Make a Case-EF v. RF

I have an R, but have never invested in RF glass. At least not so far.

I guess my question is really more directed at the R5 and R6 shooters. The new kids on the block, if you will.

I'm seeing some really nice images, especially in the R5 images thread. Every time I get tempted, my CCs pull me back and remind me that it's $4kUS+.

I'm really intrigued by the fact that, nonetheless; many of the images in those threads are coming from EF lenses. I know that in my own experience with my R, my EF glass performs better on the R than any Canon DSLR I have ever owned. Obviously, with the likes of the 5DS-(and r) out there, despite the marketing hype from Canon, the old EF glass holds up pretty well to scrutiny as far as megapixel quality goes. At least certainly it seems to, up to and including the entire herd currently in Canon's stable.

So what say you? Have any of you thrown out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to EF v. RF glass? Are you buying RF glass? Seems to me that EF glass is a much better value still given where we are right this minute. If you're making a change, justify it. Please tell us why. Why if RF so much better than the hundreds of EF lenses of which many of us already have a few handfuls.

{Sidebar: I know this probably rightly belongs in the lenses sub-forum, but I hope it stays here because the targets of the question frequent this forum much more I would suspect. If it's moved, that's certainly OK. It's certainly within your purview. I just hope you will take a moment to think about this logic and why I put it here initially. Thanks.}

While the RF lenses are more expensive and about as big as the EF lenses, I am keeping my EF lenses and might even pick up more since so many are willing to part with their EF L lenses so cheaply these days.

As I go all mirror less in the coming year or two and RF prices come down, then maybe I will start the shift. This means I have to get rid of my M and DSLR bodies first.

I see nothing alluring about the RF line that makes me want to change at this time.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19168192
While the RF lenses are more expensive and about as big as the EF lenses, I am keeping my EF lenses and might even pick up more since so many are willing to part with their EF L lenses so cheaply these days.

As I go all mirror less in the coming year or two and RF prices come down, then maybe I will start the shift. This means I have to get rid of my M and DSLR bodies first.

I see nothing alluring about the RF line that makes me want to change at this time.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. I think you and I had this very conversation briefly in another (Maybe the R?) thread not so long ago, but I thought it might be a topic worth revisiting since many more are committed with the newer bodies now.

I hope it gets interesting. I know there are some compelling reasons, but at the end of the day, it's all about image quality for me, and getting it at the most reasonable cost available.

The control ring and unique focal length zooms are the two things that might compel me a bit. Having RF options that have no EF counterpart would be interesting, and there are a couple such lenses now.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19168224
The control ring and unique focal length zooms are the two things that might compel me a bit. Having RF options that have no EF counterpart would be interesting, and there are a couple such lenses now.

I bought a CR adapter the day I bought my R. I can see the inclination, but to be honest; I like my setup better. Why? The control ring is always in the same PLACE. I've noticed lenses have it all over the place. I use mine primarily for aperture and I use it all the time, and I never even have to think about it. As a matter of fact, I see having to learn each individual lens as a down side.

Very interested in the RF800 and or the 600...price is right for the reach.The 100-500 is just too expensove for what it is. Frankly a sigma 150-600 is the better deal of the 3 that I listed here

I will probably order this R6 by February.

I have a much different take than most folks

I AM INCLINED

to watch the boards and grab EF L glass. I see too many people giving it away. I grabbed a 2008 500F4 version 1 lens for $2200 this fall. It was a 9 condition lens and it had not been out of the case for a while. I am using ot on my 1Dx2 and getting awesome results

People that I know and watch have the R6 and using EF L glass tell me the older lens get a new lease on life with performance and no need to micro adjust makes them even better. I Know the RF lens are better....but seriously..how much better can they be for the $$$$....current EF L glass, especially version 2 lens are excellent....The biggest advantage of version 2 over version 1 L glass is the IS systems and they tend to be a tad sharper....Thats it.....IBIS helps version 1 Glass a lot and any sharpening difference is a mute point once you send the file to LR...at that point its a slider adjustment and no one can see any difference at all

So Version 1 glass like 500F4's and 400DO's and 100-400's and of course primes like the 135L, 85 1.2 and the 50L's are all reporting MUCH better performance on the R bodies....especially the R5 & R6

Why spend the $$ on RF?

This is a 500F4 version 1 last week on my 1Dx2. Its pretty darn sharp.

umphotography wrote in post #19168229
Very interested in the RF800 and or the 600...price is right for the reach.The 100-500 is just too expensove for what it is. Frankly a sigma 150-600 is the better deal of the 3 that I listed here

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=191​68229&i=i175910738
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=191​68229&i=i132894522
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Wow. What camera is that with? The 1DX Mk II? Or did you rent/borrow an R6?

I really want to pull the trigger on the R6, but my R is doing fine for me. Especially considering $2500 and a thousand lost on the R at best. I really don't like going down in sensor size. It's the techie in me, and part of the reason I haven't pulled the trigger. And then there's the R5. What I really want, but can't cost justify to save my life. But I keep trying. And delaying the inevitable.

I will tell you one thing. I double-dog DARE Canon to release a 32meg+ sensor on an APS-C R7 with the specs of the R6 and maybe even borrow a couple of video modes from the R5. If they do, I'm selling out and going full time back to APS-C and never looking back. I think that's what I'm really waiting on. It's bound to happen.

Oh well. Sorry for the tangent, but I feel better. Back to the topic at hand.

VERY nice captures, BTW.

