Do I buy RF lenses or keep my EF lens

Stardust

Stardust

Messages
211
Name
Charlie
Edit My Images
No
Evening all,

I wondered if I could have some advice please? I'm looking at trading in all of my camera equipment to invest/upgrade in a new Canon EOS R7 (mainly as my poor EOS 100D can't really cope with the stuff I'm trying to photograph/learning on workshops). I was thinking of going for the EOS 90D but having looked at reviews, and given it's only £150 more, I thought it would be better to go for a mirrorless camera as my next choice seeing how that's where things seem to be headed.

I'm very much an enthusiast when it comes to photography but I would like one day to have some more commissions but I don't want to make it my full time job (I say more as I have 'sold' a few of my photos when helping out at equestrian events).

My question is, would it be better to buy some new RF lenses (I was thinking of the 50mm prime and the 100mm-400mm as the camera can come with a 18mm-150mm kit lens) or do I keep my current Canon EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS USM and Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.6-6.3 Di II VC PZD Lens (Canon Fit) and use an adaptor instead?

I mainly shoot equestrian sport, as well as the odd bird of prey and travel, and am hoping to get more into pet portraits.

The other Canon lenses that I have are the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens and the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III Lens (I inherited all of my Canon stuff from my dad who may or may not have bought it second hand so I can't be 100% certain of the history of them prior to us having them).

The main reason for looking at the R7 is because I was thinking of keeping my larger EF lens and using an adaptor. I also have, and have always had, until recently acquiring the Canon, a Nikon camera. I currently have the D3500 with a variety of lenses, namely, the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Standard Prime Lens, the Nikon AF-P DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Zoom Lens, the Nikon 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6G and the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Lens. All of which would be traded in.

Would you recommend going for mirrorless for what I need? Would it be worth me trading in all of my equipment and buying new RF lenses? Does anyone use EF lenses on the Rs and find they're ok?

Any advice would be gratefully received, my poor brain is feeling a bit overwhelmed from all of the YouTube videos and discussions I've had on this. I know it's very much a personal choice but any thoughts would be amazing.

Thank you all and hope you all have a lovely eve! Sorry for the long post just wanted to add as much information as possible :)
 
You can try it out, and lenses before buying, its all straightforward, block a deposit on a card, they hand deliver and then collect. There's a lot of lenses to try out too.

TrytheKit Test Drive - Canon EOS R7

Canon EOS R7 mirrorless camera available for rental to both London and the UK Nationwide next day. Check live hire availability on-line now!
testdrive.trythekit.com testdrive.trythekit.com

The R10 is also very good for the price, and worth considering I'd say. It would be a good jump from the 100D. Overall I think mirrorless is well worth it if buying now. You might eventually add more RF lenses though, so factor that it. But saying that I've still got EF lenses and a control ring adapter, they work great.
 
The simple answer is that EF lenses work perfectly on the R cameras, so any decision to replace lenses should be made on a lens by lens basis.

The more complex answer is that if you're looking to get serious, your lenses could do with an upgrade (everything except the 100-400, and even that isn't exactly great by modern standards).

The good news is that you have a lot of gear to trade in, though some of it isn't worth a great deal.

I'd suggest the 17-55 2.8 IS, one of the 70-200 2.8's and keep your 100-400.

BTW I have the 70-200 2.8 non IS and it's likely 30 years old, optically better than the mk1 IS and can be had for less than £400 (and benefits from IBIS on the R bodies), that said, if you can afford it the RF70-200 2.8 is awesome, as is the RF100-400L but there's no RF lens yet to replace the EF-S 17-55
 
EF lenses work perfectly well with an adapter. (Don't think the EF-S lenses work though)

I used EF lenses for quite a while when I purchased the R5 and have slowly sold them off and switched over the RF lenses over the last year or so.

Did I see a huge jump in image quality? Not really.
I did have an older EF 24-105 f4 which I think the RF version is better.
14-35 f4 no difference in quality other than an extra 2mm over the EF 16-35 at the wide end.
70-200 f4 no difference
100-500 replaced a Sigma 150-600 C and of course the RF is significantly better than the sigma but significantly more expensive.

