RF 35mm samples

Figured I'd share a few as my "duty" being a RF 35mm weilder.

I'm not a pro by any means; take as amateur-enthusiast that's sharing some content produced by the gear in my less-experienced hands than most folks who do this as a profession.

Love the lens btw. It's mounted often on my EOS R and is the sole reason I picked up the system.

Wish Canon made more "consumer" non-L offerings like this for the RF mount for folks that want to pack light, but carry punch as I come from an EOS M background but used to pack a 5D and L's some years ago before I got tired of hauling them everywhere.

SOOC S2 Normal JPEG. All corrections including DLO enabled in camera. Standard Noise Reduction.

Disregard the dates; camera programmed incorrectly. Only recently caught that after importing into Apple's Photos and they weren't showing up in the top.

Nice images man , thanks for sharing.

I own the RF 35 too, and I enjoy the hell out off it

Rawpaul wrote:

Nice images man , thanks for sharing.

I own the RF 35 too, and I enjoy the hell out off it

Likewise.

I have a nasty confession; I'm mulling keeping the R (that is going back to the M50). The R+RF 35 is awesome, but, mount anything else adapted and alot of the allure of the R vanishes.

The RF35mm by itself though mounted on an R, is sheer awesomesomeness.

Back2M wrote:

Rawpaul wrote:

Nice images man , thanks for sharing.

I own the RF 35 too, and I enjoy the hell out off it

Likewise.

I have a nasty confession; I'm mulling keeping the R (that is going back to the M50). The R+RF 35 is awesome, but, mount anything else adapted and alot of the allure of the R vanishes.

The RF35mm by itself though mounted on an R, is sheer awesomesomeness.

I don't think mounting other lenses even adapted is a problem.

Maybe size wise , but i find that my older EF lenses perform better on The R.

So an added bonus there I think

Rawpaul wrote:

Back2M wrote:

Rawpaul wrote:

Nice images man , thanks for sharing.

I own the RF 35 too, and I enjoy the hell out off it

Likewise.

I have a nasty confession; I'm mulling keeping the R (that is going back to the M50). The R+RF 35 is awesome, but, mount anything else adapted and alot of the allure of the R vanishes.

The RF35mm by itself though mounted on an R, is sheer awesomesomeness.

I don't think mounting other lenses even adapted is a problem.

Maybe size wise , but i find that my older EF lenses perform better on The R.

So an added bonus there I think

I quite like the adapter with the control ring btw. I do find that mounting EF lenses to the adapter is far more wonky than mounting lenses to say my old 5DIII or EOS M50; something about mounting and unmounting lenses from the adapter, just harder to do.

For me, I'm reconsidering due to sheer bulk vs performance and maturity of the mount. Vs say the M system, the M system is fun with it's lightweight footprint and mature system; it has a native lens offering for most things. The R on the other hand, is an infant. No RF 50mm f/1.4, no RF 16-35 f/4 IS USM, no RF 70-300 DO IS USM. And these lenses may be some ways away.

It's got me seriously thinking as I'm swapping lenses less often, taking the camera out less often. It's like going back to a 5D, it gets left behind...

It's only when I have the R+RF 35 at home, that it truly gets used-used easily and frequently. Mounting even the 70-300 DO is a pain. Easier than a 100-400, but it's still a pain.

Back2M wrote:

Rawpaul wrote:

Back2M wrote:

Rawpaul wrote:

Nice images man , thanks for sharing.

I own the RF 35 too, and I enjoy the hell out off it

Likewise.

I have a nasty confession; I'm mulling keeping the R (that is going back to the M50). The R+RF 35 is awesome, but, mount anything else adapted and alot of the allure of the R vanishes.

The RF35mm by itself though mounted on an R, is sheer awesomesomeness.

I don't think mounting other lenses even adapted is a problem.

Maybe size wise , but i find that my older EF lenses perform better on The R.

So an added bonus there I think

I quite like the adapter with the control ring btw. I do find that mounting EF lenses to the adapter is far more wonky than mounting lenses to say my old 5DIII or EOS M50; something about mounting and unmounting lenses from the adapter, just harder to do.

