Canon EOS R Series Cameras

[LongLensPhotography]

Another RF lens back at Canon here. Thats the 4th time one has gone back due to damage. Willing to admit I was clumsy to damage them (100-500 tight focus ring after leaning my monopod up the wrong way and thinking it would stay up..), 70-200z after 20cm fall out of bag, tripod mount fatigued/broke in 2), 70-200z back again to canon after their fix on the rear lens cowling around the mount came loose.

Now my 85mm 1.4 VCM front element screw mounts sheered - the front element is held in place by screws and the torque after a knock on the lens hood ripped right through the plastic mounting.... I take the responsibility for the others to a large extent but this shocked me.

I never sent an EF lens back in 20 years and they bounced, fell, got knocked all of the place - certainly more robust than the RF stuff in my opinion.... Has anyone else found this?

Anyway it gave me an excuse to grab a second hand 135 F2 from MPB for just over £300, 340 maybe - anyway, it was "good" condition with no lenshood. Its better than that looks fairly mint to me!

Anyway Loving it, great lens and focal length for what I need!

It is not that difficult to treat your gear with proper respect and still get the work done

 

[TimHughes]

I could not get the latest canon firmware dmg file to work on my mac. Fortunately, it turns out the windows download is just a zip file so equally fine for mac.

 

[A_S]

It is not that difficult to treat your gear with proper respect and still get the work done

I think that depends on your use case. Its easier to keep your stuff nice and prestine if you are sitting in a studio all day vs if you are shooting a rally out in the field half way up a 45 degree bank in 2 deg temperatues with wind and rain battering you from all angles plus 2 remote cameras that keep getting showered with gravel... etc even though they are covered in dedicated camera covers...... or jostling with 2000 people in a BTCC pitwalkabout things will get knocked. Accidents will happen if you use your kit regulally in such envirnoments



Like I say, I'll take some responsibility for sure, and irrespective of how one treats their equipment there is no question in my mind that RF stuff is nowhere near as robust as EF stuff...

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I only have one newish rf lens and quality is plastic. So cant really comment on durability.
However ef ones were full of killer problems, like almost guaranteed bad alignment out of factory, screws getting loose or wearing out locking holes causing lens to randomly disengage and fall off

 

[TimHughes]

I have a small collection of RF lenses that is growing slowly, and so far, so good. I know what you mean about difficult shooting conditions @A_S, but I'm not seeing a big difference in resilience between the EF and RF lenses.

 

[A_S]

here is a photo of the latest one for a bit of context. I can say confidently that this would not happen on an EF equivelent!

 

[A_S]

Had to dig back to find this one. Again - I am not sure this would happen on an EF 70-200 2.8. This was after canon fixed the tripod mount ring - so less than 6 months after they had replaced/fixed it.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Had to dig back to find this one. Again - I am not sure this would happen on an EF 70-200 2.8. This was after canon fixed the tripod mount ring - so less than 6 months after they had replaced/fixed it.


View attachment 493575

yes it would with certainty. 2.8s were quite shoddy actually, and the reason was that some screws would become lose over time. Just this simple. Maybe temeperature cycles, maybe vibration in the car, maybe poor torquing in factory. After that say goodbye to alignment, and I doubt Canon UK would ever get it perfectly right.

If you have a look on ebay there used to be enough of those in 2 parts split cleanly down the middle. These were obviously abused and dropped. Oddly enough the plastic ones do not break, only scuff and lose filter thread. I bet your black lens had quite an accident to look like that.

 

[A_S]

yes it would with certainty. 2.8s were quite shoddy actually, and the reason was that some screws would become lose over time. Just this simple. Maybe temeperature cycles, maybe vibration in the car, maybe poor torquing in factory. After that say goodbye to alignment, and I doubt Canon UK would ever get it perfectly right.

If you have a look on ebay there used to be enough of those in 2 parts split cleanly down the middle. These were obviously abused and dropped. Oddly enough the plastic ones do not break, only scuff and lose filter thread. I bet your black lens had quite an accident to look like that.

no screws here on the 70-200, i assume its bonded on.

Anyway RE the 85, it was knocked against the side of the car boot as I took it out the camera bag - no real force this end, beleive it or not, the knock was on the end of the lens hood which obviously magnifies the force at the lens end. whether it has been weakened before I don't know, but what i do know is that those screws were held on by a thin plastic mounting which indicatively feels cheap and not very robust to me...

 

[LongLensPhotography]

no screws here on the 70-200, i assume its bonded on.

I guess they will be internal just behind the mount plate; they normally are there. It looks it could have been a drop that sheared them from the plastic threads.

I would seriously draw a red line to insecure mountings, unstable stands and uncertain operation. Even if you move to like Sony which is probably better made all-round I would still exercise the same caution.

Anyway RE the 85, it was knocked against the side of the car boot as I took it out the camera bag - no real force this end, beleive it or not, the knock was on the end of the lens hood which obviously magnifies the force at the lens end. whether it has been weakened before I don't know, but what i do know is that those screws were held on by a thin plastic mounting which indicatively feels cheap and not very robust to me...

again, your choice if you continue treating them as a basic power tool or precision instrument which they are.

 

[Nostromo]

I've had an r7 for about 2½yrs, when I first got the camera I was using the EF 24-105 as an everyday lens, but found it really big, especially with the adapter. I also wanted a faster lens. So I sold the 24-105 and bought an ef-s 17-55 f/2.8 which I got the most part have been happy with it, but I did miss the reach of the 24-105.
I've now ordered a R6ii with an RF 24-105 f/4, I know it's a pretty standard, not very exciting lens, but I really am looking forward to having it. I don't mind that it's an f/4 for what I will be using for. I will buy an RF 35 or 50 f/1.8 for a fast lens. I am also looking forward to the R6ii as well.

 

[Phil V]

I've had an r7 for about 2½yrs, when I first got the camera I was using the EF 24-105 as an everyday lens, but found it really big, especially with the adapter. I also wanted a faster lens. So I sold the 24-105 and bought an ef-s 17-55 f/2.8 which I got the most part have been happy with it, but I did miss the reach of the 24-105.
I've now ordered a R6ii with an RF 24-105 f/4, I know it's a pretty standard, not very exciting lens, but I really am looking forward to having it. I don't mind that it's an f/4 for what I will be using for. I will buy an RF 35 or 50 f/1.8 for a fast lens. I am also looking forward to the R6ii as well.

If you’re really looking for a fast lens, don’t overlook the 45mm f1.2. It’s not an L it’s fairly light but bigger than the 50mm 1.8

BTW the rf 50mm 1.8 is nigh on identical to the ef version, so it’s good, but not amazing.

 

[Nostromo]

If you’re really looking for a fast lens, don’t overlook the 45mm f1.2. It’s not an L it’s fairly light but bigger than the 50mm 1.8

BTW the rf 50mm 1.8 is nigh on identical to the ef version, so it’s good, but not amazing.

Thanks for that.
I'm in no real rush to buy a 1.2 or 1.8 lens, I do have an EF 85 1.8, which I know is a bit long, but I've managed with it on my apsc camera, so I'm sure a week be alright for a wee while on FF.
The 45mm was also on my radar, I was just a little concerned about some of the negative points in the reviews.

 

[Phil V]

Thanks for that.
I'm in no real rush to buy a 1.2 or 1.8 lens, I do have an EF 85 1.8, which I know is a bit long, but I've managed with it on my apsc camera, so I'm sure a week be alright for a wee while on FF.
The 45mm was also on my radar, I was just a little concerned about some of the negative points in the reviews.

The 85 on a crop body is approximately 135mm which is my favourite focal length

But it’s a long way from 35 or 50

 

[The Weasel]

Speaking of the RF 24-105 f4 @Nostromo I'm looking for a lens to bridge the gap to my EF 70-200f4LIS and it's a toss up between the RF 28-70f2.8 STM and the RF 24-105.

And with the RF 28-70 being likened to L quality and weather sealed to a certain degree I'm struggling to choose between the two.

 

[Dale.]

On the 24-105 front, I have the EF mark 1 L but it has an intermittent AF problem between 35 and 50mm, something I had lived with until recently. I looked at the Mark 2 but after doing the research, I decided on the Sigma ART version. This was all with a 5Dmkiv.

Enter my first R body, an R7 and I soon noticed the pulsing in Servo mode with my 150-600C on that body. I've lived with that too as the lens isn't fully compatible with the R7, so fair enough.

Last week though, we were on holiday for a few days. I wanted to take some pictures of our dog in a nearby forest. I had the Sigma 24-105ART on my R5ii. I took 103 images and have since deleted around 70 of them. The first thing I look for is sharpness and it just wasn't there for the majority of images. I'm a bit OCD about shrapness to be fair and also, shutter speeds were quite slow, around 1/250sec but even shots of her standing still weren't always critically sharp, I used 'Servo' for the moving shots and 'One Shot' for the standing shots, with IS on, in body and in lens.

I'm not sure if the pulsing is also a known issue with the Sigma 24-105 as it is with the 150-600. The 24-105 has always been a lens that I've had to work to get tack sharp images but it does seem considerably worse on an R body.

It might be operator error on my part but I'm wondering if anybody else has noticed this with the Sigma 24-105 on R bodies?

Do I start saving for the RF version?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

On the 24-105 front, I have the EF mark 1 L but it has an intermittent AF problem between 35 and 50mm, something I had lived with until recently. I looked at the Mark 2 but after doing the research, I decided on the Sigma ART version. This was all with a 5Dmkiv.

Enter my first R body, an R7 and I soon noticed the pulsing in Servo mode with my 150-600C on that body. I've lived with that too as the lens isn't fully compatible with the R7, so fair enough.

Last week though, we were on holiday for a few days. I wanted to take some pictures of our dog in a nearby forest. I had the Sigma 24-105ART on my R5ii. I took 103 images and have since deleted around 70 of them. The first thing I look for is sharpness and it just wasn't there for the majority of images. I'm a bit OCD about shrapness to be fair and also, shutter speeds were quite slow, around 1/250sec but even shots of her standing still weren't always critically sharp, I used 'Servo' for the moving shots and 'One Shot' for the standing shots, with IS on, in body and in lens.

I'm not sure if the pulsing is also a known issue with the Sigma 24-105 as it is with the 150-600. The 24-105 has always been a lens that I've had to work to get tack sharp images but it does seem considerably worse on an R body.

It might be operator error on my part but I'm wondering if anybody else has noticed this with the Sigma 24-105 on R bodies?

Do I start saving for the RF version?

No, r5 ii demands primes. Glad you finally noticed