I can answer this because I did exactly that. I bought the EOS R initially, and adapted my EF lenses. Then I bought the RF version of the 70-200 f2.8 L IS. It absolutely blew my mind, it was stunningly better in every way compared to my EF MK iii version. After that, using the adapter became a nuisance. It’s ok when you just leave the adapter on the camera body and just attach EF glass, but when you have to remove the adapter to attach a RF lens, it becomes a royal pain. So I switched over to the incredible RF versions of the EF lenses I owned. In order to minimize the financial impact of the switch, I sold the EF equivalent lenses. I only kept the EF 50mm F1.8 STM so I would have something for my vintage Canon 1D MK II (which I love because of its unique image output). I have since also bought the R5 camera body. Hope this helps to explain.
Yeah, my answer would be similar to @dexon555's. I used an adaptor for maybe five years. I grew very tired of living in adaptor land. Great point, it's not a problem when you're shooting all EF, but when you're switching back and forth, that's when it get's painful. I take off RF lens A, and I want to put EF lens A on the camera, but the adaptor is on EF lens B currently, so just imagine for a moment all of the finding caps (two different types of caps) all the taking things off, and the putting things on necessary, in order to make that transition. Now imagine doing that at a wedding when you're at risk of missing the kiss or something. At some point I made the decision to only use EF on EF bodies, and RF on RF bodies. And then a little further down the road, I needed to sell off some gear because our financial situation changed (for the worse).
ask in your local camera repair shop. EF lenses has old af system and with new RF constant follow focusing system it has good potential to break in some time., Af motors on the old lenses can easily overheat and you get a slower or less precice focus. Sadly, but thats the way it is. Also mid tier ef lenses has some so-so picture quality, and even some L primes got problems with chromatic abberations. Even some RF STM variants might be a smarter choice than old L ef in some cases. I hate canon marketing these days, but old lenses might be not so good idea on rf body depending your shooting style.
A very interesting video, you make a lot of great points. I tend to hang onto camera bodies way beyond their prime years. At the end of 2023 I finally stopped using my 7D. Not the 7D Mk II, but the original 7D. So I bought a R7 and with it I bought 2 RF lenses, the 50/1.8 and the 16/2.8. Those are still the only RF lenses I own. I kept all my EF lenses, with the adapter they work. And I kept them, because, like you, I cant afford to switch over to only RF glass. That shit is super expensive! But in doing some research and discovering some really cool, non-Canon EF to RF adapters, I also discovered different adapters for all sorts of other lens brands that will work on my RF body. These are all manual focus lenses of course, but this has really opened my eyes to some very creative work and forced me to do things that I used to do way back in the beginning of my photography career/journey. And, putting a Nikkor 105/2.5 AI lens on your Canon body is just cool AF! Is it wrong? Ehhhhh... maybe? But the results are super fun and you see things differently with manual lenses. Also, some amazing glass was made by other brands. Look at Konica AR lenses. Their 40mm f1.8 pancake is just an amazing lens to use! As is their 135/2.5. Minolta also made some great stuff! And of course, my collection of Canon FD SSC lenses has been growing and growing. The 50/1.4 SSC is a special lens! As is the 24/2.8 SSC and the 100f2.8 SSC. Then there is the Tokina AT-X 90mm f2.5 Macro in FD mount... "The Bokina." Wow! And the price is amazing for these lenses! My two oldest lens that I use on my R7 were made in 1958 by Takumar and Petri. They both have the M42 mount. The Tak is a 55/1.8 and the Petri is a 105/3.5, its a triplet design and its shockingly sharp and just cool to use with its "Zebra" patterened body. All these old lenses can be so cool and funky to use. Old manual glass on a RF body, yeah, not all features of the new body get to work with these lenses, but there are features that help make these old lenses work on these new bodies and the results are stunning! Give it a try.
I think these USM primes are the absolute steal of the EF line at the moment. Their build is good enough and their front elements gather light like no other at the current prices. They are not L glass. lets be real, Hobbyists probably don’t need L glass😂 I recently found a 50mm 1.4 for like $150. So its great to see that they are becoming ultra affordable. I think one could do very well with a small range of them. What is the zoom you said you had? I don’t think you mentioned what model.
Thanks for the comment @nikobuerk346. Nice price on the 50mm 1.4! Agreed, and agreed. True, yeah, I didn't mention it, it's not a special lens, I would only ever use it with a strobe / flash, at 5.6 or f8. It's the EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II. It produces perfectly credible results in those types of situations. I've owned this lens for years, as a backup lens. One time I did a few studio test shoots, taking identical shots on this lens and a 28-70 2.8 L, and I couldn't tell the difference between the two lenses. Outdoors though, yes, huge difference.
Yep, a 50/1.4 through that huge, bright optical viewfinder is an absolute joy. I don’t have experience with the others, but the 50 was my favorite on the 5DMk2. From f2-2.8 it had a super sharp center and nice soft edges and corners. Very easy to take stunning pictures. Sure, the RF 50/1.2L walks all over it, but the EF still takes fantastic pictures.
