Possible New Lens (Page 2): The only thing that bothers me a little about the 24-240 is that it is not L glass. I guess we'll have to see if it is as sharp but at $899 and 10x the...

bleirer

Architect1776 wrote:

If you are asking about primes in this way I suggest you not waste time on them. What you do screams for zoom capability and you most likely will get one of these and regret it. Go as suggested and get the new RF 24-105mm lens.
Better yet get the new RF 24-240mm lens which is great for vacations and grand children and allows you to get the shot of cityscapes from wide overall to closeup details without having to fumble around with a bunch of lenses.

The only thing that bothers me a little about the 24-240 is that it is not L glass. I guess we'll have to see if it is as sharp but at $899 and 10x the price is right. The rf24-105 is in the L series so it will be interesting to see the side by side comparisons.

It really depends on what you are after in terms of focal range and budget mostly. It you have $2000 in the budget the 100-400 Mark ii is a beauty, and with a Canon extender can get you out as far as 800mm. The RP can autofocus to f11 so no issue there. Pair that with the rf 24-105 and get rf extension tubes for macro and you are covered. If you dont have it in the budget, the canon ef 70-300 mark ii looks like a winner in reviews and here at uhh, at only $500.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9813545160/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-6-3-is-usm

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

It is your money to spend as you want but I believe you have what you need for the type of photography that you shoot.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

bleirer wrote:

The only thing that bothers me a little about the ... (show quote)

Sharpness is not exclusive to L glass. The cheap 10-18mm EFS rivals the 11-24mm L as far as sharpness is concerned at 1/10th the price.
I us both L and non L lenses and understand. I do not see Canon putting a crappy lens out for the R cameras at this point in time. They do NOT want to give the RF mount a bad rap.
For those who take real photos and don't spend their lives pixel peeping most all modern lenses from nearly all makers produce beautiful photos, even Sony and Nikon lenses. (

)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

LFingar wrote:

My first question would be: Do you want to stick w... (show quote)

While I have L series EF zooms, I find that I am using my primes more and more. If it’s in your budget the new 85 f1.2L is a scrumptious low light and portrait lens. If your budget is a bit more limited, the 85 f1.8 mentioned above is a bargain - very sharp and fast. I’ve used it for weddings, portraits, and small concerts/jam sessions and my grandchildren indoors. Another favorite of mine (again this is an EF series) is the 135 f2L - an older design, but an excellent lens which I use all the time. Just a few thoughts...

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

rdemarco52 wrote:

Just got a Conon EOS RP full frame mirrorless camera. For lenses I have an EF 24-105, an EF 70-300, and a 50MM. I am toying with the idea of a 24, 35, or 85 fixed. Would this be redundant to what I have, or am I just in acquisition mode. I shoot mostly landscape, cityscape vacation, and some of the grandchildren. Any advice would be appreciated.

Sounds like you’re in acquisition mode! Unless f/4.0 is too slow, the 24-105 should suffice. For some odd reason you didn’t say what the maximum aperture of your 50mm lens is, but even if it’s only f/1.8 it’s much faster than your zoom. If you need the speed, add an f/1.4 or f/1.8 85mm prime and you should be set.

dick ranez

If I had a new R, which I won't for a while, I would start with the 24-105. You didn't say which version you have, but hopefully it is a new one that came with the camera. I'd use the adapter with my current lenses until Canon has a chance to deliver other R based choices. I wouldn't buy any new EF lens today.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

1lookingatu wrote:

I’m a beginner. I just purchase Tamron 35-105mm lens for my 60D. Is this a good purchase?

Start a new thread. Go to the top of thepage and click "Create New Topic"

rdemarco52 Loc: Wantagh, NY

Once again, thanks for all the input. L lenses definitely not in the budget, but I will have to work with the camera, which I have not done, and assess my needs from there. You all have provided valuable information, and I appreciate your thoughts.

