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

I am keeping my Tamron 24-70 2.8 g2 and my Sigma 135 1.8.
I sold my Tamron 85 1.8 and bought the RF 85 1.2. The Tamron was a good lens, just not an exciting one.

I am waiting for an RF 35 1.2 or 1.4 to come out. I would like to end up with a 35 1.2, 50 1.2, and the 85 1.2. I just wish Canon had decided to use the Blue Refractive juju in the 50mm like they did in the 85mm. A nearly complete lack of CA even when backlit is a huge selling point for me personally.

ed rader wrote in post #19102357
what was the last DSLR that you used?

Hi Ed,

5D II, and a borrowed 5DsR.

I never upgraded the 5D II because I could not manually focus with the 5D III (something different about the exit pupil of the OVF; and I have weird eyes - that is the reason why I would nver buy a Nikon camera, as I can't MF with any of their bodies), and by the time I was ready to get a 5D IV I decided to wait for the R lines of cameras - been shooting Panasonic and Olympus MILCs since 2011 as well.

I bought an EOS R in July (or was it June?) last year, because I couyldn't wait any longer, and have been very happy with it, although I wouldn't mind more MPs. I am sure there is an R5 in my (near) future.

Kind regards, Wim

i knew you had the 5d II. comparing it's autofocus to mirrorless isn't a fair comparison. i think if you compare 5d4 to EOSR you're not going to see much difference in AF, and especially when using DPAF.

ed rader wrote in post #19103397
i knew you had the 5d II. comparing it's autofocus to mirrorless isn't a fair comparison. i think if you compare 5d4 to EOSR you're not going to see much difference in AF, and especially when using DPAF.

Probably not, Ed. I do expect the R5 to be better, however, especially with regard to tracking. Plus, it has 50% more MPs, which is great for my kind of shooting.

What I do like about mirrorless is that you normally don't have to correct AF anymore. I was, and still am, really very, very impressed with the AF keeper rate on the EOS R series of cameras.

Kind regards, Wim

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).

Being in the same situation (but planning on doing a bit of paid work as soon as the covid situation allows it), I do plan on replacing only my 24-105 and my 70-200 with RF versions. That's primarily because both of them are Mod I and thus quite a bit outdated (and beyond the maintenance window). I'll replace the 70-200 first because I really like the compact traveling size (it will fit my Domke F2) and I've handled one and found it deliciously sweet. The RF 24-105 is reputed to have distinctly superior IQ, and it's not all that expensive.

But those are really the only two EF lenses that I'm looking toward replacing. Those two lenses do amount to 90+ percent of everything I do.

wimg wrote in post #19103437
Probably not, Ed. I do expect the R5 to be better, however, especially with regard to tracking. Plus, it has 50% more MPs, which is great for my kind of shooting.

What I do like about mirrorless is that you normally don't have to correct AF anymore. I was, and still am, really very, very impressed with the AF keeper rate on the EOS R series of cameras.

Kind regards, Wim

I used 1 series cameras for about five years before getting the 5d3 but AF of the 5d3 was even better. i'd say keeper rate since then has been almost 100%. i remember in the olden days I would take five shots with the 5Dc OR 20d and often I would have to select second or third choice because focus was slightly off. so as a backup to my 5d3 I got the SL1 and used it in Yellowstone for wildlife. huge mistake. deja flashback all over again to the olden days.

so I think great focus has been around since 5d3 and i'm sure the R5 will be an improvement. I have never calibrated a lens so that will be one advantage

I'm on edge to spring for the RF glass, a couple have caught my interest, it's just really hard to justify since the glass is (likely) exceptional but I don't work with my R that much mostly due to my OS of choice and I do wonder if it's actually holding me back. I don't take as many images as I want and do find many of what I do take to just be snapshots.

The other hesitation is the lack of bodies I have that will take the premium RF glass.

My "workhorse" well most used lens right now is the trusty EF 24-105mm f/4L is first generation which now has a couple pieces of it's rubber missing. I've thought of an upgrade for it.

Heard the ef mkii was a meh upgrade. The RF version (viewing the digital picture reviews) shows it's pretty good, but I made the mistake of looking at the 15-35 and the 24-70 f/2.8 is and well, contrast and sharpness seem a whole nother level. That's a lot of cash for one camera and my snapshot-esq photography style

Also been eyeballing the 85 f/2 macro since I like close ups. Probably a bit more justify able. But, if I'm going to upgrade a "workhorse" well...

Yesterday, I said goodbye to my EF 50mm f/1.2L which I've had since 2011, and was my last EF mount lens. We're all RF now, so I guess while I had always intended to switch to mirrorless, it wasn't a super-urgent priority because the EF glass + adapter functioned flawlessly on the EOS R. We went full RF because of 1) declining resale value of EF, and 2) the RF lenses offer some awesome capabilities that our EF glass didn't, namely the IS of the RF 24-70, and the reduced size/weight of the RF 70-200.

I parted w/ the 50L because I'm in love with the Fuji 35 f/1.4, and in a sense that was a move to mirrorless lens, just XF instead of RF

I have 3 EF lenses that I will likely keep for a long time: 100-400II, 24-70II and 100L, they fit both the M and R series mirrorless, so there is that kind of versatility I like.