Same @kenschwarz8057! Agreed. I shot on that 50 1.4 for years with my 1Ds, and 5D Mark II. I think it shoots beautifully at F2, (unless trying to focus on a small subject far away, then 2.8 or f4). I think it's a really good video lens too, with just the right amount of softness. I don't do a lot of "real" videography, but if I did...
I got the EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 not too long ago for 100 bucks. A lens from 92. I was looking for a zoom that is better than my kit, but doesn't break the bank. And on APSC with a speedbooster, the lens strikes a nice balance between fast standard zoom and super zoom. Really versatile lens, can recommend, even if it is quite soft at times.
Thanks @amberisvibin! Glad to know those shots were successful, because they're kind of unpleasant to capture. Worth it though, if it helps get the point across!
As much as I love some of my canon lenses and the autofocus with them, my personal favorite lenses are vintage Nikon lenses adapted to my 5D2. Fantastic stuff.
I'm actually on the opposite but same side! I just started (hobbyist) photographing starting with an old Canon Rebel film camera and cheap lenses. I've progressed up to an old 7D and a 5D MKII. Using some old kit lenses, I've realized that they are honestly fine for me. Do I need to spend $500 on a 24-105L when a 28-90 at F8 does the job fine enough? (I hear the gasping and shock already) For 'old' wildlife I rented the 400 5.6L and the 100-400 II. After all my testing, I decided a sigma 150-600 F6.3 is probably good enough for my sharpness needs. Photography is so different for everyone, I feel it's so easy to get caught up in the sharpness spiral, before taking a honest look at what is truly - Good enough.
I love this perspective, @Chris-eh3du! The “good enough” philosophy, that used to be me too. I feel that I’ve gotten a bit spoiled over time, and I don’t like it. The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 looks like a great lens actually. It’s a bit out of my price range at the moment. I used to shoot a Sigma 120-400mm F/4.5-5.6 way back when, for weddings and portraits. I was always happy with that lens. It’s been a while though, no idea how I’d feel about it now.
Really love the quality of your videos, the viewfinder shots and POV are amazing! I'm rocking EF L only glass for my R5 and GFX and they work beautifully,, especially for the price. Hovewer, 28/1.8, 35/2IS , 50STM and 85/1.8 are one of the nicest cheap glass you can find on the market.
Hey thanks @matuszewskistudio! Nice. I shoot the R5, but I lust after something from the GFX series. So EF lenses adapt pretty well to GFX? Well then I really made a bad decision. Oh well. I am a HUGE fan of the RF-L lenses I have, so, nothing I can do now but stick with my decision and make it work for me the best I can.
@ im using it with 50L, 85L, 300L and set of TS-E glass with full frame and all the rest of the lenses in 35mm mode. Its significantly slower than R5, but if you’re used to working with older gear you’ll be fine. IQ is worth the struggle ;)
I am *kind of* in the position of juggling multiple systems... I shoot both Canon EF (6D Mark 1) and RF (R6 Mark 2). However, I have entirely Canon EF L Series glass, and could not afford RF L glass. So I just use Canon's EF to RF adapter for my R6 II. It works really well!
I was doing that for a while also @PaulStrople. It's a good plan. At some point I made the decision to only use RF on RF bodies, and EF on EF bodies, and I sold my adaptor. I've been regretting that decision ever since, because I (also) can't afford the RF-L version of every lens I need. So, it was a bad decision. Though, through the course of doing this video, I've made my peace with it. But I was also shooting Mamiya, Olympus, and Canon on the film side. My lens situation was just out of control there for a while, and I had to make some decisions.
Although not a professional, I am also in the position of juggling multiple systems. I started with the ef mount, but when I got my first mirroless camera, I got a couple of efm lenses (ef-m mount). Efs lenses were and still are cheap, so I also have some efs lenses. When I switched to Sony (a500 and a7s), I invested in the A mount. But this year, I got new E mount lenses because I was tired of using adapters for my a mount lenses. I’m also interested in vintage lenses, so I also have some old canon FL lenses. That’s 6 mounts. A huge pain all the time.
I have te 28, 50 and 85 and still use them professionally. The 28 and 85 are pretty good for me but the 50 1.4 can be tricky as far as focus goes that for more critical applications I choose the cheaper 50 1.8 STM that's not only smaller but quicker as well
Cool @VicenteSchmitt. I know the 85 pretty well (still need to get mine checked out / fixed). I used to shoot with it professionally. Always had good results with that lens. The 50 1.4 is really unreliable if you try to shoot it wide open, but I've had consistently good results at 2.0 or 2.2. The 28, I returned. I'm really torn about whether to get another, or try something different on the wide end. I wanted that one to work out, I just couldn't get anything sharp with it.
I did have the original 1.8 a long long time ago @obsidian00. I liked it, but it cracked open like an egg in my pocket at a wedding. So I ended up replacing it with the 1.4 for the better build quality. I never have the opportunity to try the updated 1.8.
