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

wimg wrote in post #19110951
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

thanks for that - toying with the R5 when its generally available and wondering if my EF (mk1) is worth keeping or go for the RF, think you've convinced me to go the whole hog!

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

I have not tried the EF 24-105L on the R body (I had no reason to), so I cannot offer a direct comparison. I will say that the images I am getting from the R + RF 24-105L are a noticeable improvement over my old 5D3 + EF 24-105L combo. How much of that is the lens, and how much is the body can be debated. The RF version is better built, too.

davem01 wrote in post #19111048
thanks for that - toying with the R5 when its generally available and wondering if my EF (mk1) is worth keeping or go for the RF, think you've convinced me to go the whole hog!

That is a good idea. I only got it 6 weeks later, after the EOS R that is, because of my intial worries, and if I had acquired it with the camera, it would have been another 100 euros cheaper .

Kind regards, Wim

I got the RP and would start getting into ultra-wide angle (15-35mm) and wide angle lens while waiting for TS-17mm.

meanwhile I would hold on to the telephoto zoom lens (70-200mm and 100-400mm) so it is backward compatible to the EF mount.
and keeping low element count primes (EF 50mm f/1,2L, EF 85mm f/1,2L, EF 135mm f/2L ) as personally I prefer the rendering of these lens.

I am *still* mulling over a potential upgrade. This R has been a bit of an oddball in my gear collection. It's definitely not a horrible camera but it has quirks for me. Actually got out to sort of use it (as an expensive, I guess point and shoot snapshots camera) when the sky blew up from the sunset and wildfire smoke. I stuck my first gen 24-105 f/4 on it and yeah, it did work, I did wish I had it wider, a bit brighter and some additional is to hand hold as it got a bit darker.

It was perhaps a good thing the RF 15-35 f/2.8 is was out of stock (still) at b&h I might have gone for it right then.

It's still very difficult to justify the 2300 bucks for the new lens... I barely get out to do real photography, my "digital darkroom" is, um, not so much as a Linux user. Yes, tools are available but dng converter broke somewhere and darktable and rawtherapee just, I really don't seem to care for.

I do wonder if there is still EF glass available for upgrades that will work throughout my system.

However, this got me thinking, when I first got into the EOS system I just bought randomly I supposed, no real rhyme or reason, just via spec sheets and thinking I needed and some where "dream lenses" *glares at the 70-200mm f/2.8 L is mkii* that I've barely made good use of

So perhaps I can slowly build a new kit around the R system without major overlap. But it's a fairly expensive build for basically a point and shoot

My 24-105 f/4L is probably does need an upgrade however. Heard the mkii was not much of an upgrade...

Welp, barring any snafu with the order, I jumped into the deep end and ordered my first RF lens

Probably one of 3 of RF lenses I'm interested in that's actually in the realm of being affordable.

I've found myself reaching for the R more when I actually do go on photo walks which doesn't happen too often. Wanted to kind of start from scratch with the R system, though I'll likely be still adapting glass to the thing.

Can't believe I actually pressed submit on the order for a lens that only works on one of my camera bodies

wxjef wrote in post #19223425
Welp, barring any snafu with the order, I jumped into the deep end and ordered my first RF lens

Probably one of 3 of RF lenses I'm interested in that's actually in the realm of being affordable.

I've found myself reaching for the R more when I actually do go on photo walks which doesn't happen too often. Wanted to kind of start from scratch with the R system, though I'll likely be still adapting glass to the thing.

Can't believe I actually pressed submit on the order for a lens that only works on one of my camera bodies

So did you buy that 24-105 f/4L?

RDKirk wrote in post #19223491
So did you buy that 24-105 f/4L?

Went off the deep end and ordered the 15-35mm f/2.8 is L I probably have no business with the glass.

Others in the wish list:
RF 100mm macro
RF 24-70mm f/2.8 is

Maybe the RF 50 but this is probably it. I'll likely adapt the other namely the ef 70-200 f/2.8L is ii and sigma 150-600

Due to cost and the EF lenses that I already have, the only RF lens I have purchased is the RF 35mm f1.8 STM. So far, I really like it.

Hmmm, order still processing, figured b&h would have kicked it through shortly after the order so not sure if it actually made th cut on an available item or if I didn't and it's backordered.

Kind of debating on cancelling it. Not because of slow movement just I don't know if I should even have the lens

If it's backordered I'll likely cancel

wxjef wrote in post #19223885
Hmmm, order still processing, figured b&h would have kicked it through shortly after the order so not sure if it actually made th cut on an available item or if I didn't and it's backordered.

Kind of debating on cancelling it. Not because of slow movement just I don't know if I should even have the lens

If it's backordered I'll likely cancel

The 15-35 is a really nice lens. I have it and was surprised at the quality of the image at both ends of the range.

I had the EF24-105 f4 IS II , Tamron 45mm f1.8 and a EF 70-200 f2.8 IS II which I used with a 6D. I sold the 6D, the Tamron and the EF 24-105 and replaced them with the Eos RP, the rf 35mm 1.8 IS and the rf 24-105mm f4. I have kept the EF 70-200 f2.8 as I can't bring myself to pay over 4k AUD for the new version. My current 70-200 performs beautifully on the RP but it is huge on the RP which is why I'm tempted to pick up the new rf 70-200 f4. From all the reviews I've seen it sounds like a brilliant lens and the size and weight would make it a marriage made in heaven with the RP. Just wondering if I'd miss the f2.8 and it's still expensive here in Australia. Over $2700!

I am keeping all of my EF lenses. In fact, if I would have found a EF 100-400nn L lens when I purchased my R6, I would not have purchased the RF 100-500 lens that I have now. None of the major stores had the Ef 100-400mm in stock, and only Amazon had the RF 100-500mm.

I have really been enjoying my 100-400L II on the R6, even better than on the 7DII it seems.

All of my zeiss glass has new life. I typically used it for landscape only, now I spend a fair bit of time walking around with it. MF on the R5 is much easier and more accurate than the bodies I had before.