Just for fun comparison. 30 years old EF lens vs new RF lens
Jul 2, 2023 14:29:14 #
So I have a nearly 30 year old EF 135 f/2 lens, which I can use on my R5 with an adaptor. I also have a new RF 70-200 f/4 lens. Just for grins, I wanted to shoot some comparison shots between the 30 year old EF glass and the brand new RF glass. To make the comparison fair, I shot all images at f/4, ISO 100 and set the focal length for the 70-200 at 135mm. In the two sets of images, can you tell which would be the 30 year old EF lens and which is the new RF?
Jul 2, 2023 15:02:50 #
Basil wrote:
So I have a nearly 30 year old EF 135 f/2 lens, which I can use on my R5 with an adaptor. I also have a new RF 70-200 f/4 lens. Just for grins, I wanted to shoot some comparison shots between the 30 year old EF glass and the brand new RF glass. To make the comparison fair, I shot all images at f/4, ISO 100 and set the focal length for the 70-200 at 135mm. In the two sets of images, can you tell which would be the 30 year old EF lens and which is the new RF?
Nope, all four images seem to have the same Resolution / IQ when I zoom in on the Flower Pollen. Depth of field is shallow in all four so I would have shot them at f/8 & f/11 (to see if f/8 is enough) and used a tripod since the shutter speed would be shower at f/8 & f/11 than at f/4.
Jul 2, 2023 15:09:46 #
lamiaceae wrote:
Nope, all four images seem to have the same Resolution / IQ when I zoom in on the Flower Pollen. Depth of field is shallow in all four so I would have shot them at f/8 & f/11 (to see if f/8 is enough) and used a tripod since the shutter speed would be shower at f/8 & f/11 than at f/4.
I guess my point was to see how close they would be at the same wide f-stop. I know which is which, but if I didn't, I don't think I could tell. I might repeat the exercise at a smaller aperture just for grins.
One thing I did notice was that the newer RF lens, with the same f-stop and ISO, used a slightly faster shutter speed for what the R5 thought was proper exposure. This suggests (I think) that the newer RF lens lets in a bit more light than the EF 135 (at least at f/4).
Moral is, even thought that 135 f/2 is 30 years old, I'm keeping it!
Jul 2, 2023 15:55:01 #
Moral is, even thought that 135 f/2 is 30 years old, I'm keeping it!
Good glass NEVER goes out of style!
Good glass NEVER goes out of style!
Jul 2, 2023 16:13:17 #
My 135MM 2.0 is about as old as yours
Great Shots!!
I sure can't see much if any difference --
But rest assured ---
When Canon finally comes out with its Prime RF version of the EF-135mm it sure won't sell for $900.00+/-
Great Shots!!
I sure can't see much if any difference --
But rest assured ---
When Canon finally comes out with its Prime RF version of the EF-135mm it sure won't sell for $900.00+/-
Jul 2, 2023 16:16:42 #
ken_stern wrote:
My 135MM 2.0 is about as old as yours
Great Shots!!
I sure can't see much if any difference --
But rest assured ---
When Canon finally comes out with its Prime RF version of the EF-135mm it sure won't sell for $900.00+/-
Great Shots!!
I sure can't see much if any difference --
But rest assured ---
When Canon finally comes out with its Prime RF version of the EF-135mm it sure won't sell for $900.00+/-
They actually have come out with an RF-135 f/1.8 (limiter release) and it’s a whopping $2100! Makes me love my EF even more!
Jul 2, 2023 16:22:05 #
Basil wrote:
They actually have come out with an RF-135 f/1.8 (limiter release) and it’s a whopping $2100! Makes me love my EF even more!
I'll give that a resounding OMG!!!
I'm also keeping mine -- Even if I ever go mirrorless
Who knows --
This lack of difference "may" hold true for the rest of Canons (old Fashion) EF L-Primes
Jul 3, 2023 00:22:26 #
Basil wrote:
I guess my point was to see how close they would b... (show quote)
I own 35+ Lenses I can use on my DSLRs and SLRs (several of each), no MILCs yet. And of course many of the Primes and Zooms have overlapping focal lengths, so I have noticed that exposure or transmission difference between different lenses at the same F-stop, Focal Length, and ISO on the same camera. But not is a controlled intentional experiment like you did. I figure that to be from differences in coatings and optical designs. A have a few lenses that I suspect are not as sharp, saturated or contrasty as others.
Jul 3, 2023 00:27:56 #
lamiaceae wrote:
I figure that to be from differences in coatings and optical designs.
I figure that to be from differences in coatings and optical designs.
I suspect you’re right about that.
If I feel extra bored one of these days I may do more comparisons with this EF 135 and maybe my EF 50 f/1.4 too compared with perhaps my RF 24-105.
Jul 3, 2023 05:22:46 #
Basil wrote:
So I have a nearly 30 year old EF 135 f/2 lens, which I can use on my R5 with an adaptor. I also have a new RF 70-200 f/4 lens. Just for grins, I wanted to shoot some comparison shots between the 30 year old EF glass and the brand new RF glass. To make the comparison fair, I shot all images at f/4, ISO 100 and set the focal length for the 70-200 at 135mm. In the two sets of images, can you tell which would be the 30 year old EF lens and which is the new RF?
Jul 3, 2023 05:38:41 #
Some of what I consider fine shots I made using old lenses, like my 105mm f2.5 and the 70-210 f4-5.6 Nikon lenses.
My eyes cannot see the difference among your shots.
My eyes cannot see the difference among your shots.
Jul 3, 2023 09:10:53 #
camerapapi wrote:
Some of what I consider fine shots I made using old lenses, like my 105mm f2.5 and the 70-210 f4-5.6 Nikon lenses.
My eyes cannot see the difference among your shots.
My eyes cannot see the difference among your shots.
I'm not sure if it's a testament to how good that old EF 135 is, or how much better Zooms have gotten in recent years. I know that once upon a time, a Zoom lens was considered a compromise when compared to the sharpness and IQ of a good prime, but Zoom lenses these days have gotten so good that there really isn't any compromise to speak of.
Jul 3, 2023 09:52:58 #
To my old eyes A & C may be the RF model but I too would keep the EF.
Jul 3, 2023 13:24:28 #
Basil wrote:
So I have a nearly 30 year old EF 135 f/2 lens, which I can use on my R5 with an adaptor. I also have a new RF 70-200 f/4 lens. Just for grins, I wanted to shoot some comparison shots between the 30 year old EF glass and the brand new RF glass. To make the comparison fair, I shot all images at f/4, ISO 100 and set the focal length for the 70-200 at 135mm. In the two sets of images, can you tell which would be the 30 year old EF lens and which is the new RF?
I use a suite of ol' Minolta AF lenses on my Sony A7S, A7 III and A7R V and find them more than adequate; good glass never dies!
bwa
Jul 4, 2023 13:57:05 #
Don, the 2nd son wrote:
To my old eyes A & C may be the RF model but I too would keep the EF.
You got one right.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.