Was the autofocus better? Marginally except the 100-500 which is also much better than the sigma for speed and accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Having recently bought an R7 with EF adaptor I can confirm EF lenses work a treat on the R7 and have encountered no drawbacks. At the moment I have a foot in both camps with a 1DX Mk II so at the moment I'm not looking for RF specific glass unless there is a really compelling reason. Eventually I can see myself gradually transitioning to the new fitment.
 
Thank you to all of you for coming back to me and for giving me such detailed responses. It's really helped me to make up my mind.

@CavGez I did wonder about doing this but I've not done it before nor am I sure which company is best to use. It's certainly something I want to look into more, either now or later down the line if I want to upgrade my lenses. For example I'd really like the Sigma 105mm Art Lens but can't yet justify buying it outright. Def think trying before buying would be good for this one.

@Phil V thank you for being honest. I think I've been on the fence a bit about my lenses and your right about the value of some of the items. Incidentally I requested a quote for the 100-400 and it came back as around £450, can understand but still a bit of a shock when the 'Mark II' is still £2,500ish brand new. I'm going to look into the 70-200 after your comment :) I guess part of me is worried having watched some videos that the 100-400 RF lens is going to feel plasticy, if that makes sense?

@ecoleman I think I'm going to def sell my EF-S lenses after your comment so thank you for that, that's good to know. It's also interesting what you said about the quality (and also @andrewc) and has certainly helped to ease my mind. May I ask, would you go for another Sigma on your current set up if the right one came along? It's also comforting to know that the autofocus is only slightly better on the RF lenses.

@andrewc thank you for this. If I may ask about your comment on the puffin post (was trying to find some photos, love them all, the colour and clarity is so impressive) was it very painful to use? Just thinking I'm hoping to take it to a cross country event and a bird of prey photography workshop, wondering if there's anything I can learn before hand to help.

@soupdragon oo, I was thinking of getting a prime lens, was wondering about the 50mm as I have one for my Nikon but now wondering whether to start off with the 85mm instead, especially for portraits?! Yes they do seem to be quite expensive but I have noticed that some of the EF lenses are more expensive than the RF ones, mainly in the telephoto ones.

Again thank you all so much, I have some more food for thought and def feel like I can make a more informed decision. Just need to learn some patience now and wait for the R7 to come back into stock :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
I found the R series lenses were miles better than their EF counterparts.
The 85mm 1.2 R (for example) is as close to optical perfection as I've ever seen/owned.
The only downside to R lenses is the cost.
 
Last edited:
I bought my R7 a few months ago and started with the kit lens and then bought the rf 100-400mm which I love, but on buying other lenses like my ef 100mm IS USM macro, to me cost was a big factor in buying the ef lenses. at the moment rf lenses are just so expensive. the ef-rf converter works brilliantly and ive had no issues at all. I guess at the end of the day its what you can afford to do.
 
Thank you @ADragon the cost is playing a big role along with how much I'll actually use them as an enthusiast. I think having read the above I'm going to buy the adaptor and have my EF 100mm-400mm serviced and recalibrate it as think it might be the most cost effective way to upgrade. Sadly my photos have recently been coming out soft and I don't know if it's the camera or the lens. Having tested all of my canon lenses and having the same thing I think it's the camera.
I did wonder if it was me but I had the camera on both auto and manual and had my other half use it also and the results were the same. It's a relief but also would have saved me a lot of money if it was me :ROFLMAO:

I'm def going to look into upgrading to the RF lenses and will get some prime ones but as I add to my collection def going to try before buying to make sure I'm making the right investments.
 
Stardust said:
@andrewc thank you for this. If I may ask about your comment on the puffin post (was trying to find some photos, love them all, the colour and clarity is so impressive) was it very painful to use? Just thinking I'm hoping to take it to a cross country event and a bird of prey photography workshop, wondering if there's anything I can learn before hand to help.
Click to expand...

