Lens upgrades? 70-200 2.8 EF->RF?

I plan to upgrade my 7dmk2 to R6 (yes would like the cropping extra of R5 for wildlife, but considering price - including memory cards -, file size, low light etc it all makes R6 sound better).

Any thoughts on lens upgrades:

I currently own EF 100-400L II, EF 70-200 2.8L III, EF 24-70 2.8L, EF 100Macro II, EF-S 10-22. I use the 100-400 most often, so i plan to upgrade that to RF 100-500. The macro i use seldom, so i will keep it, 24-70 upgrade is so expensive, so i keep it. But i was wondering does it make sense to upgrade the 70-200? Any opinions? I do not use it that much so i could suffice with adapter but would upgrade provide even more quality/features/...

Can't tell you what you should do, but I chose to go with pre-owned EF lenses (had mostly EF-S) for the low-usage focal lengths and RF for those I'd use most. So far that has been a good solution for me.

If you don't use the 70-200 that often, you'll probably not want to use the RF often either. Going from crop to FF and being a portrait shooter, the RF 70-200/2.8 was my dream lens, but it's the only top notch RF lens I've bought so far.

Good luck and good light.

The EF has smoother zoom ring. The RF has IBIS correction for pitch/yaw movement.

The RF seems to have better focus, especially using eye detection.

I get my RF 70-200 F/2.8L IS this afternoon after selling my old EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II

My main reason for the upgrade was portability. The already long EF version is made even longer with the adaptor. No thanks!

Thanks all. Good points everyone. Portability is a important for me too. Currently the big size means i often leave the lens home.

How bad is the vignetting? Using crop body on my white lenses today i do not have any problem with those lenaes naturally.

Any comments on swithing from EF 24-70L 2.8 to RF 24-105L 4.0 IS? (No money left for 24-70 😆)

I've put my EF 70-200 f2.8 II up for sale so I can justify the RF version. Aside from the RF not accepting teleconverters, the portability will make an excellent replacement in my 3 lens walk-around bag. When I need more telephoto I have other lenses that are up to the task. The R5 makes the 100-400L II sing even with low light situations, amazing.

steeldrake wrote:

Thanks all. Good points everyone. Portability is a important for me too. Currently the big size means i often leave the lens home.

How bad is the vignetting? Using crop body on my white lenses today i do not have any problem with those lenaes naturally.

Any comments on swithing from EF 24-70L 2.8 to RF 24-105L 4.0 IS? (No money left for 24-70 😆)

I've put my 24-70 f2.8 II up for sale as I found it to be too long and unbalanced on the R5.  The RF 24-105L f4 is a pleasure to use, makes a great walk-around lens and the extra focal length is most welcome.

steeldrake wrote:

Thanks all. Good points everyone. Portability is a important for me too. Currently the big size means i often leave the lens home.

How bad is the vignetting? Using crop body on my white lenses today i do not have any problem with those lenaes naturally.

Any comments on swithing from EF 24-70L 2.8 to RF 24-105L 4.0 IS? (No money left for 24-70 😆)

If you didn't miss the wide end on the 7DII, you could also have a look at the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4.0....

If you don’t need the 2.8 speed, I have the RF 70-200 F4 on the R6 and it is just stunning to use.  I have no plans to need the speed for extra light and prefer primes when shooting faster than F4 to go even faster like F2 or F1.4.  I would strongly suggest it as a replacement consideration.

steeldrake wrote:

I plan to upgrade my 7dmk2 to R6 (yes would like the cropping extra of R5 for wildlife, but considering price - including memory cards -, file size, low light etc it all makes R6 sound better).

Any thoughts on lens upgrades:

I currently own EF 100-400L II, EF 70-200 2.8L III, EF 24-70 2.8L, EF 100Macro II, EF-S 10-22. I use the 100-400 most often, so i plan to upgrade that to RF 100-500. The macro i use seldom, so i will keep it, 24-70 upgrade is so expensive, so i keep it. But i was wondering does it make sense to upgrade the 70-200? Any opinions? I do not use it that much so i could suffice with adapter but would upgrade provide even more quality/features/...

I have a 7DII and now the R6.  I think my EF lenses are even better on the R6 using an adapter.  I would try them on the new body first, before going to RF series, I think you will be impressed

Leigh A. Wax wrote:

For me, Adapter "swapping" was the main issue as to retaining my EF lens's.

If you stay with all EF, you can leave the Adapter on an "R" body; whereas if you mix EF & RF, unless you have two Bodies, or a separate Adapter for each EF lens your "toting", you\re not only dealing with lens changing, but fumbling with Adapter swapping as well.

That's an important point.

I have the RF 85mm f/2.0 as my only RF lens. It's not the most used lens, so it's not a very big deal. But when you have 2 frequently used EF lenses and one frequently used RF lens it can become annoying to do the adapter swapping.

steeldrake wrote:

Thanks all. Good points everyone. Portability is a important for me too. Currently the big size means i often leave the lens home.

How bad is the vignetting? Using crop body on my white lenses today i do not have any problem with those lenaes naturally.

