Would you buy new EF lenses for your R5/R6?

pkoenig2001 wrote:

Definitely- new and used EF lenses are a great option on the R cameras. I use the RF 24-105 f4 L on my R6, but also use my EF 70-200 f4 L IS and EF 16-35 f4 L with adapter for great results. It is great to have both options.

I also have a Tamron 100-400 and SP 35 which are both great on the R6. (EDIT)

Of course the adapters are a bit difficult to find right now but there are third party brands available.

Good luck!

weird... they used to give them away not too long ago lol ( adapters)

Are there any issues on your tamron with AF servo or VC on that lens in conjunction with IBIS?  
 Thanks

moon1029 wrote:

For focal length I tend to use a lot I would buy the RF version despite its higher price. I go for the RF 15-35mm instead of the EF version.

when I had 2.8 Nikon zooms trinity I mostly used 16-35 and 70-200. 24-70 rarely came out of the bag and so did 50 . I guess I will get 15-35 and 70-200 RF and call it a day.  Maybe eventually get something longer

thanks

The EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II USM is the same as the RF 70-200 function-wise, except for the 0.7m minimum focusing distance. But its internal and thus smoother zooming is better for my video needs. So I'm staying with it.

The most attractive lens to me is the EF 85 f/1.4 IS for its optimum size and weight and maximum aperture. But I already have the EF 135 f/2L. I like 135mm more than 85mm. So I still haven't got a 85mm prime yet.

I had 135 too but seemed too long for me which is why I got and love 105 1.4. If canon released this lens I’d get it for sure ...

For other lenses like RF 100-500, as I'm not a BIF specialist it's low on my priority list.

Edward Leiken wrote:

I would totally buy EF lenses for my R5 if there was something I wanted. I still use my 28-70 2.8L and my 70-200 2.8L and they are tack sharp and focus extremely quickly. SO much better than they did on my older bodies. The adapter is really not a hassle at all and it does not detract from the image quality or the enjoyment of using the camera.

thank you

akjos wrote:

I recently got an R6 and it SO much fun to use I’m actually considering selling all my Nikon stuff I have left . One thing is stopping me for now and that is 28 1.4 and 105 1.4 I own ...both insanely amazing lenses canon has NO equivalent for 🙁 ( I’m 28/50/105 fan hate the 35mm and don’t care much for 85 but Its fine...)

the AF on this camera is from another galaxy though and Last few cameras I owned were a7r3 , D5 ( no slouches) and now z6 which has amazing sensor and IQ wise but REALLY frustrating trying to shoot anything that moves ...
I’d love to keep just one system but decided not it invest anymore in Nikon lenses since their future is not so certain and god knows if they ever catch up with the AF .

I owned several EF lenses for a while for 6dII which I sold about a year ago and now greatly regret it 🙈. Mainly 16-35 F4 IS and 100-400II and 100L macro

I want to get tele lens but having hard time choosing. RF 70-200 2.8 seems amazing but its expensive and no Tc option is major downside. Also new 100-500 is a letdown. 2700$ for an F7.1 lens?!? Hell to the no Canon that is RIDICULOUS.

$2700 for an f/7.1 lens is missing the point. It has the same light-collecting ability as the 100-400 (which you liked so much you are considering re-buying it) but think of it as having a 1.25x Extender permanently available. F/7.1 is faster than the 100-400 plus 1.4x, and it's like having that extra 25% reach with practically no penalty in the 100-400 range. And it weighs a lot less, and the tripod ring can be removed in the tidiest way I have ever seen.

Plus the very limited range with Tc attached is frustrating too ...

Optically the range is actually pretty useful - 420-700 is way better than the 600 prime which you suggest you might consider. The main issue for me is the length with the TC fitted, which is a right royal PITA as you have to remove the TC (never leave home without the non-standard caps!) to fit it in a bag. But I used it again today and every time I see the detail I can get at 700 mm hand-held with no support, I grin from ear to ear and the bag thing doesn't seem so important.

so that brings me to the EF adapted versions... get the 70-200 2.8 II or III ? Or rebuy 100-400 II? ( I loved that lens but i found it not long enough on the Fx camera at times and there isn’t much cropping room on R6) and sometimes Id prefer the 2.8 aperture of the 70-200...plus maybe cheapo 600 F11?

There is also appealing 85 1.4 EF...

This was good on my 5D4 but so much easier to use with eye AF on the R5. And using it with the adapter is seamless.

I just didn’t want to mess with adapters anymore and wanted to stick with native RF glass but the EF options are really appealing considering the prices...

I have a lot of EF glass, it will take me years to replace it (if I ever do) but I'm not too worried, everything I've tried just works.

also ... do the tamron lenses work well with no issues? Like I had freezing issues on A7r3 in servo (afc) etc.

I used to have tamron g2 70-200 2.8 and it was fantastic for the money ...

dgumshu wrote:

The only reason I would have to Buy an RF is if I don't already own the focal length in EF. My EF's work great withR5.

I’m sure they do. I tested eos R with some EF lenses about a year ago. ( before I sold them)

my post was more about deliberating if to invest in EF lenses if one was starting with clean slate. ( and owning only the R mount camera )

gavin wrote:

In general I would buy new RF lenses. However for replacing EF, I am not sure and your EFs are all good lenses. My plan is to use my EF with the exception of my 24-70/2.8 mk I.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz

Maybe there was some misunderstanding... I regrettably sold my EF lenses while back and starting with clean slate atm...