The things I dislike about the R7 / Mirrorless are:-

- fractional wake-up delay between putting camera to eye and being able to shoot

small form factor - the R7 has a smaller body than R5/6 and traditional EOS DSLR bodies. Fine if you've got small hands, and if your're happy with the size of your current camera, the R7 is very similar.

R7 specific - no battery grip option, button placement and lack of an LCD screen.

I shoot regularly mass participation running events, and shooting thousand portrait orientation photos would be uncomfortable.
 
Stardust said:
Thank you to all of you for coming back to me and for giving me such detailed responses. It's really helped me to make up my mind.

@CavGez I did wonder about doing this but I've not done it before nor am I sure which company is best to use. It's certainly something I want to look into more, either now or later down the line if I want to upgrade my lenses. For example I'd really like the Sigma 105mm Art Lens but can't yet justify buying it outright. Def think trying before buying would be good for this one.

@Phil V thank you for being honest. I think I've been on the fence a bit about my lenses and your right about the value of some of the items. Incidentally I requested a quote for the 100-400 and it came back as around £450, can understand but still a bit of a shock when the 'Mark II' is still £2,500ish brand new. I'm going to look into the 70-200 after your comment :) I guess part of me is worried having watched some videos that the 100-400 RF lens is going to feel plasticy, if that makes sense?

@ecoleman I think I'm going to def sell my EF-S lenses after your comment so thank you for that, that's good to know. It's also interesting what you said about the quality (and also @andrewc) and has certainly helped to ease my mind. May I ask, would you go for another Sigma on your current set up if the right one came along? It's also comforting to know that the autofocus is only slightly better on the RF lenses.

@andrewc thank you for this. If I may ask about your comment on the puffin post (was trying to find some photos, love them all, the colour and clarity is so impressive) was it very painful to use? Just thinking I'm hoping to take it to a cross country event and a bird of prey photography workshop, wondering if there's anything I can learn before hand to help.

@soupdragon oo, I was thinking of getting a prime lens, was wondering about the 50mm as I have one for my Nikon but now wondering whether to start off with the 85mm instead, especially for portraits?! Yes they do seem to be quite expensive but I have noticed that some of the EF lenses are more expensive than the RF ones, mainly in the telephoto ones.

Again thank you all so much, I have some more food for thought and def feel like I can make a more informed decision. Just need to learn some patience now and wait for the R7 to come back into stock :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Just a couple of clarifications if I may:
Your EF-S lenses will still work as well as they currently do (so the question should be ‘is that good enough’).

Not all the R lenses are an improvement on their EF counterparts, I’m about to jump in to buy an 85mm f2 and the one thing that’s making me nervous are reports it’s not quite as fast focussing as the EF85 1.8 I know and love.

Re your ef 100-400; the mk1 isn’t considered great by modern standards, so it’s not really comparable with either the cost of the EF mk2 or the RF L versions. Second hand listings show a significant price difference.
 
I went from a EOS 7Dii to R7 and lens are EF 70-300L f4-5.6 IS USM, EF 100-400L F4-5.6 IS USM Mkii, EF 100L IS USM Macro, Sigma 17-70 OSS HSM ( APS-C lens ), plus 430 Mkii & 580 Mkii speedlites.
All work very well on my R7 except for the sigma which needed a firmware update and even then I believe the the IBIS may not work in conjunction with the lens. Eye AF with my Canon lenses works very, very well.

I would say though I believe that some very old Canon lenses my not communicate that well with the adapter and R7, so test them out.

Depending what you photograph that will gives us an idea what you may need, though the EF 70-200L f2.8 is a great lens so is the EF 100-500L. Now canon have lifted there block on sharing data with third party lens manufactures. There are rumours that sigma may produce a 18-50 f2.8 OSS HSM lens, and that will be one I will buy.
 
@andrewc thank you for the dislikes, particualarly on the slight wake-up delay. I've heard that from others re the size and that it can be uncomfortable. I'm hoping it'll be ok as although I don't have small hands I am happy with my current camera so fingers crossed.

@Phil V thank you for the clarifications especially on the RF not always being an improvement, that is interesting. I hope that you find a lens that does work for you if you decide not to go for the 85mm.

