I replaced my EF 100-400L II with the 100-500 20 months ago. I agonized over the switch for some time before making the plunge. My only regret was not doing it sooner. The 100-500 is better in every way, especially AF precision and tracking. Plus you get another 100mm and lose a 1 lb. of weight. I use a R5.

Check out reviews online of this lens on various camera bodies. There are reports the R7 AF lacks some consistency.

No rush. Make the transition an enjoyable journey. I took two years to replace 5 of the 12 EF lenses I had. Upon reflection, the RF lenses are a joy to use and generally better than I expected. A few of the swaps were painfully expensive but I see top quality lenses as very long term investments.

I "transitioned" from a 5D4 and 77D to a R5 and RP 28 months ago. I had 12 EF lenes at the time. Over the next two years, I slowly bought 7 RF lenses replacing the ones I use most. I'm now standing pat but will likely buy the new 200-800 at some point. I sold everything I replaced except the 135 2L because it takes an extender which the RF version does not. It's also not worth much.

It sounds like your daughter has no spare time now, so I would sell all the DSLRs. They are just sinking in value while you wait. Ditto the EF lenses you've replaced. Use the money to buy a R5. You'll be glad you did. You can buy her a shiny new mirrorless when she graduates.

yes

What exactly do you want to do with it that you can't now?

Macro enthusiasts will argue that the 85's magnification of .5X is not a true macro vs. the 100's 1X or 1.4X in the RF's case. 0.5X is very good and makes the lens more flexible, just not in the same league as the 100.

I read the same reviews and opted to keep my EF version. The RF version is clearly sharper but the EF version is sharp enough. The issue with focus shift makes the RF version a non starter for me. Justin Abbott showed this issue clearly in his youtube review when photographing his cat. He also mentioned he's owned the EF version longer than any other lens! That's true for me too. I use mine mostly in summer on high country hikes to photograph alpine wildflowers. During these excursions, I've had occasion to also photograph my wife, dogs, landscapes and critters. It produces beautiful, compelling images in all circumstances. I would buy one used for around 500.

GWilliams6--The AF issues were mainly with the R7 which is known to have some issues anyway. It looked like AF worked really well on the R5. The quality issue that gave me some pause was when he photographed something against a very bright background and got some "bleeding" or haze on the subject. He theorized it could be the result of not having low dispersion or coated elements that are found in L glass.

Did you see he plans to do a comparison with the RF 100-500, Sony's 200-600 and maybe Nikon's zoom too? I already have the 100-500 so I'll probably wait to see how it compares head to head.

I watched Jan Wegner's extensive review and was impressed with the images, especially resolution even with extenders. I like his reviews because 1. he always points out any deficiencies and 2. he is all about shooting birds which is what I mostly do with long lenses. At 1899., it's very tempting. I think there could be a long wait if you order it now. I ordered the 135 1.8 1 day after it was available and waited 5 months to get it!

Canon's RF 50 1.2L is quite a bit bigger/heavier than the EF version too. So far, the 4 L primes from 50-135 are bigger to varying degrees. The 135 did add stabilization and 1/3 stop but is about 8 oz heavier. Canon has shaved weight off the L series zooms to varying degrees. Overall, the RF lenses tend to be thicker with larger front elements. Is this true for Nikon? The mirrorless cameras are lighter, sometimes much lighter than comparable DSLRs.

Vello makes extension tubes for the R mount. Like Paul said, they may not be practical in actual use on that focal length. The Rf 24-70 has better magnification and shorter MFD than the EF II version which I find makes it pretty handy for shooting wildflowers. Probably not good for bugs though. Oddly enough, I've had luck shooting bugs with the RF 100-500! One of my all time favorite lenses is the EF 100 2.8L IS macro. Besides being a macro, it is an excellent all around performer. Think portraits, landscapes--anything. I opted not to switch to the RF version because of the RF's focus shift issues. You can buy the EF lens used for 500. or less which is a real bargain for such a legendary lens.

Not really. FF lenses cast an image designed to fit the larger 35mm sensor. Putting it on a crop frame does just that--crops. Much of the image is lost. Crop frame cameras use smaller, more dense pixels to help compensate for this but there are downsides. There is no free lunch when looking for extra focal length. You can research this yourself. While you are at it, check out the equipment used by pro wildlife photographers.

In the Canon world, EF lenses are full frame, EF-S lenses are crop frames. For 3rd party, crop frames are referred to as APS-C format.

I would advise moving to full frame mirrorless. The best lenses are designed for it. AF works better. There is less noise. The weight advantage of APS-C disappeared with mirrorless. Full frame RP and R8 both weigh less than Rebels. I could go on. I also advise you google all the cameras in your price range. Be sure to find in depth pro reviews that point out all the flaws. Some reviewers like everything and are, therefore, worthless.

If you shoot birds mostly, then mirrorless is a no brainer. You'll get vastly improved AF, tracking ability and eye detect. It's like cheating! I use a R5. My favorite birding lens is the RF 100-500. This combo will pick up the eye of a small bird in the middle of a bush in poor light! I did use an EF 100-400L II for a while but the RF lens is quite a bit better plus longer. You can get the same tracking with a R6 II but fewer features and pixels. All of your EF lenses will work better on a mirrorless. Spend some time researching all the options.

It's a 24-105 2.8. not 120. It's available for preorder now so you can find all the specs at B&H and other outlets. An internal zoom 70-200 is rumored, no specs yet. I think it is likely to have some of the features as the 24-105 like being able to use a motor for zooming and an external aperture adjustment ring. I'm sure it will be heavier than the current 70-200 2.8 and will likely be sold in addition to rather than a replacement for the current model. I think it is highly unlikely a new version of the 24-70 is coming. There hasn't been any hint of one on the rumor sites. I think you can expect a ten year life span for the current model. Perhaps a 24-70 4L will come someday.

I replaced my EF 24-70 2.8 II a few months ago when the RF version went on sale for 1799. The EF version was widely regarded as one of the best zooms ever made. I used mine heavily for many years. The RF version offers little IQ improvement but you do get IS and better tracking which is important for video and low light conditions. Subjectively, the images are as beautiful as the EF version but I sense they have more of a 3D look if that makes sense. Of course, this is impossible to quantify. I also enjoy the shorter MFD and greater magnification.

There are some reviews comparing with the 70-200 4L with the 2.8L you may want to check out. I've had the 4L myself for 16 months and found it a real joy to use. The light weight and short length are real advantages for carrying long distances. I use it a lot more than I used the EF versions.