Canon users -are RF lenses worth the premium for hobbyists?

[G-Slev]

I recently replaced my Canon 70D and 60D with a pair of R7s. I am looking to buy a 50mm 1.8 and a 10-18mm.

The used RF versions of both are significantly more than their EF equivalents. I already own a RF to EF adapter. For someone who shoots for a hobby, is the quality of the EF versions good enough? If the difference is negligible, I'm temped to save a few bob and invest in EF glass.

(Incidentally, my Sigmac10-20 does not play nicely with the R7. It's a known issue, apparently).

 

[TimHughes]

It always depends.... in my case, I am still almost entirely using EF lenses. And that's for paid work. Many of my EF lenses perform better with the RF-to-EF adapter on mirrorless bodies than on DLSR bodies, thanks to improved AF. But there may be a special RF lens that you want that did not have an EF version. I have been tempted by the RF 85 1.2 (the EF version AF was just too slow) and the RF 185 1.8 (the EF version is great, but 1.8 is an improvement over 2.0). There are plenty of EF lenses, including third party, that are much better value for money than RF.

 

[turbotoes]

I think it depends on which glass you are talking about tbh, My EF 100-400 mii was bloody brilliant on my R7,
my EF 28-105 F4 is L was not, it was never sharp enough on the R7, it was ok on my R3.
EF 70-200 F2.8 IS L miii Fantastic on both R7 and R3,
EF 70-200 F4 IS L not so much on either . fussy IS and af a bit suspect
EF-S 18-55 F2.8 IS lovely on the R7 and I even find it good enough on my R3 even though it's an automatic crop
EF 100mm f2.8 IS L macro lovely on both.

 

[hunnymonster]

The main difference it makes is in the bulk of the lens assembly - EF lenses are bigger & heavier than the RF equivalent. Some are optically better (RF vs EF); some are optically identical; some are optically worse...

 

[LCPete]

As said it depends on the lens , in my case I have had my R5 about 5 years and still haven’t bought an RF lens, my EF versions do everything I need

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I'll probably catch flack for saying it but for many people, high end equipment won't improve their output.

It's simply the case that people, who really know what they're doing, will get better results with less expensive kit, than those who don't will achieve with top end equipment. Putting your resources into capturing the most interesting shot and presenting it in the best way, is always the best investment in my opinion.

 

[Canon brook]

Mainly if you use filters...

I ended up with a mix of rf and ef lenses on my R5 ( rf longer end 100-500, 70-200 ....oh and the 50mm 1.8 which is very compact).

I ended up with an rf to ef adapter with the drop in polaroid filter and love it...use it with a 24-70 f2.8 and 16- 35 f4 and its probably stopped me upgrading its so convenient and really good results with the exception perhaps at around 16 mm.....you can also get drop in ND filters but they are a bit more expensive and haven't gone there yet...

Might be worth a look if you are staying with ef....

 

[cuthbert]

One big benefit of RF lenses is they are often smaller and lighter - especially when compared to EF lenses with the mount adapter attached. Lenses like the RF 45 1.2, RF 50 1.8 and 28-70 2.8, and the VCM primes are nicely compact.

I don’t think I would upgrade any of my EF lenses based on image quality alone (except maybe the EF 501.4) but when looking at the weight reduction they can be a good option and worth the upgrade.

 

[woof woof]

I'll probably catch flack for saying it but for many people, high end equipment won't improve their output.

It's simply the case that people, who really know what they're doing, will get better results with less expensive kit, than those who don't will achieve with top end equipment. Putting your resources into capturing the most interesting shot and presenting it in the best way, is always the best investment in my opinion.

I sort of agree but I think this needs qualifying.

For people who are happy snappers like me better kit wont necessarily make my subjects and compositions better but could improve file quality. For example lower ISO noise and better AF performance in the case cameras and better optically in the case of lenses. For me as a happy snapper looking at my pictures and seeing a nice file including the qualities that both the camera and the lens add is a part of my enjoyment of this photography hobby.

