Should I buy RF

Hi

I have ordered the R6 and I'm patiently waiting. I have my EF lenses: 16-35 f4, 50mm f1.8, 24-70f4L IS, 100mm macro and 100-400.

I'm wondering if I should buy the 24-105 RF. I wonder if this move would this be an actual upgrade or just a convenience to save me carrying the 100mm as well?

I could use the 24-70 f4 on both my R6 and 5ds, and thats a sensible option, but I keep hearing how good this new 24-105 is and it is designed for the R series, I guess, so I'm assuming it would have advantages. I imagine IQ would be about the same? OTOH do I really need another 24-70 range lens? Hmmm.

Any advice?

I have watched at least a dozen videos on YouTube about the adapter with EF lenses, and 4-5 RF to EF comparisons on the RF and R6. None would seem to justify spending the money for the RF if you already have an EF equivalent. One video poster said that the IIS worked slightly better with the RF, but not near enough to justify spending the money if buying the same type lens.

willie45 wrote in post #19108386
Hi

I have ordered the R6 and I'm patiently waiting. I have my EF lenses: 16-35 f4, 50mm f1.8, 24-70f4L IS, 100mm macro and 100-400.

I'm wondering if I should buy the 24-105 RF. I wonder if this move would this be an actual upgrade or just a convenience to save me carrying the 100mm as well?

I could use the 24-70 f4 on both my R6 and 5ds, and thats a sensible option, but I keep hearing how good this new 24-105 is and it is designed for the R series, I guess, so I'm assuming it would have advantages. I imagine IQ would be about the same? OTOH do I really need another 24-70 range lens? Hmmm.

Any advice?

The RF 24-105L is the same to slightly better than the EF 24-70 F/4L IS in teh overlapping range, and quite a bit better than the EF 24-105L versions. It is also cheaper than the EF versions, funnily enough.

So, if you want more reach, it certainly is a valid option to replace the EF 24-70 F/4L IS with the RF 24-105L. Same or better IQ wih more range, be it a little heavier.

As to the macro: I don't know whether you own the L or the non-L version, but even so, up to and including F/4 the macros both beat the RF 24-105L at 105 mm as far as I can see, thereafter it is much of a muchness I would expect. Having said that, the macro has as its widest aperture F/2.8, unlike the RF 24-105L, and does macro right to 1:1. The RF 24-105L only goes to 1:4.16 (at 45 cm focusing distance). So, if real macro is a requirement and/or F/2.8, I would suggest you'd hang on to your macro lens. If you do not need macro and/or F/2.8, by all means go with the RF 24-105L. It comes recommended.

BTW, personally I hated the EF 24-105Ls, basically because they did not perform in difficult light circumstances, as in low light, low contrast, especially at the long end, resultign in mushy images. The RF 24-105L does not have this issue, and I actually love it. I had a similar experience with the EF 100L Macro, BTW, also mushy in low light/low contrast at "normal" focusing distances. At the time that was for me the reason to get another EF 100-400L Mk I rather than the 100L Macro, because it was better at all FLs in those conditions. The 100 non-L macro I personally never liked that much, because of the rendering, which is where the 100L Macro was better. However, that is of course personal preference to a large degree.

For macro I prefer the 180L Macro, the non-WA TS-Es, EF 135 F/2L, M-PE 65, and EF 100-400L I and II, with Canon D500 achromatic close-up lens.

Anyway, HTH, kind regards, Wim

As for as I remember RF L lenses are better optically than EF L.
I'll update my 24-105 f4 IS L from EF to RF.
I also remember how earlier on it was mentioned about RF mount allowing to make smaller lenses.
Unfortunately it didn't happened. Canon went to the opposite way and made overpriced, huge and heavy RF lenses.
Big disappointment to me as RP user. So, 24-105 F4 IS L is the only RF L which makes sense to me.
I have 50 1.8 MKI and it is OK on RP. Large EF lenses are kind of OK on RP as well. Focus is working fine.