Steve Balcombe wrote:

akjos wrote:

I recently got an R6 and it SO much fun to use I’m actually considering selling all my Nikon stuff I have left . One thing is stopping me for now and that is 28 1.4 and 105 1.4 I own ...both insanely amazing lenses canon has NO equivalent for 🙁 ( I’m 28/50/105 fan hate the 35mm and don’t care much for 85 but Its fine...)

the AF on this camera is from another galaxy though and Last few cameras I owned were a7r3 , D5 ( no slouches) and now z6 which has amazing sensor and IQ wise but REALLY frustrating trying to shoot anything that moves ...
I’d love to keep just one system but decided not it invest anymore in Nikon lenses since their future is not so certain and god knows if they ever catch up with the AF .

I owned several EF lenses for a while for 6dII which I sold about a year ago and now greatly regret it 🙈. Mainly 16-35 F4 IS and 100-400II and 100L macro

I want to get tele lens but having hard time choosing. RF 70-200 2.8 seems amazing but its expensive and no Tc option is major downside. Also new 100-500 is a letdown. 2700$ for an F7.1 lens?!? Hell to the no Canon that is RIDICULOUS.

$2700 for an f/7.1 lens is missing the point. It has the same light-collecting ability as the 100-400 (which you liked so much you are considering re-buying it) but think of it as having a 1.25x Extender permanently available. F/7.1 is faster than the 100-400 plus 1.4x, and it's like having that extra 25% reach with practically no penalty in the 100-400 range. And it weighs a lot less, and the tripod ring can be removed in the tidiest way I have ever seen.

actually it doesn’t lol. 5.6 vs 7.1 is 2/3 of a stop jump. Like going from 3200 iso to 5000 while keeping same shutter speed for example...

Id MUCH rather have 100-400 range with faster aperture available then measly extra 100 mm and slower longer half of the lens overall

I know it weighs less but LOT less? Probably not...

yes the tripod ring design is very cool and neat👍

Plus the very limited range with Tc attached is frustrating too ...

Optically the range is actually pretty useful - 420-700 is way better than the 600 prime which you suggest you might consider. The main issue for me is the length with the TC fitted, which is a right royal PITA as you have to remove the TC (never leave home without the non-standard caps!) to fit it in a bag. But I used it again today and every time I see the detail I can get at 700 mm hand-held with no support, I grin from ear to ear and the bag thing doesn't seem so important.

probably so in real life .

I was only considering the 600 if i got the 70-200 2.8 first and instead of the 100-400 or 100-500

so that brings me to the EF adapted versions... get the 70-200 2.8 II or III ? Or rebuy 100-400 II? ( I loved that lens but i found it not long enough on the Fx camera at times and there isn’t much cropping room on R6) and sometimes Id prefer the 2.8 aperture of the 70-200...plus maybe cheapo 600 F11?

There is also appealing 85 1.4 EF...

This was good on my 5D4 but so much easier to use with eye AF on the R5. And using it with the adapter is seamless.

I just didn’t want to mess with adapters anymore and wanted to stick with native RF glass but the EF options are really appealing considering the prices...

I have a lot of EF glass, it will take me years to replace it (if I ever do) but I'm not too worried, everything I've tried just works.

my main point was deliberating  when starting with clean slate ( which I have now) with no lenses atm. I’m leaning towards RF lenses in general even though value of the EF ones is hard to beat in quite a few instances.

thanks for extensive reply 😏

also ... do the tamron lenses work well with no issues? Like I had freezing issues on A7r3 in servo (afc) etc.

I used to have tamron g2 70-200 2.8 and it was fantastic for the money ...

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/ or
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/stevebalcombe/popular-interesting/

KiloHotelphoto wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

akjos wrote:

I recently got an R6 and it SO much fun to use I’m actually considering selling all my Nikon stuff I have left . One thing is stopping me for now and that is 28 1.4 and 105 1.4 I own ...both insanely amazing lenses canon has NO equivalent for 🙁 ( I’m 28/50/105 fan hate the 35mm and don’t care much for 85 but Its fine...)

the AF on this camera is from another galaxy though and Last few cameras I owned were a7r3 , D5 ( no slouches) and now z6 which has amazing sensor and IQ wise but REALLY frustrating trying to shoot anything that moves ...
I’d love to keep just one system but decided not it invest anymore in Nikon lenses since their future is not so certain and god knows if they ever catch up with the AF .

I owned several EF lenses for a while for 6dII which I sold about a year ago and now greatly regret it 🙈. Mainly 16-35 F4 IS and 100-400II and 100L macro

I want to get tele lens but having hard time choosing. RF 70-200 2.8 seems amazing but its expensive and no Tc option is major downside. Also new 100-500 is a letdown. 2700$ for an F7.1 lens?!? Hell to the no Canon that is RIDICULOUS.

$2700 for an f/7.1 lens is missing the point. It has the same light-collecting ability as the 100-400 (which you liked so much you are considering re-buying it) but think of it as having a 1.25x Extender permanently available. F/7.1 is faster than the 100-400 plus 1.4x, and it's like having that extra 25% reach with practically no penalty in the 100-400 range. And it weighs a lot less, and the tripod ring can be removed in the tidiest way I have ever seen.

https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-100-500mm-f4-5-7-1l-is-usm-review/

According to Gordon Laings review the 100-500 is a F 6.3 at 363mm so it is slower than the 100-400 at 400mm.

my point pretty much .... no F7.1 lens should cost that much . Canon was like ...oh we finally caught up with rest of the sensor world iso performance wise so we can get away with 7.1 and call it “ luxury “ 2700$ lens

😂🙈