EF vs RF lenses - a few things to consider

[Ephemeris]

A couple of other considerations.

First, many (most?) of the RF lenses have a closer minimum focus difference than equivalent EF focal lengths. Really handy, and sometimes easy to forget it's there. Worth checking into if you're comparing EF vs RF.

Second, an edge case, but most RF lenses have an IR light. Which can wreck IR shots of longer than say a quarter of a second exposure. The 24-105 non L doesn't have it, but many I've seen and tested do. Admittedly most will never see this since they have the original UV/IR cut filter still installed. But IR users take note.

The near focus point is something when I tried the 70-200 I noticed. I assume this is related to the distance to the sensor?

IR. Ah yes I had read about this, I assume it's to aid focus?

 

[drsnoopy]

I am a huge fan of the control ring on the lens Not so much on the adapter The problem is on a long lens you must remove your hand from the lens and move it back to the adapter and the front of your lens drops. It’s not huge but something to think about.

I just wish they would put the control ring in the same position on all the RF lenses.

 

[drsnoopy]

I am a huge fan of the control ring on the lens Not so much on the adapter The problem is on a long lens you must remove your hand from the lens and move it back to the adapter and the front of your lens drops. Its not huge but something to think about.

I am a huge fan of the control ring on the RF adapter and the Rf lenses. But what really bugs me that on some (most?) lenses it is in the front whereas on the adapter and some lenses it is in the back. This is a major constraint on efficiently using it. Why, Canon, why???

+1