Lenses for Canon R5: I shoot with a Canon R5 with which I am extremely pleased. My walkabout is the RF 24-105 but I often find that 24 isn't wide enough so I'm looking at the RF...

DonVA Loc: British Columbia and New Mexico

I shoot with a Canon R5 with which I am extremely pleased. My walkabout is the RF 24-105 but I often find that 24 isn't wide enough so I'm looking at the RF 14-35MM F4 L IS USM. b
This thing is expensive, $2250 in Canada.
The EF 16-35MM F4L IS USM is $1400. I already have the adapter ring to make this work with my R5. I'd like to hear thoughts on buying EF lenses for an R camera instead of the more expensive RF lenses.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

DonVA wrote:

I shoot with a Canon R5 with which I am extremely pleased. My walkabout is the RF 24-105 but I often find that 24 isn't wide enough so I'm looking at the RF 14-35MM F4 L IS USM. b
This thing is expensive, $2250 in Canada.
The EF 16-35MM F4L IS USM is $1400. I already have the adapter ring to make this work with my R5. I'd like to hear thoughts on buying EF lenses for an R camera instead of the more expensive RF lenses.

Canon is forcing people's hands. Almost simultaneous with the RF announced lens, the corresponding EF / EF-S lens goes out of production.

The final round of EF lenses (the vIIs and vIIIs and new models) were designed for higher mega-pixel cameras. These lenses, by default, are designed for the EOS R5.

ELNikkor

Check and see if the Sigma ART 12-24 will work with that adapter. It will go even wider, and won't be redundant above 24mm like the 14-35.

DonVA Loc: British Columbia and New Mexico

ELNikkor wrote:

Check and see if the Sigma ART 12-24 will work with that adapter. It will go even wider, and won't be redundant above 24mm like the 14-35.

Thanks for that. I looked at that lens and yes, it is available for Canon but definitely not cheaper.
I don't mind that overlap because it would reduce the need to change lenses. As well, as I should have mentioned the IS is essential for me, even with the R5's in body IS. Without it everything in my viewfinder does a little dance.

DonVA Loc: British Columbia and New Mexico

CHG_CANON wrote:

The final round of EF lenses (the vIIs and vIIIs and new models) were designed for higher mega-pixel cameras. These lenses, by default, are designed for the EOS R5.

Thanks CHG_CANON. I was hoping you would reply. How will I know if I have one of these newer lenses?

User ID

DonVA wrote:

I shoot with a Canon R5 with which I am extremely pleased. My walkabout is the RF 24-105 but I often find that 24 isn't wide enough so I'm looking at the RF 14-35MM F4 L IS USM. b
This thing is expensive, $2250 in Canada.
The EF 16-35MM F4L IS USM is $1400. I already have the adapter ring to make this work with my R5. I'd like to hear thoughts on buying EF lenses for an R camera instead of the more expensive RF lenses.

I use adapted EF lenses instead far more expensive native Sony lenses. In your case you’ll get even better compatibility since everything is of the same brand.

If the more expensive native lenses are better, that is of no interest to me. You are interested in the 16-35. I use the 17-40 which does not have a stellar reputation. Thus, possibly, others are using the superior lens. However, I am making the superior photographs.

Adapted EF lenses are kinda big and clunky, but they were no less big and clunky when they were on an SLR, and SLRs lack IBIS.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

DonVA wrote:

Thanks CHG_CANON. I was hoping you would reply. How will I know if I have one of these newer lenses?

The 24-70 f/2.8L II was released in 2012, a lens the Canon zooms are measured against. The list below gives all EF lenses from 2012 onward. The 50MP EOS R5Ds came out in 2015.

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/series_search.html?t=lens&s=ef&y1=2012

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

CHG_CANON wrote:

Canon is forcing people's hands. Almost simultaneous with the RF announced lens, the corresponding EF / EF-S lens goes out of production.

The final round of EF lenses (the vIIs and vIIIs and new models) were designed for higher mega-pixel cameras. These lenses, by default, are designed for the EOS R5.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

I’m extremely happy with all my EF lenses on the R5. Right now I don’t see any need to purchase an R lens. As soon as I do I’ll have a mis-match with the adapter being stuck on the last lens I used. Now I simply leave the adapter on the camera and change lenses as needed. The EF’s I own perform better than they ever did on all the 5D cameras I own, so I plan to check the used market for mint condition EF’s as long as they’re available, and save lots of money at the same time.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Tomfl101 wrote:

I’m extremely happy with all my EF lenses on the R5. Right now I don’t see any need to purchase an R lens. As soon as I do I’ll have a mis-match with the adapter being stuck on the last lens I used. Now I simply leave the adapter on the camera and change lenses as needed. The EF’s I own perform better than they ever did on all the 5D cameras I own, so I plan to check the used market for mint condition EF’s as long as they’re available, and save lots of money at the same time.

That is the joy of the EF/EFs lenses, that no matter how old they are they ALL work as designed on the RF cameras and as you said even better than before.
Thank you for the update.

MountainDave

Having recently bought a R5, I'm in the same boat. I have 13 carefully chosen EF lenses. I have read many pro and user reviews on possible replacements. Some of the "upgrades" would be expensive to swap. I would like to hear from those who have swapped their EF lenses for RF.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

MountainDave wrote:

Having recently bought a R5, I'm in the same boat. I have 13 carefully chosen EF lenses. I have read many pro and user reviews on possible replacements. Some of the "upgrades" would be expensive to swap. I would like to hear from those who have swapped their EF lenses for RF.

I can't speak from experience, other than about once a month looking at a list of current lenses and thinking / rethinking what to swap for RF.

Two areas I think make a difference today in the RF line up are:

1) The 70-200 zoom - Canon has completely redesigned this lens to now extend from a more compact size, rather than the internal zoom / fixed-size of all the EF models. If you're holding onto any EF models, swap these for the f/4 or f/2.8 RF version.

2) The wide angle zoom - If you have the EF versions of the 16-35 f/2.8L III or the EF 11-24 f/4L, you're set. The 16-35 f/4L IS fits in this 'keep' category. But for everything else, swap them out for the RF selection that best fits your focal length and aperture needs, being the RF 14-35 f/4L IS, the RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS, or wait for the RF 10-24 f/4L.

As Canon delivers more RF lenses, things will continue to change. If the RF 135L brings a wider aperture, that may be a reason to change that lens. The RF 28-70 f/2L is another unique animal, maybe too big and expensive for many.

DaveJ Loc: NE Missouri

I bought an R5 just over a year ago. I have used all the EF lens I owned with as good or mostly better results on my R5. My thought are it depends on how much you use the particular lens. I am keeping my EF 16-35 F4, 100 MM f4 IS macro, 24-105 F4 IS II, and 50mm F1.8. I don't use these lens as often. I bought the RF 800mm F11 a year ago and have had fun and good results with it. I used my 300mm F2.8 IS II a bunch, and 100-400 IS II a lot. I just sold the 300mm, and my SO has wanted the 100-400, so it is hers now. I just got the RF 100-500. I crop a lot on wildlife, so the R5 lends itself very well for that. My backup is a 6D MK II and it works well with the wider lens for my shooting. There are some improvements in the Rf glass. The only thing on my radar is the RF 1.4X, which I will get in the next couple weeks. You will have to do your own cost benefit comparison to see what works for you. Don't be the least bit afraid to use the Ef Glass on the R cameras.

MountainDave

DaveJ wrote:

I bought an R5 just over a year ago. I have used a... (show quote)

How would you compare the 100-500 vs 100-400 so far? BTW, the only RF lens I have is the 24-105 4L which I do think is much better and 1/2 lb. lighter than the EF version. I always thought the EF 24-105 offerings were the weak links in Canon's lineup.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

MountainDave wrote:

How would you compare the 100-500 vs 100-400 so far? BTW, the only RF lens I have is the 24-105 4L which I do think is much better and 1/2 lb. lighter than the EF version. I always thought the EF 24-105 offerings were the weak links in Canon's lineup.

My step daughter has the RF 100-500mm.
She came to visit and the final product between it and my 100-400mm MII was not readily visible to my eye. But there was no pixel peeping. I did like it better overall though.