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

Edit--of course, the RF 400 f/2.8, EF 600 f/4 fall into this category.

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!

[Sean Setters]

I own the Canon EOS R, EOS R6, EOS R5, and the EOS R3, and I've yet to purchase a RF-series lens. I thoroughly enjoy the benefits of adapting EF lenses:

1) Let's face it, you can find really good deals on EF lenses on the used market with many transitioning to mirrorless lenses. I'll take a slight image quality hit to add more options to my kit. In the past 12 months I picked up the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II, and EF 50mm f/1.2L (ok, the latter isn't great as far as image quality is concerned, but I needed a native 50mm lens after the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art refused to work correctly with Canon's mirrorless cameras).

2) There are some genuinely great benefits to using the adapters. I have normal adapters, the Canon CPL adapter, and a Variable ND filter from Meike. I absolutely love being able to affix my Breakthrough Photography 10 or 15 stop ND filters to the end of my lens while also being able to use a CPL behind it. And the variable ND makes shooting video with any lens so much easier.

3) I already own a sizable collection of EF glass; I'd have to sell a kidney, a lung, and maybe a couple of toes to upgrade everything to an RF equivalent, even after selling the EF gear.

[DavidEccleston]

Sean, did you try updating the firmware on the Sigma 50? I updated my 35, and it now works fine.

[Sean Setters]

Sean, did you try updating the firmware on the Sigma 50? I updated my 35, and it now works fine.

Yep. It's running the most recent firmware. It's impossible to shoot it at anything but f/1.4 and locks up the camera if you try to change apertures (the issues are a little more nuanced than that, but I don't have the camera/lens readily available at work to describe all the eccentricities exhibited by the combination).

It has no problems when connected to my EOS 5D Mark III.

[Kayaker72]

I just tested my Sigma 50A on my R5, three different apertures. It was working.

Something seems off.

But, you have also found another solution.

On transitioning over to RF....I am still primarily EF and do enjoy the drop-in filter adapter. Last year I started the transition unexpectedly with 2 lenses and I wanted, the RF 200-800 and RF 24-105 f/2.8. Both great and fit their purpose for exceptionally well (the 200-800 is probably my most used lens at the moment).

My transition took another step as I took advantage of a refurbished RF 50 f/1.2 being on a deep (~25%) sale. That arrived yesterday and, admittedly, I will pick up a 100-500 as soon as I see it at a good price point.

[Sean Setters]

I just tested my Sigma 50A on my R5, three different apertures. It was working.

Something seems off.

Brant, you were right -- something was off. I did a bit more testing this morning. I believe the errors I was getting were the result of the aperture blades failing to function properly. I tried the lens again this morning on the EOS R3 and EOS 5D Mark III, and the lens won't stop down past about f/2.2. Pushing the DOF preview button on the 5D Mark III makes the aperture blades close a little, but not as much as they should for that narrow of an aperture. Same thing happens when I take a picture on either camera with f/16 set -- I can see the aperture blades closing, but not to the point where they are supposed to. Taking pictures while narrowing the aperture from 1.4 indicates that there's no change after f/2.2.

I think the earlier errors I was seeing were the result of the blades beginning to fail, but they hadn't failed completely yet, or somehow the failure simply isn't causing the error now (in my limited tests).