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

digital paradise wrote in post #19296284
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.

I am going down the same path, albeit slowly. I sold my two DSLRs last year (5D3 and 7D2), and now have just an EOS R and M50. I plan on adding a R6 or R5 in the future. I have not been in a hurry, though, as this pandemic has greatly reduced the amount of shooting I do, as I shoot a lot when we travel, and that has been curtailed a great deal. The EOS R and M50 have met my reduced needs so far.

I am still in transition with my EF to RF lens conversion. So far, I have swapped out the EF 24-105L for the RF version (got it in a kit with the EOS R). I also have the RF 35mm f/1.8 and RF 50mm f/1.8. My next steps will be to sell off the EF 50L, EF 16-35mm f/4 IS L, EF 70-200mm f/4 IS L, EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake and Sigma 105mm macro.

I will eventually be adding something on the wide end -- either the RF 14-35mm f/4 IS L or RF 16mm f/2.8. I still need to decide what to do about the telephoto end. My EF 100-400mm L IS II will probably be the last lens I swap out -- most likely for the RF 100-500, although a RF 100-400 + RF 800mm combo is a possibility.

It's taken me a while but the R is growing on me and now I want to move to more RF lenses. Mainly the smaller non L that will be fun to use for travel, hiking etc. But I also have my eye on the 14-35 and 100-500.

I moved a few months ago and thought I would leverage EF lenses. So far I'm finding that for my style of photography the pure RF lenses like the RF 800 f/11 and the new RF 100-400 are just amazingly light compared to their EF equivalents with a slower max aperture. Given that R series cameras autofocus even at really small apertures like f/22 and the sensors have really good high ISO performance this tradeoff works much better than I expected.

Given that this is a tradeoff that is simply not possible with EF I expect in a year I will own no EF lenses.

I just traded in most of my EF lenses and all my bodies to complete my RF f4L triad (14-35, 24-105 & 70-200). For now, I'm keeping my EF70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF50 f1.4, Sigma 14-24 f2.8 Art and Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 OS Contemporary. My gearlist just got a lot smaller.

Bob

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.
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.

Nothing good happened, to me, on RF mount size.

I got slow, dirt cheap on used market 24-105 STM RF, just because it is only slightly weight forward on RP.
Have tried 24-105 RF L, not balanced lens on RP.
Got 50 1.8 RF just because it is smallest RF mount lens.
Can't stand 35 1.8 RF look and feel on RP. Don't have it.
Where is still no RF mount lenses I would consider to buy.
16mm prime?... "swear word" inserted.

digital paradise wrote in post #19296284
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.

I'm probably slowly moving that way. Bought a R6 and currently my only RF lens is a 50mm 1.8, but I'm getting rid of my EF 24-105f4 v1, 85f1.8, and 100mm macro USM and going to the R versions piece by piece. The 135f2 and 100-400 will stay.

I have bought an RF 24-105 f/4, but otherwise no other RF lenses. As it turns out, RF lenses are famous -- more accurately infamous -- for the hot spots they create when doing infrared photography, which is a major interest of mine. Unfortunately the RF 24-105 is a major offender. So I'm sticking with my EF lenses, though some of them also create hot spots.

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

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19230241
.
EF lenses are 20% more expensive than what?
.

Wilt wrote in post #19295198
.
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
  

Some examples of B&H pricing

• 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
  

.

.
Wilt,

You have gone to significant lengths to show that RF lenses are more expensive than EF equivalents.

But Ed Rader said that EF lenses were 20% more expensive. . Ed didn't say anything about RF lenses.

And so I wonder why you wrote that lengthy, well-researched response to the question that I asked of Ed, when your answer doesn't address the question.

And so I ask, once again .....

EF lenses are 20% more expensive than what?


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19299502
.
Wilt,

You have gone to significant lengths to show that RF lenses are more expensive than EF equivalents.

But Ed Rader said that EF lenses were 20% more expensive. . Ed didn't say anything about RF lenses.

And so I wonder why you wrote that lengthy, well-researched response to the question that I asked of Ed, when your answer doesn't address the question.

And so I ask, once again .....

EF lenses are 20% more expensive than what?

.

FD lenses.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19299502
.
Wilt,

You have gone to significant lengths to show that RF lenses are more expensive than EF equivalents.

But Ed Rader said that EF lenses were 20% more expensive. . Ed didn't say anything about RF lenses.

And so I wonder why you wrote that lengthy, well-researched response to the question that I asked of Ed, when your answer doesn't address the question.

And so I ask, once again .....

EF lenses are 20% more expensive than what?

.

Here is the big difference to me, you can get great used EF glass at great prices as people some people want to transition to just RF lenses.

I have found my love of photography reborn with my R5. I bought it as a kit with a RF 24-105 f4. I hand wanted a 24-105 for several years. Moving to an R5 gave me a reason to buy one. I would love to buy a RF 70-200 f2.8, RF100-500 and a ERF14-35, but the prices are very high - too much for me to justify right now. I have sold a few EF lenses, but bought other used EF lenses that I like - 400 f5.6, 300 f4 IS, 16-35 f4 IS and a Sigma 150-600c. I have added these to my lenses other EF lenses, along with a RF50 1.8, RF 800 f11 and last week the new RF 100-400.

I am in no rush for more RF lenses, the EF to R works great.

I just purchased a new EF 85mm f1.8 as I still have a couple of crop bodies and also wanted the faster AF for some sports use. Thought about the RF 85mm f2 but for a bit less money, I thought I would get more use from the EF version.

[QUOTE=duckster;193001​63]I just purchased a new EF 85mm f1.8 as I still have a couple of crop bodies and also wanted the faster AF for some sports use. Thought about the RF 85mm f2 but for a bit less money, I thought I would get more use from the EF version.[/QUOTE

I love my EF 85 1.8. I used it a lot for indoor sports with my 7D. I have not tried it on my R5, but I will. I bought an EF 70-200 2.8 II for my daughter's upcoming basketball season. I would have loved the RF but it was over 2.5x the cost of my very clean MKII.

Hopefully you will love the 85 1.8.

[QUOTE=Edshropshire;19​300557]

duckster wrote in post #19300163
I just purchased a new EF 85mm f1.8 as I still have a couple of crop bodies and also wanted the faster AF for some sports use. Thought about the RF 85mm f2 but for a bit less money, I thought I would get more use from the EF version.[/QUOTE

I love my EF 85 1.8. I used it a lot for indoor sports with my 7D. I have not tried it on my R5, but I will. I bought an EF 70-200 2.8 II for my daughter's upcoming basketball season. I would have loved the RF but it was over 2.5x the cost of my very clean MKII.

Hopefully you will love the 85 1.8.

I had borrowed a EF85mm f1.8 last spring and used it for a few shots around the backyard and thought it was really nice on the R6 so I am anxious to use it more as well as for some indoor sports

Wilt wrote in post #19295198
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
  

Some examples of B&H pricing

• 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
  

There are some lenses that are identical in price in RF and EF versions, so a RF premium is not universally applied.

Thanks for the comparison. Maybe I should consider getting RF 100mm macro for a start.

Right now - ZERO....soon I will have a R3, and then I will see if is really a handicap. Not saying that the RF lenses are bad; it's just I have great EF lenses, and quite a few manual focus.
It will have to be something par to zeiss (Otus) lenses or better. Only lens two lenses that I have that are somewhat tired dogs: the 24-105 L f/4 v1 and the ef 15mm fisheye - this last one actually is quite fun and does a great job for what it is.
At this point my EF lenses will have to brick, get stolen or become an unworthy repair cost in order to be replaced