Canon doubling down on overpriced RF gear with the newest flash units.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19202993
...

Faster AF

...

.
I didn't realize that AF is faster with the native R mount lenses than it is with adapted EF lenses.

I mean, that would be what seems to make sense, but I have heard from many sources that the adapted EF lenses work "seamlessly" and "perfectly " and "every bit as good as native mount lenses" on the R mount cameras, and I believed these reports, despite the fact that they run contrary to what would seem, on the surface, to be what one would expect.

Unlike Mike at UM photography, if a reliable source says something, then I believe it, and do not challenge or question what is said. . I'm not saying that to criticize Mike or to put him down, it's just that I remember he didn't believe what was reported about EF lenses adapted to R mount bodies for a long time. . Some people won't totaly believe something just because someone says so - they need to see it, they need proof. . If someone I trust says something, then I believe it 100% because I trust the person, and no one I have ever trusted me has ever failed me.

.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19203085
.
I didn't realize that AF is faster with the native R mount lenses than it is with adapted EF lenses.

I mean, that would be what seems to make sense, but I have heard from many sources that the adapted EF lenses work "seamlessly" and "perfectly " and "every bit as good as native mount lenses" on the R mount cameras, and I believed these reports, despite the fact that they run contrary to what would seem, on the surface, to be what one would expect.

Unlike Mike at UM photography, if a reliable source says something, then I believe it, and do not challenge or question what is said. . I'm not saying that to criticize Mike or to put him down, it's just that I remember he didn't believe what was reported about EF lenses adapted to R mount bodies for a long time. . Some people won't totaly believe something just because someone says so - they need to see it, they need proof. . If someone I trust says something, then I believe it 100% because I trust the person, and no one I have ever trusted me has ever failed me.

.

.

Probably depends on which lenses compared to which... As to the electronics part of this as from Canon:

RF mount lenses employ a 12-pin connection between the camera and lens — for comparison, the EF-mount uses 8 pins. What does this mean? Faster data transfer, which means lightning-fast autofocus, enhanced image stabilisation thanks to better communication between the camera and lens, and also provides general optimisation of image quality.

So yes, 12 pins for communications with RF lenses will yield better AF performance in one form or another, over the 8 pin older EF protocols. And I have heard this from a number of other shooters on other boards.

Also on the IQ front, the RF lenses have less CA along with some other goodies per Canon. So in cases where... someone... wants the best IQ, the RF lenses should produce better 100% pixel view results.

Also the 24-105 RF lens I received with my R6 definitely focused very, very quickly and just stuck onto the subjects. Unfortunately it was the 24-105 kit RF lens, and I just had no use for it.

I shudder to think what an RF 600/4 will cost. The EF IIIs are over 11 grand.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19203096
.
Also on the IQ front, the RF lenses have less CA along with some other goodies per Canon. So in cases where... someone... wants the best IQ, the RF lenses should produce better 100% pixel view results.
.

.
I can see that for lenses like the 24-105, where the EF version wasn't very good to begin with. . But do you think the latest supertelephotos like the 600mm v3 and 400 f2.8 v3 can be improved on, to the point that one could actually notice a difference in image quality? . Heck, I'm not even sure if they could make noticeably better IQ in a 100-400 equivalent, compared to the 100-400mm v2.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19203114
.
I can see that for lenses like the 24-105, where the EF version wasn't very good to begin with. . But do you think the latest supertelephotos like the 600mm v3 and 400 f2.8 v3 can be improved on, to the point that one could actually notice a difference in image quality? . Heck, I'm not even sure if they could make noticeably better IQ in a 100-400 equivalent, compared to the 100-400mm v2.

.

Well the 100-500 seems to be doing quite well compared to the 100-400II and it goes to 500mm. So in that case, yes, I know many that have migrated to the 100-500 over having had the 100-400II. Again there is quite a bit of chatter there. Maybe you can watch what Gordon Laing says about these two.




As to the long superteles, I am not sure. At some point however, there will be zero support of the EF lenses, so folks won't have much of a choice, they either buy an old unsupported lens and hope nothing goes wrong, or they buy the new RF line up. Also some of the EF superteles don't work as well as one would hope on the R platform, I forget which generations and which FL, but some aren't behaving as the owners would like.

The prices will eventually come down, like anything else that Canon has ever come out with.

The nice thing is that by time the R6 or R5 drops down to a used price that would interest you, it is likely many of the RF lenses will have dropped a bit in price too.

.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19203117
.
Maybe you can watch what Gordon Laing says about these two.


.

.
That is an excellent and most thorough comparison video. . Thanks for letting me know about it!


.

the filter adapter has a price of 500 bucks. coulda went plain adapter but took the 5D way.

although the 100-500 initially appears like a good replacement for the 100-400 mk 2 w/ TC, I'm always at the long end, 560mm so losing that doesn't seem to be a good trade off. Plus the TC issues make it a 300-500 mm lens due to the fit issues. Finally there's the expense. So for now, I'll keep what I have.

goalerjones wrote in post #19203221
although the 100-500 initially appears like a good replacement for the 100-400 mk 2 w/ TC, I'm always at the long end, 560mm so losing that doesn't seem to be a good trade off. Plus the TC issues make it a 300-500 mm lens due to the fit issues. Finally there's the expense. So for now, I'll keep what I have.

Losing 60mm at the long end just isn't noticeable when comparing. I had both the sigma's 150-600 and the 100-400II, so I lost 40mm even using the TC on the Canon as compared to the sigma. It had no real bearing on final results when comparing the two.

AF and IQ would certainly be the priorities when comparing the two if there was only a 10% or so loss in focal length, I should think.

Costs? Yes... That is what keeps me from RF lenses. When I was considering a switch to Sony, costs prevented that because EF glass was cheaper. Now Canon has exceeded Sony.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19203248
orities when comparing the two if there was only a 10% or so loss in focal length, I should think.

Costs? Yes... That is what keeps me from RF lenses. When I was considering a switch to Sony, costs prevented that because EF glass was cheaper. Now Canon has exceeded Sony.

.
Yup, cost ..... that's what will keep me from getting R bodies and R glass for quite some time.

I will eventually, I'm sure, be outfitted with an R5 and some good long R glass to go with it, but I don't think that'll happen until I'm in my mid 60s.

I'm 52 now, so yeah, it'll be a year or three before they make the huge lenses that I need in R mounts, and then another 8-12 years before those lenses drop from $15,000 down to $7,000 or so, which is where they'll need to be for me to afford them. . I'm definitely on board for switching completely to the mirrorless system, but it's just gonna be a while before doing so is feasible.


.