It is Jonathan's Fault.... :)

[Busted Knuckles]

Was up in Canmore/Banff and met up with Jonathan and his wife - lovely dinner and great conversation.

In discussion about lenses, he offered up the special quality of the super tele's and F4 vs. the 100-500 at 7.1.

Well as my luck seems to have turned for the better, it looks like I will have a decent lump of cash coming in and the rumor of the RF 200-500 f4 (an extra 100 over the EF predecessor) has me pondering...... JH also tossed the 100-300 2.8 into the mix with a set of TCs and that would likely bus several thousands USD less than the 200-500 AND provide 2.8 at 300! A very flexible and power combo (assuming IQs are roughly equivalent).

I am asking for (not that anyone on this forum is shy) for opinions. Swapping out my EF set to RF and 15-35, 24-105 (2.8?), and then the long end question of 200-500 or 100-300 with TCs.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Mike

[Kayaker72]

Hi Mike...

As I recall, you already have the RF 100-500, correct? What are the EF lenses you would swap out.

Regarding the conversion in general, the advantages I see of RF lenses:

• A few of them offer dual AF motors which does, IMO, lead to faster AF. This does include the RF 24-105 f/2.8. Having used this lens since it was released, it is exceptional. This also includes the RF 100-300 f/2.8. Neuro and Jonathan are both using this lens and it looks like a stellar piece of kit.
• Video. EF glass typically had USM motors, which makes a slight clicking sound that you can hear in video. It is not necessarily loud and I've asked people about it and it does seem that I am the one that notices it. But. the motors in RF lenses are much quieter if not silent. This was the primary reason I picked up the 24-105 f/2.8.

In terms of IQ, there are some lenses that are better, but are they noticeably better? I tend to think not. A few examples:

• RF 15-35 f/2.8 vs EF 16-35 f/2.8 III @ 20 mm (which they both have in common)
• RF 24-105 f/2.8 vs EF 24-70 II @ 24 mm and @ 70 mm
• RF 85 f/1.2 vs EF 85 f/1.4 @ f/1.4. Here I can see a difference, but I usually give myself a bit more DoF and here is the comparison at f/2
• Etc

IQ is often a push between the generation of lens mounts, IMO. Canon is on record as saying they have been designing for higher MP cameras for a while.

That said, there are some RF lenses with no real EF equivalent, like the RF 28-70 f/2, the RF 100-300 f/2.8, RF 10-20, etc.

As I have been thinking about my RF lens transition (going to hold off at least 1 more year), a killer RF kit, IMO would be (with my order of preference if I was building a kit from nothing):

• UWA: 1) RF 10-20, or 2) RF 14-35 or 3) RF 15-35
• Light weight UWA: RF 16 f/2.8 (I am already using this for my "just in case" UWA lens while traveling)
• Astro lens...please
• General purpose range: 1) 24-105 f/2.8, 1a) 28-70 f/2 (I am becoming more tempted by this lens), 3) 24-70 f/2.8, or 4) 24-105 f/4
• Portrait: 1) RF 85 f/1.2, 2) RF 70-200 f/2.8, or 3) RF 50 f/1.2 and/or RF 135 f/1.8.
• General Purpose/lighter weight Telephoto: RF 100-500, and distant 2) one of the 70-200s, mostly if size/weight are important
• Large wildlife: 100-300 f/2.8
• Wildlife: 100-300 f/2.8 with 1.4x TC (and really, even at 600 mm with a 2x tc, this is not bad, mostly AF speed)
• Birds: RF 200-800

I do wonder if I will ever fully transition. But I do not want to be stuck traveling with 2 RF lenses, an EF lens or two and then realize I forgot an adapter. I would prefer to be strongly in one camp or another. Thus, I do suspect I will migrate in a year or two.

What I am waiting on can be found in my RF lens wishlist. That said, I have three of the lenses on my list: RF 16 f/2.8, RF 24-105 f/2.8, and RF 200-800. "Transitioning" may not be that big of deal in a year or two.

[neuroanatomist]

The RF 100-300/2.8 does great with the 1.4x TC, and I find the resulting 140-420/4 very useful for field sports, etc. Performance with the 2x TC is not as good, IMO. Still quite good at 600/5.6, but my EF 600/4 II is better, and the RF 100-500 at 500mm is nearly as good as the 100-300 + 2x. I would not use the 100-300 + 2x for birding, for example.

On the wide side, unless you really need f/2.8 I'd look hard at the RF 10-20/4. If you're combining it with a 24-xx zoom anyway (and the 24-105/2.8 is excellent!), the 10-20 is a really fun lens...go ULTRAwide or go home. I do still use my RF 14-35 for wide shots around the house, but the 10-20 has replaced it as a travel UWA zoom.

[Busted Knuckles]

Very helpful.

the RF 100-500 at 500mm is nearly as good as the 100-300 + 2x.

I certainly use the 100-500 for birding with pretty good results and am very impressed w/ its sharpness. As JH pointed out the bokeh/subject separation is not the same a f4.....

I like the idea of the ultra wide - hmmm.... more fun to exercise my GAS self management skills.

[Jonathan Huyer]

I'm glad I could help kickstart this discussion! It was fun to connect and chat about all things photography. Happy shopping!