EF Lenses on R Mount (f/1.2 portrait primes)

CESA wrote:

hunk wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

I've been interested in getting into the R Mount for a while now with the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 lenses for portrait work - both natural light and studio.

Adding all of the above to my cart ends up being around $8000 USD for the body and both lenses.

But the latest DP Review video has me thinking - why not get the EF mount equivalents?

Sure the lenses are older and the autofocus and optical performance may not be as good - but with some used EF lenses, my cart is now half the price (body, two lenses and adapter).

Does anyone who has experience with both the EF and R versions of these lenses have an opinion on this?

With the lenses at less than half the price of the R mount versions, it seems like a no brainer - I can get started and then trade up to the R versions if/when it makes sense.

Is there any major reason I would regret getting the EF lenses?

I owned both. I find the RF versions much better. I get more keepers because of the quicker AF. More important, with the RF lenses I can use f/1.2 without any of the downsides. There are no purple, green, red edges, there are no strange colors in the bokeh, there is no loss in sharpness wide open.
The RF f/1.2 lenses are soo good, I would rebuy them at double the price even if that meant I had to sell a kidney. Especially the 85 is so much improved, it's a mega-step up.
But the 50 and 85 are my workhorses. Sometimes I shoot for days commercially with these two lenses only. Half of these photos wide open. So for me it's no contest. YMMV

In terms of AF is not that of a big different, judging by the reviews. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_FGmm_q9pE&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2jrs58TckJ8hwgHWScMWWw3j10iM4rjYv1uVuA4wXLzNDFQsKnHyVydd0

Best.

5 minutes in the movie... AF speed is much faster on the RF.... for static portraits it may not matter much but with events, weddings, sports it makes a big difference. Depends on what your shooting I guess.