Which Canon RF lenses are significant upgrades to EF?

TimHughes

TimHughes

Messages
3,062
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
@owners of RF lenses, which ones offer significant improvements to the best of the EF range?

The DXO Mark rankings (https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/) don't have many listed yet. The highest ranking EF and RF in terms of sharpness remains the EF 300 2.8, just above the new RF 135 1.8 and the other tested RF lenses are relatively low in the rankings vs EF [*edit this is due to many of the RF lenses being tested on Canon R vs EF lenses being tested on 5DSR].

YouTube reviews showing side-by-side AF tracking don't show any advantage of RF, despite extra data pins (example
View: https://youtu.be/ETk4cZVam-0?si=WnbI1-oBXKHiejDa
).

I'm possibly tempted by the RF 135 1.8 to replace the EF 135 2.0. Not sure about the RF 85 1.2 as the EF 85 1.4 is already very good and has IS which I find useful.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
My friend just bought the 28-70 f2 and won't shut up about it. He's a proper gear head and says he's never used a lens like it.
 
stumac said:
My friend just bought the 28-70 f2 and won't shut up about it. He's a proper gear head and says he's never used a lens like it.
Click to expand...
A colleague has that and I've tried it on her R6. She loves it too, despite the weight and loves the results. The DXO ranking is relatively low, however. Resolving power appears to be 21 (Mpix if I understand the table correctly) which is good, but well short of the 300 2.8's 45.

What does your friend like about it in particular? How does it compare to 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 80 1.2/1.4 if he has used those?
 
The only comparison I have is the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro vs the RF version. I'm not a pixel peeper. I use it for portraits. I know some folks will frown on that.

I found the EF version quite slow to focus on the R6 (as in slow to physically rack as well as find focus) and personally, I find the adapter makes the camera unbalanced and awkward in the hands. The RF version for me was a significant upgrade with better focus speed, excellent ability to work with things like eye AF, and better in the hands.

In terms of image quality, I couldn't really tell a difference although I got more keepers from the RF which is probably a combination of the fact that the RF lens is quicker to focus, and/or hides my mistakes better by virtue of it's "intelligence" coupled with the R6.

I think it would be a difficult choice for someone who was competent with their EF lens already and/or not bothered by the extra length the adapter adds on (or the weird balance of having something so "narrow" at the mount end which is highly likely a "me" issue).
 
TimHughes said:
I'm possibly tempted by the RF 135 1.8 to replace the EF 135 2.0. Not sure about the RF 85 1.2 as the EF 85 1.4 is already very good and has IS which I find useful.
Click to expand...
Sigma ART 135mm is a no-brainer. Their best lens ever. Walks circles around anything Canon
85mm would be about the only cases where you could convince yourself to go RF 1.2 (not DS unless you like crazy vignetting). Sigma ART would slot in between this and the Canon 1.4.
You could argue that Nikon 85mm is better and so is Z8 >>>> R5.

If your intention is 8K sensors then I would really just recommend sticking with Sigma ART primes as much as possible. Big fat "white" Canons will obviously be fine.
zooms under 105mm will be best case scenario for R3 and R6 level cameras. A convenience zoom for events and video work. I would just buy Sony GM2 instead if I really had to.
The plastic fantastic RF 70-200mm f/2.8 appears to be much much sharper than EF variant. If you can live with that horrid design and price tag then go and pick one up. There are talks of replacement being imminent. F/4 version doesn't appear to stack up as well. You may as well keep the old EF mk1, particularly at wide end. Again Z >>>> RF here too.
 
Harlequin565 said:
the camera IS unbalanced and awkward in the hands
Click to expand...
that's the relevant part. Horrible body design. Smallrig bracket sort of fixes that.

Harlequin565 said:
I found the EF version quite slow to focus on the R6 (as in slow to physically rack as well as find focus) and personally
Click to expand...
nope. You have set the focus limiter, haven't you?
Harlequin565 said:
In terms of image quality, I couldn't really tell a difference
Click to expand...
Well that's bad news for the new lens, because there is a lot of room for improvement if you are shooting over longer distances. there are reports of focus shifts on the new lens making it only usable at f/2.8 and f/8+. That is a bad bad bad design from Canon.