Very nicely made video. I think some of the L lenses are wprth it, like the 24-105 F4 can be had for very cheap and it's a very versatile lens even if not the best out there. The 100mm macro is honestly a non L L lens, imo. The 40mm 2.8 is also fantastic and better than I think any of the EF 50's even if stopped down a little bit. And also I like the comment on the hit rate. It makes it easier to make usable photos but for good photos it barely changes. You see a perfect opportunity and you'll put in the effort to get it as well as possible on any camera. Even birds or sports or such you can try.
Thanks @mikafoxx2717! Oh yeah, I've heard only good things about the 24-105 F4. For now, it's out of my price range, but I'd love to have it. Yep, that 100mm macro is remarkably good. I agree it feels like L quality most of the time, the non-Lness of it really only comes through for shooting things far from camera. Headshots using that lens look top notch, best of the best, but back up and do full lengths, I can start to tell that it's not an L lens. But of course it's meant to be used close up, and it really shines there. It's hard to imagine that an L version would or could be any better. Nice, I haven't looked into that 40. Looks like an interesting option.
I've always been keen on these classy EF primes, but never got them. I eventually ended up with a mix of old (EF 100-400 L mk 1) and more modern (EF 50 1.8 STM, EF 100 L macro). I do want to get a wider angle prime, though (28 or 35mm), but would likely go for the RF version. Then again, I recently bought a dinosaur (FTB QL) and opened up Pandora's box of Canon FD/FL lenses... G.A.S. probably doesn't stop anytime soon. :)
@jannikr9327 I must admit, somehow I’ve never encountered, or even heard of this lens. Yeah, if I didn’t already have the 100mm 2.8, I’d probably grab it.
I always look forward to your videos, Nicholas. I would suggest trying another 28mm. Mine focuses just fine and shots are pretty sharp with known minor chromatic aberrations on the corners, but it's fine. Cheers!
Thanks @milkyISO, cool, I think I will. I really liked the character of it, so I'm glad to get some confirmation that it was likely just mine with an issue, not the whole line.
I just bought a 70-200 2.8 IS ii mint for 1k on my R8. Those older EF lenses were great 10 years ago and they are great now but cheaper. I have been trying to get the Zeiss Classic primes. I love how RF lenses made EF cheaper.
I really want a 1DS Mark III now - I have a whole collection of Nikons and Sony/Minolta, but no Canon. Maybe its time - they are only £300 or so now...
It's definitely time @thatgreyfacedartmoor8602. I can't help but wonder if the prices on all these first, second, third generation DSLRs will start going up again, at some point. Eventually, yes, it's inevitable. Hopefully not for a long time though. I'm hoping to start exploring classic Nikon soon.
Your video your rules. An interesting take on lens strategy. Not one I've followed. Not being a pro, I'm ignoring RF and picking up the EF Ls as they come into (my) budget. Should last me out provided I can still get EF bodies to put them on. Worst comes to worst, I pick up an RF and adapter. Also, I don't think you had a bad 28. Mine is garbage too.
Oh, good to know about the 28 @villageblunder4787. I wasn't sure whether to try again with that lens. Too bad, I really wanted it to work out. If you are ever in the position of adapting EF lenses to an RF body, it's a good experience (as someone else pointed out in another comment) as long as you don't own any RF lenses, because then you can just leave the adaptor connected to the camera all the time. Once you have both, it becomes kind of a pain, unless you want to spring for a separate adaptor for every lens, which I didn't.
@@NicholasHornbrook I also just picked up a 17-40 f4 L for about $250. It's not as good as the stabilized, sharper 16-35 f4 L but still an amazing deal.
@@NicholasHornbrook Seconded. The 24-70 f/2.8L can also be had fairly cheap, but there was a LOT of quality control variation between them. The 24-105L worked a treat - and it was an amazing day when that thing got released as a 1Ds Mark II owner at the time (the 28-135 didn't go wide enough, and optical quality was not up to scratch).
@@thedarkslide This was the cheapest L lens available secondhand at the time, and did well vs. the first gen 16-35 2.8L. I still have that 17-40L from back in the day and it gets me out of a jam sometimes when I need something for a cine camera.
I have simplified my kit to utmost extreme…one body (1DXMKiii) and one lens (EF 28mm F/1.8)…I had the EF 50mm F/1.4 but I just don’t care for the way that lens “renders”…if and when I ever pick up another 50mm lens, it’s definitely going to be the 50mm F/1.8 😅 I am going to hang on to my DSLR body until the bitter end…😊
I'm getting a sense that people dislike the EF 50mm 1.4. Maybe I need to try the 1.8 II, @obsidian00. I owned the EF 50mm 1.2 briefly in 2018 (I think), and ended up returning it. For $1400 US, I found it to be quite soft, really particularly ugly around the edges of the frame, and just overall riddled with optical flaws that I would normally associate with a cheap lens. Granted, some might see that as beautiful, as the character of the lens. Yeah, I guess I am a lot more open to "character" when it costs just a few hundred dollars, and when I'm spending, I'd like something a bit more clean and reliable. That being said, it was better than the 1.4. Just not better enough to make it worth an extra $1000+.
I actually just sold my large collection of cheap non L glass to buy a 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 135mm f2 primes for 1500 euro total, a bargain! Also bought the 16-35 f4 though use it less and on the fence to sell my 24-105 f4 is...
