Switching My EF Lenses To RF Lenses

Afternoon all,

I'm contemplating switching all of my EF lenses to RF lenses.

At present, I have these Canon Lenses - 16-35mm f/4L, 24-70f/2.8L and the 70-200f/2.8L

Was thinking of swapping out the 16-35mm for the Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8L and the 70-200 for the RF 70-200 f/2.8L

Firstly, has anyone got any experience of these 2 RF lenses and whether they are as good as the ones they are replacing?

Secondly, if not, are there any non Canon brand RF replacements that are as good as, or even better than the EF lenses I have

T.I.A.

According to virtually all testers, the RF lenses are improved in one way or another compared to their counterpart EF lenses. The smallest difference is probably between the longer telephoto lenses, since they are more or less EF lenses with permanently attached adapters.
For the RF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS USM it's pretty simple to see. Just look at it and you'll notice the shorter length (when at 70 mm, at least).

IMO, the fact that the rf70-200 f2.8 is so much lighter and hand-holdable than the ef is reason enough to switch.

Thanks both

That's my way of thinking too - been watching a few youtube reviews etc and the single one downside I can see for the RF 70-200, is the fact that you have to turn the zooming ring a few times, to get to full zoom, as opposed to the EF that was done in one quick twist, but I can live with that

I'll chime in as I've also been on a path of replacing my EF lenses. You aren't going to find an RF lens that is optically worse than it's EF counterpart.

I previously owned the EF 70-200II (eventually replaced it with the 100-400II before buying my R5). If you love 70-200 and want an RF lens, the choice is pretty clear. To my knowledge, 3rd party manufacturers are legally prohibited from creating R-mount lenses (for now). Personally, I don't have a strong need for that 70-200 focal range anymore, but the one thing that would slightly deter me would be the lack of internal zooming on the RF lens. The RF is obviously more compact overall, but a totally enclosed lens gives me a bit more peace of mind when it comes to dust/sand/water and just overall durability. For me, a telescoping zoom feels clunky and the changing weight distribution and balance point mildly bothers me when shooting. Small peeves, but something to consider. For now, I've justified keeping my EF 100-400 because once you get to a particular lens size/length, you barely notice the EF-RF adapter.

As for the EF 16-35, the main reason I got rid of mine was because using the adapter on that lens was very noticeable because of its relatively small footprint. The 16-35 is very light and comfortable to use on its own, but adding that adapter was just enough bulk to make it feel like a much larger lens.

Even more noticeable when I put my EF 28 mm f/2.8 IS USM, with adapter of course, on the R3. That 28 mm is the smallest lens I own.

Since Canon already had an R-mount, even if it was a long time ago, there's a point in using the name RF-mount now.

apersson850 wrote in post #19447176
Even more noticeable when I put my EF 28 mm f/2.8 IS USM, with adapter of course, on the R3.

I had the EF 28 1.8 which I believe is even smaller. Part of the charm of those lens likes the 28's and the "nifty-fifty" is the size/weight. While not quite as extreme, using the adapter with lenses like those is a almost as ridiculous as mounting the 40mm pancake lens with an adapter.

Anyone used an extender system all, with your RF lens?

I really want to get the 16-35 and the 70-200 first, but I have that gap between 35 and 70 which I'm thinking could be solved, at least temporarily with an extender?

Wondering what your thoughts are please?

As to your other question, canon has been going after any third party making RF lenses with AF, with Vitrox being the last victim.

I bought the Viltrox 85 AF RF lens and it is quite good, but is now yanked from shelves. There could be MF RF lenses though if that is your thing.

I would wait till last on the 15-35. It’s a wonderful lens but quite a bit more hefty than your 16-35 f4, which is an optically great lens. Depends on your use case of course.

tuttifrutti wrote in post #19447263
Anyone used an extender system all, with your RF lens?

I really want to get the 16-35 and the 70-200 first, but I have that gap between 35 and 70 which I'm thinking could be solved, at least temporarily with an extender?

If you by this imply that you should mount an extender on the 16-35, then I'd recommend you give up that idea. Trying to convert wide angle leses to (some) telephoto has never been a good idea. You get better image quality by extending a lens designed to be a telephoto to begin with. That is, converting the 70-200 mm to a 140-400 mm.

Most wide angle lenses will not accept any extender anyway. Neither is the RF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS USM. If you want to add an extender to a 70-200 mm, then look at the EF versions.
Now assuming we stay with Canon lenses. But as we all know, there aren't any RF lenses with AF from anybody else anyway. Note that you have to combine an EF-RF adapter, an EF extender and an EF lens in that order.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19447265
As to your other question, canon has been going after any third party making RF lenses with AF, with Vitrox being the last victim.

I bought the Viltrox 85 AF RF lens and it is quite good, but is now yanked from shelves. There could be MF RF lenses though if that is your thing.

