Basil Loc: New Mexico

I've only had my R5 for a couple of months and man do I love this camera. During this time I've been trying out my suite of EF lenses with the EF-RF adaptor on this camera. I also have a 5D Mark IV which I've decided to keep as a second body, so I probably won't be getting rid of any of my current EF lenses anytime soon. What EF/RF lenses do you have currently and how do your various EF lenses work for you on you "R" camera? What RF lenses do you have now and what RF lenses are on your wish list?

I currently only have one RF lens - the RF 24-105 f/4. My current EF mount lenses are as follows (with notes as to how well each works on the R5):

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8
This lens is manual focus only and mainly for night-sky and milky way photography. I've not tried it yet with the R5, but since it's manual focus only, I don't anticipate any issues.

EF 50mm f/1.4
This lens works great on the R5. AF is reasonably fast and accurate. Used mostly for walk around lens and sometimes portraits, neither of which requires ultra fast AF. The AF on this lens is not blazing fast but it's quite adequate to the task

EF 24-105 f/4
I already have the RF version so this lens is only for my 5D4. Have not tried it on the R5 but what's the point.

EF 135 f/2
This lens works great on the R5, AF seems plenty fast and accurate.

EF 70-200 f/4 Non-IS
This is the least expensive EF 70-200 from Canon. It is non-IS and I find the AF a bit laggy. I'll keep this for the 5D4 but plan to get an RF version with IS for the R5

EF 300mm f/4 IS prime
My only issue with this lens is that the IS is older technology and kinda noisy. Still, it seems to work ok with the R5.

Sigma EF 150-600 (C)
After setting the camera and lens settings to what Duade Paton suggested, I took this lens / R5 combo to Bosque Del Apache. I was very happy with the results. The AF was plenty fast (sure, not as fast as the RF 100-500 would be but so what, this lens is a little brighter and 100mm longer reach). I've no overwhelming desire to replace this with an RF equivalent.

Of course I still want to get some additional RF lenses, but given the EF lenses I already have, these are the RF lenses I am currently considering in my future (subject to change of course)

RF 70-200 f/4 IS
Even though I already have an EF 70-200, that current lens does not have IS. Also, this RF lens is very compact and light, which would make it a perfect lens to hike with. The f 2.8 version I don't feel is worth the extra $1000 (to me). First, it's noticeably heavier and, while one stop more of light is nice, for what I'd usually be shooting (landscapes), I wouldn't use that extra stop very often. From all the reviews, it appears the IQ is just as good and the bokah, while not quite as creamy, still is very nice compared to the f/2.8. I'll use that $1000 towards a couple other lenses.

RF 85 f/2 IS
This would be a companion to my 50mm for those times I want to do portrait shots, but want a little longer focal length. I've always loved the 85mm focal length for portraits, but can't see myself plunking down $2500 for the f/1.2 version. Comparisons I've seen to the 1.2 version have been very favorable. If I was making money as a portrait photographer, I might consider the f1.2 version, but as a hobbyist, the 85 f/2 looks to be great value for the money. Besides having IS, this lens also has macro capability, albeit only at 2:1 and not 1:1.

RF 15-35 f/2.8
At $1999, this is the most expensive lens on my wish list. As I shoot a lot of landscapes, I've always wanted this focal range, and this lens scratches that itch.

RF 800 f/11
I've seen some mixed reviews on this lens, but 800mm is a lot of reach for $800 (that's a dollar per mm). A lot of people balk at the idea of an f11, but I've seen some pretty good results from this lens in some reviews. The fact that my R5 can handle some pretty high ISOs, that might compensate for the lack of brightness with this lens. I'd probably rent this beast first before making a final purchase decision.

So that's my current stable of EF lenses and my wish list for future RF lenses. If you're an R-body shooter, what does your wish list look like?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You don't need f/2.8 for landscape. I'd look at the RF 14-35 f/4L IS or even the RF 15-30 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM for this wide zoom range.

The R5 IBIS enables the EF 70-200 f/4. No reason to replace this lens with an RF version. If you don't have a tripod collar for the EF lens, invest in that equipment, not replacing the lens.

Use your EF 135 for portraits, you don't need a duplicative 85mm for the same function. Add the shorter (or both) EF extension tubes to use the 135 at closer distances for macro and closer-in portraits.

Keep the 24-105 if you think you're really ever going to use a DSLR again. Put a calendar reminder for June 2023 and sell all this unused equipment when you see the reality after 6 months.

Sell the EF 50 f/1.4 and replace with the smaller and cheaper RF 50 f/1.8.

Sell the EF 300 f/4 and replace with the RF 800.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

I have the RF 16/2.8 and like it very much.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I'd suggest a different approach from what has been offered so far. Don't do anything right now. Take a deep breath. See which of your current lenses you use on your R5 the way you are doing photography now. Consider equivalent or upgrade R lenses for those lenses as near-term purchases. See if you continue to use your mirror box camera. If so, keep track of which lenses you use for it and keep those. If not, sell or gift together. You're not likely to get a ton of money for them, so there's not a huge reason to rush.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

The fact is, I am actually considering the 14-35 f/4 but leaning towards the 15-35 f/2.8 for other low light situations (not just landscapes). Very possible I might go with the 14-35mm if for no other reason than it has a 77mm filter threads, which will work will my existing filters, whereas the f/2.8 has 82mm threads.



As stated I have used this lens adopted and on the R5 the focus felt laggy and I wasn't happy with it, hence I am considering the RF version for that as well as the smaller size and weight. I'm still keeping the EF version since I'm keeping the 5D4.



I do use the 135 for portraits, but I love the 85mm focal length. The 135 compresses the background more and makes the background environment much larger. Sometimes, I like to have more of the background environment visible in the image. It's a personal preference thing which depends on the circumstance and what I want to achieve with an image. I like to have options.



I don't "think" I'm going to use the DSLR again, I know I am; for a number of reasons. First, sometimes my wife or one of my son's goes out with me and I let them use the 5D4. Also, I like having that second body with a different lens when I'm out shooting with the R5 with, for example, a 150-600, I like having the 5D4 with me, usually with the 24-105 in case I see a scene that is more suited to a wider lens and don't want to have to bother changing lenses.



No. Quite happy with the EF 50 1.4 and I can use it on both cameras.



No way. I love that prime lens. Not going to sell it anytime soon. It's been perfect for setting up on the back deck and shooting humming birds.

I appreciate the advice, I really do, but my question wasn't "What do you think is wrong with my RF lens plans, it was "What EF/RF lenses do you have currently and how do your various EF lenses work for you on you "R" camera? What RF lenses do you have now and what RF lenses are on your wish list?

None of my thoughts are in concrete yet and any lenses I get will be over a period of a couple of years. These are just my current thoughts after having used my existing lenses of the R5 and after having watched YouTube reviews till I'm blue in the face.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When the calendar reminder goes off in June, give us an update on actual vs plan.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

I appreciate the advice, but I'm not rushing anything, so no need to take a deep breath. Any purchases I make will be over a period of years and of course my choices may change in that time. I have other reasons for keeping the 5D4, not the least of which is, I'm not always going out shooting alone, sometimes my wife goes with me (or one of my son's) and this is still a great camera for them to use. Plus, I like to have a second body with a difference lens as I mentioned earlier.

But my question was, "What EF/RF lenses do you have currently and how do your various EF lenses work for you on you "R" camera? What RF lenses do you have now and what RF lenses are on your wish list?"

Cheers,
B

Basil Loc: New Mexico

You have me at a disadvantage. What happens in June? The R5 Mark II?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Understood. But I checked your profile. And I have relatives that live in New Mexico. I would trust your instincts much more than any responses that you are going to get back...

DRM Loc: NC

An alternative plan might be to replace the 5Div with an R6ii (thereby eliminating any operational differences between mirrorless and non-mirrorless, gaining mirrorless advantages in both bodies), then gradually replacing EF lenses with RF equivalents on whatever priority schedule makes sense for your shooting.

Of the RF lenses you're considering, I have these (in addition to the 24-105 f/4):
- 15-35 f/2.8
- 70-200 f/4
- 800 f/11

I got the 15-35 f/2.8 for its versatility in both landscapes AND night skies. Replaced an EF 16-35 f/2.8 and a Rokinon 14mm like yours.

I use the 70-200 f/4 for landscapes and "extractions" (or intimate landscapes). Second most frequently used lens behind the 24-105.

The 800 f/11 is fun and useful with good technique and decent light (and the ability to push ISO with the R5), but it's a novelty lens in my view. Worth the modest investment but not pro level. And by the way, it's a "beast" only, perhaps, in extended dimension; it actually weighs less than most of the RF zoom lenses.

For what it's worth, I also have these RF lenses that aren't on your list:
- 100 f/2.8 macro
- 100-500 f/5.6 - 7.1
- 100-400 f/5.6 - 8
- 1.4x extender

I have the duplicate lenses covering the 100-400mm range primarily because I caught a good sale on the non-L 100-400, and because it is a much lighter walking around lens than is the 100-500. The latter produces better image quality however, due both to build quality and likely because I'm almost always on a tripod when using it. Despite the numerous rave reviews the 100-500 has received, however, if I had it to do over I would keep my EF 100-400 f/5.6 - 6.3, avoid purchasing the 100-500, just add an extender if I needed the extra reach. I don't think imagery from the RF 100-500 is noticeably better than that from the EF 100-400.

I retained my EF 500 f/4 (original version) primarily because I can't afford an RF 600 f/4, and my 24mm and 90mm TS-E lenses--I don't use those frequently enough to warrant replacement (even if RF equivalents have been released, which I don't know).

Hope some of this rambling helps.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

My EF 24-105 f/4 is wearing out after several hundred thousand exposures over a dozen years. I’m eyeing the 28-70 RF 2.0 because of it’s incredible speed. I’ll miss the 24 and 105 range but f-2.0 is just really enticing for weddings and certain sports like basketball under the hoop. I just recently bought a new RF 70-200 2.8 and it is way sharper than my old series-1 EF model. My only complaint is in the zoom itself. Because the lens diameter is so large it takes two hand turns to go from 70 to 200. This has cost me shots a few times on sport assignments.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Yes, I could do that, but truth is, I do love my 5D Mark IV. I actually did put it up for sale here on UHH and had a couple interested parties, but those deals didn't materialize. After that I got cold feet and decided I am going to keep the 5DIV, at least for now. I still might eventually sell it, but I do love the way it feels in the hands and the images I get are top drawer.



Besides the 15-35 f/2.8 I've also been considering the 14-35 f/4. As I would mostly be using it for landscapes, it might be better to have that extra 1mm on the wide end since I would not be using f/2.8 very often. Since shooting Milky Ways is manual focus and the Rokinon I have has produced wonderful images, I'd could continue to use that for night skies.

Have you used the 15-35 for Milky Ways yet? If so, how is the chromatic aberration, etc., compared to the Rokinon?




That's what I'd be using it for also. I know the 2.8 version would yield better "bokeh" for portraits, etc., but besides being larger and heavier, it's also a lot more $$. I'd prefer to have the lighter, more compact f/4 since I don't shoot portraits that much and when shooting landscapes I would rarely need 2.8. From the reviews I've seen, the f/4 still produces decent bokeh for the occasional portraits.



This is one that is one my list, but I'm not as keen on it as I am on some of the others in my list. I do recognize that it has limited versatility, and besides, my Sigma 150-600 produces amazing images, even at 600mm on the R5



I can't see my original post as I'm typing this, but I think I may have mentioned that, if I decided not to get the 800, I would probably want to get the RF 100 f/2.8 Macro.

I could see myself one day getting the RF 100-500, but for now my Sigma gives me an extra 100mm reach and is a little brighter, even at 600mm. I was extremely happy with the results when I took the R5/ Sigma combo to Bosque Del Apache. The one big advantage I see for the 100-500 is that it's a full pound lighter.



I wish I had a 500 or 600 f/4! If I did, I doubt I'd ever get rid of it either. Thanks for the comments. It's always interesting to hear what other folks are doing with respect to RF lenses.

MountainDave

I bought a RP and R5 about 18 months ago. The RP is used for long hikes and climbs. I had 12 or so EF lenses at the time. Like you, my first RF lens was the 24-105 4L which I use almost exclusively on the RP. My EF 24-70 2.8L II has been and still is my workhorse. I would like to have the RF version but he only benefit is IS and it would cost me at least 1500. to make the swap, so I'll wait. All the EF lenses work better on the R5 but some more than others. So far, I've only "upgraded" two. Nine months ago, I replaced my much loved and much used 100-400L IS II with the RF 100-500 which exceeded my expectations. The 100-400 didn't benefit that much from the R5 compared to other EF lenses. With the 100-500, I got lighter weight, insanely good eye detect on birds, great tracking, and much faster, consistent accurate AF vs. the 100-400. See if you can try one out vs. the Sigma. I think you'll be blown away. I think you would love it for your hummingbirds. About five months ago, I replaced my 70-200 4L IS II with the RF version. You mentioned hiking (I'm in CO) and that was my primary reason for switching. The EF version is a great zoom but eye detect didn't work great and it didn't track great either. As you know, the RF version is much shorter and lighter. The reduction in MFD also helps for taking wildflower shots. It works great on the RP too, so it is now my preferred hiking lens. You mentioned the 135 2L which is one of my favorites and it did greatly benefit from use on the R5, especially the AF. Having said that, I did preorder the RF 1.8 IS version. There are too many improvements to ignore. I rarely use wide angles and sold my EF 16-35 4L IS. I did buy the RF 16 2.8 which I will carry in my pack for instances when I feel like playing with the wide angle. This isn't practical with a heavy zoom. I have the EF 85 1.8 and don't plan to replace. I've read good things about the RF 85 2.0. Nothing else is on my radar now. There are rumors of some pretty innovative lenses in the pipeline, so I would rather buy something I don't already have vs. a replacement.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

That 28-70 f/2 is a BEAST. If I were a wedding photog, or other wise shooting a lot of portraits, I'd be all over that thing! But since I'm mostly a landscape and night sky shooter, I'll have to admire the work of others with that lens!

If I were mostly a sports shooter, or portrait shooter, I'd be looking at the 70-200 f/2.8 also, but since I would mostly be using it for landscapes, I'm looking at the f/4 version for it's reduced size and weight. I would not have enough occasion to need f/2.8 to warrant an additional $1000, not that I wouldn't love to have it.

I've heard that complaint about the long throw on the 70-200 in some review videos.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

I might have to rent one of those just to try it out. To be honest I was pretty happy with the AF on my R5/Sigma combo. It was really a lot better than I had expected it would be (I used Duade Paton's suggested AF settings in the camera and his suggested settings in the Sigma, done with the Sigma Dock.). One big advantage the RF 100-500 has for sure is that it is a full pound lighter.



That's been my philosophy too, so far. I still love my 5D4 and don't see any real need to get rid of it. I have a lot of $ invested in EF glass, and if some of my EF glass is working great with the R5, what's the rush to replace it? With the exception of the 70-200, most of the RF lenses on my list are things I don't already have. My EF 70-200 is the very first generation NON-IS f/4 and I've found that it is one of the EF lenses for which the AF doesn't work well on the R5, hence my desire to get the RF 70-200 f/4. (By the way, I went to high school in Colorado and that's my military "home of record"). What part of CO? I was in Aurora.