Enjoyed your video … it was refreshingly well done for something like this. And I agree with your lens strategy. But you have some major GAS for someone in your financial position.
Thanks @KBFM2564! Yeah, you're right, of course, but in my defense, it's not that I just want new gear, it's very specifically that I've been wanting a 1D Mark II and / or 1DS Mark II for a long time. The amount of gear I sold way outweighs what I spent on these camera bodies and couple cheap lenses. But, ultimately, you're right. I'm being financially dumb. Then again, life is short.
I own most of these lenses. They are good. I can only afford the bottom feeder RF lenses, so I am not going to bother upgrading. I might buy a nice EF L lens or two. RF L glass is ridiculously expensive.
I think that's wise @dillank3240. What disturbs me most about the cheap RF lenses is how horrible they look with digital corrections turned off. I don't want digital corrections to determine the look of my images. I admit, I do use chromatic aberration correction, because that looks particularly gross to me, but everything else, it's not that I want my images to be flawed, it's just that I like them to look real, like light going through glass, and that's just not possible (from what I've seen) with those cheap RF lenses. Even the latest wave of RF L lenses, these hybrid lenses, are starting to rely more on digital correction, and less on good engineering. It's SO disappointing! But that original group of RF L lenses are some of the best lenses I've ever seen. So... there was that brief window of time where Canon, although charging an insane amount of money, was giving you something worth the money. I fear those days are now over.
lol Mbp grading system is indeed a joke, even in the uk. I bought a ‘well used’ 5d mk2 but it’s mint. I bought a ‘good’ Fuji xt1 that had all the rubber bits falling off. 🤷♂️
I picked up a trinity of 17-40 f4L, 24-70 f4L IS and a 70-200 f4L. All three for less than £600. Absolute bargain and they work spectacularly on my EOS R.
I can put in a good word for that 50 1.4 @DrZeeple. It's not sharp at 1.4 unless you're right up on your subject, though at 2.0 it looks fantastic and it's reliable. But I've never used the 40.
Not cheap, but cheaper than their RF lenses. Thats the reason why the only RF lens I have are the 800/11. The rest are EF lenses, plus some old Olympus OM lenses with EF adapter.
I'm really interested in that RF 800 f11 @HansMartinØvre (or the 600 possibly). I won't be getting it any time soon, too broke, but eventually. I'm curious, any regrets going with the 800 over the 600? Of course I'd prefer the 800 for the extra reach, but I have often wondered if it would be impossible to carry around without having to switch to an enormous camera bag.
@@NicholasHornbrook Hey! I prefer the 800, due to reach. Its a fun lens to work with, and the pictures are pretty sharp. And its light enough to use handheld as well. The downsize is the F11, but unless you go out in bad light, its good enough. I use it primerly for birds, on a R6, handheld all the time. Also birds in flight. And no, you dont need a big camerabag. It will take up a space of 10,5 x 31 cm in a bag when not in use. Sometimes I feel the need of a shorter lens, but then I use my 150-600 from Tamron. But thats a beast compared to the 800/11. I also shot in auto ISO with this lens, set to work between 100 - 12800 ISO, and shutter priority. Hope this help you with your decition.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't know why people insist on selling all of their EF lenses when they buy RF bodies when they work perfectly well with an adaptor.
I can answer this because I did exactly that. I bought the EOS R initially, and adapted my EF lenses. Then I bought the RF version of the 70-200 f2.8 L IS. It absolutely blew my mind, it was stunningly better in every way compared to my EF MK iii version. After that, using the adapter became a nuisance. It’s ok when you just leave the adapter on the camera body and just attach EF glass, but when you have to remove the adapter to attach a RF lens, it becomes a royal pain. So I switched over to the incredible RF versions of the EF lenses I owned. In order to minimize the financial impact of the switch, I sold the EF equivalent lenses. I only kept the EF 50mm F1.8 STM so I would have something for my vintage Canon 1D MK II (which I love because of its unique image output). I have since also bought the R5 camera body. Hope this helps to explain.
Yeah, my answer would be similar to @dexon555's. I used an adaptor for maybe five years. I grew very tired of living in adaptor land. Great point, it's not a problem when you're shooting all EF, but when you're switching back and forth, that's when it get's painful. I take off RF lens A, and I want to put EF lens A on the camera, but the adaptor is on EF lens B currently, so just imagine for a moment all of the finding caps (two different types of caps) all the taking things off, and the putting things on necessary, in order to make that transition. Now imagine doing that at a wedding when you're at risk of missing the kiss or something. At some point I made the decision to only use EF on EF bodies, and RF on RF bodies. And then a little further down the road, I needed to sell off some gear because our financial situation changed (for the worse).
Electronic Viewfinder is slower with EF lenses adapted. You need full RF lenses for optimal frame rate.
ask in your local camera repair shop. EF lenses has old af system and with new RF constant follow focusing system it has good potential to break in some time., Af motors on the old lenses can easily overheat and you get a slower or less precice focus. Sadly, but thats the way it is. Also mid tier ef lenses has some so-so picture quality, and even some L primes got problems with chromatic abberations. Even some RF STM variants might be a smarter choice than old L ef in some cases. I hate canon marketing these days, but old lenses might be not so good idea on rf body depending your shooting style.
