Those that have gone mirrorless, how much priority have you placed on moving to RF lenses?

Well the title pretty much says it.

There seem to be some improvements in some of the RF equivalents of EF lenses in size and weight, apart from that, what are the downsides of staying with EF?

I have been watching the secondhand market and seeing a lot of "selling as moving to mirrorless" comments.

I moved to the R and haven't bought any RF lenses. I'd go as far as to say that all of my lenses perform better on the R.

Whilst a number of people may be replacing EF glass with RF I suspect most of what you're seeing is people changing brands or just upgrading old glass.

FlyingPete wrote in post #19101466
Well the title pretty much says it.

There seem to be some improvements in some of the RF equivalents of EF lenses in size and weight, apart from that, what are the downsides of staying with EF?

I have been watching the secondhand market and seeing a lot of "selling as moving to mirrorless" comments.

As far as I can see, none. Everything will work as well or better on EOS R bodies than they do on EOS dslrs. AF is very, very accurate. Especially with the more difficult lenses, like the EF 50 F/1.2L and 85L this is very noticeable: many more keepers. Actually, misfocus can now be blamed entirely on the user, at least, that is my personal experience .

Other than that, I have gone for some RF glass already (some of which I still cannot put in my gear list here). Basically, I got the EOS R a year ago with the RF 35 F/1.8, and the RF 24-105L. Normally, I do not particularly like the 35 mm FL, I never really "saw" it (prefer 50 mm), but the RF 35 F/1.8 was just fun to use, and works well. Similarly, I was and am very much impressed by the RF 24-105L. I was a bit worried at first, basically because I never liked the EF 24-105Ls at all, due to the way they behaved in not so great light (mushiness), but I needed a standard type zoom lens urgently (and didn't like the EF 24-70Ls either), but I found the RF 24-105 is just stellar compared to the EF versions, so absolutely no regrets.

I was so impressed, that I decided to exchange my EF 50 F/1.2L and 85L for the RF 50L and RF 85L, and wow, I was just blown away. Even traded in some Leica glass to get them . Both are sharp corner to corner at F/1.2, focus very, very well (and fast compared to their EF predecessors), have better OOF areas in both foregound and background than their predecessors, and just have this fantastic rendering that their predecessors had as well otherwise.

Still quite a few EF lenses left, and own 5 or 6 Canon mount adapters currently, but I will likely exchange the EF lenses for the RF versions once they are available and I have the budget to do so.

Before I do, I will likely get the RF 15-35L and RF 70-200L first, and possibly the RF 28-70L. I will also get the R5, and start using the R as backup camera.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Cool thanks for the insights, I share your opinion of the EF24-105 as well (it was my first L lens but now my most infrequently used), so was looking at the RF24-105 being my first RF lens.

Still tossing up the R upgrade to do or not, R6 doesn't land in these parts till end of August so got plenty of time to think about it

The only two Canon RF lenses i care for are 35 1.8 and 24-105 L.
The rest is not my focal length or too big for my RP, just overpriced.
I hope one day, third party manufacturers will fix this disaster with compact, light and well priced AF primes in 20 to 50 mm focal length. Just as it happen for Sony.

FlyingPete wrote in post #19101654
Cool thanks for the insights, I share your opinion of the EF24-105 as well (it was my first L lens but now my most infrequently used), so was looking at the RF24-105 being my first RF lens.

Still tossing up the R upgrade to do or not, R6 doesn't land in these parts till end of August so got plenty of time to think about it

It's only a pleasure!

And the RF 24-105L actually is a good lens, so I think an R6 with RF 241-105L is a good choice, although personally I would go for the R5 - landscapes, macro, architecture, portraits .

Kind regards, Wim

kf095 wrote in post #19101657
The only two Canon RF lenses i care for are 35 1.8 and 24-105 L.
The rest is not my focal length or too big for my RP, just overpriced.

The new RF 85 F/2 maybe?

Canon will "fix" this themselves, with time - they are already working on it.

When I first saw the new lenses, a year and a half ago, I also thought, what is up withthat. However, having used them now for about a year, I would not go back anymore. RF 85L and RF 50L are just out of this world, and I will likely even get the RF 28-70L.

The cameras handle well with these lenses, although the RP is maybe a little small with these. And adding a grip makes it very comfortable.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #19101712
The new RF 85 F/2 maybe?

Canon will "fix" this themselves, with time - they are already working on it.

When I first saw the new lenses, a year and a half ago, I also thought, what is up withthat. However, having used them now for about a year, I would not go back anymore. RF 85L and RF 50L are just out of this world, and I will likely even get the RF 28-70L.

The cameras handle well with these lenses, although the RP is maybe a little small with these. And adding a grip makes it very comfortable.

Kind regards, Wim

I am curious, Wim.

• Some months ago, I noticed that the MSRP and the B&H prices of lenses that were available from Canon in both EF mount and also in RF mount, we priced at a premium in the RF version...depending upon lens, the average increase for the RF version of the same lens was US$1000.
  If you look for 'same lens in RF and in EF' versions, what are you finding for a price differential in Nederlands?
  
  

Wilt wrote in post #19102097
I am curious, Wim.

• Some months ago, I noticed that the MSRP and the B&H prices of lenses that were available from Canon in both EF mount and also in RF mount, we priced at a premium in the RF version...depending upon lens, the average increase for the RF version of the same lens was US$1000.
  If you look for 'same lens in RF and in EF' versions, what are you finding for a price differential in Nederlands?
  
  

Hi Wilt,

A typical example would probably be, for me anyway, an EF 85L II (1900 euros) and an RF 85L (3000 euros), which is a price difference of 1100 euros. RF 50L is 2300 euros, EF 50 F/1.2L is 1450 euros, difference of 850 euros.
EF 100-400L is 2100 euros, RF 100-500L 3150 euros, EF 70-200 F/2.8L 1900 euros vs RF 70-200 F/2.8L 2600 euros, EF 24-70 F/2.8L II 1800 euros vs RF 24-70 F/2.8L 2500 euros, EF 16-35 F/2.8L III 2000 euros vs RF 15-35 F/2.8L 2500 euros, EF 24-105L II 1100 euros vs RF 24-105L 1200 euros, RF 85 F/2.0 720 euros vs EF 85 F/1.8 440 euros, RF 35 F/1.8 480 euros vs EF 35 F/2.0 IS 490 euros.

In the past I basically added about 20% to the US price (VAT), and then converted it straight to euros, as in, replace USD symbol with euro symbol . Basically you get a better warranty here, which covers the exchange difference of say, 10%, and you need to pay VAT at 21%. It doesn't entirely work anymore like that, but provides a good estimate still.

It does depend on how old a lens is, to a large degree, and what was added to the design, I think. If you'd take the fact that quite a few of the similar lenses in EF are quite old, and they have added a lot fo technology, the current pricing is not strange, actually. It is a lot of money, but in the end, if you use it, it is worth it to me. This is exactly why I got the RF 50L, RF 85L and RF 24-105L - I use these lenses a lot. The RF 35 I got because I got a good deal on it, but I use it a lot more than I ever expected to use it.

P.S.: Sorry, these are actual retail prices. MSRP generally is higher, although generally not a lot when it comes to Canon.

Kind regards, Wim

I have been having a look at the price differences comparing equivalent lenses, a little digging and turns out it's not an apples for apples comparison.

I started with the EF24-70 f/2.8L vs RF24-70 f/2.8L for starters the new RF now has IS, then I discovered that RF lenses have a third control ring, RRP on B&H $1699 vs $2299, so a 35% premium

Next up the EF24-205 f/4L vs RF24-105 f/4L, both have IS so should be closer this time, the RD still has that third ring though, RRP on B&H $1099 vs $1099, hang on same price!