 

[MattyW]

I’ve been really impressed with all of the EF to RF switches I have made so far. You CAN manage without, but it feels a more harmonious partnership using the RF glass. I think optically there isn’t so much difference, but the AF feels much more snappy and accurate for me. If you can afford it, I’d have thought for your use case, you wouldn’t regret the move
I’m using the 28-70 f2 and 70-200 2.8z so I think regardless these would feel like a quality upgrade from my older (and second hand) EF comparable lenses

 

[TimHughes]

I’ve been really impressed with all of the EF to RF switches I have made so far. You CAN manage without, but it feels a more harmonious partnership using the RF glass. I think optically there isn’t so much difference, but the AF feels much more snappy and accurate for me. If you can afford it, I’d have thought for your use case, you wouldn’t regret the move
I’m using the 28-70 f2 and 70-200 2.8z so I think regardless these would feel like a quality upgrade from my older (and second hand) EF comparable lenses

Which older EF lenses did you have? I've tested and from image quality an AF I've found in almost all cases I prefer EF-L versions that I already have. Included in the testing was the 28-70 f2 and that is a great lens, but I do prefer shooting with primes. I could be tempted by the 100-300 2.8 RF

 

[LongLensPhotography]

If you want real compact lenses you buy sony and some third party e mount lenses.

I was actually very surprised how chunky the rf 24-70mm is. Bigger than ef version, but hopefully better. 28-70 is mahoosive but feels very cheaply assembled.

70-200 f4 is actually small because it extends.

 

[Phil V]

For someone who shoots for a hobby, is the quality of the EF versions good enough?

Already been said, but if you’re happy with the bulk of the adaptor, the EF lenses are much cheaper.

I’m at a time in my life where the extra money for RF lenses is negligible, but not quite rich enough to replace my more expensive old lenses with RF versions.
I started with the RF50 1.8 straight away, as the tiny plastic EF versions hanging on the heavy adaptor was silly.

I’ve now bought the rf45 1.2, so I’ll probably be selling the 50 soon. I’ll also likely sell the 85 f2 as I’ve barely used it.

Long lenses on the adaptor are fine, but smaller lighter lenses are not ideal

 

[MattyW]

Which older EF lenses did you have? I've tested and from image quality an AF I've found in almost all cases I prefer EF-L versions that I already have. Included in the testing was the 28-70 f2 and that is a great lens, but I do prefer shooting with primes. I could be tempted by the 100-300 2.8 RF

Those two lenses replaced a Mk1 24-70 2.8 and both a 70-200 f4 (non is) and 70-200 2.8 mk1. Definitely I’ve found AF accuracy to be much more consistent, and IQ improvements, though this could be due to the age and used condition of the older EF glass compared with the box fresh RF ones

The 100-300 would be a lovely piece to have, though it’s a little on the rich side for me

 

[TimHughes]

Those two lenses replaced a Mk1 24-70 2.8 and both a 70-200 f4 (non is) and 70-200 2.8 mk1. Definitely I’ve found AF accuracy to be much more consistent, and IQ improvements, though this could be due to the age and used condition of the older EF glass compared with the box fresh RF ones

The 100-300 would be a lovely piece to have, though it’s a little on the rich side for me

Ah ok, I have the newer EF versions and tried alongside RF versions and didn’t see much difference except for the 135 and 85. The 100-300 is tempting but out of reach for me too.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

100-300 sounds super exciting. But i would barely use it once or twice a year. Unless i seriously go all in to dogs outdoors. I dont really see things going that way though

 

[davholla]

You could do try the kit and test for free.

 

[philthejuggler]

I had a bunch of EF lenses - 35mm f/1.4 L, 85mm f/1.4L, 70-200 f4 L IS III & 2.8 L IS II, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 16-35 f/4 L - I sold the lot when I went to mirrorless and have spent a small fortune on RF lenses.

In my opinion all of the RF lenses I've replaced them with are significantly crisper - the only one I can't yet comment on is the 35mm f/1.4 VCM - some say this is a downgrade from 35/1.4 II - I haven't yet had chance to give it a good run.

Having said that the focussing is so much more accurate on the mirrorless, I'll bet the EF lenses will out perform themselves vs on a DSLR.

I would say that the 28-70 f/2 is a simply staggeringly good zoom and if you can live with the bulk it is worth every penny. The 85/1.2 DS is my favourite lens and is stupidly sharp wide open and does a gorgeous job of portraits.

One word of warning - I did briefly own a 3rd party EF-RF adapter - not sure this is why, but I had some odd results with the 16-35 where the periphery of the screen was blurred whilst the centre stayed sharp.

 

[TimHughes]

I had a bunch of EF lenses - 35mm f/1.4 L, 85mm f/1.4L, 70-200 f4 L IS III & 2.8 L IS II, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 16-35 f/4 L - I sold the lot when I went to mirrorless and have spent a small fortune on RF lenses.

In my opinion all of the RF lenses I've replaced them with are significantly crisper - the only one I can't yet comment on is the 35mm f/1.4 VCM - some say this is a downgrade from 35/1.4 II - I haven't yet had chance to give it a good run.

