R5? R6? Anyone?

[Jonathan Huyer]

Brant - excellent summary. You're right in every respect. If/when I get the R5 I will probably opt for the battery grip, as much for the vertical shooting convenience as for the extra power. It should pretty much eliminate the frame rate reduction due to battery drainage in most daily use.

Having options like the R5 and the 1DX3 is like being able to choose between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. You can't really be critical of either. For me I'm going to stick with the 1DX3 at least until a R5 Mark II comes out (in four years' time, I would guess). I think we're going to see even bigger things to come in terms of frame rate and hopefully the same AF-ON trackpad that is on the 1DX3.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

RF Lenses are significantly more expensive than their EF counterparts. Do you think it’s a good idea to continue buying EF lenses? The price difference between the RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS III is $700-800.

[Joel Eade]

RF Lenses are significantly more expensive than their EF counterparts. Do you think it’s a good idea to continue buying EF lenses? The price difference between the RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS III is $700-800.

I have an R5 and the adapter on order (don't expect to get it very soon)....I am going with my EF lenses to start as I have all I need from 16 to 600mm. At this moment I do not know if I will purchase any more EF lenses or any RF lenses for that matter. I admit that I am intrigued by the 800mm f/11 so if I try any RF lenses it would probably be that one.

If there is specific lens you need I don't think I would hesitate to get the EF version and use the adapter.

[Karsaa]

I have an R5 and the adapter on order (don't expect to get it very soon)....I am going with my EF lenses to start as I have all I need from 16 to 600mm. At this moment I do not know if I will purchase any more EF lenses or any RF lenses for that matter. I admit that I am intrigued by the 800mm f/11 so if I try any RF lenses it would probably be that one.

If there is specific lens you need I don't think I would hesitate to get the EF version and use the adapter.

I will as soon as i get my R6 and RF 800mm go to the field and try have nice sunny day and get handheld and with tripod shots with it and will make post about =) I should get atleast my R6 in couple weeks when the distribution here in finland starts, hopefully lens comes same time.

[Kayaker72]

Do you think it’s a good idea to continue buying EF lenses?

Yes. The RF lineup is not yet fully populated and Canon keeps coming up with some intriguing and unexpected lenses. Honestly, if I had an R, I would be a bit cautious about buying RF lenses for another couple of years for fear that a lens better suited to my style might be released. For example, buy the RF 70-200 f/2.8 now, or is the rumor true that a RF 70-150 f/2 is coming? Which would you prefer?

I will feel better once it seems the RF lineup is fully developed. In the mean time, EF lenses are known quantities and all reports I hear is that they perform as well or maybe even a bit better on the R cameras.

Plus, you could get the EF to RF adapter that holds filters and suddenly you have a filter set that works on all your lenses.

All that said, if I did pick up an R, I would be tempted by some of the RF lenses. By all accounts I read/watch, they are exceptional. And, eventually, I will migrate my high use EF lenses over to the RF equivalents for that reason. As an example, the RF 24-70 out paces my favorite lens, the EF 24-70 II at each focal length, 50 mm is the extreme as that is a weak point of the 24-70 II (and weak is a relative term, the 24-70 II is an amazing lens, but the RF is sharper).

The price difference between the RF 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS III is $700-800.

So, this is interesting. The RF version is smaller, lighter, appears to be faster focusing, and some have claimed better IQ (especially bokeh, as it has an extra blade, sharpness, meh, depends on focal length IMO). If those mean something too you, get the RF. The EF version is internal focusing and has the zoom ring closer to the camera, I have seen a few photographers that state that really matters to them. If none of the above matters, save some money. Both appear to be exceptional lenses. I own the EF 70-200 f/2.8 II. I love the lens for casual shooting, although, I will say, I am falling more in love with the EF 85 f/1.4 IS for portraits.