Harlequin565 said:
I use it for portraits. I know some folks will frown on that.
Click to expand...
nothing wrong with that. You don't need vaseline look, although that lens is perfectly capable of it with just a very slight defocus at wider apertures
 
TimHughes said:
A colleague has that and I've tried it on her R6. She loves it too, despite the weight and loves the results. The DXO ranking is relatively low, however. Resolving power appears to be 21 (Mpix if I understand the table correctly) which is good, but well short of the 300 2.8's 45.

What does your friend like about it in particular? How does it compare to 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 80 1.2/1.4 if he has used those?
Click to expand...
I've never looked at a chart table for a lens in my 20 years of photography, I wouldn't have a clue what the numbers mean ,I just try a lens and if I'm impressed with the speed and sharpness then it's a great lens lol
He just loves it as he says it gives a prime "look" with out having a bag full of primes.....super sharp and fast focus . Upto now he's been a prime only shooter .
 
stumac said:
I've never looked at a chart table for a lens in my 20 years of photography, I wouldn't have a clue what the numbers mean ,I just try a lens and if I'm impressed with the speed and sharpness then it's a great lens lol
He just loves it as he says it gives a prime "look" with out having a bag full of primes.....super sharp and fast focus . Upto now he's been a prime only shooter .
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that approach!

I haven't looked at the charts for years, I took a peek as I'm curious how much of the buzz about RF lenses is real. In the table, I'm mostly interested in the sharpness number (the number of mpix the lens can resolve with the camera sensor tested) and chromatic aberration (which can be a pain for astro). Transmission is the real "f-stop" if you like, it's how much light is coming through the lens, and they measure distortion without correction which seems odd. Since I started this post, I've realized the results are camera sensor-dependent so the sharpness results are not all like-for-like as the tests were run on mixture of R (30 mpix), R5 (45mpix) and 5DSR (50 mpix, no anti-alias filter)

In conclusion, your approach is better :). I'll ask to borrow my colleagues 28-70 for a longer trial. If it can replace a bag full of primes that would be good.
 
Harlequin565 said:
The only comparison I have is the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro vs the RF version. I'm not a pixel peeper. I use it for portraits. I know some folks will frown on that.

I found the EF version quite slow to focus on the R6 (as in slow to physically rack as well as find focus) and personally, I find the adapter makes the camera unbalanced and awkward in the hands. The RF version for me was a significant upgrade with better focus speed, excellent ability to work with things like eye AF, and better in the hands.

In terms of image quality, I couldn't really tell a difference although I got more keepers from the RF which is probably a combination of the fact that the RF lens is quicker to focus, and/or hides my mistakes better by virtue of it's "intelligence" coupled with the R6.

I think it would be a difficult choice for someone who was competent with their EF lens already and/or not bothered by the extra length the adapter adds on (or the weird balance of having something so "narrow" at the mount end which is highly likely a "me" issue).
Click to expand...
Thanks Ian, good to know. I'm not having any trouble with the EF 100 2.8 adapted to R5. I appreciate your input; I can happily cross RF 100 2.8 of the list of possibilities!
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Sigma ART 135mm is a no-brainer. Their best lens ever. Walks circles around anything Canon
85mm would be about the only cases where you could convince yourself to go RF 1.2 (not DS unless you like crazy vignetting). Sigma ART would slot in between this and the Canon 1.4.
You could argue that Nikon 85mm is better and so is Z8 >>>> R5.

If your intention is 8K sensors then I would really just recommend sticking with Sigma ART primes as much as possible. Big fat "white" Canons will obviously be fine.
zooms under 105mm will be best case scenario for R3 and R6 level cameras. A convenience zoom for events and video work. I would just buy Sony GM2 instead if I really had to.
The plastic fantastic RF 70-200mm f/2.8 appears to be much much sharper than EF variant. If you can live with that horrid design and price tag then go and pick one up. There are talks of replacement being imminent. F/4 version doesn't appear to stack up as well. You may as well keep the old EF mk1, particularly at wide end. Again Z >>>> RF here too.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Tomas. The RF 135 does have IS, which is tempting. The RF 85 1.2 doesn't have IS, but it's also tempting. I'm also curious to try the RF 24-70 (which also has IS), as results from the EF 24-70 Mark 2 are occasionally a little disappointing. At the moment I have my pick of the best Canon and Sigma Art primes for photos and zooms that I mostly use for video. No complaints about any of them. I started this post to assuage my FOMO.
 
