Upgrading EF to RF glass

I wondered how people are deciding if, when they are updating to RF glass with mirrorless?

I have a reasonable set of EF L lenses, but is anyone seeing practical real world advantages of upgrading their 70-200 2.8, 16-35 2.8 (to 15-35) or 100-400 II to 100-500? of the 85 mm 1.4 to the 85 f.12?

I am particularly interested in the telephoto lenses. Anyone see any marked improvement in AF or IQ?

neurorx wrote in post #19106696
I wondered how people are deciding if, when they are updating to RF glass with mirrorless?

I have a reasonable set of EF L lenses, but is anyone seeing practical real world advantages of upgrading their 70-200 2.8, 16-35 2.8 (to 15-35) or 100-400 II to 100-500? of the 85 mm 1.4 to the 85 f.12?

I am particularly interested in the telephoto lenses. Anyone see any marked improvement in AF or IQ?

I have no experience with many of the lenses you menion, except fro the RF 85L. And that is so darn good it has become my goto lens, if that is of any help .

I also got the RF 24-105L early on in the game, before many of the longer options were available, and I was truly impressed. It is a few levels above the EF versions, in any kind of light (unlike the EF versions).

Kind regards, Wim

I was wondering I have the 85mm 1.4L IS. It is ok but I dont like the way it focuses. How is the RF 85 1.2 focus speed? noise?

neurorx wrote in post #19106842
I was wondering I have the 85mm 1.4L IS. It is ok but I dont like the way it focuses. How is the RF 85 1.2 focus speed? noise?

Focus speed is quite good, way faster than the EF 85L I or II.
With the EOS R cameras it also nails focus every single time. I found that any misfocused shot is basically due to user error, or deliberately misfocused. With the EF 85L via adpater it was actually better on the 5DsR and/or 5D II, but AF with the RF 85L is quite fast. Not always instantaneous, as there still is a lot fo glass to move, but it certainly i sno slouch - at least a few levels better than teh EF versions.

Noise wise you can hear it just with critical video amped up, but mounting an external mic completely eradicates that. There are quite a few good RF 85L reviews around, which show off what it can do and how it is noise wise. There are quite a few who reallty love the thing - lik ei do. However, I do not shoot video.

As to rendering: the RF 85L is sharp from edge to edge, corner to corner, already at F/1.2, where the EF 85L required stopping down to at least F/2, while it never was a bad lens either. I understand the EF 85F/1.4 L IS is possibly just a bit better than the EF 85 F/1.2L. Compared to all 85 EF lenses the RF 85L's longitudinal CAs are all but non-existent. You really have to look to find them, if there are any at all, unlike with its EF brethren.

I loved my EF 85L II, but I do not think at all about it anymore with the RF 85L, and with the new boies you get IBIS, so IS is not a necessity anymore anyway, as this a relatively short telelens.

It does look big, but is only slightly heavier than the EF 85 F/1.2L, especially if you factor in the weight of the adapter. It is longer, but I find it quite comfortable to hold, walkign aroudn with it for half a day or a day at events, with or without batterygrip.

Some samples, shot with EOS R, at F/1.2. Basically, AF is fast and noiseless enough to work for candid shots at close range .

Kind regards, Wim

neurorx wrote in post #19106696
I wondered how people are deciding if, when they are updating to RF glass with mirrorless?

I have a reasonable set of EF L lenses, but is anyone seeing practical real world advantages of upgrading their 70-200 2.8, 16-35 2.8 (to 15-35) or 100-400 II to 100-500? of the 85 mm 1.4 to the 85 f.12?

I am particularly interested in the telephoto lenses. Anyone see any marked improvement in AF or IQ?

There are some real improvements in the RF glass, however for my uses they are not so significant as to cause me to dump my current EF L lenses. My current lenses have been doing just fine, and fortunately with the Canon adapters they work as well or better on my EOS R as they did on my EF-mount cameras.

Now, I have handled the RF 20-200, and that is a sweet handling lens. It's compact enough to fit my Domke F2 bag (it's always frustrated me that the old FD lens fit the beloved bag, but the EF lens never has). It feels much lighter than it is, and the balance is oh-so-right. I'll be honest that I'm lusting after that lens.

But I'm not going to upgrade my EF lenses any faster than I would have otherwise. When they fall out of the maintenance window, I'll replace them.

These are amazing photos. Are you having to do anything other that set the AF to human eye detect? I seem to have to do more touch screen intervention with my EF glass, but I dont have any RF glass yet. I have the 28-70/70-200 on order but they have not shipped.

I think this thread was designed to ask this very question!

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1516600

neurorx wrote in post #19107220
These are amazing photos. Are you having to do anything other that set the AF to human eye detect? I seem to have to do more touch screen intervention with my EF glass, but I dont have any RF glass yet. I have the 28-70/70-200 on order but they have not shipped.

Thank you, much appreciated. And nope, eye detect is all it needs. Not CAF either, from what I remember, it was SAF, using BBF.
This was towards the end of the event, where I decided it was time to go for the more artistic feel to images, rather than just the recording of the event. It just felt great to do so .
Set to 3200 iso basically in places it was rather dark .

As mentioned, the EOS R series of cameras are incredible with AF, and from what I have seen so far, it only gets better with R5 and R6.

I am seriously considering the 28-70 and 70-200 myself . And the 15-35, although I am holding out for the rumoured 14-28 F/2 .