@@NicholasHornbrook5 year is a properly long probation period 🎉
Bought an EF 50mm 1.4 yesterday, it's brilliant, for my 90D
A very interesting video, you make a lot of great points. I tend to hang onto camera bodies way beyond their prime years. At the end of 2023 I finally stopped using my 7D. Not the 7D Mk II, but the original 7D. So I bought a R7 and with it I bought 2 RF lenses, the 50/1.8 and the 16/2.8. Those are still the only RF lenses I own. I kept all my EF lenses, with the adapter they work. And I kept them, because, like you, I cant afford to switch over to only RF glass. That shit is super expensive! But in doing some research and discovering some really cool, non-Canon EF to RF adapters, I also discovered different adapters for all sorts of other lens brands that will work on my RF body. These are all manual focus lenses of course, but this has really opened my eyes to some very creative work and forced me to do things that I used to do way back in the beginning of my photography career/journey. And, putting a Nikkor 105/2.5 AI lens on your Canon body is just cool AF! Is it wrong? Ehhhhh... maybe? But the results are super fun and you see things differently with manual lenses. Also, some amazing glass was made by other brands. Look at Konica AR lenses. Their 40mm f1.8 pancake is just an amazing lens to use! As is their 135/2.5. Minolta also made some great stuff! And of course, my collection of Canon FD SSC lenses has been growing and growing. The 50/1.4 SSC is a special lens! As is the 24/2.8 SSC and the 100f2.8 SSC. Then there is the Tokina AT-X 90mm f2.5 Macro in FD mount... "The Bokina." Wow!
And the price is amazing for these lenses!
My two oldest lens that I use on my R7 were made in 1958 by Takumar and Petri. They both have the M42 mount. The Tak is a 55/1.8 and the Petri is a 105/3.5, its a triplet design and its shockingly sharp and just cool to use with its "Zebra" patterened body. All these old lenses can be so cool and funky to use.
Old manual glass on a RF body, yeah, not all features of the new body get to work with these lenses, but there are features that help make these old lenses work on these new bodies and the results are stunning! Give it a try.
I think these USM primes are the absolute steal of the EF line at the moment. Their build is good enough and their front elements gather light like no other at the current prices. They are not L glass. lets be real, Hobbyists probably don’t need L glass😂 I recently found a 50mm 1.4 for like $150. So its great to see that they are becoming ultra affordable. I think one could do very well with a small range of them. What is the zoom you said you had? I don’t think you mentioned what model.
Thanks for the comment @nikobuerk346. Nice price on the 50mm 1.4! Agreed, and agreed. True, yeah, I didn't mention it, it's not a special lens, I would only ever use it with a strobe / flash, at 5.6 or f8. It's the EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II. It produces perfectly credible results in those types of situations. I've owned this lens for years, as a backup lens. One time I did a few studio test shoots, taking identical shots on this lens and a 28-70 2.8 L, and I couldn't tell the difference between the two lenses. Outdoors though, yes, huge difference.
the real problem is having to give up stuff you enjoy to pay for medical bills that should not exist to begin with in the "richest" country ever
Agreed @julio5246.
It's the richest because it was the freest, and those high medical bills are because of the "was".
Yep, a 50/1.4 through that huge, bright optical viewfinder is an absolute joy. I don’t have experience with the others, but the 50 was my favorite on the 5DMk2. From f2-2.8 it had a super sharp center and nice soft edges and corners. Very easy to take stunning pictures. Sure, the RF 50/1.2L walks all over it, but the EF still takes fantastic pictures.
Same @kenschwarz8057! Agreed. I shot on that 50 1.4 for years with my 1Ds, and 5D Mark II. I think it shoots beautifully at F2, (unless trying to focus on a small subject far away, then 2.8 or f4). I think it's a really good video lens too, with just the right amount of softness. I don't do a lot of "real" videography, but if I did...
Taking delivery of an 85mm f/1.8 EF tomorrow for my 6D II.
My favourite EF lens :)
Enjoy! I loved mine 😍
How do you like the 6d II? I just sold mine as I prefer the older bodies
I got the EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 not too long ago for 100 bucks. A lens from 92. I was looking for a zoom that is better than my kit, but doesn't break the bank. And on APSC with a speedbooster, the lens strikes a nice balance between fast standard zoom and super zoom. Really versatile lens, can recommend, even if it is quite soft at times.
what a really great video, i liked it a lot!
the through the viewfinder shots really add to it, showing why you shoot such a camera
Thanks @amberisvibin! Glad to know those shots were successful, because they're kind of unpleasant to capture. Worth it though, if it helps get the point across!
Have four EF lenses that I use with a Sigma adapter on my Panasonic S5iiX. The autofocus works great and they look wonderful
thanks for the effort and sharing. stay well. BIG thumbs up.
Much appreciated @smalltalk.productions9977!
As much as I love some of my canon lenses and the autofocus with them, my personal favorite lenses are vintage Nikon lenses adapted to my 5D2. Fantastic stuff.