Viltrox was the only actual "victim." Others have just observed the warning.

RDKirk wrote in post #19450061
Viltrox was the only actual "victim." Others have just observed the warning.

I'd argue that to induce someone to pursue or not pursue a course of action, resulting in a harm of any kind, including loss of potential revenue, creates an actual victim.

tuttifrutti wrote in post #19446573
Afternoon all,

I'm contemplating switching all of my EF lenses to RF lenses.

At present, I have these Canon Lenses - 16-35mm f/4L, 24-70f/2.8L and the 70-200f/2.8L

Was thinking of swapping out the 16-35mm for the Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8L and the 70-200 for the RF 70-200 f/2.8L

Firstly, has anyone got any experience of these 2 RF lenses and whether they are as good as the ones they are replacing?

I have the 16-35mm f/4L, 24-105 f/4 L, and the 70-200f/2.8L. Of the three, the one I'd like most to replace is the 70-200f/2.8L because the RF version is just so svelte. It would even fit my Domke bag. It's the RF lens for which I lust the most. The EF lens is heavy and large enough to be oppressive to carry (I'm usually carrying it with one or two other cameras with shorter zooms attached. However, I don't carry it or use it really very often and it does its job adequately, which militates against spending $2700 to replace it.

I will probably never replace the 16-35mm f/4L. It's a specialty lens for me, not one I use often, and the RF version doesn't offer any substantial improvements of any feature.

The 24-105 f/4 L is my most used lens. It's my money maker. It's the most logical for me to replace, even though everything I read about it indicates that I won't experience any significant changes in my life. But I'd have two usable zooms in my most critical focal range, and I heavily value redundancy of critical items.

Canon has put the legal kibosh on any third-party attempt to create an RF-compatible lens that treads the slightest on their intellectual property rights (Viltrox being the example they made). That's not really any different from what their stance has always been, but I suspect that with so much RF operation being a matter of multiple computers in both camera and lens all communicating with each other in real time, it's very difficult to reverse-engineer that level of interoperability without copying some amount of Canon's code.

Or maybe Viltrox was just careless. In the future, Tamron or Sigma might swing a reliably reverse-engineered product.

Or Canon may do the previously unthinkable and actually license it. But don't expect anything from the third parties for another couple of years at least. Sigma has said that they're already selling all the lensed they can roll out the door.

But none of that means Canon and Sigma haven't already worked out a deal that we won't know until Sigma announces imminent release of their first RF-compatible lens.

Don't get your hopes up, though. Expect Canon to be the only RF game in town for at least two or three years.

Unless there is a deal in the works that we know nothing about....

It's a poker game, and only the players know what's in their own hands.

We aren't even players in the game. We're the chips.

In answer to your last question first... there are NO 3rd party alternatives to those lenses. Canon is preventing 3rd party manufacturers from offering autofocus lenses for the RF-mount cameras. They have threatened several who had manufactured some lenses with legal action against patent infringement. Maybe eventually this will change. But for now, if you want autofocus in an RF-mount lens, your only choice is OEM Canon RF lenses or adapted EF lenses.

Will the RF lenses be as good or an improvement?

The easy answer is "YES". Those particular RF lenses will be at least as good as their EF counterparts.

But, any difference in image quality will depend upon which version of the EF lens you have, the RF lens can be a significant improvement. For example, the original non-IS Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM is a quite old design and never was the sharpest. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L "IS" USM that followed was an improvement, but still left a bit to be desired (those two were the only EF 70-200mm lenses that didn't use fluorite in their optical formula). The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM "II" and "III" were among the very best and are optically quite close to the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM... BUT, the RF lens is lighter weight and more compact. The RF lens is not internal zooming, the way the EF lenses were. This allows the RF lens to be smaller for storage, but it extends when in use.

With the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM you will see minor image quality improvement. This is not a knock against the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM, it's a complement to the quality of the EF 16-35mm f/4L. It would be another story with the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L, if that were what you had. It took Canon three tries to get the f/2.8 lens right (following on other attempts with an EF 17-35mm f/2.8L and, even earlier, an EF 20-35mm f/2.8L). On the other hand, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM "III" is a great lens and the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM can only hope to match it. But if someone had first or second version of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L, they definitely could expect to see some nice image improvement moving to the RF. Plus the would get IS with the RF lens, which the EF lenses all lacked (among the EF 16-35mm, only the f/4L version has IS). You will notice the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM is larger and a bit heavier. And it uses an 82mm filter, instead of the 77mm on your EF lens.

You can compare image sharpness, contrast and acuity yourself, if you wish:

RF 15-35mm f/2.8L versus EF 16-35mm f/4L: https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

RF 70-200mm f/2.8L versus EF 70-200mm f/2.8L "III": https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

At those links you'll find a lot more info about both the RF lenses including a more detailed review, along with comparisons of flare resistance, vignetting, and distortion.