Two R bodies in now, and still I only tried one RF lens, and I don't use it often.

With IBIS, it's even more sensible to use the golden oldie Canon primes,. dirt cheap and wonderful, and now with IS thanks to the new generation.

- When not birding, the R is most often seen about town sporting EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, 50mm f/1.8 STM, or 85mm f/1.8 USM.

- For fancy dress occasions, the 135mm f/2L wears like black tie.

- Walks in the country are often adorned with the 16-35mm f/4L IS, or 70-300mm DO IS USM.

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #19168226
I bought a CR adapter the day I bought my R. I can see the inclination, but to be honest; I like my setup better. Why? The control ring is always in the same PLACE. I've noticed lenses have it all over the place. I use mine primarily for aperture and I use it all the time, and I never even have to think about it. As a matter of fact, I see having to learn each individual lens as a down side.

I agree with that. I had an RF kit lens that came with my R6, but I didn't really love it (24-105) and ended up selling it. I had a hard time figuring out what I would put on the ring anyways, as I already have everything configured. I would probably put ISO on it, because most of the time it is in AUTO ISO anyways.

I would hope that the control ring is where my left hand would be most of the time controlling/holding the lens, so on long lenses, it would make sense to have that farther from the body, but I am not sure where all Canon puts the control rings on their various RF lenses.

I'm an old holdhout from my AE-1 days when my 50mm (the only lens I owned) had the aperture right where that CR is now.

This is actually a timely thread for me, as just yesterday I sold my 7D2 and now have no dSLR bodies -- I sold my 5D3 recently, too. The 7D2 was used exclusively with my telephoto lenses for wildlife, and I only used the body once in 2020 for this purpose due to our travel being restricted by the pandemic, and our travel plans for 2021 will still be somewhat restricted. So, I decided to sell the 7D2, pocket the money, and will probably add a EOS R5 or R6 in 2022 when the prices come down. So I am down to EOS R and EOS M50 mirrorless bodies, and am contemplating where to go with my lens lineup.

Right now, my only two RF lenses are the RF 24-105mmL f/4 IS and RF 35mm f/1.4 IS. My EF lenses include a 50L, 16-35L f/4 IS, 70-200L f/4 IS, 100-400L II IS, Sigma 105 f/2.8 IS macro and 40mm f/2.8 pancake. I also have four EF-M lenses for the M50.

I plan on picking up the RF 50mm f/1.8, and if I am happy with it, selling the 50L. The EOS R has given new life to the 50L, but I never shoot it wide open, so if the RF lens gives me good results I can pocket some extra money by swapping it out, and save some space and weight in the camera bag. I may do the same with the Sigma 105mm and get the RF 85mm f/2. I do not shoot macro much. The 40mm pancake is probably something I should just sell, as I don't use it anymore. It's just not worth much used, so hasn't been worth the effort to sell.

Telephotos are a tougher decision. The RF 100-500L is pretty pricey, and the RF 70-200 f/4 IS does not work with the RF teleconvertors. I currently use a 1.4x TC with that lens sometimes when I want to travel lighter and leave the 100-400L at home. I could possibly sell both the 70-200 f/4 and 100-400L to fund the 100-500L, but I am not sure it's worth it. I could see adding either the RF 600mm or 800mm prime eventually, as they are pretty affordable and light weight.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19168192
As I go all mirror less in the coming year or two and RF prices come down, then maybe I will start the shift. This means I have to get rid of my M and DSLR bodies first.

I cannot see myself abandoning the M body. I have a kit that includes the M50 and four EF-M lenses (11-22mm, 15-45mm, 55-200mm and 22mm pancake). This entire kit fits into a rather small shoulder bag, giving me a very versatile kit when I want to travel light. The R series with its bigger lenses does not provide this. I will also sometimes use the M50 in conjunction with my full sized camera and lenses as a second body to reduce lens changes (the same reason I had a 7D2 to go along with the 5D3).

An R and R5 owner. Sold my 5D4 and 24-70 2.8 II in the fall of 2019. Got the R and RF 24-105. This spring/summer I sold off all my EF lenses, TC's and my 7D2. I picked up the 100-500, R4 1.4 and R5.

While there was nothing wrong with my EF lenses I just decided that RF is the future and made the transition. I figured the longer you wait the less value EF lenses will have especially if the used market gets flooded. I'm down to the two lens types I used most often. Now I"m just happy to wait and see what the new RF lenses come out next year, if I can even afford the ones I'm interested in.

The 100-500 is 7.1 at the long end but I posted a bird shot a few weeks ago with the 1.4 @ ISO 16,000. Pretty decent with the R5. little more reach than my old 100-400 and a pound lighter. The 3 extra transmission pins in the RF system are supposed to provide faster transmission, whatever that means. High Speed Display only works on RF lenses.

I'm really happy with the R and RF24-105 combo. Great travel/walk around kit at 30mp.

I'm glad I did it.

I had two EF-RF non-ring adapters. I sold one with the 100-400 II as incentive. I put the second one up alone and I must have had 25 replies in 5 minutes. I could have charged $200. I only asked for the going rate for a new one and purchaser paid the shipping, which was a pittance.

Coming from a 5D3, with a 17 TS-E, 24-105L and a 100-400 (pump), I've gone to a R5 and the RF 28-70 f2. (There's something unique about this lens).

I'll be keeping the ts-e 17 and 100-400. I have given my daughter the 5d3/24-105 combo

Going forward I'm going to see where my photography takes me and that will be the decisive factor in whether I pay more for the RF tax