Update from ef to rf? I have a R7 with ef 24-70 f4 & ef 70-100 f4. If I were to replace one with a rf 2.8 lens, which would you recommend? I shoot street photography festivals etc. and...

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

I have a R7 with ef 24-70 f4 & ef 70-100 f4. If I were to replace one with a rf 2.8 lens, which would you recommend?
I shoot street photography festivals etc. and flowers.
Thanks for your input

gouldopfl

I only have 1 RF lens and the rest are all EF lenses using the adapter. For many of the lenses, I get better results than on my DSLR. If I was a professional, I might consider upgrading but I'm not sure. The best thing you can do is get the Canon EF-RF adapter and try using your current lenses. I bought the Canon because I wanted to insure compatibility. IMO, Canon probably over engineered it. If fully allows your new camera to communicate. I have a mix of Canon and Tamron lenses. Unless you can justify the new lenses because they are expensive, test what you have. You might find a used lens on KEH, MPB, Adorama, Robert's camera or other reliable dealer and they cost more. I purchased on RF lens that was grades as E++ and when I received it, I'm not sure it was ever opened. I saved $150.00 on it.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

A 24-70 is a very versatile lens, while 70-100 doesn't give you much more reach than the far end of the 24-70. Maybe replace the 24-70 and later get a 70-200? BTW, have you tried an adapter for your current lenses?

PSims46 Loc: Maryland

junglejim1949 wrote:

I have a R7 with ef 24-70 f4 & ef 70-100 f4. If I were to replace one with a rf 2.8 lens, which would you recommend?
I shoot street photography festivals etc. and flowers.
Thanks for your input

I’m a Nikon guy so I don’t know much about your system. But I do have the Nikon version of the 24-70 2.8 and I have used it for most of my street photography and festivals doing my travels. It went with me to Europe and many of the states here in the USA. I wouldn’t give it up for anything unless it was for an upgrade to the VR one that’s out now. It gives me some wide angle plus some tele pass 50mm. It’s just a very good walk around lens.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

gouldopfl wrote:

I only have 1 RF lens and the rest are all EF lens... (show quote)

Good info thanks

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

DWU2 wrote:

A 24-70 is a very versatile lens, while 70-100 doesn't give you much more reach than the far end of the 24-70. Maybe replace the 24-70 and later get a 70-200? BTW, have you tried an adapter for your current lenses?

Yes, I have the adaptor. The lenses seem to work well. I was thinking of trading up from a f4 to the f2.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Which one are you most likely to use indoors? That's where the extra stop will show its value.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

junglejim1949 wrote:

I have a R7 with ef 24-70 f4 & ef 70-100 f4. If I were to replace one with a rf 2.8 lens, which would you recommend?
I shoot street photography festivals etc. and flowers.
Thanks for your input

Sounds like a 24-70 f2.8 for the uses you describe.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Architect1776 wrote:

Sounds like a 24-70 f2.8 for the uses you describe.

Appreciate your input as I know you have a R7

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

junglejim1949 wrote:

Appreciate your input as I know you have a R7

You are welcome, we need to stick together.

Opusx300

PSims46 wrote:

I’m a Nikon guy so I don’t know much about your system. But I do have the Nikon version of the 24-70 2.8 and I have used it for most of my street photography and festivals doing my travels. It went with me to Europe and many of the states here in the USA. I wouldn’t give it up for anything unless it was for an upgrade to the VR one that’s out now. It gives me some wide angle plus some tele pass 50mm. It’s just a very good walk around lens.

I would also consider the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4. I know it’s not a 2.8 but it takes fantastic pictures. I have used it at fairs on my R5.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Opusx300 wrote:

I would also consider the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4. I know it’s not a 2.8 but it takes fantastic pictures. I have used it at fairs on my R5.

My favorite is the 24-105 as well. I debated over the 2
8 vs 4 and the far more versatility of additional focal length won out.
This is EF.
But OP was asking about f2.8.
If I were adding a lens to my R7 it would absolutely be the 24-240mm. Relatively small and super versatile. Would be on the camera all the time except when a wider or longer lens is called for.
Another strong contender would be RFs 18-150mm even though a crop lens.
If I went FF no big deal as most my lenses including the 24-105mm are FF lenses.

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

It was never a matter of discussion, for me, not to go with the widest aperture available considering its advantages in low light (noise) & dof.

By the way, I was not aware of a 70-100 lens - perhaps you meant 70-200?

MountainDave

Based on my experience, you will get a big bump in quality with the RF 24-70 2.8L. You don't mention if you have version I or II of the (I assume) 70-200. If it is version I, then you should definitely upgrade. You might consider the RF f/4 version in that case. I went with the RF 70-200 4L because of the light weight, small size, pretty short MFD and decent magnification. It has become my go to hiking lens and I have carried it to summits over 14K. You mentioned flowers. I take a lot of wildflower shots and this lens is so good at it, I don't use my 100 macro much anymore. Of course, with a R7, your field of view is actually 112-320 which is less versatile. I used to have a 77D for hiking and most of the time attached a Ef 24-70 2.8L II which gave me excellent results. In any event, spend some time reading pro reviews of all the lenses you consider.

RolandDieter

Your R7 is an APS cropped sensor, so that is the first factor to consider. If you are planning to go full-frame, look at FF lenses; otherwise save weight and money by sticking to APS. Your 70-100 is equivalent to 112 - 160 FF, and fast shutter speed can become quite important, especially at the longer end. So I would choose that focal length if moving to a 2.8. On then other hand, you might want the extra bokeh of 2.8 if using the wider lens for flowers, etc.