Canon RF Lenses: I am wondering if the Canon RF lenses non "L" are good. I've read mixed reviews and wondered if any of you have tried them?

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

I am wondering if the Canon RF lenses non "L" are good. I've read mixed reviews and wondered if any of you have tried them?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Tracy B. wrote:

I am wondering if the Canon RF lenses non "L" are good. I've read mixed reviews and wondered if any of you have tried them?

Have not tried them - but as regards optical acuity, the Imatest numbers I have seen show them to be slightly optically sharper than their EF counterparts - but not quite as good as the Nikon Z lenses

.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Several of the non L EF lenses are 'quite good' to exceptional. In fact, some of those legacy lenses are going to become very popular on the EOS R platform with the IBIS-enabled MILC bodies. The non L RF lenses will continue this tradition. These lenses primarily just lack a rugged weatherized build, an aspect that has nothing to do with their optical excellence.

piperplt

I have a 24-240 R lens that I purchased for my R5. Although I haven't used it extensively yet the images I have shot have been as good as what I normally see from my 5D IV and 24-105L lens. I bought the lens primarily after reading Ken Rockwell's review of it and haven't been disappointed. I rarely enlarge anything past 8 1/2 by 11 and primarily do travel photography so it works perfectly for me. I already have an EF 16-35L lens and I plan to get a 100-500R next and then I'll have all the range I should ever need. You're correct, the reviews have been mixed, but by using either the in camera corrections or the corrections in Lightroom the problems that some reviewers have described go away.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Tracy B. wrote:

I am wondering if the Canon RF lenses non "L" are good. I've read mixed reviews and wondered if any of you have tried them?

From reading reviews of them they are excellent.
Not rugged like the L but optically great.
And as you know with the tech in the camera the vignetting and slight distortion is now automatically camera corrected allowing Canon to concentrate on other parameters to make amazing lenses.
They seem to be superior to previous generations that we were very happy with.
Only EXTREME pixel peepers might be able to see a difference.
With my EF lenses of L and non L if I do my part most the non L do just fine.
That is one reason why I do not post EXIF with my posts so there is no prejudgment.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

CHG_CANON wrote:

Several of the non L EF lenses are 'quite good' to exceptional. In fact, some of those legacy lenses are going to become very popular on the EOS R platform with the IBIS-enabled MILC bodies. The non L RF lenses will continue this tradition. These lenses primarily just lack a rugged weatherized build, an aspect that has nothing to do with their optical excellence.

Thank you for you response. Good to know.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Architect1776 wrote:

From reading reviews of them they are excellent. b... (show quote)

Thank you for yore answer. I'll looking at the 85mm.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Tracy B. wrote:

Thank you for yore answer. I'll looking at the 85mm.

Look at the reviews.
Look at the photos taken here, they speak louder than words.
And read the review.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/85mm-f2.htm
If I were looking for an 85 this is what I would get.

MountainDave

I bought a used nifty fifty. Why not? Haven't used it extensively yet. Like one pro reviewer, I did find that contrast isn't very good wide open. So far, I've decided to keep the other EF versions I own. I have the EF 85 1.8 that I'm perfectly happy with. I am tempted to buy the 16 2.8 which could potentially replace the 16-35 4L I don't use much. My thinking is I could take it on long hikes or climbs in combo with the RF24-105 4L. I have read the 100-400 is a real bargain. I am partial to Dustin Abbott's reviews. He does some chart tests and spends a lot of time field testing to uncover weaknesses which is what I want to know. Good luck!

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Thank you for the link.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

MountainDave wrote:

I bought a used nifty fifty. Why not? Haven't used... (show quote)

Thank you!

User ID

Tracy B. wrote:

Thank you for yore answer. I'll looking at the 85mm.

in the EF series there’s absolutely nothing shabby or second rate about the non-L 85. Hopefully the RF series follows suit.

Ltgk20 Loc: Salisbury, NC

I think one thing we all can get caught up in these days is comparison paralysis. Most lenses made these days are excellent when you look at the whole picture. However, when we start comparing to other lenses and other manufacturers lenses side by side differences begin to be visible. However, most of these differences are only visible in comparison when looking at the two lenses side by side.

Capn_Dave

Canon's EF lenses are adaptable to the RF series mount. What Canon is saying we have an excellent set of lenses adaptable to the RF mount. Let's create new lenses that are more advanced for the RF cameras. At this point they are doing a bang up job. So they are going from excellent lenses to no holds bound innovation in the new series

Capn_Dave

Ltgk20 wrote:

I think one thing we all can get caught up in these days is comparison paralysis. Most lenses made these days are excellent when you look at the whole picture. However, when we start comparing to other lenses and other manufacturers lenses side by side differences begin to be visible. However, most of these differences are only visible in comparison when looking at the two lenses side by side.

If the eye can even tell