For me, I'm reconsidering due to sheer bulk vs performance and maturity of the mount. Vs say the M system, the M system is fun with it's lightweight footprint and mature system; it has a native lens offering for most things. The R on the other hand, is an infant. No RF 50mm f/1.4, no RF 16-35 f/4 IS USM, no RF 70-300 DO IS USM. And these lenses may be some ways away.

It's got me seriously thinking as I'm swapping lenses less often, taking the camera out less often. It's like going back to a 5D, it gets left behind...

It's only when I have the R+RF 35 at home, that it truly gets used-used easily and frequently. Mounting even the 70-300 DO is a pain. Easier than a 100-400, but it's still a pain.

Ok that is personal preference I gues.

I don't have the same findings.

And when I realy want to go light, I take my M5 with the 18-150 mm lens.

To each his own… 

I don’t find the swapping lenses on the adapter as wonky as you suggest, but I do find it a chore to juggle a mixture of RF lenses and more than one EF lens, requiring the adapter to come on and off all the time.

So, I went out and bought myself a second adapter (a plain one, since the control ring adapter is expensive). When I want to use an RF lens along with two EF lenses, I would keep an adapter glued to each EF lenses, and swap them as though all three were RF lenses. Works very well.

This sounds extravagant, but not really. The plain Canon adapter only costs about $100, less if you take advantage of marketing campaigns. (Mine ended up costing about $20 after a rebate.) Commlite apparently sells one at much lower price, although I have yet to see any report on whether it actually works.

quiquae wrote:

I don’t find the swapping lenses on the adapter as wonky as you suggest, but I do find it a chore to juggle a mixture of RF lenses and more than one EF lens, requiring the adapter to come on and off all the time.

So, I went out and bought myself a second adapter (a plain one, since the control ring adapter is expensive). When I want to use an RF lens along with two EF lenses, I would keep an adapter glued to each EF lenses, and swap them as though all three were RF lenses. Works very well.

This sounds extravagant, but not really. The plain Canon adapter only costs about $100, less if you take advantage of marketing campaigns. (Mine ended up costing about $20 after a rebate.) Commlite apparently sells one at much lower price, although I have yet to see any report on whether it actually works.

That is definetly an option too… 

quiquae wrote:

I don’t find the swapping lenses on the adapter as wonky as you suggest, but I do find it a chore to juggle a mixture of RF lenses and more than one EF lens, requiring the adapter to come on and off all the time.

So, I went out and bought myself a second adapter (a plain one, since the control ring adapter is expensive). When I want to use an RF lens along with two EF lenses, I would keep an adapter glued to each EF lenses, and swap them as though all three were RF lenses. Works very well.

This sounds extravagant, but not really. The plain Canon adapter only costs about $100, less if you take advantage of marketing campaigns. (Mine ended up costing about $20 after a rebate.) Commlite apparently sells one at much lower price, although I have yet to see any report on whether it actually works.

That's actually a (really) good idea. Kudos.

Hoka Hey wrote:

Back2M wrote:

Rawpaul wrote:

Back2M wrote:

Rawpaul wrote:

Nice images man , thanks for sharing.

I own the RF 35 too, and I enjoy the hell out off it

Likewise.

I have a nasty confession; I'm mulling keeping the R (that is going back to the M50). The R+RF 35 is awesome, but, mount anything else adapted and alot of the allure of the R vanishes.

The RF35mm by itself though mounted on an R, is sheer awesomesomeness.

I don't think mounting other lenses even adapted is a problem.

Maybe size wise , but i find that my older EF lenses perform better on The R.

So an added bonus there I think

I quite like the adapter with the control ring btw. I do find that mounting EF lenses to the adapter is far more wonky than mounting lenses to say my old 5DIII or EOS M50; something about mounting and unmounting lenses from the adapter, just harder to do.

Once muscle memory starts kicking in, you'll automatically change the lenses regardless of adapter or native RF, but you have to give it time.

I had that thought. I'm going to give the R a little more time. Even though my instincts say drop this like a hot rock and jump back to the R, I think I'll give it a bit more time. My return window is still there so why not? (I do have a thread going on possibly going back to the M, on the M forum).