I have a Sigma 135 f1.8 that is pretty freakin' amazing, but I could see myself letting that go perhaps. It creates a FF like image on my M50 with the speedbooster though that gives me an awesome backup body for portraits. I would want an 85 1.2 or 100 f1.4 lens to replace it.

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?

Hi Wilt,

Just another reply, to help convince your beloved wife. 2 images with the RF 85L, indoors, at F/1.2 .

Kind regards, Wim

I picked up only one RF lens so far, the very all in one mega zoom (can't even recall the numbers,. 24-240MM?) which turns the R into a nice pricey P&S ultrazoom. Other than that, I'm all happily EF. (and EF-S!!)

It does so well with the EF adapter and the older lenses I have,. 28mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, I'm loving it.

EF-S 18-135mm at 13MP 1.6x crop is not bad either!

Coupled with the R5 or R6 they will be even better with IBIS!

The EOS R I purchased during the holiday sales has become the replacement for my 5D3. As such, I will probably eventually replace the lenses I dedicated to use on the 5D3 with RF equivalents. I did purchase the RF 24-105L with the R, as the image stabilization on my EF version acts flaky at times. I also picked up the RF 35mm f/1.8 as a sort of replacement for my EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake. I would also consider upgrading my EF 16-35mm f/4 IS to an RF version, if/when Canon offers such a lens. The RF 50mm f/1.2 is out of my price range, so I will only upgrade my EF 50L if Canon comes out with a 50mm in either f/1.4 or f/1.8 versions. I really do not need a f/1.2 maximum aperture anyway. Until then, though, the EF 50L works great on the EOS R with the adapter.

As long as I continue to use my 7D2 for wildlife, I cannot see upgrading my two telephoto lenses -- the EF 100-400L II and EF 70-200 f/4 IS. I use those two lenses almost exclusively on the 7D2.

I'm going all R. I've sold everything except for my 100-400 II. I have R and RF24-105 which will be my general travel walk around kit. I'm waiting for the R5 and 100-500 come in then the 100-400 II will go up for sale. I may never use it again. Since I missed out on the first wave of R5's I may get both at the same time. I'm also going to get the 800 DO. I have to give that lens a try with the 1.4 which I also ordered.

If an R7 crop comes out it should have the same AF, etc capabilities. I'll see how cropping a 45mp sensor works out. I may be interested in a crop. Not sure about that as I found myself using my 5D4 more often. If I do I will sell the R.

Scott M wrote in post #19109895
The EOS R I purchased during the holiday sales has become the replacement for my 5D3. As such, I will probably eventually replace the lenses I dedicated to use on the 5D3 with RF equivalents. I did purchase the RF 24-105L with the R, as the image stabilization on my EF version acts flaky at times. I also picked up the RF 35mm f/1.8 as a sort of replacement for my EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake. I would also consider upgrading my EF 16-35mm f/4 IS to an RF version, if/when Canon offers such a lens. The RF 50mm f/1.2 is out of my price range, so I will only upgrade my EF 50L if Canon comes out with a 50mm in either f/1.4 or f/1.8 versions. I really do not need a f/1.2 maximum aperture anyway. Until then, though, the EF 50L works great on the EOS R with the adapter.

As long as I continue to use my 7D2 for wildlife, I cannot see upgrading my two telephoto lenses -- the EF 100-400L II and EF 70-200 f/4 IS. I use those two lenses almost exclusively on the 7D2.

how would you compare image quality between the EF and RF 24-105L's on the R body

davem01 wrote in post #19110928
how would you compare image quality between the EF and RF 24-105L's on the R body

Hi Dave,

Not Scott, but I have experience with both, or rather all three.

I always hated the EF 24-105L versions, basically because the difference between WA and tele was too much, the corners didn't hold up, and in low contrast, low light situations IME the images got rather mushy, too much so for my liking, especially at the longer end. The Mk I I sold about a year after acquiring it, the Mk II I had on loan for testing and returned it when done. The only redeeming factor it had IMO over the Mk I was lower distortion, especially at the WA end. Otherwise they were the same AFAIAC.

As a result, the RF version I was a little hesitant about, but I needed something in that range urgently, and got one with some trepidation. Fortunately, I did not need to worry after all, as I have never felt the need to look back in the period I have it now (a little over a year). It is significantly sharper than any of the EF versions. Distortion is about the same as the EF Mk II version, but most importantly it is also much, much sharper at the edges and in the corners of the image. It does not suffer from mushiness in lower contrast, low light scenes either, not at all. It is equally excellent under all circumstances, and it happens so that my first shoot with it did indeed cover, a.o., low contrast, extremely low light scenes .

It has a little more vignetting wide open, but that is easily corrected, if the camera doesn't do it for you already (jpeg of course).

Overall, it is more than a worthy upgrade, and IMO absolutely a keeper - I will hold on to it for sure! For a change, it is worth the L-moniker, unlike its EF brethren. That's my opinion of course, but it truly is significantly better, and for a change I enjoy shooting with a 24-105 . Oh, funnily enough it currently is cheaper than the EF Mk II over here ....

HTH, kind regards, Wim