Deciding to changing from EF to RF would give a person the opportunity to switch to a different manufacture. Some of the expense could be minimized and offset by the additional cost the EF system costs you to upgrade.
The value of the comparison would have been before I bought the R5 and three RF L lenses.
The rule used to be that you bought in to the system with the best glass. That debate doesn't materialize on the forums as much as it used to.
Especially with Canon R cameras all your EF glass works perfectly with a simple adapter.Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I think the importance of glass is still very true. What has changed is that the technology behind designing and making lenses has improved so much, most glass is really very very good. Then there has also been convergence around lenses offered (24-70, 70-200, etc).
Canon has gotten so good that lens design that the RF 14-35 f/4 is not anywhere near rectilinear as it hits the sensor, but Canon is fixing the distortion automatically and baking it into the "RAW" files. But, we get a 14 mm wide lens that accepts front mounted filters that is also small, light and superb IQ.
And...Canon just bought a supercomputer to dedicate to lens design.
Even most of the affordable lenses are really pretty good. My EF-M 55-200 is probably the worst lens I own, but I have used it to take several images that I've posted on the forum. The 100-400 II was raved about as being so much better than the Mk 1, comparable to the much more expensive 200-400 f/4 w 1.4TC....yet, the RF 100-500 is better....remember the super expensive Zeiss Otus lenses? Don't hear much about them anymore as now most manufacturer prime lenses are right in there in terms of quality.
It's just nuts how good lenses are.
Yep. And you get drop in filters.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote