Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L adapted to EOS RF

Well I took out my EF 70-300L today to re-evaluate since I now have both the RF 70-200/2.8L and got my RF 100-500. I tested it AF speed vs. the 70-200 an from what I could tell it focused at almost the same speed even with the adapter. In fact it was hard to tell the difference. I did not set up to do any head-to-head IQ test, which are really needed but was pleasantly surprised. The it dawned on me. When you stand the new RF 70-200/2.8 next to the EF 70-300/4-5.6L you would think the are cut from the same cloth with their focus an zoom ring positions, extending barrels, and chunkier design. The length and weight differences are only the EF to EOS R adapter. Here is a camera size.com comparison. I also have a tripod ring for my 70-300 if I wanted it.

https://bit.ly/3H8WOdQ

based on this recent reevaluation I think I will keep the 70-300 around for when I need more reach and not carry the 100-500 or 70-200 or both. If there was a teleconverter for the RF 70-200 maybe not but there isn’t one.

anyone else using an adapted 70-300/4-5:6L? What are your thoughts?

thank you for your time.

Shot with my blind squirrel (EOS RP)

Steve W wrote:

anyone else using an adapted 70-300/4-5:6L? What are your thoughts?

I have the 70-300 L for quite a while and very much like this lens. Top quality from 70-200mm. A bit degrading towards 300mm, but still very good, especially after stopping down a bit.

No fan of adapting this lens to the R camera's though. Nothing wrong with AF, IS or what soever. In fact, like with many other adapted EF lenses, the AF is even better than on DSLR. It is just the balance that's off : too front heavy. An adapted EF 70-200 f/4 or native RF 100-500 have (much) better balance. Tripod used, with tripod ring attached, balance is no longer an excuse.

Sandor.

5maarensv wrote:

Steve W wrote:

anyone else using an adapted 70-300/4-5:6L? What are your thoughts?

I have the 70-300 L for quite a while and very much like this lens. Top quality from 70-200mm. A bit degrading towards 300mm, but still very good, especially after stopping down a bit.

No fan of adapting this lens to the R camera's though. Nothing wrong with AF, IS or what soever. In fact, like with many other adapted EF lenses, the AF is even better than on DSLR. It is just the balance that's off : too front heavy. An adapted EF 70-200 f/4 or native RF 100-500 have (much) better balance. Tripod used, with tripod ring attached, balance is no longer an excuse.

Sandor.

Actually balances very much like the RF 70-200/2.8L. Basically build the same and the weight is within 20 grams lighter and 3 mm shorter without the adapter. The adapter actually balances it better when the barrel is fully extended to reach 300mm

Steve W wrote:

5maarensv wrote:

Steve W wrote:

anyone else using an adapted 70-300/4-5:6L? What are your thoughts?

I have the 70-300 L for quite a while and very much like this lens. Top quality from 70-200mm. A bit degrading towards 300mm, but still very good, especially after stopping down a bit.

No fan of adapting this lens to the R camera's though. Nothing wrong with AF, IS or what soever. In fact, like with many other adapted EF lenses, the AF is even better than on DSLR. It is just the balance that's off : too front heavy. An adapted EF 70-200 f/4 or native RF 100-500 have (much) better balance. Tripod used, with tripod ring attached, balance is no longer an excuse.

Sandor.

Actually balances very much like the RF 70-200/2.8L. Basically build the same and the weight is within 20 grams lighter and 3 mm shorter without the adapter. The adapter actually balances it better when the barrel is fully extended to reach 300mm

Weight distribution of the RF 70-200's or 100-500 lenses is better for handheld. Need to hold the 70-300 L more upfront to control the zoom. It is the different momentum which I dislike. Tripod based balance is fine and indeed best when fully extended.

A great, sharp lens and I now keep mine with the RF-EF Control ring adapter on it on my back up body.

CameraCarl wrote:

The 70-300 IS L is one of only two EF lenses I kept when I sold my EF DSLR system. I love my 100-500 but for times when I know I will not need the reach and want to save a few ounces, I will take the 70-300. In fact, most times when I am not weight constrained, and when I am going on a photo trip, I will throw the 70-300 in my backpack as a backup in case anything happens to my 100-500. In a couple of months I am going to be photographing prairie chickens and there I will put the 70-300 on one body and the 100-500 on another body for maximum flexibility.

I rebought my EF 70-300 when I restarted shooting Canon again with the R body and still have it even after getting my hands on a RF 100-500. Now use it on the R5 with the adapter. My thought on it are the same as yours. Like it’s size/reach/speed trade off. Some times I will take it and the RF 24-105 out and leave the 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, and the RF 100-500 home.

The 70-300L has always been one of my go-to lenses and I still use it a lot on my R5. It's just the right size to be portable and I would say it performs better now than it did on my 5Dm4.