Keeping EF lenses, or worth it to update to RF

Have others decided to keep using their EF lenses on RF mount cameras? I have decided so far, might for a long time. I'm not sure I can justify the price for slight increase in focus accuracy and photo quality.

I primarily use 70-200 IS II 2.8, 24-70 II 2.8, 135mm 2.0. I mostly shoot events where IS does not help. I might even buy more EF lenses.

For people that have upgraded these lenses from EF to RF:

• Did you notice increase focus accuracy?
• Notice increase in photo quality?
• Have any other comments?

Thanks,
--
Ralph

I haven’t “upgraded” any of my EF lenses (yet), and probably won’t for a good while. But I do run my 1DX II alongside my R3, so I still need EF lenses for that. I find the Canon adapter works seamlessly although it adds a little hassle at times.

Depending on when / if the R1 appears, and whether it suits my needs and budget, and if other rumoured long focal length zooms are released, then I may get the wallet out!

I did buy one RF lens, which overlaps in focal length and use, but doesn’t duplicate any of my EF lenses. I haven’t noticed any significant benefits deriving from the RF mount itself.

Ralph Arvesen wrote:

Have others decided to keep using their EF lenses on RF mount cameras? I have decided so far, might for a long time. I'm not sure I can justify the price for slight increase in focus accuracy and photo quality.

I primarily use 70-200 IS II 2.8, 24-70 II 2.8, 135mm 2.0. I mostly shoot events where IS does not help. I might even buy more EF lenses.

For people that have upgraded these lenses from EF to RF:

• Did you notice increase focus accuracy?
• Notice increase in photo quality?
• Have any other comments?

Thanks,
--
Ralph

I just got the R6MKII two weeks ago and loving it! The AF speed is awesome, a lot faster than my 5Ds. I already tried it with a photoshoot with my EF 35/1.4 L and EF 85/1.2 L II. These are not really fast lenses but they got speedier because of that much vaunted eye-AF Canon technology.

The IQ is awesome-----images are so crisp it's as if my camera came with a built in Topaz Photo AI in it

Also, I don't see a need for using back button focus like I do with my 5Ds. I use the modern way by just touching the screen and drag to where I want to focus.

Good luck with whatever decision you make.

Cheers,

José

I have switched to mostly a RF kit after two years with my R5. I did not have a lot of L quality EF lenses when I bought my R5. I actually bought several EF lenses after I bought my R5 due to good used deals and high cost of RF L lenses. Over the last two years I have slowly sold off some of these EF lenses and now have three main RF lenses I travel with 100% of the time in my backpack. The RF 100-500, 15-35 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4. I have a separate Peak Design duffel that I take when I want my full kit with the RF 800 f/11 and RF 100-400. In the PK bag I have my Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art, EF 24-70 f.2.8 and EF 85 f/1.8. I also have a EF 70-200 f/2.8 II, but I don't travel with the lens unless I am doing indoor sports. I also have several other EF lenses that are mostly used by my kids.

If I was going to replace any of my existing EF lenses with something existing on the market it would be the 70-200 f/2.8. I did not buy the RF lens because my last daughter doing sports has decided this year to focus on academics as she started HS. I have not used my 70-200 in almost a year. I really like the size and weight of the RF 70-200 f/2.8 and if I have a need again for fast indoor action I would sell the EF and buy the RF.

My biggest pain when using EF lenses at first was remembering the adaptor. I also hated changing it in the field. I finally bought several adapters to keep on my main lenses. Took awhile to get the adapters, two years ago they were in short supply.

I like my current lens lineup and really don't have a burning need for any additional lenses. Maybe if Canon came out with a smaller and lighter UWA lens like the Sony 14 f/1.8 I might be tempted. Would be nice to have something smaller for Astrophotography.

I think your current plan is good. If you want to try RF lenses you could always rent one to see the differences. Don't rush out and change your kit until you know what you want in RF lenses. Adapted EF lenses work great.

The initial (and so far only) RF lenses I got are those that don’t exist for EF:

- RF 800 f/11, which I use in addition to Tamron EF 150-600

- RF 28-70 f/2, which has fully replaced my 24-70 f/2.8, and in fact also replaced 50 f/1.8 and 35 f/2; better and quieter than all of these

- RF 24-240, which is a great walk about lens for cases where you need some reach

With these the only EF lenses I still use from time to time with the R5 are the 150-600, and my old “tank” Sigma 15-30 for wide angle

Ralph Arvesen wrote:

Thanks José, your images look wonderful. So you are happy using your existing EF lenses, and don't plan to update with RF lenses, at least anytime soon, is that right?

I did not verify, if there are even RF replacements available.

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for the kind words! Yes, I am super happy that I made the move to Canon RF. I have mirrorless experience already when I got into the Sony system. However, nothing compares to the Canon because it's like I have an 'instant' system as the move to RF from EF is seamless using the adapter. I hardly even notice that I am using an adapter.

