RF 400, or EF 400 with adapter?

BirdShooter7 wrote:

bernie r wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

bernie r wrote:

RogerZoul wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

RogerZoul wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Unless I planned on using the the lens on an old EF body I’d definitely go for the RF since it has the newer mount with faster communications capabilities. It will be interesting to see if any noticeable differences exist as people get a chance to try the RF version, especially if they already have experience with the EF.

The 1-5 RF and the 1-4 EF have existed along side each other for nearly a year now. Seems like if something concrete could be identified about communication speed between body and lens we know of it by now. Instead, we seem to be pushing the can down the road to the newly released 400 and 600 big whites. Personally, I am doubtful about any improvements beyond coordinated IS, especially for the big primes since they are really the same lens with the adaptor tacked on. All that said, unless money was the issue, I’d get the latest and greatest for the mount as that is generally the best practice.

How exactly is the end user going to measure communication speed? I can say that there was a pretty obvious difference in IS performance between the 100-400 mk2 and 100-500L and canon has suggested that this is at least partly because of the faster communication. However, please feel free to believe anything you like.

Boy, people over here are just rude for the sake of being rude.

You brought up the faster communication capabilities. Sure the IS is better on the newer lens, but who knows to what extent faster communication impacts any of it, it could simply be down the coordinated IS, i.e., them working together. It is not even clear to me how and if more pins even translates to faster communications. Better communication, due to more signal lines between body and lens, is also a likely contributor. Better does not equal faster.

At least you admit that we has users have zero ability to measure the supposed faster communications, but it also doesn’t make sense just always assume there is some reason to believe that the newer lenses are going to somehow impact shooting and AF performance due to marketing speak and the presence of extra pins in the mount. Its a real weakness we, as users, have we deal with camera makers. We have pretty much no way to verify many of the claims they make regarding their gear. Sure, we know the tracking is improved on these newer bodies, but just how much and when does the lens impact this? We know that some of the older EF lenses could not handle H+ 12 fps with the MS, but many of the later ones do. I currently have two RF telephoto lenses and two EF telephoto lenses and the tracking seems the same among all of them, at least in good light. I’d be willing to bet that in the end, the faster lenses, that are built to a higher spec, will track better overall, regardless of the new mount.

But we must needlessly spend 50% more on a new RF 400 2.8/600 4 prime for 'faster af' instead of buying a used version of the previous generation of lens which still works perfectly fine...

@_@

The EF III and RF are the same price.

Not at used prices if you read what you said?

So you’re saying that used mk3 EF 600mm f/4’s are selling for half price? Certainly not that I’ve seen. Used mk3’s seem as rare as hen’s teeth. Now, mk2’s yes they have gotten very affordable but then there are more differences than AF speed between that and the new models.

Only real difference is the size and weight, aside from that you'll be getting the same resulting image, I don't see a point to paying $13,500 for a RF 600 f4 when you can get a used EF 600 f4 MK2 for $7000.

But do what you want to, if weight is worth over $6,000 to you, that's fine.