Canon EOS R Series Cameras

Messages
1,508
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
So I've been back on the Canon test drive website :ROFLMAO:

RF 800mm
RF 85mm F2 (I was going to buy the 1.2L but this isn't a focal length I use too much so would like to see how the F2 version is as it's so much cheaper but reviews are very good)
RF 1.4TC - see how it works with the 800mm and with my RF 100-500

No charge for the lens hire and because I've ordered them over the Bank Holiday weekend they will deliver them on Friday 28th May and collect them on Tuesday 1st June, hopefully the weather will be good that weekend :)

I need to pay a refundable deposit of £498
View attachment 315052


If anybody is interested in trying kit in April, the code 'SPRING21' gives a 7 day test period, subject to availability (I'm not aware that the code is CPS account specific). I've got an R5 plus a couple of lenses coming on Monday, providing the courier doesn't mess up again.
 
Messages
1,508
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
I just tested that and adding SPRING21 changed the cost of a 7 day hire for the RF 24-105mm F4 from £83 to £46 - it reduced it by £37.
Hi Paul,

Thats strange, I've just tested it again and still shows no hire charge for 7 days for me. Only need to pay refundable deposit. What dates did you try ?
 
Messages
239
Name
Mikey
Edit My Images
Yes
Can anyone recommend a cheap autofocusing EF-R adapter for my EF 70-300 IS on my R6? By the time there is any stock of the Canon adapter the rumoured 100-400 lens will probably have appeared anyway and I will be looking to move on my 70-300 so I might as well just get something cheap. They all seem much of a muchness so I'd probably just go for the cheapest one which looks to be Viltrox?

Edit: I don't even know if there are manual focus only adapters anyway?
To answer my own question. I have ordered the Meike adapter instead of the Viltrox. It is made of metal, apparently has a rubber gasket for better weather sealing and generally a better build quality. I imagine I wouldn't notice a difference with either...
 
Messages
1,354
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
So I've been back on the Canon test drive website :ROFLMAO:

RF 800mm
RF 85mm F2 (I was going to buy the 1.2L but this isn't a focal length I use too much so would like to see how the F2 version is as it's so much cheaper but reviews are very good)
RF 1.4TC - see how it works with the 800mm and with my RF 100-500
I had the 85 f2 from the test-drive a couple of months ago and to be honest was underwhelmed. The AF is slow and noisy compared to the EF 85 f1.8 which I also have, and even with the EF/RF adapter attached the EF lens is smaller.
 
Messages
985
Name
Alistair
Edit My Images
No
To answer my own question. I have ordered the Meike adapter instead of the Viltrox. It is made of metal, apparently has a rubber gasket for better weather sealing and generally a better build quality. I imagine I wouldn't notice a difference with either...
I have the Viltrox £50 adapter and it's fine.
I did remove the tripod mount though as it's just extra bulk.
It's true it doesn't have a rubber gasket but that's probably where they saved a bit of money.
I find the Viltrox fine with my EF 24-105L and Tamron 70-300 VC, though I do eventually want to eliminate the adapter entirely.
Let us know what the Mieke is like once you have it.
 
Messages
239
Name
Mikey
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the Viltrox £50 adapter and it's fine.
I did remove the tripod mount though as it's just extra bulk.
It's true it doesn't have a rubber gasket but that's probably where they saved a bit of money.
I find the Viltrox fine with my EF 24-105L and Tamron 70-300 VC, though I do eventually want to eliminate the adapter entirely.
Let us know what the Mieke is like once you have it.
Yours was the only post on here I could find about either adapter. Searching for other opinions elsewhere I saw more reports of issues with the Viltrox being a poor fit and the Meike having better build quality. I think what I'm probably seeing is that the Viltrox is cheaper so more people have bought it and therefore more people have problems.

Like you I want to transfer across to native lenses eventually. I only have one EF lens anyway so as soon as there is a good zoom lens that isn't an L I will probably more over to that.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,370
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wondering if anyone on here had any experience of the EF24-70 f2.8 vs the RF 24-105L on an R series body and could comment on any difference in image quality.
 
Messages
985
Name
Alistair
Edit My Images
No
Yours was the only post on here I could find about either adapter. Searching for other opinions elsewhere I saw more reports of issues with the Viltrox being a poor fit and the Meike having better build quality. I think what I'm probably seeing is that the Viltrox is cheaper so more people have bought it and therefore more people have problems.

Like you I want to transfer across to native lenses eventually. I only have one EF lens anyway so as soon as there is a good zoom lens that isn't an L I will probably more over to that.
Just looking at the Meike, it's roughly the same price as the Viltrox. (£52 vs 49 on amazon) but has the advantage of the rubber gasket.
The Viltrox could be a slightly better fit but the build is fine. The Meike wasn't available when I got mine in Feb.
Viltrox do make a control ring adapter but that's £93.
I'd probably only upgrade the adapter now if it was for the Canon version.
 
Messages
239
Name
Mikey
Edit My Images
Yes
Just looking at the Meike, it's roughly the same price as the Viltrox. (£52 vs 49 on amazon) but has the advantage of the rubber gasket.
The Viltrox could be a slightly better fit but the build is fine. The Meike wasn't available when I got mine in Feb.
Viltrox do make a control ring adapter but that's £93.
I'd probably only upgrade the adapter now if it was for the Canon version.
Yeah unfortunately that's an EU import and I needed it sooner so had to buy it for £59 instead. It's arrived now. It feels fine, I haven't fitted it yet. Wouldn't say it's anything to write home about in terms of build. The rubber is there but it doesn't look that substantial. Then again I had the expensive ND drop in filter one on my test drive (regular was out of stock) and that didn't feel particularly sturdy either, but mostly because it had a sliding piece of plastic.
 
Messages
239
Name
Mikey
Edit My Images
Yes
Just looking at the Meike, it's roughly the same price as the Viltrox. (£52 vs 49 on amazon) but has the advantage of the rubber gasket.
The Viltrox could be a slightly better fit but the build is fine. The Meike wasn't available when I got mine in Feb.
Viltrox do make a control ring adapter but that's £93.
I'd probably only upgrade the adapter now if it was for the Canon version.
So I have fitted it now. Lens autofocuses absolutely fine. There isn't any wobble to the lens up or down or side to side. There is a small amount of play if I try and twist the adapter. I don't know how that compares to your feelings of the Viltrox?
 
Messages
3,982
Edit My Images
No
Just wondering if anyone on here had any experience of the EF24-70 f2.8 vs the RF 24-105L on an R series body and could comment on any difference in image quality.
I have both but I haven't done any comparisons. I've tended to reach for one or other depending on extra flexibility of focal length or narrower depth of field/lower light capability. On paper I feel the 24-70 should be 'better', but I haven't scrutinised the pics and I have been happy with the 24-105.

I originally bought the R with the RF 24-105 and I was disappointed with the colours I was getting. I made colour profiles using my colour passport which worked fine, but I've never felt the need to do this before. I have now moved to the R5, but I have also moved from Lightroom to DxO Photolab and I now think it was Lightroom that was the problem. I'm happy with the colours I'm getting with the 24-105 with the R5, but I no longer have Lightroom to check it against - although I suppose I could import pics into my old catalogs.

Edit: Mine is the EF 24-70 f/2.8 ii not the first version.
 
Messages
357
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
Just wondering if anyone on here had any experience of the EF24-70 f2.8 vs the RF 24-105L on an R series body and could comment on any difference in image quality.
From a technical perspective, this might help a bit;

Regards...
 
Messages
1,370
Edit My Images
Yes
From a technical perspective, this might help a bit;

Regards...
Thanks for that from an image quality perspective they don't appear that different. I'll need to view on my PC later after I've picked up my new reading glasses [emoji4]
 
Messages
9,150
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
The return of eye control AF - madness I tell ya.
And does the new electronic shutter meet the criteria for ‘global shutter’?
Looks like a stacked sensor similar to that in the Sony a9/a1. So should negate the rolling shutter and banding effect when electronic shutter is enabled.

It’s too much money for me to consider, but it does look interesting. A proper body to go with the longer lenses.
 
Messages
23,757
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
Sounds like witchcraft to me [emoji848]
It’s 20 years since they last built a camera with it.
I was a fan, but there were plenty of people who weren’t.