I'm actually on the opposite but same side! I just started (hobbyist) photographing starting with an old Canon Rebel film camera and cheap lenses. I've progressed up to an old 7D and a 5D MKII. Using some old kit lenses, I've realized that they are honestly fine for me. Do I need to spend $500 on a 24-105L when a 28-90 at F8 does the job fine enough? (I hear the gasping and shock already) For 'old' wildlife I rented the 400 5.6L and the 100-400 II. After all my testing, I decided a sigma 150-600 F6.3 is probably good enough for my sharpness needs. Photography is so different for everyone, I feel it's so easy to get caught up in the sharpness spiral, before taking a honest look at what is truly - Good enough.
I love this perspective, @Chris-eh3du! The “good enough” philosophy, that used to be me too. I feel that I’ve gotten a bit spoiled over time, and I don’t like it. The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 looks like a great lens actually. It’s a bit out of my price range at the moment. I used to shoot a Sigma 120-400mm F/4.5-5.6 way back when, for weddings and portraits. I was always happy with that lens. It’s been a while though, no idea how I’d feel about it now.
Bought a 50mm F1.4 for $99 a few months ago and it’s a favorite of mine. Works great with the 5D2 and my C100
Really love the quality of your videos, the viewfinder shots and POV are amazing! I'm rocking EF L only glass for my R5 and GFX and they work beautifully,, especially for the price. Hovewer, 28/1.8, 35/2IS , 50STM and 85/1.8 are one of the nicest cheap glass you can find on the market.
Hey thanks @matuszewskistudio! Nice. I shoot the R5, but I lust after something from the GFX series. So EF lenses adapt pretty well to GFX? Well then I really made a bad decision. Oh well. I am a HUGE fan of the RF-L lenses I have, so, nothing I can do now but stick with my decision and make it work for me the best I can.
@ im using it with 50L, 85L, 300L and set of TS-E glass with full frame and all the rest of the lenses in 35mm mode. Its significantly slower than R5, but if you’re used to working with older gear you’ll be fine. IQ is worth the struggle ;)
thank you for sharing your experience. we all feel the same way in some point.
Which camera do you like better? The 5D or the 1Ds? I absolutely love your story telling! Everyone of your video's always have me laughing out loud.
You may find some very affordable L lens too, like 17-40 F4L, or 200mmf2.8L for around 250-300$
or the 24-105 F/4L... Bought mine for about 200-300€
The 200mm f2.8L is a very nice lens! I sold it though because I got a good deal on the 70-200 f2.8 L IS.
Yessss! Someone gets it!
Thanks @lukepugh76!
I am *kind of* in the position of juggling multiple systems... I shoot both Canon EF (6D Mark 1) and RF (R6 Mark 2). However, I have entirely Canon EF L Series glass, and could not afford RF L glass. So I just use Canon's EF to RF adapter for my R6 II. It works really well!
I was doing that for a while also @PaulStrople. It's a good plan. At some point I made the decision to only use RF on RF bodies, and EF on EF bodies, and I sold my adaptor. I've been regretting that decision ever since, because I (also) can't afford the RF-L version of every lens I need. So, it was a bad decision. Though, through the course of doing this video, I've made my peace with it. But I was also shooting Mamiya, Olympus, and Canon on the film side. My lens situation was just out of control there for a while, and I had to make some decisions.
Although not a professional, I am also in the position of juggling multiple systems. I started with the ef mount, but when I got my first mirroless camera, I got a couple of efm lenses (ef-m mount). Efs lenses were and still are cheap, so I also have some efs lenses. When I switched to Sony (a500 and a7s), I invested in the A mount. But this year, I got new E mount lenses because I was tired of using adapters for my a mount lenses. I’m also interested in vintage lenses, so I also have some old canon FL lenses. That’s 6 mounts. A huge pain all the time.
I have te 28, 50 and 85 and still use them professionally. The 28 and 85 are pretty good for me but the 50 1.4 can be tricky as far as focus goes that for more critical applications I choose the cheaper 50 1.8 STM that's not only smaller but quicker as well
I couldn’t agree anymore when it comes to the 50mm F1.4 vs the F/1.8…the “cheaper” lens is the superior one in my dealings! 😅
Cool @VicenteSchmitt. I know the 85 pretty well (still need to get mine checked out / fixed). I used to shoot with it professionally. Always had good results with that lens. The 50 1.4 is really unreliable if you try to shoot it wide open, but I've had consistently good results at 2.0 or 2.2. The 28, I returned. I'm really torn about whether to get another, or try something different on the wide end. I wanted that one to work out, I just couldn't get anything sharp with it.
I did have the original 1.8 a long long time ago @obsidian00. I liked it, but it cracked open like an egg in my pocket at a wedding. So I ended up replacing it with the 1.4 for the better build quality. I never have the opportunity to try the updated 1.8.
I actually prefer the 40mm f2.8 over the 50mm 1.8 (II or STM). Despite the shorter focal length, the bokeh and rendering is so nice on that lens!