Last for now, EF70-200 f/2.8L vs RF70-200 f/2.8L, again both have IS but the RF has fancy diffractive optics making it significantly smaller than the EF and the third ring, RRP on B&H $1899 vs $2599 so a 37% premium.

Oh and by the time I take sales tax (15%) off the lenses we are paying a 17% premium here in little ole NZ.

Thank you for listing comparative prices for 'same lens' in two Canon mounts, Wim. I was curious as to how the US differential 'converted' to EU differential.

As a retired person with EF lenses and bodies, one consideration of changeover is
"What benefits do I get from spending more money on an RF 'same lens' vs. keeping existing EF 'same lens' and using the convertor with added control?" So your thoughts on this point would be enlightening, as you perceive real value in trading up to a native RF lens (vs. the 'same' EF lens).

Hi Wilt,

Wilt wrote in post #19102116
Thank you for listing comparative prices for 'same lens' in two Canon mounts, Wim. I was curious as to how the US differential 'converted' to EU differential.

As a retired person with EF lenses and bodies, one consideration of changeover is
"What benefits do I get from spending more money on an RF 'same lens' vs. keeping existing EF 'same lens' and using the convertor with added control?" So your thoughts on this point would be enlightening, as you perceive real value in trading up to a native RF lens (vs. the 'same' EF lens).

Well, my experience with EF lenses and mount adapters is that the EF lenses work as well, or better. Better as in slightly faster AF, and of course very good AF, compared to my 5D II. AF is so good, that I found that any incorrectly focused images in general are caused by user error now, not by the camera.

So, why then upgrade to RF?

I think I have to state here that I am a perfectionist, and in addition like the rendering that Canon lenses do in combination with Canon cameras, and, for that matter, Olympus cameras (with speedboosters or adapters ). The latter means I will stick to Canon lenses to start of with, and will ikely keep several of the Canon EF lenses I still own.

The perfectionist in me sees, however, that the RF lenses are really in a class of their own, especially the L lenses, even compared to the EF L lenses. My most used lenses were/are TS-E 17L, 24L, 50L, 85L, 135L and 100-400L.

Now, the EF 85L for starters: that lens truely is awesome, but you really required it to be stopped down to at least F/2. or better F/2.8, to get the corners up to similar levels as the center. Since I really like composing with the object or subject of interest off-centre, that can become a problem for optimum results. In addition it has some spherical aberration (yes, it has some, be it only a little, focus shift), it has rather extreme LoCAs, and it has doubling up of contours in OOF objects in the background, especially in difficult lighting conditions. It also focuses very slowly, and AF with it eats batteries. The RF 85L has effectively none of this, just the slightest bit of LoCAs, doesn't eat batteries, and focuses way faster than its EF sister. It also is tack sharp edge to edge, corner to corner, from wide open already, which I found makes me use F/1.2 way more often than I ever did with the EF, and I am very happy with its rendering even at those large apertures. It also is better at rendering the OOF foreground smoothly, compared to the EF. It wasn't that great with the latter, but the Rf does it beatifully.

The EF 50 F/1.2L I have always considered to be a great lens, despite the focus shift problems it had (which I had fully corrected by Canon, giving instructions personally to the engineer who adjusted it at the service centre - took him several hours to get it right ). Yeah, it also had quite bad corners and edges up to F/2.8, but the rendering it did was incredibly smooth, and OOF areas both in foreground and background were both incredibly smooth. This is from an optical design PoV quite difficult to achieve, as by definition you can either have a smooth OOF background or a foreground, but not both, which basically is caused by the way optic rays travers a lens. It is one of the reasons why the Oly 25 F/1.2 Pro has so many lens elements - it manages this too. Anyway, that lens basically was my most used lens pre EOS R. Since I like the 50 mm FL so much, and saw all the reviews I decided to get the RF 50L, and found that it behaved even better than the Rf 85L with regard to edge and border sharpness wide open, while still maintaining the same renderign style as the EF 50L - that sold it to me, and while I thought I should maybe keep the EF version because of its unique look, I haven't, basically because the RF 50L has that same unique look, but is just way better than the EF.