@Tysonator thank you for letting me know that the eye AF works very well. It's not something I've had the option to use before so I'm looking forward to trying it out. I'm def going to test the older lenses. Although I still need to pay for the adaptor part of me thinks that £120 for that is better than £700 for a replacement RF lens even though it could end up costing me more in the long run. I would like a Sigma lens so if Canon really have lifted their block then that's great news. Looking forward to what may come to the market as a result.
 
In reference to the "wakeup" issue, ive not really experienced that with my R7. I have all the power saving features disabled and while you might think its a risk lasting the full photo shoot ive not had that issue regularly shooting over 3k photos and at least 30mins video each time and still have battery left. the R7 has a fantastic battery life. I also have "thick" fingers yet have no issues reaching the buttons. Granted I don't have experience holding the bigger cameras so cant comment on if they would be more comfy in the hand than the R7 but I can spend a good 5 hours out trying to capture birds and squirrels with no issues. Also don't forget to check out eBay for lenses and adapters. I bought my adapter from eBay as it was nearly £20 cheaper than amazon, granted I had to wait 3 days for delivery but I didn't mind waiting.
 
Stardust said:
@andrewc thank you for the dislikes, particualarly on the slight wake-up delay. I've heard that from others re the size and that it can be uncomfortable. I'm hoping it'll be ok as although I don't have small hands I am happy with my current camera so fingers crossed.

@Phil V thank you for the clarifications especially on the RF not always being an improvement, that is interesting. I hope that you find a lens that does work for you if you decide not to go for the 85mm.

@Tysonator thank you for letting me know that the eye AF works very well. It's not something I've had the option to use before so I'm looking forward to trying it out. I'm def going to test the older lenses. Although I still need to pay for the adaptor part of me thinks that £120 for that is better than £700 for a replacement RF lens even though it could end up costing me more in the long run. I would like a Sigma lens so if Canon really have lifted their block then that's great news. Looking forward to what may come to the market as a result.
Click to expand...

The R7 is a great APSC wildlife, sports, mirrorless camera as the Eye AF is what we are really paying for !
If you still life, product etc, then the R8 is a sound choice.

Check the members market out as I have seen EF-RF adapters on there.
 
I'm
Phil V said:
Just a couple of clarifications if I may:
Your EF-S lenses will still work as well as they currently do (so the question should be ‘is that good enough’).

Not all the R lenses are an improvement on their EF counterparts, I’m about to jump in to buy an 85mm f2 and the one thing that’s making me nervous are reports it’s not quite as fast focussing as the EF85 1.8 I know and love.

Re your ef 100-400; the mk1 isn’t considered great by modern standards, so it’s not really comparable with either the cost of the EF mk2 or the RF L versions. Second hand listings show a significant price difference.
Click to expand...

I will be in interested in your experience with the R 85. I'm no expert but even to me the ef85 1.8 is a remarkable lens.
 
Tysonator said:
The R7 is a great APSC wildlife, sports, mirrorless camera as the Eye AF is what we are really paying for !
If you still life, product etc, then the R8 is a sound choice.

Check the members market out as I have seen EF-RF adapters on there.
Click to expand...
Thank you @Tysonator I do mainly photo equestrian sport with some other areas on the side such as birds of prey and travel. I would like to get into pet portraits down the line so hoping it'll still be good for that but will look at the R8.
 
Brentor said:
I'm


I will be in interested in your experience with the R 85. I'm no expert but even to me the ef85 1.8 is a remarkable lens.
Click to expand...
I’ve a long love affair with the ef85, even though it has its share of detractors. When I sort my gear I’ll definitely update with some first thoughts.
I’m also a fan of the ef50 stm, and so far it appears the rf version is a direct swap (was never a fan of the ef mk1 or mk2, or the 1.4 fake USM)
 
Brentor said:
I'm


I will be in interested in your experience with the R 85. I'm no expert but even to me the ef85 1.8 is a remarkable lens.
Click to expand...
The RF 85 is nothing short of astonishing. If you have a use for it and can get past the price, you'd probably never take it off the camera.
 