My plan is just to use what I have. However, I am tempted to get at least one RF. No rush though as I even had a few lenses to try out with my R6MKII. I was thinking of a standard zoom lens. However, the RF 24-70/2.8 L IS is too expensive and since I no longer shoot events it'll be a waste of money. I'll probably hold off until Canon comes out with the RF version of 200/2.8 or maybe an STM telezoom lens around that focal range.

Cheers,

José

I actually think where RF particularly excels, where the difference is most dramatic, is in the new RF lenses that sort of don't have close EF equivalents. Like the RF 24-240. The EF vs RF 100mm L macros would be closer; not sure it's worth upgrading.

If buying, the EFs can be better values. And if you've got an R camera with IBIS, that can add something to the old EF without OIS.

So it's a sort of "depends" kind of thing I guess. I might prioritize some RF lenses if I had the money but not sell EF just to get RF.

cfieldgate wrote:

I haven’t “upgraded” any of my EF lenses (yet), and probably won’t for a good while. But I do run my 1DX II alongside my R3, so I still need EF lenses for that. I find the Canon adapter works seamlessly although it adds a little hassle at times.

Depending on when / if the R1 appears, and whether it suits my needs and budget, and if other rumoured long focal length zooms are released, then I may get the wallet out!

I did buy one RF lens, which overlaps in focal length and use, but doesn’t duplicate any of my EF lenses. I haven’t noticed any significant benefits deriving from the RF mount itself.

I recently bought the R5 and am in the process of selling my 5D MarkIV (sale pending).  Because I knew I'd probably sell the 5D4 with the 24-105 lens, I decided to buy the R5 with the "kit" RF 24-105 L (really agreat lens).  So far that's the only RF lens I have.

The EF lenses I have and plans for those lenses:

1. Rokinon 14mm f/28 - Keeping this manual lens for Milky Way photography. No reason to upgrade as it does great with the adaptor.
2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 - This is still a great lens. Focuses is fast and accurate. IQ is great too.  Have decided to keep this.  There is not currently an RF 50 f/1.4.
3. Canon 135mm f/2.  This is a keeper.  I know there is now an RF 135 f/1.8 but I'm more than happy with this EF version.  Might upgrade someday, but keeping for now.
4. Canon 70-200mm f/4 non-IS.  This isn't a bad lens for what it is, but I have decided to get the RF 70-200 f/2.8 as my next lens as soon as my 5D4 sale is completed.  Then will sell the EF f/4 version, though not expecting to get much for it.
5. Canon 300mm f/4.  This is a great prime.  AF is "ok" on the R5 and IS works ok.  Keeping for now but this is one I could see myself selling later.
6. Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. Recently took this lens to Bosque Del Apache and was very pleased with the performance, the AF and IS worked great.  I adjusted the settings for the custom C1 settings according to Duade Paton (YouTube) suggestions and it worked great.  Probably NOT selling this anytime soon. It has about a half stop brighter aperture and an extra 100mm reach than the RF 100-500. If it works for me, and it does, I'm not in a hurry to upgrade.

Aside from the RF24-105 I have and the RF 70-200 f/2.8 I'm getting next, other RF lenses I may get in the near future:

RF 16mm f/2.8,

RF 35mm f/1.8,

RF 85mm f/2

Ralph Arvesen wrote:

Have others decided to keep using their EF lenses on RF mount cameras? I have decided so far, might for a long time. I'm not sure I can justify the price for slight increase in focus accuracy and photo quality.

I primarily use 70-200 IS II 2.8, 24-70 II 2.8, 135mm 2.0. I mostly shoot events where IS does not help. I might even buy more EF lenses.

For people that have upgraded these lenses from EF to RF:

• Did you notice increase focus accuracy?
• Notice increase in photo quality?
• Have any other comments?

Thanks,
--
Ralph

I have the 70-200 IS II 2.8 and 135mm 2.0. Zero intention to "upgrade" either one.

Ralph Arvesen wrote:

Have others decided to keep using their EF lenses on RF mount cameras? I have decided so far, might for a long time. I'm not sure I can justify the price for slight increase in focus accuracy and photo quality.

I primarily use 70-200 IS II 2.8, 24-70 II 2.8, 135mm 2.0. I mostly shoot events where IS does not help. I might even buy more EF lenses.

I have all 3 of these lenses plus others. I don't own a single RF lens as of yet, and I'm in no hurry for them as I have a pretty complete EF lens kit for my needs.

For people that have upgraded these lenses from EF to RF:

• Did you notice increase focus accuracy?
• Notice increase in photo quality?
• Have any other comments?

Yes I noticed an increase in focus accuracy compared to DSLRs. This in turn also increased photo quality due to the focus accuracy.

All of my lenses focus well enough right now that upgrading to RF glass for any increases in AF or image quality are a low priority. I'll eventually add RF glass as my EF lenses age out, but for now I have no immediate need. Good EF glass is still top notch in the IQ department.