Any comments on swithing from EF 24-70L 2.8 to RF 24-105L 4.0 IS? (No money left for 24-70 😆)

The Vignetting is not significant on the RF70-200f2.8L (check the many Youtube videos such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dituzmm4VvU). Generally much less than the RF15-35 and RF24-70f2.8L.

Canon does depend heavily on vignetting and distortion correction with most of the RF lenses but not so much the RF70-200f2.8.  There is a slight barrel wide open and pincushion at the far end but both are mild compared to other lenses. Every RF lens is extremely sharp in the center even wide open and the RF70-200

Note, I went through two copies of the RF70-200f2.8L as the first one seem badly decentered at the wide end. The second one I got is amazingly sharp throughout the range but a little softer while still what I would consider good at the wide end to the corners. At 200mm it is as sharp as the R5 could detect all the way to the corners (I looked at corners at f2.8 that look better than the center of most lenses).

Of the three f2.8L zooms I have, the RF70-200f2.8L is clearly the best through the range without correction. In terms of sharpness and contrast in the corners after correction, the RF15-35 is second best and the RF24-70 (surprisingly) is the weakest of the three (particularly at about 35mm).

Leigh A. Wax wrote:

Another thing to consider in the RF VS EF decision process , is that Canon, like other's, is for now near "totally" dedicated to mirrorless; and as more folks abandon EF for RF, the future value of your EF gear, on the used market, will diminish accordingly.

Prices for new EF lenses are going up.  Bodies like the R and RP will become more and more affordable. And a used 6DmkI is only 400 euro these days.

There won't be supply only of used EF glass. There will be a demand too.

For me these are the two RF lenses that offer the biggest advantage over their EF counterparts and the main reason (along with R5-R6 AF) why I switched from Canon DSLR's.

steeldrake wrote:

I plan to upgrade my 7dmk2 to R6 (yes would like the cropping extra of R5 for wildlife, but considering price - including memory cards -, file size, low light etc it all makes R6 sound better).

Any thoughts on lens upgrades:

I currently own EF 100-400L II, EF 70-200 2.8L III, EF 24-70 2.8L, EF 100Macro II, EF-S 10-22. I use the 100-400 most often, so i plan to upgrade that to RF 100-500. The macro i use seldom, so i will keep it, 24-70 upgrade is so expensive, so i keep it. But i was wondering does it make sense to upgrade the 70-200? Any opinions? I do not use it that much so i could suffice with adapter but would upgrade provide even more quality/features/...

Well, FWIW, here is what I did, and my rationale for it, even if it might not fit your particular needs.

I sold my EF 24-70 and bought the RF 24-70, for several reasons, all of which have been validated by use. It’s sharper overall, has much less lateral chromatic aberration (almost none on mine), has less variation of sharpness and contrast across all focal lengths, is quieter when focusing and quicker focusing, and feels even more “sturdy”, although it does not feel any lighter.

I kept my EF 100-400 II because it was such a great performer, I didn’t care that much about another 100 mm, did not use it that much and the cost of the the lighter weight RF was disproportionate to my needs.

On the 70-200, that was a close call, but the new RF version won me over and has worked out very well so far. If money is a serious issue for you and you love the idea of a non-extending lens barrel and very short focus throw, plus the ability to use Canon tele converters, I would urge you to keep your EF version. For me, the amazing compact size, when stored in my bag and just carrying it around, were wonderful benefits of the new RF, as was the considerable lowering of its weight. These advantages meant that I am more likely to carry the lens and that meant that I will get more use out of it. The new lens does seem to be just the smallest amount possible better optically, but, if so, it’s by a trivial amount. I love this new RF version and it fits my needs perfectly. It also may have other future benefits tied to the new mount, but, that remains to be seen.

iShootWideOpen wrote:

For me these are the two RF lenses that offer the biggest advantage over their EF counterparts and the main reason (along with R5-R6 AF) why I switched from Canon DSLR's.

I'm halfway there!  That 28-70 was my main reason to jump into the RF world.  Now I'm working on making my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS (not II or III, ollllld gen 1) disappear so I can grab the RF version.  
KEH has been gobbling up my old equipment like pacman to bring me closer

David Franklin wrote:

On the 70-200, that was a close call, but the new RF version won me over and has worked out very well so far. If money is a serious issue for you and you love the idea of a non-extending lens barrel and very short focus throw, plus the ability to use Canon tele converters, I would urge you to keep your EF version. For me, the amazing compact size, when stored in my bag and just carrying it around, were wonderful benefits of the new RF, as was the considerable lowering of its weight. These advantages meant that I am more likely to carry the lens and that meant that I will get more use out of it. The new lens does seem to be just the smallest amount possible better optically, but, if so, it’s by a trivial amount. I love this new RF version and it fits my needs perfectly. It also may have other future benefits tied to the new mount, but, that remains to be seen.

You have good points. The short focus throw is an easily overlooked but important feature to me. I like the 0.7m MFD too, which would allow me to take otherwise impossible shots.