ADragon said:
In reference to the "wakeup" issue, ive not really experienced that with my R7. I have all the power saving features disabled and while you might think its a risk lasting the full photo shoot ive not had that issue regularly shooting over 3k photos and at least 30mins video each time and still have battery left. the R7 has a fantastic battery life. I also have "thick" fingers yet have no issues reaching the buttons. Granted I don't have experience holding the bigger cameras so cant comment on if they would be more comfy in the hand than the R7 but I can spend a good 5 hours out trying to capture birds and squirrels with no issues. Also don't forget to check out eBay for lenses and adapters. I bought my adapter from eBay as it was nearly £20 cheaper than amazon, granted I had to wait 3 days for delivery but I didn't mind waiting.
Click to expand...
As a sports photographer, sometimes something happens out of the corner of your eye and with a traditional SLR you can get a quick grab shot. I've found with an R7 with the power saving measures turned off, chances are you won't get that grab shot.

I'm impressed with the battery life of the R7, still wish there was an easy grip option to get the portrait control set.
 
soupdragon said:
The RF 85 is nothing short of astonishing. If you have a use for it and can get past the price, you'd probably never take it off the camera.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the slightly expensive f2 or the excellent kidney priced 1.2?
 
The RF 50 f1.8 is a great little lens, a lot of bang for buck. As Phil says, pretty much a port of the EF50 STM.
I've had the RF 85 f2 on loan from the Canon Test Drive and found it to be superb. Lovely image quality, bokeh is really nice and images are sharp. I don't think I really tested out the AF speed.
For anyone looking to purchase any R series camera or RF lens, I can definitely recommend trying them via Canon Test Drive first.

As for whether to swap your EF to RF equivalents, that's down to you really and how deep your pockets are. I don't have deep pockets so initially only had the RF50 f1.8 along with my EF lenses, but gradually I've swapped so I now also have the RF 24-105L and the RF 35 f1.8. I still have two EF mount lenses which work fine on an adapter but I'd much prefer not to have an adapter in there.
 
The justification for buying the 85mm RF is that I wish to travel light sometimes and having the native rf 50 and 85 suits. I’ll be getting rid of a Tamron 90mm macro as well as the 85mm ef though.

I’d love to swap: my 70-200 2.8, Tamron 17-35 for an RF14-35, and my 135 f2 for the new rf, also would like the 24-70 but May stretch for the 24-105 at some point. however, I also like to eat and take the occasional holiday, so that’s not happening.

I’d add, I’m also in the verge of getting a Sigma 150-600 and I’d obviously prefer the rf 100-500.
 
Phil V said:
The justification for buying the 85mm RF is that I wish to travel light sometimes and having the native rf 50 and 85 suits. I’ll be getting rid of a Tamron 90mm macro as well as the 85mm ef though.

I’d love to swap: my 70-200 2.8, Tamron 17-35 for an RF14-35, and my 135 f2 for the new rf, also would like the 24-70 but May stretch for the 24-105 at some point. however, I also like to eat and take the occasional holiday, so that’s not happening.

I’d add, I’m also in the verge of getting a Sigma 150-600 and I’d obviously prefer the rf 100-500.
Click to expand...
I also have a Tamron 90mm macro (F004 VC version) and did comparisons with the RF 85 f2 and while the image quality was very similar, the RF 85 just doesn't have the magnification as it's only a 1:2 (0.5x) vs the Tamron which is a 1:1 macro. But if it's just for the occasional macro-ish shots then probably little to worry about. The RF 85 is definitely faster to focus than the Tamron 90mm though.
Simplifying the kit is one reason for switching to just RF mount lenses. An RF 85 f2 is smaller and lighter than an EF 85mm f1.8 with adapter and definitely lighter than the Tamron 90mm with adapter.
I can't justify the £500 for the RF 85 though.

As for the OP, and for anyone on a budget, I'd always suggest putting more money into the focal length/s you use the most. I can shoot 70-80% of my stuff on the 24-105 so that was my priority RF upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top