RF 400, or EF 400 with adapter?

John Sheehy wrote:

bernie r wrote:

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.

We don't know that it is just weight; the RF AF and stability may be better. Without some more comparative facts, we can't tell what the extra $6K buys you (besides new-ness and lower weight).

Link Taken from another thread... looks like the extra 6K will buy a fuzzier picture too with 1.4 tc:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1556&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

dgumshu wrote:

Link Taken from another thread... looks like the extra 6K will buy a fuzzier picture too with 1.4 tc:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1556&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

Let's switch to Good copy, bad copy threads...

PicPocket wrote:

dgumshu wrote:

Link Taken from another thread... looks like the extra 6K will buy a fuzzier picture too with 1.4 tc:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1556&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

Let's switch to Good copy, bad copy threads...

Ironically, three copies of the EF lll were compared to the EF ll during the EF lll lab tests at this site.  Same results.  Optically, the RF and EF are identical.

bernie r wrote:

dgumshu wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

bernie r wrote:

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.

We don't know that it is just weight; the RF AF and stability may be better. Without some more comparative facts, we can't tell what the extra $6K buys you (besides new-ness and lower weight).

Link Taken from another thread... looks like the extra 6K will buy a fuzzier picture too with 1.4 tc:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1556&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

I'm oddly not surprised, I'm not switching my EF 500 f4 for awhile...

That one is a keeper.  Best lens I ever shot with.

I would check if there's difference in the image stabilization department.  Does the IS of the EF lens work in conjunction with IBIS ?

lokatz wrote:

Still fairly new to the Canon world, so I'm hoping someone can help me with this:

I am contemplating getting a 400mm f/2.8 lens for my R5. From what I can see, it appears to make more sense to get the latest version of the EF lens and put it on the body via a control ring adapter since the RF lens has no control ring. I like the added flexibility the control ring gives me, even if its placement is quite inconvenient.

Availability put aside, is there ANY disadvantage to this that I need to be aware of and that would speak for getting the RF lens instead?

My take, worthy less than the 2 proverbial cents, is simply...

If you are on the market for a new lens, go for the RF version. If you are ok with a used lens, get the EF mkIII version.

I am speculating like everyone else here. My assumption is that the RF version is 100% identical to the EF mkIII version with an adapter bolted on.

Ultimately, I think that, if there were material differences between the 2 version, Canon would have advertised them explicitly. I am sure that the RF version is great, but I also think that it is as great as the EF mkIII version, no more no less.

Based on this assumption, I assume that:

• there is a minor disadvantage with the RF version in that you cannot have a control ring. Personally it wouldn't be a big deal to me, but YMMV
  • I see no issue with not being able to use the adapter with the drop-in filter, since those lenses already have a drop-in filter
• there is a minor advantage with the RF version in that there is 1 less mechanical coupling, therefore the camera+lens combo may be a little more robust
• the AF of the RF version will be indeed faster with a R3/R1, but in the same way the AF of the EF version is faster with a 1D body. It's all about bigger batteries. So I suspect that the EF mkIII version will be equally faster when used with a R3/R1

Thanks, Roberto.  I'd say your post is worth at least 2.5 cents.  After all, it concentrates on whatever few facts seem to be available. 

lokatz wrote:

Thanks, Roberto. I'd say your post is worth at least 2.5 cents. After all, it concentrates on whatever few facts seem to be available.

Thank you kind sir 2.5 it is then