Kind regards, Wim

I dont have a dog in this hunt yet, but from talking with those that have moved to the R series with canons adapter they say the EF lenses actually work BETTER on their R/R5 cameras than on the DSLRs. Once the R5 actually begins shipping, then i will consider it but i may have to wait on the RF lenses. From people i have been around with the RF85 it is an incredible lens! Another photographer (Vanessa Joy, out of NJ who does weddings) LOVES her 28-70 f2 RF lens. Just my 1.5 cents.

I ended up getting the 70-200 f2.8 and the 28-70 f2. I like the former and am waiting on the latter. It was what I had hoped to get first. My hope is to consider the 85 1.2 and 15-35 mm. I am not sure about the 100-500 yet.

No happening. I'm keeping and my L lenses with fewer than 200 actuations until they are worn out. I prefer a larger hand grip. I only guessing that the older lenses may be balanced or just feel better on a traditional camera body.
I developed my own weight lifting exercises that mimick holding a camera body and lens. The exercises result in rock solid hand holding for longer periods of time.
I occasionally use a tripod but not very often.

RDKirk wrote in post #19107073
There are some real improvements in the RF glass, however for my uses they are not so significant as to cause me to dump my current EF L lenses. My current lenses have been doing just fine, and fortunately with the Canon adapters they work as well or better on my EOS R as they did on my EF-mount cameras.

Now, I have handled the RF 20-200, and that is a sweet handling lens. It's compact enough to fit my Domke F2 bag (it's always frustrated me that the old FD lens fit the beloved bag, but the EF lens never has). It feels much lighter than it is, and the balance is oh-so-right. I'll be honest that I'm lusting after that lens.

But I'm not going to upgrade my EF lenses any faster than I would have otherwise. When they fall out of the maintenance window, I'll replace them.

I wish that photozone.de lens testers would mount the 'same FL lens' on an R5 body and do objective measurement to see how much improvemen could be had with RF vs. EF of the 'same lens'. There are a number of lenses that cost about $500 to $1500 more in RF version than EF version, and it would be good to see objective MTF measurements or 'line-pairs oer picture height' measurements to justify spending another $1000 per lens (on average).

Wilt wrote in post #19120020
I wish that photozone.de lens testers would mount the 'same FL lens' on an R5 body and do objective measurement to see how much improvement could be had with RF vs. EF of the 'same lens'. There are a number of lenses that cost about $500 to $1500 more in RF version than EF version, and it would be good to see objective MTF measurements or 'line-pairs oer picture height' measurements to justify spending another $1000 per lens (on average).

I don't expect that the EF lens resolves any better optically on an RF camera, but the focusing is certainly more brisk and definitive. My argument is that people who have been satisfied with the results from their current EF lenses will be just as satisfied with the results of that same lens on an RF camera (if not a smidge more because of better focusing on the sensor through the EVF versus OVF).

RDKirk wrote in post #19120085
I don't expect that the EF lens resolves any better optically on an RF camera, but the focusing is certainly more brisk and definitive...

I have heard this as well from several here on POTN and wonder what contributes either to the faster speed or the perception of quickness. If I think about it as an engineer, there are two factors that govern focus speed (not accuracy, just speed). The first is the processing time it takes to calculate where the lens has to move to be in focus and the second is the voltage/current delivered to the lens. As to the calculation speed, I have to believe we are talking milliseconds for any camera. In essence, the processing speed is so small that you can remove it from the equation. As to the power, the 5Ds, 6Ds, 7Ds all use the same LP-E6N battery. Doesn't the EOS-R also use this same battery? If so, how can it make the lens focus faster. What in the camera body is capable of changing the mechanical focusing hardware in the lens allowing it to move faster? The only thing I can possible think of is that on all non-R cameras, Canon deliberately slows down the focus speed by reducing the voltage going to the focus motor or the lens. Or (silly idea), in the EOS-R there is a voltage inverter and rectifier increasing the voltage output of the Canon LP-E6R battery. So, how does it spin the AF motor faster?

gjl711 wrote in post #19120096
I have heard this as well from several here on POTN and wonder what contributes either to the faster speed or the perception of quickness. If I think about it as an engineer, there are two factors that govern focus speed (not accuracy, just speed). The first is the processing time it takes to calculate where the lens has to move to be in focus and the second is the voltage/current delivered to the lens. As to the calculation speed, I have to believe we are talking milliseconds for any camera. In essence, the processing speed is so small that you can remove it from the equation. As to the power, the 5Ds, 6Ds, 7Ds all use the same LP-E6N battery. Doesn't the EOS-R also use this same battery? If so, how can it make the lens focus faster. What in the camera body is capable of changing the mechanical focusing hardware in the lens allowing it to move faster? The only thing I can possible think of is that on all non-R cameras, Canon deliberately slows down the focus speed by reducing the voltage going to the focus motor or the lens. Or (silly idea), in the EOS-R there is a voltage inverter and rectifier increasing the voltage output of the Canon LP-E6R battery. So, how does it spin the AF motor faster?

Well, does this make a difference?

When the EF lenses were first defined, they used much less power than the cameras at the time provided. This became apparent later on, about the time the Elan (I) was released, when Canon reduced the physical size of batteries and the amount of power they provided to the lenses. This became apparent because the larger lenses of third party companies choked on the new camera bodies, even though Canon OEM lenses continued to work perfectly fine. The only difference anyone (outside the Canon engineer group) was able to determine is that the newer bodies provided less power, and apparently the OEM lenses had never really needed as much power as the earlier bodies provided.

So...maybe the R cameras are providing more power again. I know my 1987-vintage f/1.8 50mm (Mark I with the metal mount) acts like a spry (if noisy) youngster again.