My review on my new Canon R5 (Page 2): Thank you. I won't purchase the RF 70-200. My 70-200L ii is my favorite lens. As of now the RF doesn't have a extender for that lens. Also at...

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

ELNikkor wrote:

Congratulations on your new R5! And kudos for looking to make the move to R lenses. The adapter is just to keep you in the shooting until you get the lenses actually made for all that amazing camera can do.

Thank you. I won't purchase the RF 70-200. My 70-200L ii is my favorite lens. As of now the RF doesn't have a extender for that lens. Also at Christmas I got the 24-70 F2.8 so won't be replacing that either. So, the adapter will be something I will always be using.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Tracy B. wrote:

I just purchased the R5 and I received it March 3r... (show quote)

Congrats on your new R5! It is exceptional. I find that it does everything my 5DIV did, and better, plus a whole lot more. The auto-focus is exceptional. As far as the adapter, leave it on the camera. Swapping lenses is much quicker if you just change out the lens. Less chance of dropping anything also. Even though the R5 has a dust shield that closes when the camera is off, I prefer to change lenses as quickly as possible. Besides, less wear and tear on the camera body mount and contacts. Just make sure that you don't accidentally hit the release button on the camera and leave the adapter unsecured.
You ask about lenses. What type of shooting do you do and what is your budget? I have 4 RF lenses: RF 15-35mm f/2.8L, RF 24-105 f/4 L, RF 50mm F/1.2 L and the RF 85mm f/1.2 L. All are exceptional, but, with the exception of the 24-105, all are quite pricey and rather heavy if that is a consideration. There are non-L version that are reportedly very good, but, I have no direct knowledge of them. You might want to check out these reviews:
https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/index.htm
Good luck and have fun, which no doubt you already are!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Tracy B. wrote:

Thank you. I won't purchase the RF 70-200. My 70-200L ii is my favorite lens. As of now the RF doesn't have a extender for that lens. Also at Christmas I got the 24-70 F2.8 so won't be replacing that either. So, the adapter will be something I will always be using.

My 70-200L II has been growing on me of late, but the size and weight are why it's not my favorite. You might rent the RF version and see if it changes your perspective of what changing to mirrorless can be.

The 24-70 comparisons say don't bother if you have the EF already, but the weight and size changes of the 70-200 make a completely different lens.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Tracy B. wrote:

Thank you. I won't purchase the RF 70-200. My 70-200L ii is my favorite lens. As of now the RF doesn't have a extender for that lens. Also at Christmas I got the 24-70 F2.8 so won't be replacing that either. So, the adapter will be something I will always be using.

For your EF 70-200 L II you would need the EF1.4xIII extender, not an RF extender. The extender would go on the lens and then mount on the RF/EF adapter.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

LFingar wrote:

Congrats on your new R5! It is exceptional. I find... (show quote)

Thank you for the advice about the adapter. That makes total sense to me. Also, about the lenses, I shoot sports, landscapes and portraits, I have a 35 mmL1.4 for environmental portraits also. I have a Sigma 85 that I might replace with the RF 85. I'm still deciding.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

CHG_CANON wrote:

My 70-200L II has been growing on me of late, but the size and weight are why it's not my favorite. You might rent the RF version and see if it changes your perspective of what changing to mirrorless can be.

The 24-70 comparisons say don't both if you have the EF already, but the weight and size changes of the 70-200 make a completely different lens.

I use my 2x extender on my 70-200, so that is why I wouldn't consider the RF version until it had one available. But, when it does I'll be first in line.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

LFingar wrote:

For your EF 70-200 L II you would need the EF1.4xIII extender, not an RF extender. The extender would go on the lens and then mount on the RF/EF adapter.

I use the 2x extender for my EF 70-200L f2.8 II. The RF extender doesn't work for the RF 70-200. I believe it work for the RF 100-400.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Tracy B. wrote:

I use my 2x extender on my 70-200, so that is why I wouldn't consider the RF version until it had one available. But, when it does I'll be first in line.

I believe the RF 70-200 won't ever be extender compatible, due to the position of the rear-end glass of the lens. Canon wants you to buy a longer lens ...

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

CHG_CANON wrote:

I believe the RF 70-200 won't ever be extender compatible, due to the position of the rear-end glass of the lens. Canon wants you to buy a longer lens ...

Oooh! Well, I will have to use my EF 70-200 + the 2x extender + the adaptor and make my Husband carry it.

User ID

tcthome wrote:

With the camera off, I don't see no difference. Enjoy your new camera. Photo quality any better?

Why you expect her to see any difference in the photo quality ?

Maximum photo quality became avalable in upper mid level cameras toward the end of the hayday of the SLR. Any further real improvement in photo quality would now be detectable only in "lab testing".

Altho maximum quality is plateaued, theres still room for improvement in terms of less compromise of quality as the ISO is raised. For general photgraphy, the user will acoarst get more keepers under trying conditions, but the pix that survive culling will not be improved over the keepers from other late model upper level gear.

More keepers, more easily, under more challenging conditions is where the new "super cameras" really shine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I use an older "super camera". You won't best its best with a newer camera. But its best is under limited conditions. You hafta focus in SLR's live view, on a tripod, and avoid 4-digit ISO. Acoarst I payed twenty cents on the dollar for it, and use it with T/S lenses, so I'm OK with its constraints. But the R5 is "all purpose" while my oldie is pretty much a one trick pony.

LittleRed

Tracy B. wrote:

I just purchased the R5 and I received it March 3r... (show quote)

Sure sounds super good. Congrats on your new camera. I also gave the R5 a quick glance but the $6000 price tag for just a body and adapter put it a wee bit out of my reach as a senior pensioner. Enjoy it and post us some pics

LittleRed (Ron)

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

LittleRed wrote:

Sure sounds super good. Congrats on your new camera. I also gave the R5 a quick glance but the $6000 price tag for just a body and adapter put it a wee bit out of my reach as a senior pensioner. Enjoy it and post us some pics

LittleRed (Ron)

Thank you. The R5 is $3800 adaptor is $199.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

LittleRed wrote:

Sure sounds super good. Congrats on your new camera. I also gave the R5 a quick glance but the $6000 price tag for just a body and adapter put it a wee bit out of my reach as a senior pensioner. Enjoy it and post us some pics

LittleRed (Ron)

That sucks when you look at the wrong model.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

CHG_CANON wrote:

That sucks when you look at the wrong model.

cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX

Glad to hear. After mulling the decision point for several days and considering whether I would really benefit from the R5 or whether it was just GAS, it took me only my first session shooting to determine that I made the right choice. Glad that you are happy with your choice. I predict that the more you shoot, the more you will appreciate your new camera.