Thank you all for your help. I’m undecided. I feel that I have 24-70 range adequately covered and maybe I should leave things as they are.

Also TBH as I’m getting pains in my old age and I sometimes wonder if primes might be the way to go for me. I feel that having the 50mm and 100mm (non-L) as well as the 24-70 I could as easily sell the zoom and buy a 24 mm prime and maybe a 14mm MF and be happy and less burdened. Im not sure if I’d miss the zooms for general photography.( I also have a 100-400 Tamron and. Canon 400 f5.6L for wildlife which is my main interest these days)

Anyway, I guess if I was upgrading to another DSLR I doubt I’d be even considering my lens situation and it’s just that this new RF range has made me start to wonder ......

I'm kind of true RF photog. Started with FSU RF and returned to it in 2012. I went through many RF cameras and I have original 50 1.8 Canon RF lens. I have few RF lenses. Leica Summarit-M 35 2.5 and Voigtlander Nokton 35 1.4 MK II. They are awesome on RP.

willie45 wrote in post #19108694
Thank you all for your help. I’m undecided. I feel that I have 24-70 range adequately covered and maybe I should leave things as they are.

Also TBH as I’m getting pains in my old age and I sometimes wonder if primes might be the way to go for me. I feel that having the 50mm and 100mm (non-L) as well as the 24-70 I could as easily sell the zoom and buy a 24 mm prime and maybe a 14mm MF and be happy and less burdened. Im not sure if I’d miss the zooms for general photography.( I also have a 100-400 Tamron and. Canon 400 f5.6L for wildlife which is my main interest these days)

Anyway, I guess if I was upgrading to another DSLR I doubt I’d be even considering my lens situation and it’s just that this new RF range has made me start to wonder ......

Actually, that is fine, as is wondering . It is probably a good idea to wait until the RF line of lenses is fleshed out some more, before making any decisions. There is an 85 F/2 Macro coming as well, after all, and likely quite a bit more.

As to a 14 mm MF lens: Samyang / Rokinon does an excellent 14 mm AF lens for the R series these days, which is not a big lens, and not (too) expensive either. That could be worthwhile considering as well if you are looking for an UWA.

Kind regards, Wim

Yes, Wim, the Samyang 14mm is on my definties list no matter what else I buy

I hope Samyang will come with same lenses they have for Sony mount. Compact and light 35 and 24.
14mm is half a kilo, 35mm is well under 100g, which is very impressive achievement for AF lens.

I've compared RF 24-105 to EF 24-105 v1 and v2. Edge sharpness and CA is clearly better on RF version, and center sharpness at tele also wins. For video, the RF has much better stabilization than EF v1, quiet and no jitter, which is equal or slightly better than EF v2. Besides that, I like it being shorter and having a customizable control ring.

My opinion: yes, buy the RF. I have used many copies of the 24-70 F4 and found it a much inferior lens to the 24-70mm f/2.8L II. It seems that the new RF 24-105L F/4 should be closer to the latter lens and gives better reach.

Thank you both for your help. I will save my pennies for the RF 24-105.

willie45 wrote in post #19112867
Thank you both for your help. I will save my pennies for the RF 24-105.

I really like it.

Can someone tell me the differences between some of the RF lens please?

RF 24-70 f2.8 v RF 28-70 f2

and

RF 85 f1.2 v RF 85 f1.2 DS

Just not sure why they've got these lens that seem nearly the same

Mybludog wrote in post #19120376
Can someone tell me the differences between some of the RF lens please?

RF 24-70 f2.8 v RF 28-70 f2

and

RF 85 f2 v RF 85 f2.8

Just not sure why they've got these lens that seem nearly the same

The f2 zoom was introduced with the EOR R. It is a beast of a lens. I guess they were still working on the 2.8 for the trinity set.

The other 85 is a 1.2 (not 2.8) and the new one doubles as a macro and is more budget friendly.