EF vs RF (Page 3): I have the the R5 and the 5DIV. All of my EF glass works fine on the R5. The RF glass is very good but expensive. The RF28-70 f2 is a phenomenal lens. The first zoom...

ThreeCee Loc: Washington, DC

I have the the R5 and the 5DIV. All of my EF glass works fine on the R5. The RF glass is very good but expensive. The RF28-70 f2 is a phenomenal lens. The first zoom I like as well as my primes. The RF lenses have a ring that can be programmed for quick adjustment. I have mine set for exposure compensation. It works well for bird photography.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

ThreeCee wrote:

I have the the R5 and the 5DIV. All of my EF glass works fine on the R5. The RF glass is very good but expensive. The RF28-70 f2 is a phenomenal lens. The first zoom I like as well as my primes. The RF lenses have a ring that can be programmed for quick adjustment. I have mine set for exposure compensation. It works well for bird photography.

The control ring adapter for EF lenses provides the same features on EF lenses as the RF lenses control ring does.
Like you I have found this unique to Canon feature a real plus to keep old EF lenses right up there in capabilities.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

ThreeCee wrote:

I have the the R5 and the 5DIV. All of my EF glass works fine on the R5. The RF glass is very good but expensive. The RF28-70 f2 is a phenomenal lens. The first zoom I like as well as my primes. The RF lenses have a ring that can be programmed for quick adjustment. I have mine set for exposure compensation. It works well for bird photography.

Yes, very expensive but glad to hear you really like it. Some have reported it was very heavy?

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

JW from PA wrote:

Hi, I moved from the 5D Mark III to the R6 Mark II... (show quote)

Thanks much Joe.

RJWagons Loc: Lake Ridge Virginia

Apparently those of you who have the R5 and R6 are in good shape while the R7 raises some questions. A good case where $$$ makes a difference I guess. I had one for a year and always had trouble with the focusing. Camera store intimated the problem was me not the camera. I finally sold it and then I saw on internet someone else who had the same problem. Sometimes focusing is OK, other times not- jumps around. This other person sent his R7 to Canon and this is what they told him after checking it over thoroughly:
"We believe the AF issues you have presented are a limitation of EOS R7 capabilities. The EOS R3, R5, and R6, Mark II have AF speeds that are superior to the R7." Apparently they don't all have this problem. It is an excellent camera in many ways, but with focus issues you have a major problem if you're shooting anything that moves. Good luck.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

junglejim1949 wrote:

I moved to mirrorless and purchased an R7 and am p... (show quote)

You already own some pretty good lenses, not sure if you would notice any appreciable difference by upgrading to RF lenses especially if you are not buying the expensive L lenses. I have been shooting an R5 for a couple of years now and own 3 RF L series lenses but I can't say with the exception of the 100mm macro which offers higher magnification that the EF equivalent that I notice much difference from my EF lenses other than the RF lenses typically cost more.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

RJWagons wrote:

Apparently those of you who have the R5 and R6 are... (show quote)

Interesting, I just shot a dog race with an R7 and no AF issues including tracking.
There are many setting options, make sure you are set for what you are shooting.

cullumjt Loc: Central Florida

Ruthlessrider wrote:

I own an R5 and have had no problems with either RF or EF lenses I own.

Ditto here. Everything I have, a mix of EF and RF, works flawlessly…the EF lenses with the adapter, of course.

dwmoar Loc: Oregon, Willamette Valley

AFPhoto wrote:

Hi,… I went full RF after I bought my R5. I had a ... (show quote)

What extra control would that be?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

dwmoar wrote:

What extra control would that be?

Yes, what?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Architect1776 wrote:

Yes, what?

One would have to assume he is talking about the control ring but personally I don't use it so much, I do have it set to aperture but it is just as easy to thumb a dial.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Blurryeyed wrote:

One would have to assume he is talking about the control ring but personally I don't use it so much, I do have it set to aperture but it is just as easy to thumb a dial.

The EF have a control ring available on the adapter and I do use it.
So no extra points for RF there.
The EF lenses are all electric control so they all can have the control ring features if desired.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Architect1776 wrote:

The EF have a control ring available on the adapter and I do use it.
So no extra points for RF there.
The EF lenses are all electric control so they all can have the control ring features if desired.

Yeah, I know, I have several EF L series lenses as well as Sigma Arts which I find to be as good as Canon's L series.... The only RF lenses I have are the 15-35, the 24-105, and the 100 Macro. have had an itch for the 100-500 but would not get enough use out of it and my 100-400 II and 300 f/2.8 II with extenders is really more than I need.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Blurryeyed wrote:

Yeah, I know, I have several EF L series lenses as well as Sigma Arts which I find to be as good as Canon's L series.... The only RF lenses I have are the 15-35, the 24-105, and the 100 Macro. have had an itch for the 100-500 but would not get enough use out of it and my 100-400 II and 300 f/2.8 II with extenders is really more than I need.

That's how I feel about all my EF lenses.
They are plenty sharp and do all I need.
Then with the FD-RF adapter I now regularly use my R/FL/FD lenses and really enjoy them.
The R system is so versatile for me. I even use some old Nikon lenses I kept after upgrading to Canon.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Blurryeyed wrote:

You already own some pretty good lenses, not sure if you would notice any appreciable difference by upgrading to RF lenses especially if you are not buying the expensive L lenses. I have been shooting an R5 for a couple of years now and own 3 RF L series lenses but I can't say with the exception of the 100mm macro which offers higher magnification that the EF equivalent that I notice much difference from my EF lenses other than the RF lenses typically cost more.

Good to know... Thanks