Good Q you're asking here TimHughes and an informative video. It takes many years to build a happy lens collection, and then the technology changes.. but does it mean better? One would like to think so, hence a relevant question. I'm watching my camera age and contemplating that the eventual replacement may very well be an R. Who wants to use a mount adaptor.. based on the vid I sure will, unless RF versions clearly trump my 35/1.4L and 135/2L. Those specifically.. As for the big whites, even if the RF's are 200% better I'd have to win the lottery first.
 
boer13 said:
Good Q you're asking here TimHughes and an informative video. It takes many years to build a happy lens collection, and then the technology changes.. but does it mean better? One would like to think so, hence a relevant question. I'm watching my camera age and contemplating that the eventual replacement may very well be an R. Who wants to use a mount adaptor.. based on the vid I sure will, unless RF versions clearly trump my 35/1.4L and 135/2L. Those specifically.. As for the big whites, even if the RF's are 200% better I'd have to win the lottery first.
Click to expand...
Hi Jaco, 135/2 has been a favorite for a long time. The RF looks to resolve a lot more, I will try to test one out. I also loved the 35 1.4... but the Mark 2 was a worthwhile improvement.
 
TimHughes said:
Thanks, Tomas. The RF 135 does have IS, which is tempting. The RF 85 1.2 doesn't have IS, but it's also tempting. I'm also curious to try the RF 24-70 (which also has IS), as results from the EF 24-70 Mark 2 are occasionally a little disappointing. At the moment I have my pick of the best Canon and Sigma Art primes for photos and zooms that I mostly use for video. No complaints about any of them. I started this post to assuage my FOMO.
Click to expand...
I appreciate IS is very helpful, but then IBIS mostly does the same work, and you still need reasonable shutter speed to accommodate for subject movement, so basically a minimum of 1/200s for 135mm any way you look at it.

I definitely agree the EF 24-70mm II can be seen as disappointing when A) shooting landscapes and B) extreme close-ups. Severe field curvature is what is giving rise to these problems. This is not to say I had a bad copy, which would be unequal element shifts on left vs right. This field moves inwards at both edges very noticeably. On the other hand it was a joy to use in weddings and even 5Ds delivered very sharp portraits (as portraits need to be!) wide open. This notably doesn't test extreme edges nor does it usually test both sides; however forget group photos with that lens.

Chances are you may find RF 24-70 marginally improved. However you will pay for these gains, if any, with a 5 stop vignette wide open! Don't just believe, do look it up. Old lens was very very bright from the get go. In my books that's a no no immediately because this will be T5.6 stop optic anywhere outside the centre. You are really much better off with that plastic hand grenade 28-70mm or the new 24-105mm f/2.8. Don't expect any of them to clean resolve your R5 at every setting. They are portrait, wedding and video convenience lenses. I believe the competition is definitely ahead in this department, and ironically the shorter 2.8 zoom may be more comparable to the ageing Sigma ART DN version or one of the many Tamrons.
 
boer13 said:
trump my 35/1.4L
Click to expand...
I would very much hope so or they better give up making lenses. Tamron 35mm f/1.4 is light years ahead, so are Sigma 28 and 40mm EF mount versions, and then every single option for Sony E mount.
 
Harlequin565 said:
The only comparison I have is the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro vs the RF version. I'm not a pixel peeper. I use it for portraits. I know some folks will frown on that.

I found the EF version quite slow to focus on the R6 (as in slow to physically rack as well as find focus) and personally, I find the adapter makes the camera unbalanced and awkward in the hands. The RF version for me was a significant upgrade with better focus speed, excellent ability to work with things like eye AF, and better in the hands.

