. Otherwise, those fingers aren't doing anything...might as well give them a steady job.

I thought at first I'd use the ring to control aperture (as back in those days), but I quickly discovered that controlling ISO or exposure compensation works better for me.

If you want a control ring, I suggest this product, i have their rf converters, they work very well.

https://www.amazon.com …d5-4975-8bc7-93deae8f9840