...from a photography point of view, of course! I'll be talking to a cataract surgeon next month about my lens replacement options. I've always been extremely nearsighted - uncorrected, I'm really good at seeing splinters in fingers, but even glasses or contacts just barely get my distance vision good enough for a drivers license. I think that's one reason I like photography - if I get the focus good I can zoom in and see details that I'd otherwise miss

I've been told I should consider the extra expense of a multi focal corrective lens, and in theory, I'm really excited about the idea of being able to read the bedroom clock from bed, but I'm wondering if any of you who've had cataract surgery have chosen these multi focal lenses, and if so, how they've affected your photography. Do they affect your ability to focus your shots? Do the halos/rings some people report interfere with your photography? Thanks in advance for sharing your experience.

I agree totally. How could I argue against that since I use a computer and PS and all the technology it offers? I am not against compositing images or using Ai to assist in processing an image. And I'm not against someone creating art by taking multiple Ai generated parts and compositing them into something pleasing. It would take skill and vision to put them all together. I'm just saying there is not much skill involved in a person letting Ai replace a sky in their image with one that the Ai creates. If you replace the sky with one of your own, it's your sky that you used your skill to produce.

I don't care what others do for a hobby and it doesn't affect me. But photography is not a hobby for many. It is a profession and their means of income.
If National Geographic sent a group of photographers to cover the war in Iraq, do you think they would accept images from the photographers if they just sat at home and generated them on their computer?
If a magazine or newspaper was sponsoring a contest for photo of the year and you submitted work, would you be happy if someone won with an Ai generated image?

No. The lens mount adapter is merely a spacer.

A Canon EF lens is designed with something like 44mm back spacing. That's the point at which the lens at infinity is designed to back focus onto the film/sensor plane.

An RF lens is designed with 20mm of back spacing, if I recall correctly. Once again, this is where the lens at infinity is designed to back focus onto the image sensor.

So the EF to RF adapter is essentially a 24mm spacer, to move the lens with the longer back space focus out to where it needs to sit for the image to properly focus onto the image sensor.

In addition to any electronic lens to camera connectivity that needs to pass through, there also is the diameter and design of the bayonet mounts themselves which are adapted,. But this is somewhat secondary to repositioning the lens appropriately.

And, NO, lens adapters like this DO NOT have any optics. Note: There are some that require "corrective lenses", when trying to adapt a lens with a slightly shorter back focal distance onto a camera system with one that's a little longer. An example would be putting a Canon EF lens with 44mm onto a Nikon F mount DSLR that's designed for 46mm. But NO OPTICS are need in an EF to RF adapter needed here.

There ARE lens adapters that accommodate drop-in filters.... polarizers and neutral density typically. But these are filters that do not effect the optical formula and focus of the lens.

If you are looking to push your lens to even higher magnification, you still need separate macro extension tubes. Those will move the lens even farther from the camera, so the the lens can focus even closer and render even higher magnification. Macro tubes ALSO do not have any optics. You can either get EF mount tubes and position them between the lens and the EF side of the EF to RF adapter... or you can get RF mount tubes and position them between the RF side of the adapter and the camera. It really doesn't matter which. EF mount extension tubes are quite widely available, including top quality such as Canon's own, Kenko, and others. Canon's are sold individually and only come in two sizes: 12mm and 25mm. Kenko and most others sell sets of three, which typically include 12mm, 20mm and 36mm sizes (some brands vary a little). RF mount macro extension tubes are not yet as common. In fact, Canon doesn't even make them yet. There are Kenko, Viltrox and some other brands though. They come in sets of two tubes. There's a lot of variation in the sizes, but something like 12mm and 20mm or 10mm and 16mm is typical. One advantage of getting RF mount macro extension tubes is that they would be usable both with the adapted lens and with any RF mount lenses you have now or get in the future. EF tubes would only be usable with the adapted lens(es).

With the adapter installed, your lens will be able to focus to infinity at one extreme and focus to 1:1 magnification at the other end of it's focus range. If you add extension tubes as well, it will be able to focus closer, with higher than 1:1 magnification, but will not be able to focus to infinity.

Incidentally, Canon calls their teleconverters "Extenders"... not to be confused with macro extension tubes. As teleconverters, Canon's RF 1.4X and RF 2X Extenders DO contain optics that change the optical formula of the lens. They also increase magnification, but they do so by changing the lens focal length.

Macro extension tubes make lenses able to get closer to subjects, shortens the lens' minimum focus distance to render higher magnification, but have no effect on the lens' focal length. Teleconverters on the other hand, do not change a lens' minimum focus distance. They instead render higher magnification by changing the lens' focal length. Usually, but not necessarily, teleconverters are used for higher magnification of distant subjects. However, they also can be used for higher magnification of close subjects. Macro extension tubes, on the other hand, are only useful with close subjects.

You're thinking is almost accurate about the adapter being like an extension tube. But, a true extension tube moves the lens beyond the flange distance of the native lens mount. For Canon EF, that is 44.0mm. So, from 44.1mm and further, the extension tube changes the lens's ability to focus to infinity as well as changing how close it can focus onto subjects closer than the 'normal' minimum distance.

The EF to RF adapter just places the EF / EF-S lens to the required 44mm distance so the EF lens performs as 'normal' when mounted to a DSLR, but now operating on a mirrorless EOS camera with a native flange distance of 20mm.

Powergroove75 Said in part: "Photoshop has and is still the industry standard for professional editing since the mid 90s." Analogies are clarifying or confusing... I hope mine below clarify and help Photoshop addicted people from following Albrecht’s observed law, “Intelligent people, when assembled into an organization, will tend toward collective stupidity.”
https://www.proquest.com/openview/8de3870857a7061432429d3aa3e4fc72/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=25565

GM, Chevrolet "the industry standard" has been around for 100 years; Adobe "the industry standard" founded in 1982, 40 years ago. GM is near it second bankruptcy, to avoid bankruptcy the expensively unaffordable Photoshop in desperation went to the monthly rental basis. Too many were using one addition for years to avoid the high cost of upgrading with little return. GM avoided E-Cars and are now in trouble from upstart Tesla which is years ahead and wallowing in cash while reducing prices and updating quickly in-house... old struggles to change from what old ideas of what worked worked in the past, new new competitive software joyfully improves. Adobe people wear a Trump-MAGA red hat... for them MAGA standing for "Make Adobe Great Again." Adobe and its loyal followers are struggling to change and compete beyond classic "we are the greatest" chant and a world of followers that march in unison as in the in the famous Macintosh 1984 ad ... A must see ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I

The modern editing tools based on modern computer language "Affinity... Best subscription-free alternative to Adobe Photoshop." Affinity will cost about $40-$70/lifetime with free updates til major change which in the case of Affinity 2 that was 5 years, compared to Adobe PS about $21 per month continuing or it disappears. Your $21/m or $250/Y will buy a wonder of modern AI plugins to attach to even years old editing software.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/affinity-photo-vs-photoshop-which-is-best-for-you/

If Nobel Prize winner Bob Dylan were ask, he would sing... "Don't stand in the door way times are a-changin' ...the first will be last." So it is going for Photo shop and Adobe. Photoshop people, times have changed, time for you to get out of the door way and go with the flow.