In terms of image quality, I couldn't really tell a difference although I got more keepers from the RF which is probably a combination of the fact that the RF lens is quicker to focus, and/or hides my mistakes better by virtue of it's "intelligence" coupled with the R6.

I think it would be a difficult choice for someone who was competent with their EF lens already and/or not bothered by the extra length the adapter adds on (or the weird balance of having something so "narrow" at the mount end which is highly likely a "me" issue).
Click to expand...

have you used the RF macro for close ups , as apposed to 1:1 macro, for things like larger insects etc?
I read that the RF macro has focus shift at distances of around a metre or so
I’m using my EF 100L macro with my R5 and the focus is excellent and always spot on accurate for macro and close up
 
LCPete said:
I’m using my EF 100L macro with my R5 and the focus is excellent and always spot on accurate for macro and close up
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Macros, product work, etc are all fine. I'm just not enjoying it past maybe 3-5m mark towards infinity. The funny little Sigma 70mm macro manages to stay sharp at all settings, but AF is beyond crap on that one (it is not HSM)
 
TimHughes said:
Hi Jaco, 135/2 has been a favorite for a long time. The RF looks to resolve a lot more, I will try to test one out. I also loved the 35 1.4... but the Mark 2 was a worthwhile improvement.
Click to expand...
Confirmed, mine is a Mkii. I'll keep an eye out for your test results of the 135's, Tim.
LongLensPhotography said:
I would very much hope so or they better give up making lenses. Tamron 35mm f/1.4 is light years ahead, so are Sigma 28 and 40mm EF mount versions, and then every single option for Sony E mount.
Click to expand...
We're veering OT, but after burning my fingers with compatibility issues some years ago I no longer consider 3rd party lenses. Tamron 35 may be a 5 star, but the 35/1.4 Mkii makes me happy enough. YMMV!
 
boer13 said:
We're veering OT, but after burning my fingers with compatibility issues some years ago I no longer consider 3rd party lenses. Tamron 35 may be a 5 star, but the 35/1.4 Mkii makes me happy enough. YMMV!
Click to expand...
If you have one and are happy then obviously fair enough. Currently the sigma art lenses are playing very well not only on RF but also e mount and even apparently z and gfx mounts so you have options there. This is not to say canon won't drop a nuke on them with some update or new camera hoping that we will just buy all the overpriced RF crap but in reality most of us will just go to Nikon, Sony and even mf fuji
 
135 EF and 135 RF on R5 with the same settings, 100% crop and same export. Which is which?

Version A
_11A4503_135.jpg

Version B
_IMH1959_135.jpg
 
LongLensPhotography said:
You would hope B is the new one. It also depends on SS and subject movement
Click to expand...
correct!
Brentor said:
Only a guess, I’ll go for B being the RF lens.
Click to expand...
correct!

Yes, the RF is B. It's definitely a step up. With post-processing, I can get the results from the EF to look close to the unprocessed RF. For event photos, getting them so good straight out of the camera is a big benefit. And hand-held video at 135.... I am impressed.
 
TimHughes said:
Yes, the RF is B. It's definitely a step up. With post-processing, I can get the results from the EF to look close to the unprocessed RF. For event photos, getting them so good straight out of the camera is a big benefit. And hand-held video at 135.... I am impressed.
Click to expand...
I assume the difference is even more pronounced when they are viewed on a large screen? Is the build quality of the RF as good as the EF?
 
Brentor said:
I assume the difference is even more pronounced when they are viewed on a large screen? Is the build quality of the RF as good as the EF?
Click to expand...
I’m already looking on a large screen so I can’t comment on the difference vs a smaller screen. The RF is a chunkier lens with 82mm filter thread and build seems solid but not metal. I’m happy with the build. I’ll test for an event on Sunday. At this point I’m minded to keep it.

Also I’m still curious about which of the other RFs are a significant step up. People who have direct experience of quality EF vs RF please chip in.

Next on my list to try will be RF 24-70 2.8. The IS should be an improvement over the EF version 2.

