General RF Lens Advice

[davemv]

Hi there...I just had a general question and was curious to get advice from the members here who most likely know better than me. I am a new R5 shooter, I came from the 5D MK iii and have the EF 16-35 2.8 version 3, the EF 24-70 2.8 version 1, and the EF 70-200 2.8 version 2. I'm using my EF lenses with the Canon adaptors and they work perfectly. However, I'm contemplating my first RF lens and had always been thinking of replacing my 24-70 with the new RF 24-70 2.8 since my EF lens was the first version. But, I'd also like to add some primes like the RF 50 1.2 and eventually an RF 85. Just wondering if it makes more sense to buy an RF prime first since I already have the trinity of lenses in EF or does it make more sense to replace my oldest lens which is the 24-70. Eventually, I'd like to have all RF but I have to do this one step at a time due to the cost. I guess it's a matter of personal preference as well but I was just curious what other people's takes might be. Thank you in advance for your perspectives!

 

[RedCobra]

The RF 24-70 f/2.8 is outstanding. Mine is better than my old EF V2 version which was better than my V1 version. It's also better than any 24-105 f/4 I have ever owned (including the RF version).

 

[Devin]

I came from the same platform. If I were to do it again, I would add more range or different capabilities as long as you are satisfied with your existing EF lenses. The three I use most: RF 24-240. RF-100-500, RF 100 Macro

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I'm a Nikon convert so I had to start from scratch. I spent my Nikon years shooting a group of f4's: 16-35mm, 24-105mm & 70-200mm. I shoot 90% wildlife so the need for something wider than f4 in shorter focal lengths has always been something I handled with a prime. So with the switch I've been able to cover my full Nikon range (including 300mm and 500mm primes) with a 14-35mm, 24-105mm & 100-500mm f4's, 1.4x & 2x TC's, with a 50mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.8 macro added on for specific uses. I can fit everything in a single backpack, including R5 & R6 bodies, when traveling, which is awesome - no more trying to decide what to leave behind.

 

[MikeZ]

I'm a Nikon convert as well, and I must admit that the weight of the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 made it one of the last lenses I would go to. Super sharp and fast focusing, but the difference in the end product compared to the Nikon 24-120 f4 (MUCH lighter) didn't warrant the weight gain. I currently shoot the RF24-105 f4 on my R5 and am more than pleased with the results. So, I'm a little gun-shy when thinking about the RF 24-70 f2.8.

 

[Dave Williams]

The only point I would make is that in some instances the EF lenses (plus EF-R adaptor) perform better with an R5 or R6 than they would even on the most recent DSLR bodies Canon have released. I can't include the 1DX3 as I have have no knowledge of it but a lens like the EF 100-400Mk2 with a 1.4TC attached will happily offer all AF point usage right across the screen at f11. The 1DX2 could only operate in live view to achieve this, most wouldn't work at all and if you went back a bit in time, bodies like the 7D2, which many still favour, would only give you expanded centre point AF at best (just 5 unmoveable AF points) at f8.
Take the 70-200 f2.8 Mk2 you have. You can extend the reach with a 1.4 or 2.0x TC. ( plus an EF-R adaptor)You can't on the RF version. It isn't compatible with either RF TC.
The New RF 600mm f4 is exactly the same body and glass as the EF600mm f4Mk3. You wouldn't get any improved performance over the EF plus adaptor but if you traded the EF one to buy the RF you'd be shelling out a small fortune.

Think before you do straight lens for lens swops and maybe look at what's not available to you currently before choosing to add additional strings to your bow!
I also wonder if Canon made a huge design blunder with their RF lenses that either won't allow or have to compromise when a TC is attached.
Will there be a new improved design for the RF 70-200 or the RF100-500?

Myself I'd love the version of a 100-500 which would give you a full range of zoom when a TC is attached after all the EF100-400 and 70-200 do and I'm not 100% sure but I think the RF 100-400 does too.

 

[SO8]

I had a 5D III and EF 24-70 Mk1 followed by Mk2 .... the Mk2 was significantly better but the RF 24-70 f2.8 really is a nice lens.

FWIW I had the RF 50 f1.2 and RF 85 f1.2 but have now sold them. They are great, and I mean great, lenses ... but for me the flexibility of the 24-70 won out and, this is the main reason I sold them ... I have a 28-70 f2. Now, that lens, for me, does what the primes did. It is not quite as good but tbh is all I need. The flexibility of the 28-70 and the f2 depth of field together with it's stunning rendering, made me sell the primes. I have a RF 24-70 which is the second time I have bought the lens ... as it is a fair bit lighter and has the wider range of 24 versus 28.

My current lineup is 24-70, 28-70, 70-200 and 100-500.

I have sold one 24-70 (but realised I wanted one so got another), a 15-35, 50 and 85 ...

I personally would buy a zoom and see how you get on. Unless you are a prime junkie then the zooms are brilliant.

I have just realised I prefer zooms ... though both the 50 and 85 f1.2 are truly stunning edge to edge for IQ.

 

[davemv]

Wow I really appreciate all the replies! So much great information in here. Definitely helps me make a much more informed buying decision. Thank you very much for all your input!

 

[Tappa]

I'm not sure this will help you but I'm in the same boat so to speak and currently shooting with EF lenses adapted to an r5. I'm not going to run out and purchase any new RF lenses at this point, unless I'm convinced they are sharper or in some way much better than what I have now. So far I'm not seeing much, if any differences. All my current EF lenses focus just as fast and all the focus points work like they should and I can still use my 1.4 series 1 tele-converter with the 100-400 or the Sigma 60-600mm that I have. By the way the 60-600mm works perfectly on the r5 and even with the 1.4 converter attached which gives me 840mm at f9, a stop faster than the 800mm f11 RF lens. I think for now I'm going to push the limits of what I have and wait to see what's next. Cropped image below taken with r5 and adapter with Sigma 60-600mm attached.

 

[MikeZ]

That's good hear, since I've converted from Nikon and need to start a Canon lens collection. If EF lenses on the R5 work that smoothly, then I have a much larger lens pool to select from.