Overall, I'm thrilled with how my EF glass is performing on the R6II.

Thanks,
--
Ralph

Ralph Arvesen wrote:

Have others decided to keep using their EF lenses on RF mount cameras?

Yes

EF lenses work so well with RF - that unless there is a specific lens not available in EF - or in a just a handful of cases where there is a large IQ jump, I'd suggest not worth it if already owning good EF's - unless it help one with G.A.S.

50 1.2, 85.1.2 probably about the only 2 lenses where big IQ jump. 28-70 amazing if that is what one likes to use and nothing comparable at all in EF.

RF 16 2.8 and 100-500 good examples where unavailable in RF - along with 24-240 for much more useful and much lighter than EF version of 28-300. 100-400 is also a nice much lighter lens. 600 and 800 f/11's don't work for me but do for some.

Other lenses really not super exciting IMHO to justify very high prices - e.g. RF 15-35, 24 1.8, 24-105 f/4, 100 macro 70-200 2.8, 800 5.6 etc when cheaper EF lens (especially mint used warranty from dealer) options are available - and some RF lenses a bit meh to me like the 24, 35, 50 1.8, 24-105 f/7.1. The RF big whites have a built in adaptor and same EF formula - Meh.

I did buy the RF 16mm - and would buy the 100-500 (or 100-400) RF if starting afresh.

I'd still skip even today from fresh lenses like the 15-35 - when the EF 16-35 f/4 IS is so good and also likely buy from fresh EF 24-105, 100 macro and big whites. I can simply get more for my money for 99% of the IQ and functionality I need.

I am a documentary photographer. I added a Canon R5 to my Canon 5d Mk III. I will probably replace the 5d with another R body and my 7d with an R7 in the next year. I have been adding RF lenses as they become available. My kit includes

RF 24-105 f4 replaced the EF 24-70 f4

RF 50 1.8 replaced the EF 50mm f1.8

added the RF 70-200mm f4

Still using the following EF glass because the equivalent primes aren’t out yet

EF 14mm f2.8 — I bought the RF 16mm 2.8 but it hasn’t replaced the 14mm yet,

EF 20mm f2.8 -- my favorite wide angle / can’t wait to see this in an RF

EF 24mm TS-E

EF 28mm f2.8

EF 35mm f2 — skipping the RF 35mm f1.8 for the RF 35mm f1.4 or f1.2 when available

EF 50mm f1.2 -- don’t use it a lot so haven’t changed to RF yet

EF 100-400mm f4.5 — probably need to upgrade this one to the new RF

EF 135mm f2 — the RF is just out and haven’t tried it yet

EF 180mm f3.5 macro

EF 600mm f4

I prefer the simplicity and smaller/lighter form of the RF lenses without the EF adapter. But I don’t hesitate to use my EF glass as the results are outstanding either way. I think better than on my 5d. 
P.S. I do use all the lenses regularly. Including some manual focus glass like

Takumar 50mm 1.4

Leitz 50mm f2

Nikkor 28mm 2.8

24-70 & 70-200 - just very small improvements across the board for me. Slightly lighter, better built, sharpness, contrast speed, AF. Nothing individually will blow your socks off, but it all adds up to a slightly noticeable better package.

135 - that new RF 135 is jaw droppingly brilliant in every single way. I challenge the most die hard of EF 135 fans to give that lens a try and not be impressed. It's in a different league.

Ralph Arvesen wrote:

Have others decided to keep using their EF lenses on RF mount cameras? I have decided so far, might for a long time. I'm not sure I can justify the price for slight increase in focus accuracy and photo quality.

I primarily use 70-200 IS II 2.8, 24-70 II 2.8, 135mm 2.0. I mostly shoot events where IS does not help. I might even buy more EF lenses.

For people that have upgraded these lenses from EF to RF:

• Did you notice increase focus accuracy?
• Notice increase in photo quality?
• Have any other comments?

Thanks,
--
Ralph

I've been shooting portraits with three EOS R cameras for three years now. I've been using all my EF lenses...no RF lenses yet.
The only RF lens I'd definitely like to have is the light, compact 70-200 f/2.8. I've handled one before, and it is definitely an improvement in compactness and lightness over my EF 70-200. It would make a real difference.
However, I'm not using that lens often enough to make the expense worth while.

So, I plan to migrate to RF as my EF lenses fall out of the service window.

So far I have only replaced or upgraded one of my EF mount lenses. I had the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 and decided on the RF 70-200 f/4. I never really took to the Tamron lens, the zoom ring turned opposite to the Canon lenses and I knew the Canon RF would be sharper. I was willing to sacrifice a stop of light for a slightly smaller and lighter lens. I am very happy with my decision.

I have filled in some holes with RF lenses in focal lengths I didn't already own in EF, like the RF 24-105mm and several prime lenses.  I have not encountered any issues using EF mount lenses on my R or R7. They focus fine and are responsive.