Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: RF native or EF with adapter

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,132

    RF native or EF with adapter

    RF 100-500 vs the Tamzooka.

    The RF produces a better image at 500 and cropped to effective 600 that the tamzooka. Focusing is faster as well

    RF 24-105 vs EF 24-105. Soooooo close, Really can't tell a difference in thiddle 2/3rds of the frame.

    Going to keep the 100-500 going to send back the 24-105.

    My 2 cents.
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  2. #2
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,779
    I think I’m repeating myself, but in general the RF lenses offer a meaningful improvement over their EF counterpart, at a substantially higher cost. The RF 24-105 is an exception to both – it’s not meaningfully better than the EF version, and it launched at the same price as the EF version it replaced.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,088
    The real question does the "meaningful improvement" justify the "substantially higher cost".
    My impression of the RF 24-70, RF 70-200 and RF 100-500 are that they do offer meaningful improvement with IS and the added length of the 100-500.
    But the amount of improvement versus the cost really does make the upgrade a Luxury Purchase and not a Necessary Purchase.
    Just my opinion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •