junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

I moved to mirrorless and purchased an R7 and am pleased with my decision. I have been looking at an evaluating some of the new RF versions. My confusion come with the reviews... one will state excellent, lighter weight and better sharpness. Another states unimpressed, barrel hard to turn, and loses focus.
I would like to hear from HH'ers what they think. I have EF 50, EF 24-70 f4, and EF 70-200 f4.
If I switched to RF, I would upgrade from f4 to f2.8.
Just like to hear from someone that owns one.
Thanks

Ruthlessrider

I own an R5 and have had no problems with either RF or EF lenses I own.

Ruthlessrider

I own an R5 and have had no problems with either RF or EF lenses I own.

User ID

Your zooms are large enough that the extra length from the EF adapter isnt really a big deal, but you might enjoy the compact RF 50mm. If you ever need to go wider, I found the 16/2.8 irresistable with its tiny size and tiny price.

OTOH, you say that youve been considering bumping up to faster zooms, so maybe conpactness is not of any concern for you ?

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Thank you Ruthlessrider . Are the RF lenses sharper or have a significant advantage?

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

User-defined, thanks for the info, I am just considering my options.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I don't have RF lenses as my EF lenses still work great for me.
That said, from what you an I have read about revives and YouTube the RF f2.8 is demonstrably sharper.
The larger majority seem to like the lens. Perhaps rent it and see if the failures noted are present for you if that is a concern.
So far though for me my EF glass is good enough and as they say glass lasts and that is true as all your EF glass, back to 1987, is still 100% compatible on RF cameras.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Good advice... I will rent one...

cmceagle

I added a R7 to get the 15/30 fps and eye detect for action nature shooting. While I have the RF 100-500, an EF-RF adapter with an EF 100-400 MK II works perfectly. I checked the Canon site and they claim their EF-RF adapter is compatible with all EF lens. I'd suggest trying your EF lens with an adapter (Canon not off-brand) to see if you are happy with the results. The adapter will extend the lens out a bit and that may change the balance point (probably more of a factor with a heavy EF 100-400 lens). Another option is to rent a RF lens that you want to replace one of your current EF lens to see if the weight and size differences would be worth the expense. I have purchased the RF 24-105 lens so my two lens would cover 24 to 500 mm. I think the broader question would be full frame or cropped sensor. For the types of photography that require the shorter focal range lens and perhaps low light situations or silent operation, a full frame camera will give better results. Unfortunately full frame come with a steep cost penalty ($1000 in DLSR and $2000 for Mirrorless).

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

I bought the RF 70-200 2.8 and it is superior to my old EF-1 version by far. It is every bit as sharp at 2.8 as it is at f-8. The only drawback is the zoom is stif and it takes two separate turns to go from 70 to 200. But trust me you will not be disappointed if you buy this lens.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

You are dealing with substantial money... " Lens Rental " is your best bet... A VERY cheap investment !

JW from PA

Hi, I moved from the 5D Mark III to the R6 Mark II, I used my EF lenses with the adapter and other than adding a little more length and weight the lenses worked without a problem. I had a Tamron 150-600 G2 lenses which worked very well, it was heavy and a little slower at focusing than when on the 5D MK III. I saved and bought the RF 100-500 and never looked back. I also picked up a used RF 24-105 and glad I did. After having EF and RF lenses, changing from an EF to Rf lenses was a little extra step since the adapter was in use, so I got rid of all but 2 of my EF lenses, I kept the Tamron 17-35 and the Canon EF 85. I found that for focusing and sharpness, in humble my opinion there is very little difference. I agree with the above, rent an RF lenses and make your own observations. Good luck and happy shooting, enjoy the R7.

Semper Fi,
Joe W.

BushDog Loc: San Antonio, TX

I’ve been blessed with the ability to own about 30 bodies and 60 lenses over the past 18 years. I used mainly Canon for many years before switching to Sony Mirrorless. I still have some Canon gear DSLR gear.
I have been drooling for Sony to come out with a lens like the Canon RF 28-70 f/2L. It’s not cheap though. If you can afford it, it’s worth researching.

AFPhoto Loc: Jamestown, RI, USA

Hi,… I went full RF after I bought my R5. I had a full complement of EF L lenses and I used them for a while with the adapter. They were fine, but I wanted te extra control that comes with the RF lenses, as welll as the lighter weight. I sold all of my EF lenses at what I would call excellent prices and I bought: RF 50mm f1.2, RF 70-200, the RF 100- 500 and the RF 800 f111, I recently bought the RF 50 f1.8 and the RF 35 f1.8 to set the R5 for street photos. The pics are very sharp and the auto focus is very fast. BUT not so much that I would have done this if I didn’t have all of the EF glass to sell.

IHH61 Loc: Homestead Fl

I’ve got RF 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-500. They are lighter and especially with the 70-200 smaller than the EFs that they replaced. Every bit as sharp or sharper as well. I use both R5 and R6.
Hugh