PJNIGHT Loc: MASSAPEQUA, NY

[quotMy e=Ruthlessrider]I have an EOS 5DIV and recently purchased an R5 with the EOS lens adapter. My intention, when I first bought the R5, was to use it until I was was comfortable with it and then sell the 5DIV and EF lenses purchasing RF lenses of similar range as replacements. Since purchasing the R5 I have purchased an RF800mm lens that I occasionally use and enjoy. As I contemplated following through with my plan it suddenly struck me that it may not make sense to follow through with the plan, especially since I have enjoy the flexibility of having two cameras of this quality available at the ready. As a result I thought I would throw it out to the wider experience base of UGG for opinions.

With two fairly high quality cameras that I can currently shoot every lens with except the RF lens (forget that the transition would cost a significant bundle for the moment) does it really make sense to change out the EF lenses for RF? Is there significant photo quality to be gained in going from using EF lenses on an R5 to all RF lenses? Even if I sold the 5DIV would it make sense to go from EF to RF?[/quote]

My R5 and R6 work very well with my EF lens and the canon adapter, too expensive to sell my EF lens and replace with new RF lens

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

I have these two Canon bodies, and others, I like my toys, and have the trinity og Canon lens, plus thrpe 100-400, along with two tc units, and ef to rf adapters. They all@are interchangeable on all my Canon bodies.Completely satisfied.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

You've gotten some interesting replies. From what read, everyone responding by focusing on the lenses. To me, that misses the question completely.

Your quandary has nothing to do with lenses. It has to do with the fact that you still like and enjoy shooting with your 5DIV.

So if I were in your shoes, I'd just take a deep breath and quit worrying about the question. See if you continue to enjoy shooting the 5DIV. If so, you still have what you need to support doing that, and you can buy a key R lens or two as time goes by. If not, you can sell your mirror box camera in a market that perhaps is not as oversaturated as it is now.

Ruthlessrider

Thanks again to everyone who responded. A lot of good comments that include a good amount of experience wisdom. I think I will focus on improving, and perhaps consolidating the lenses I have.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Just remember that if you keep an EF body that no RF lens will work on it so EF lens(s) must be retained.

IHH61 Loc: Homestead Fl

Here is a slightly different perspective. The longer you wait to sell your 5D and EF lenses the less you will get for them. The RF equivalent lenses are in general lighter and smaller and probably a little “better” but L series glass is already great.

Hugh

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

I have the R5 and several EF lenses. I bought the 70-200 RF after my old EF-1 started wearing out. The RF model is definitely an improvement in all aspects, but I have no plans to replace my other lenses until they too wear out. The cost is just too prohibitive.

cmceagle

After many years with a 7dII focusing on BIF, I decided to try the R7. I saw no difference with the EF 100-400 LII and the adapter on the R7. I'm not sure what range of lens are compatible with the adapter but I see no issues with the longer lens. I do have two issues with the general DLSR/mirrorless discussion. First is the difference between button driven versus menu driven camera bodies. BIF requires great familiarity with how to rapidly adjust the camera but after using the menu process of the R7, I lost the rhythm with the 7dII buttons. I think the question then is how comfortable you are in switching between the two systems. My second issue is with the electronic viewfinder on the R7. In quick reaction shots, like a Virginia Rail running across a boardwalk, the optical viewfinder of the 7dII is superior compared to the time delays with the electronic viewfinder of the R7. Now I am working to improve my performance with the R7 and a RF 100-500 while the 7dII and EF 100-400LII remain on the shelf.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Personally I shoot an R5 having let go of a 5DIV and 5Dsr when I made the transition to the mirrorless body. I have since purchased a few RF lenses, the 15-35, I have the 24-105L that came with the mirrorless body and the 100mm RF macro. I do like the 24-105 for a general walk around lens, the 100mm macro was a definite upgrade from the EF equivalent, but the 15-35 was mostly a vanity purchase and probably a waste of money given that I already owned excellent EF equivalents.

Bottomline in my opinion is that if you already have good EF glass I would not be in too much of a hurry to purchase RF lenses, they are good but the EF glass you probably already have is also good glass. I still use my Sigma Art lenses as well as my EF telephotos on my R5 and produce excellent results.

(Download)


(Download)

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

I have the 5DIV and the R5 also.
If you shoot mostly landscapes and general photography, keep the 5DIV as your backup, but don't invest another dime in EF lenses, etc.
If you shoot people, animals, sports, and anything which moves suddenly, the R5 with eye and focus tracking is heads and shoulders better.
Image quality for both is great, however, the R5 at 45MP and the 5DIV at 30.4MP could be an issue when cropping.
If co$t is an issue using the EF/RF adapter is a great interim move.
Finally: I'm glad that I made the change to the Canon RF system so that I no longer have Any Excuses for the quality (or lack of) of shots that I make, grin.
Remember, You have to shoot and pay for what you buy and the UHHers here can Really Spend your $$$ chasing "The Perfect Camera Gear".
So, Best Wishes, and . . . .
Smile,
JimmyT Sends

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

True, just look at the price of a new 5DIV compared to just a few years ago.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1274705-REG/canon_eos_5d_mark_iv.html?sts=pi

piperplt

Optically the EF glass should perform identically on either the 5DIV or R5 since the adapter does not introduce any additional glass between the lens and the sensor. The only purpose of the adapter is so the lens focuses properly on the sensor since the distance from lens to sensor is different on each camera. The only advantages in switching would be a slight reduction in weight and possibly picking up another stop or two of IS. I do have a Sigma 150 to 600 I haven't tried with the R5 yet but I rarely use it anyway. For me at least, I'm going to keep my EF glass to use with both cameras and my 5DIV as a backup body.

MountainDave

Odds are when you get familiar with the R5, the 5D4 will collect dust. But that's not a reason to replace all of your EF glass.

I had a dozen or so EF lenses when I bought a R5 two years ago. I have been slow to replace them. When considering a RF lens, the first question I ask myself is "would I buy it if it were just an EF upgrade?" Second question is "how much do I use the EF version?" Third, "is it worth the cost?" For example, I replaced my 100-400L II with the 100-500L. It's longer, lighter, sharper and has much better AF, so I would have bought it as an EF lens and I use it a lot. The cost did hurt, however. Conversely, I have yet to replace my EF 24-70 2.8L II. Reviews all conclude there is little IQ improvement and it doesn't save any weight. The swap would cost around 1500. and all I would get is the addition of IS.

Rather than replace your EF lenses, you can buy RF lenses that add to your arsenal instead.

Bottom line: no rush.

williejoha

I own both the R5 and the the 5DIII and I use them both. The R5 has the RF 100-500 mounted and the 5D III either the the 28-70 f:2.8 or the 24-105. This set up works great for the stuff that I do.
WJH