And it just dawned on me; it’s an EOS 3 (R3) They never built an EOS 3D
 
Messages
985
Name
Alistair
Edit My Images
No
I just booked a test drive of the RF 85mm f2 Macro for a free week (the last week of April that the promo code SPRING21 is valid for). Going to compare it to my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro that I just got back from having it's firmware updated (needed to make it work with the R series).
Excited to test a new RF lens.

I also just received a JJC knock-off lens hood for the RF 50mm f1.8. The Canon one just isn't available and it was £35 which is silly money for a lens hood, JJC = £11.99..
And I got 2 new higher capacity LP-E17 batteries. 1800MAh vs the standard 1040, hoping they last longer in the RP.
 
Messages
8,355
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Are there an 3rd party battery grips available for the R5/R6 yet ?, the price for the Canon one is ridiculous.
 
Messages
2,735
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
So Canon are reviving eye controlled focusing for the R3. A very good move - it worked very well on my EOS 5 and EOS 50 film cameras. I gave never u derstood why they abandoned it for so long.
 
Messages
23,757
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
So Canon are reviving eye controlled focusing for the R3. A very good move - it worked very well on my EOS 5 and EOS 50 film cameras. I gave never u derstood why they abandoned it for so long.
It worked for me too - but there were plenty of users that could never get it working.

Personally I think modern eye tracking focus kinda makes eye control redundant, unless it'll do this... I look at the face I want in focus (instead of using a joystick) then the camera will take over and track the eye, but i then need to control how I pick the next subject (eye AF?) before leaving the camera to track once more. Will it work as I expect?
 
Messages
2,735
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
For portraits, it probably not really useful but it would be for interior architecture, for instance.
 
Messages
767
Name
Dexs
Edit My Images
No
Anyone using a Delkin CFexpress memory card with their R5? Would like your thoughts about it please.
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
19,013
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
For portraits, it probably not really useful but it would be for interior architecture, for instance.
I quite like the idea of the AF being intelligent enough to pick up what you're looking at in the frame and go for it. For landscapes even it could be great, look at the far middle ground, stop down, and boom perfect focus everytime.
 
Messages
23,757
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
I quite like the idea of the AF being intelligent enough to pick up what you're looking at in the frame and go for it. For landscapes even it could be great, look at the far middle ground, stop down, and boom perfect focus everytime.
IIRC they also included eye AF with ADEP, so you could look at the nearest object you wanted in focus, then look at the furthest point you wanted in focus, and the camera focusses between those points and sets an appropriate F no too.

Witchcraft.
 
Messages
357
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
I see Canon are continuing with their reassuringly expensive approach to the RF system. 13K for a 400mm F2.8 :( I wonder how much the R1 will be when it arrives. Anyone want a bet on 7K?

Regards...
 
Messages
239
Name
Mikey
Edit My Images
Yes
I see Canon are continuing with their reassuringly expensive approach to the RF system. 13K for a 400mm F2.8 :( I wonder how much the R1 will be when it arrives. Anyone want a bet on 7K?

Regards...
I mean the EF version is 12K so it's not exactly a massive premium for someone who is wanting a 400mm F2.8? I imagine the timing of it is to go with the R3 to lure Pro Sports Togs away from DSLR and to buy into the R series? I don't think a 16-35mm or 100-400 non L lens would make much of a statement to launch along side the R3... Fingers crossed some more affordable lenses are coming though.
 
Messages
357
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
I mean the EF version is 12K so it's not exactly a massive premium for someone who is wanting a 400mm F2.8? I imagine the timing of it is to go with the R3 to lure Pro Sports Togs away from DSLR and to buy into the R series? I don't think a 16-35mm or 100-400 non L lens would make much of a statement to launch along side the R3... Fingers crossed some more affordable lenses are coming though.
Oops :(. Shows how out of touch I am. I thought it was around 7k.

Regards...
 
Messages
1,674
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
The 200 2.8 L is a great value alterntive...
It's a great lens, the 2 (and 1.8) are phenomenal. The 200 f2 and 400 2.8 sometimes come up second hand. It's hard to imagine how the 400 Mk III can be so much better than the MkII!
 
Top