The RF 24-105L I basically got because I needed a standard type zoom when all that was available in that range was this particular lens. I was worried, because I have owned a few EF 24-105L's, and I never really liked them, basically because I thought they had too much distortion, and got rather mushy in difficult lighting circumstances. I tended to get rid of them when I ran into these problems again (owned 2, tried several more). I found, however, that the RF version is just a great lens, way sharper and way better than the EF versions I ever owned and tried. And if I want to travel light but still FF, it is a great option. It also is only 100 euros more than the EF version, and I got a box-less version, brandnew, for les sthan the EF version, so am very happy with that pricewise and image qualitywise .

This is how I go about making my decisions, and as long as I can afford it, I will continu adding to or upgrading to my RF lens collection. So far they really have only been very good.

BTW, it also seems that QC for the RF line of lenses is also a class better than the EF lenses. Where you could get a copy that wasn't so great before (I tried and tested, f.e., 6 EF 50 F/1.2Ls before I was happy with one, and 4 100-400L Mk Is), it seems that is no longer the case now. That, I think, is another benefit.

Anyway, HTH, kindest regards, Wim

P.S.: I will retire in a year and a half's time

Thanks very much for that insightful post, Wim. I am not so sure that my wife thinks as highly of a post that might move me in the direction of my spending lots of money!

One last question: How do you make use of the additional control found on RF lenses, or on EF lenses used with the control adapter?

Wilt wrote in post #19102219
Thanks very much for that insightful post, Wim. I am not so sure that my wife thinks as highly of a post that might move me in the direction of my spending lots of money!

One last question: How do you make use of the additional control found on RF lenses, or on EF lenses used with the control adapter?

It's only a pleasure, Wilt.

As to the control ring: I use it rather traditionally most of the time, to set aperture .

Occasionally I set it to iso, shutter, or exposure compensation, in that order of preference. However, aperture is used in 90 % to 95 % of the cases.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #19101500
As far as I can see, none. Everything will work as well or better on EOS R bodies than they do on EOS dslrs. AF is very, very accurate. Especially with the more difficult lenses, like the EF 50 F/1.2L and 85L this is very noticeable: many more keepers. Actually, misfocus can now be blamed entirely on the user, at least, that is my personal experience .

Other than that, I have gone for some RF glass already (some of which I still cannot put in my gear list here). Basically, I got the EOS R a year ago with the RF 35 F/1.8, and the RF 24-105L. Normally, I do not particularly like the 35 mm FL, I never really "saw" it (prefer 50 mm), but the RF 35 F/1.8 was just fun to use, and works well. Similarly, I was and am very much impressed by the RF 24-105L. I was a bit worried at first, basically because I never liked the EF 24-105Ls at all, due to the way they behaved in not so great light (mushiness), but I needed a standard type zoom lens urgently (and didn't like the EF 24-70Ls either), but I found the RF 24-105 is just stellar compared to the EF versions, so absolutely no regrets.

I was so impressed, that I decided to exchange my EF 50 F/1.2L and 85L for the RF 50L and RF 85L, and wow, I was just blown away. Even traded in some Leica glass to get them . Both are sharp corner to corner at F/1.2, focus very, very well (and fast compared to their EF predecessors), have better OOF areas in both foregound and background than their predecessors, and just have this fantastic rendering that their predecessors had as well otherwise.

Still quite a few EF lenses left, and own 5 or 6 Canon mount adapters currently, but I will likely exchange the EF lenses for the RF versions once they are available and I have the budget to do so.

Before I do, I will likely get the RF 15-35L and RF 70-200L first, and possibly the RF 28-70L. I will also get the R5, and start using the R as backup camera.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

what was the last DSLR that you used?