Harry13

Yep, I agree. I'm drooling over that 24-240 mydamnself! That and a nifty fifty ought to do it for you unless you think you might need 400-600mm. Then maybe a Sigma?

Harry

PS I just can't justify buying the 24-240 as I have those mm pretty well covered with a 24mm, a 50 1.8 and a 70-300 (plus a 70-200 f 4.0).

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

CHG_CANON wrote:

Putting the 'ugly' in ugly hedgehog .... If you don't know anything about the topic, consider reading, not writing ....

The EF adapter is an exclusive Canon product. EF lenses perform the same or better when mounted to the R-bodies with the improved AF performance of the EOS-R platform driving the EF lens. The RF lenses, by design, are on still another, higher level of performance.

Just so we all know, the mechanical tolerances in using adapters always makes them theoretically suspect. I am sure Canon's tolerances are very LOW and as a practical matter, unless you look very very close (laboratory close) you will not see any perceivable degradation - but I could be wrong - because as I say, theoretically the suspicion is always there !
.

bleirer

imagemeister wrote:

Just so we all know, the mechanical tolerances in using adapters always makes them theoretically suspect. I am sure Canon's tolerances are very LOW and as a practical matter, unless you look very very close (laboratory close) you will not see any perceivable degradation - but I could be wrong - because as I say, theoretically the suspicion is always there !
.

I've got one, no wiggle, no waggle, no slop, confident in its use.

User ID

ELNikkor wrote:

Can't just slap an EF lens on a new "R" camera
and expect stunning results. Adaptors are always
a bit tacky. Go whole hog on the "R" line...

A bit tacky ? Ded Rong.

I use various OEM mount converters all the time.
It seems pretty clear that you never used them.

They are precise. More significantly in the case of
Canons EOS-to-R converter, even if there actually
was a slightly too great tolerance, it wouldn't be
a real-world deficit. In using the converter you're
leaving SLR AF behind and switching to full time
Live View AF. SLR AF is only approximate, never
perfect. Even at its very best. OTOH Live View AF
eliminates the problem of SLR AF. SLR AF "sees"
only a physically displaced substitute image.
That displacement is where tolerances creep in.

Live View AF sees the actual image, the actual
sensor output. FWIW, the exact same thing holds
true for optical SLR Manual Focus vs Live View MF.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

imagemeister wrote:

Just so we all know, the mechanical tolerances in using adapters always makes them theoretically suspect. I am sure Canon's tolerances are very LOW and as a practical matter, unless you look very very close (laboratory close) you will not see any perceivable degradation - but I could be wrong - because as I say, theoretically the suspicion is always there !
.

The only tolerance of real consequence on the EF-RF adapter is the thickness of the adapter. It is just a spacer with no optics. With today's machining capabilities getting identical copies every time is not a problem. On top of that, you can be sure that Canon checks each one before it leaves the factory. It all comes down to the ability to focus properly and using my EF lenses on my R with the adapter the focus is better then on my 5DIV. I wouldn't pay a dime for an adapter with optics just to be able to use a particular lens, but, this adapter works perfectly. Even my 1.4x and 2x extenders work better on the R with the adapter. Says something for Canon's optical abilities since they are, in a sense, just adapters with optics.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

bleirer wrote:

I've got one, no wiggle, no waggle, no slop, confident in its use.

LOL ...you won't feel it unless it's really BAD. Later I will post a link that discusses this ....it is NOT simple ....as you may think ...I am sorry to ruffle all you fan boys' feathers ....note: I AM a Canon user for the record. For now, I will watch the Gator's football game ! 8-)
.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

imagemeister wrote:

LOL ...you won't feel it unless it's really BAD. Later I will post a link that discusses this ....it is NOT simple ....as you may think ...I am sorry to ruffle all you fan boys' feathers ....note: I AM a Canon user for the record. For now, I will watch the Gator's football game ! 8-)
.

This should be an easy question to answer. The OP can purchase an adapter and see if EF-mount lenses perform as well on the EOS-R body as they perform on the EOS body. 😁