Very nicely made video. I think some of the L lenses are wprth it, like the 24-105 F4 can be had for very cheap and it's a very versatile lens even if not the best out there.
The 100mm macro is honestly a non L L lens, imo. The 40mm 2.8 is also fantastic and better than I think any of the EF 50's even if stopped down a little bit.
And also I like the comment on the hit rate. It makes it easier to make usable photos but for good photos it barely changes. You see a perfect opportunity and you'll put in the effort to get it as well as possible on any camera. Even birds or sports or such you can try.
Thanks @mikafoxx2717! Oh yeah, I've heard only good things about the 24-105 F4. For now, it's out of my price range, but I'd love to have it. Yep, that 100mm macro is remarkably good. I agree it feels like L quality most of the time, the non-Lness of it really only comes through for shooting things far from camera. Headshots using that lens look top notch, best of the best, but back up and do full lengths, I can start to tell that it's not an L lens. But of course it's meant to be used close up, and it really shines there. It's hard to imagine that an L version would or could be any better. Nice, I haven't looked into that 40. Looks like an interesting option.
Now make a review for the 135mm 2.8 soft focus!
I've always been keen on these classy EF primes, but never got them. I eventually ended up with a mix of old (EF 100-400 L mk 1) and more modern (EF 50 1.8 STM, EF 100 L macro). I do want to get a wider angle prime, though (28 or 35mm), but would likely go for the RF version. Then again, I recently bought a dinosaur (FTB QL) and opened up Pandora's box of Canon FD/FL lenses... G.A.S. probably doesn't stop anytime soon. :)
You forgot the EF 100 f2 USM
@jannikr9327 I must admit, somehow I’ve never encountered, or even heard of this lens. Yeah, if I didn’t already have the 100mm 2.8, I’d probably grab it.
A beast of a lense. Compact and less expensive @NicholasHornbrook
I always look forward to your videos, Nicholas. I would suggest trying another 28mm. Mine focuses just fine and shots are pretty sharp with known minor chromatic aberrations on the corners, but it's fine. Cheers!
Thanks @milkyISO, cool, I think I will. I really liked the character of it, so I'm glad to get some confirmation that it was likely just mine with an issue, not the whole line.
That looks Coloradoish ❤
(Geographically) close @o.aldenproductions.9858, it's New Mexico. I feel like Colorado is a lot prettier though.
There's also a 100mm f/2.0 that looks exactly like this 85mm. Isn't there a 20mm 2.8 i this lineup too? Any others?
I just bought a 70-200 2.8 IS ii mint for 1k on my R8. Those older EF lenses were great 10 years ago and they are great now but cheaper. I have been trying to get the Zeiss Classic primes. I love how RF lenses made EF cheaper.
That’s such a great lens @captainkanji1! Nice. Agreed.
Oh wow shooting with your phone right against the viewfinder sounds like a nightmare. How do you even have it mounted like that? Duck tape?
I really want a 1DS Mark III now - I have a whole collection of Nikons and Sony/Minolta, but no Canon. Maybe its time - they are only £300 or so now...
It's definitely time @thatgreyfacedartmoor8602. I can't help but wonder if the prices on all these first, second, third generation DSLRs will start going up again, at some point. Eventually, yes, it's inevitable. Hopefully not for a long time though.
I'm hoping to start exploring classic Nikon soon.
i still use 5dm2 with my two old lenses 35f1.4 and 85f1.8 and I will not change as long as the camera click when I press the shutter.
I tried to sell my ef 200mm L, as i already have the rf 70 200 f4, but i just couldn't do it. I feel your pain, a very tough decision indeed. 6:40
I agree with the sentiment on less gear.
Your video your rules. An interesting take on lens strategy. Not one I've followed. Not being a pro, I'm ignoring RF and picking up the EF Ls as they come into (my) budget. Should last me out provided I can still get EF bodies to put them on. Worst comes to worst, I pick up an RF and adapter.
Also, I don't think you had a bad 28. Mine is garbage too.
Oh, good to know about the 28 @villageblunder4787. I wasn't sure whether to try again with that lens. Too bad, I really wanted it to work out. If you are ever in the position of adapting EF lenses to an RF body, it's a good experience (as someone else pointed out in another comment) as long as you don't own any RF lenses, because then you can just leave the adaptor connected to the camera all the time. Once you have both, it becomes kind of a pain, unless you want to spring for a separate adaptor for every lens, which I didn't.
The original 24-105 f4 L is around $300 used, and it absolutely is more than capable on any camera body with around 20MP.
You're right @thedarkslide, I'm looking around, seeing some pretty good deals. Thanks! It's an interesting option, for sure.
@@NicholasHornbrook I also just picked up a 17-40 f4 L for about $250. It's not as good as the stabilized, sharper 16-35 f4 L but still an amazing deal.
@@NicholasHornbrook Seconded. The 24-70 f/2.8L can also be had fairly cheap, but there was a LOT of quality control variation between them. The 24-105L worked a treat - and it was an amazing day when that thing got released as a 1Ds Mark II owner at the time (the 28-135 didn't go wide enough, and optical quality was not up to scratch).