Having said that the focussing is so much more accurate on the mirrorless, I'll bet the EF lenses will out perform themselves vs on a DSLR.

I would say that the 28-70 f/2 is a simply staggeringly good zoom and if you can live with the bulk it is worth every penny. The 85/1.2 DS is my favourite lens and is stupidly sharp wide open and does a gorgeous job of portraits.

One word of warning - I did briefly own a 3rd party EF-RF adapter - not sure this is why, but I had some odd results with the 16-35 where the periphery of the screen was blurred whilst the centre stayed sharp.

Hi Phil, are you comparing the EF adapted to the same body as the RF lenses? I have tested and not found a big difference with the quality L versions and the RFs up to a couple of years ago. I agree the 28-70 f2 is great and I did get an RF 85 1.2 and RF 135 1.8, but keeping the EF 35 1.4 II and most of the other EF L primes.

 

[hunnymonster]

My experience of adapted EF on RF is that they focus faster than on the native EF mount camera. That said the RF native lenses are quicker still.

IQ-wise they seem pretty much identical on the same body under the same conditions. Although that is based on a sample of one (EF 100/2.8L macro Vs RF 100/2.8L)

RF Key savings are in weight & general bulk where the RF scores over EF.

EF Key savings are firmly in the wallet area. Also some lenses simply have yet to appear in RF - like TS-E (or will it be TS-R?)

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I've replaced them with are significantly crisper - the only one I can't yet comment on is the 35mm f/1.4 VCM - some say this is a downgrade from 35/1.4 II - I haven't yet had chance to give it a good run.

If you expect perfect full frame you will find it a downgrade. It is not even a proper full frame and involves a significant distortion correction and stretching. In fact so do all the other wider vcm primes, and some newer wide zooms at wide settings including 24-105 f2.8, 14-35, and even 15-35 has some.... You will get good centre performance and good response wide open, but edges will never fully catch up because they physically cant. High res r5 mitigates that somewhat presuming your baseline requirement is slightly lower resolution, and may also matter less if you have to do keystoning anyway.

16-35 f/4 L -

Thats a 20mp lens with best performance at 16mm and very mediocre by 35... Like any other ef zoom They are very prone to centering defects too

 

[philthejuggler]

If you expect perfect full frame you will find it a downgrade. It is not even a proper full frame and involves a significant distortion correction and stretching. In fact so do all the other wider vcm primes, and some newer wide zooms at wide settings including 24-105 f2.8, 14-35, and even 15-35 has some.... You will get good centre performance and good response wide open, but edges will never fully catch up because they physically cant. High res r5 mitigates that somewhat presuming your baseline requirement is slightly lower resolution, and may also matter less if you have to do keystoning anyway.



Thats a 20mp lens with best performance at 16mm and very mediocre by 35... Like any other ef zoom They are very prone to centering defects too

Yes - I accept the 35mm VCM is a compromise - but I think it will work perfectly as my 'always with me' setup on my R8 body. I gave it a decent run today and as you say it's pretty sharp wide open.

As for the 16-35mm f/4L EF - there was definitely something wrong using it with the 3rd party adapter. I first compared it on a 5DIV to the R6MII and the 5DIV shot was sharp edge to edge, but the R6MII was blurred in the periphery. Shortly before I sold the lens I used it for some large groups at a wedding - again on the R6MII but this time with a Canon RF-EF converter - again it was sharp edge to edge - not sure if the internal IS was arguing with the lens IS but something was definitely off using it with the third party unit.

 

[philthejuggler]

Hi Phil, are you comparing the EF adapted to the same body as the RF lenses? I have tested and not found a big difference with the quality L versions and the RFs up to a couple of years ago. I agree the 28-70 f2 is great and I did get an RF 85 1.2 and RF 135 1.8, but keeping the EF 35 1.4 II and most of the other EF L primes.

Once I tried and fell in love with mirrorless I got rid of all my EF gear and went for RF lenses. From my experience of using the EF equivalents for years and now using the RF lenses I feel confident in saying the 85/1.2 DS beats my 85/1.4 L despite the latter being a great lens, the 135/1.8 is streets ahead of the old 135/2, the new 70-200 f/2.8 Z version (fixed length zoom) is possibly the sharpest zoom I've ever used & the RF 50/1.2 is way sharper than the EF 50/1.2, although there was something pleasing about the old EF lens' rendering - the focus shift ultimately stopped me from relying on it for weddings though.