For me, I'm reconsidering due to sheer bulk vs performance and maturity of the mount. Vs say the M system, the M system is fun with it's lightweight footprint and mature system; it has a native lens offering for most things. The R on the other hand, is an infant. No RF 50mm f/1.4, no RF 16-35 f/4 IS USM, no RF 70-300 DO IS USM. And these lenses may be some ways away.

It's got me seriously thinking as I'm swapping lenses less often, taking the camera out less often. It's like going back to a 5D, it gets left behind...

It's only when I have the R+RF 35 at home, that it truly gets used-used easily and frequently. Mounting even the 70-300 DO is a pain. Easier than a 100-400, but it's still a pain.

That's interesting. I use the 100-400 L ii on the R all the time, and have not had any trouble mounting it. It is one of my favorite lenses with the R along with the RF 35 and the EF 24-70 2.8 ii.

Thanks for sharing your photos.

Joe

Some of it is probably due to the lens hood. That 70-300 DO needs the hood in many situations; I mount the lens with the hood in the stored position and then remove or flip the hood into shooting position afterwards but the RF adapter requires more torque than say a traditional EF mount does to mount it making twisting from the hood in-advisable which means I have to lock it from the bottom of the lens; it's more difficult. The 100-400L doesn't need the hood though so it'll be a different experience.

Back2M wrote:

Some of it is probably due to the lens hood. That 70-300 DO needs the hood in many situations; I mount the lens with the hood in the stored position and then remove or flip the hood into shooting position afterwards but the RF adapter requires more torque than say a traditional EF mount does to mount it making twisting from the hood in-advisable which means I have to lock it from the bottom of the lens; it's more difficult. The 100-400L doesn't need the hood though so it'll be a different experience.

Why does the 100-400 not need a hood?    For the record, I use the hood on mine all the time.

Joseph Chuan wrote:

Can you tell me is there any performance difference between the two adapters as far as speed of autofocus and accuracy is concerned? I'm still on the fence on jumping into the R ecosystem as I have a bunch of EF lenses.

There is no difference in performance that I can see.

The control ring is very useful, though, so I strongly recommend getting that one as your first adapter unless you have a serious budget problem.

Hoka Hey wrote:

+1Ed Rizk wrote:

Back2M wrote:

Some of it is probably due to the lens hood. That 70-300 DO needs the hood in many situations; I mount the lens with the hood in the stored position and then remove or flip the hood into shooting position afterwards but the RF adapter requires more torque than say a traditional EF mount does to mount it making twisting from the hood in-advisable which means I have to lock it from the bottom of the lens; it's more difficult. The 100-400L doesn't need the hood though so it'll be a different experience.

Why does the 100-400 not need a hood? For the record, I use the hood on mine all the time.

+1

Joe

The optical function of the hood is to keep errant sunlight from entering the lens on the side, which can cause flares and ghosting. If you aren’t in that kind of a situation, you don’t “need” the hood. 70-300DO is just about the worst lens for flaring due to the DO structure, so I can see how the 100-400L would be relatively in less need of a hood.

Having said that, I make it a habit to use a hood on all my lenses, even ones that deal very well with flares, because a) I’m usually not clairvoyant enough to know my lighting situations a day in advance, and b) they also offer physical protection.

Ed Rizk wrote:

Back2M wrote:

Some of it is probably due to the lens hood. That 70-300 DO needs the hood in many situations; I mount the lens with the hood in the stored position and then remove or flip the hood into shooting position afterwards but the RF adapter requires more torque than say a traditional EF mount does to mount it making twisting from the hood in-advisable which means I have to lock it from the bottom of the lens; it's more difficult. The 100-400L doesn't need the hood though so it'll be a different experience.

Why does the 100-400 not need a hood? For the record, I use the hood on mine all the time.

Any lens can use a hood, the 70-300 DO NEEDS a hood to avoid flare as it's destructive-destructive to gen-1 DO lenses.

However, I may test that theory and leave that hood behind to improve handling for mounting/demounting that lens and just "eat it" as that hood only helps depending on the angle of the sun really, which often even with the hood the flare is unavoidable.