After starting this thread I remembered that my cinema camera and spare cameras for live streaming or remote duty are all EF so whatever happens the transition for me will be very long term.
 
I'd be interested in that 24-70 review Tim.

I am still really unsure whether to go for the 24-105 or 24-70. By all accounts (digital picture at least) the 24-105 is as good quality (whatever that may mean) as the 24-70 even if it does have more distortion at the long end (at 105 vs 70 of course) and maybe more visable CA at the long end.

To bring it back to this thread, is either really £1,700 or £2,900 better than my mk1 24-105 F4L in real world situations...
 
A_S said:
I'd be interested in that 24-70 review Tim.

I am still really unsure whether to go for the 24-105 or 24-70. By all accounts (digital picture at least) the 24-105 is as good quality (whatever that may mean) as the 24-70 even if it does have more distortion at the long end (at 105 vs 70 of course) and maybe more visable CA at the long end.

To bring it back to this thread, is either really £1,700 or £2,900 better than my mk1 24-105 F4L in real world situations...
Click to expand...

That's always going to depend on what you need, no? I'm mostly shooting events and prefer the results that are possible with a selection of primes and that is still not possible with zooms, even the 28-70 f2.
 
Tim, while I'm no expert on RF lenses, looking at the available prime alternatives at the wider end, the line still seems sparsely filled with pro quality glass - perhaps it's only the RF 50/1.2L which could challenge your existing lineup (but I don't know if the FL suits you.) Maybe some forum members can comment on how it performs.

Or has the fomo already dissipated? :)
 
Jaco, exactly the idea of this thread is to share experience.

For me, the RF 135 is a keeper. From the event last night, almost all the final selections were from the RF. Sorry EF 135.

I'm rethinking. I use the zooms much less, so the next RF lenses to look at will be RF 85 1.2 and RF 50 1.2.
 
TimHughes said:
For me, the RF 135 is a keeper. From the event last night, almost all the final selections were from the RF. Sorry EF 135.
Click to expand...
I still think you should compare it with the Sigma unless price is not a factor.
 
Bit of a hijack, but is there any news/rumours on 3rd parties being allowed access to the RF mount?
 
Brentor said:
Bit of a hijack, but is there any news/rumours on 3rd parties being allowed access to the RF mount?
Click to expand...
so far we have a few fully manual cosina / voigtlander lenses, and that is pretty much it. So they are OK if lens clearly doesn't compete in any way shape or form but for most of us it is not that interesting


This summarises the current state of affairs, as far as I'm aware. So canon is "thinking" of how selective they want to be, and let's not forget that not all manufacturers are guaranteed to be enthusiastic to play the ball even if given a go ahead now. Sigma doesn't appear all that interested in Nikon Z mount, unless they are being secretly stopped. So why would thay do RF for as longs as they have backorders in E mount? That leaves us with up and coming Chinese brands which are keen to jump on even without the official agreement with Canon. Eventually they may get very good just give them enough time. DJI and Godox are pretty much uncontested mainstream market leaders now, just to give some prior examples.
 
TimHughes said:
The sigma looks excellent too, however the RF with IS is a big bonus.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see how far down you can push the exposure times working with real live people

I'm hesitant going below 1/250s unless using flashes or if challenged with low light levels. In any case never below 1/100s. I will try to challenge it more as a test; I only have R6 which is more forgiving for very slight shake or subject motion blur. On 5Ds it obviously wants > 1/250s or flash.
 
Not strictly what you are asking, but I had the chance to compare the RF 24-105 f4L that I own with the RF 24-70 f2.8L.
Just static shots taken in the garden with an R5.
Fern close up zoomed to 100%r5-24-105-vs-24-70.jpg

Flower just for general image comparison.
r5-24-105-vs-24-70-2.jpg

As for Tamron lenses, I've had no issues with my two Tamrons on R series cameras, but my 90mm macro did need a free firmware update.

When I switched to the RP, I initially used my EF 24-105 f4L with an adapter, but switched to the RF version as soon as I could afford to.
I prefer not to use an adapter as it changes the balance and size (plus adds extra points for failure). I do use an adapter for my Tamron lenses, but they only get used for a few things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top