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

I actually ended up buying a brand new EF100-400 after I got my R6! The RF100-500 is almost twice the cost of the 100-400 out this way.

FlyingPete wrote in post #19225275
I actually ended up buying a brand new EF100-400 after I got my R6! The RF100-500 is almost twice the cost of the 100-400 out this way.

I read somewhere there is a discount (10~20%) on many of the EF lens recently.
Maybe I should get the EF100-400mm

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

Came in today. Not sure what I was thinking

wxjef wrote in post #19226067
Came in today. Not sure what I was thinking

Hosted photo: posted by wxjef in
./showthread.php?p=192​26067&i=i87579168
forum: Canon Lenses

You are going to like this lens.

Ah-keong wrote in post #19225356
I read somewhere there is a discount (10~20%) on many of the EF lens recently.
Maybe I should get the EF100-400mm

In view of the backlog of orders placed, still not yet fulfilled, it would seem to be a stupid thing for retailers to discount what is in short supply!

ef lenses are 20% more expensive

.

ed rader wrote in post #19229383
.
EF lenses are 20% more expensive.
.

.
EF lenses are 20% more expensive than what?

.


.

Thought I'd give somewhat of an update on my first RF lens, the 15-35mm f/2.8L is.

It's a chunky thing for sure quick focusing, though with my EF glass when focusing at infinity for clouds, I'd use the horizon line. The RF don't seem to like this and hunts a bit. Could also be due to how wide the lens is.

Image quality is very nice and would likely be better if I had an actual real workflow with this system. I do however think I went a little too wide, perhaps the 24-70 RF would have suited me better or even yet, the 24-105 f/4 would have been the wiser option. Should have held off for the f/4 version of this lens.

Anyway it's not a bad lens, however it's not a general purpose lens either, more specialized. It doesn't feel right in cramped environments.

I'm kind of not sure if I'm going to pursue other RF glass, perhaps the 24-105. I still have mixed feelings about going mirror less but it's more me than the system I suppose.

The R was my intro to Mirrorless and I really liked it, preferred it to my DSLR experiences. At first, I bought the RF35 and RF24-240. Then I changed my EF24-105L for the RF24-105L.

When my R5 arrived, I sold all my EF lenses apart from my EF100-400L ii. I then added a RF70-200 2.8 and this week, I sold my EF100-400 and welcomed the arrival of a RF100-500L.

It has been a 2 year transition from EF to RF for me and I do prefer the new system overall.

I have still to replace 3 EF lenses I used to own but I'm in no hurry, they were rarely used.

None, absolutely zero interest in RF at this time. The Canon EOS R to EF adapter let's me utilize my existing EF & EFS glass so this hobbyest is satisfied

I'm not using my EF-RF adapter as much as I thought I would, with the RF 24-240 and the 800 f/11. My overall experience is that the RF lenses are lighter and the non-L versions are actually good enough for hobbyist use unlike many EF versions.

I'm eagerly awaiting the RF 100-400 and if that works well with the extenders I plan to sell off all my EF lenses and the adapter.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19230241
.

.
EF lenses are 20% more expensive than what?

.

.

Tom,
Back in 2020, 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, were priced at a premium in the RF version...in fact, early in this very thread, I had noted a $1000 premium when lens in EF mount was also in RF mount.
After seeing that a number of lenses appear to be offered in both RF mount as well as EF mount -- same FL same max aperture so "must be 'same lens' " -- I did some more investigation. Back then, the RF version optic tended to carry a premium of about $400-1000 higher MSRP as well as typical NYC selling price. Today the differential is different...


A couple of examples of current pricing per Canon USA:

• RF 70-200mm f/4 MSRP=$1599, EF 70-200mm f/4 MSRP=$1299, or 23% more expensive
  
• RF 2X teleconvertor MSRP=$599, EF 2X teleconvertor MSRP=$429, or 40% more expensive
  

• RF 50mm f/1.8 STM B&H=$199, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM B&H=$125, or 59% more expensive
  
• RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS B&H=$2399, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS B&H=$1899, or 26% more expensive
  
• RF 100mm f/2.8L Macro B&H=$1399, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro B&H=$1299, or 8% more expensive
  
• RF 70-200mm f/2.8L B&H=$2799, EF 70-200 f/2.8L B&H=$2099, or 33% more expensive
  

I only have the RF 35 1.8 and I have the 16 2.8 on order. Eventually I’ll probably move to more RF but the EF lenses work really well.

I’m interested in the 14-35 f4 and maybe a 100-500 to replace my current zooms but I can’t justify the cost right now.

I have built my EF-L dream lens collection over the years, and have found they work great on my R. Not going to upgrade to the RF system, other than maybe the cheapie 24-105 STM for casual stuff. I don't have that range covered with my EF lenses. Not going to pay the premiums on RF.

edited to add: I used my 70-220 f4 L lens a few days ago to take some portrait shots of a friend outdoors in rather harsh sunlight - I found I did not even have to use a reflector or fill flash with the R, and the images, head & shoulders taken from about 25" distance, are crazy sharp! Everybody keeps saying the R lenses blow the dslr lenses out of the water, but honestly, I can't see how they could be any sharper! I could see the finest hairs on her chin, lol.

So no plans to upgrade at all.

I decided last year to get on the R/RF train. I sold my DRL'S and all EF lenses. I'm down to an R, R5, 24-105 F4, 100-500 and 1.4 TC. While the adapters work great with EF lenses I have to believe the extra 3 pins for faster communication are doing something for me. I decided I didn't want to deal with adapter and R/RF is the future so what the heck.