@@thedarkslide This was the cheapest L lens available secondhand at the time, and did well vs. the first gen 16-35 2.8L. I still have that 17-40L from back in the day and it gets me out of a jam sometimes when I need something for a cine camera.
I have simplified my kit to utmost extreme…one body (1DXMKiii) and one lens (EF 28mm F/1.8)…I had the EF 50mm F/1.4 but I just don’t care for the way that lens “renders”…if and when I ever pick up another 50mm lens, it’s definitely going to be the 50mm F/1.8 😅 I am going to hang on to my DSLR body until the bitter end…😊
I'm getting a sense that people dislike the EF 50mm 1.4. Maybe I need to try the 1.8 II, @obsidian00. I owned the EF 50mm 1.2 briefly in 2018 (I think), and ended up returning it. For $1400 US, I found it to be quite soft, really particularly ugly around the edges of the frame, and just overall riddled with optical flaws that I would normally associate with a cheap lens. Granted, some might see that as beautiful, as the character of the lens. Yeah, I guess I am a lot more open to "character" when it costs just a few hundred dollars, and when I'm spending, I'd like something a bit more clean and reliable. That being said, it was better than the 1.4. Just not better enough to make it worth an extra $1000+.
I have 3 of these lenses!
I actually just sold my large collection of cheap non L glass to buy a 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 135mm f2 primes for 1500 euro total, a bargain! Also bought the 16-35 f4 though use it less and on the fence to sell my 24-105 f4 is...
This is the only reason why I’m not going to be able to switch to RF glass 😮
Enjoyed your video … it was refreshingly well done for something like this. And I agree with your lens strategy. But you have some major GAS for someone in your financial position.
Thanks @KBFM2564! Yeah, you're right, of course, but in my defense, it's not that I just want new gear, it's very specifically that I've been wanting a 1D Mark II and / or 1DS Mark II for a long time. The amount of gear I sold way outweighs what I spent on these camera bodies and couple cheap lenses. But, ultimately, you're right. I'm being financially dumb. Then again, life is short.
I own most of these lenses. They are good. I can only afford the bottom feeder RF lenses, so I am not going to bother upgrading. I might buy a nice EF L lens or two. RF L glass is ridiculously expensive.
I think that's wise @dillank3240. What disturbs me most about the cheap RF lenses is how horrible they look with digital corrections turned off. I don't want digital corrections to determine the look of my images. I admit, I do use chromatic aberration correction, because that looks particularly gross to me, but everything else, it's not that I want my images to be flawed, it's just that I like them to look real, like light going through glass, and that's just not possible (from what I've seen) with those cheap RF lenses. Even the latest wave of RF L lenses, these hybrid lenses, are starting to rely more on digital correction, and less on good engineering. It's SO disappointing! But that original group of RF L lenses are some of the best lenses I've ever seen. So... there was that brief window of time where Canon, although charging an insane amount of money, was giving you something worth the money. I fear those days are now over.
Old DSLR lenses hit different
lol Mbp grading system is indeed a joke, even in the uk. I bought a ‘well used’ 5d mk2 but it’s mint. I bought a ‘good’ Fuji xt1 that had all the rubber bits falling off. 🤷♂️
i wish these lenses wasn't treated like collectors items in my country, importing isn't an option also
I picked up a trinity of 17-40 f4L, 24-70 f4L IS and a 70-200 f4L. All three for less than £600. Absolute bargain and they work spectacularly on my EOS R.
Wow, bargain indeed @karlyabasa! Nice.
I am torn between spending on a 50/1.4 and the 40/2.8
I can put in a good word for that 50 1.4 @DrZeeple. It's not sharp at 1.4 unless you're right up on your subject, though at 2.0 it looks fantastic and it's reliable. But I've never used the 40.
IIRC the 50 1.4 will let in 4x as much light, but the 40 has an excellent reputation. Probably depends on how fast a lens you need.
Not cheap, but cheaper than their RF lenses. Thats the reason why the only RF lens I have are the 800/11. The rest are EF lenses, plus some old Olympus OM lenses with EF adapter.
I'm really interested in that RF 800 f11 @HansMartinØvre (or the 600 possibly). I won't be getting it any time soon, too broke, but eventually. I'm curious, any regrets going with the 800 over the 600? Of course I'd prefer the 800 for the extra reach, but I have often wondered if it would be impossible to carry around without having to switch to an enormous camera bag.
@@NicholasHornbrook Hey! I prefer the 800, due to reach. Its a fun lens to work with, and the pictures are pretty sharp. And its light enough to use handheld as well. The downsize is the F11, but unless you go out in bad light, its good enough. I use it primerly for birds, on a R6, handheld all the time. Also birds in flight. And no, you dont need a big camerabag. It will take up a space of 10,5 x 31 cm in a bag when not in use. Sometimes I feel the need of a shorter lens, but then I use my 150-600 from Tamron. But thats a beast compared to the 800/11. I also shot in auto ISO with this lens, set to work between 100 - 12800 ISO, and shutter priority. Hope this help you with your decition.
This is like selling a 2006 yamaha R6 and buying a 2021 R6. Same sound but electronics improvement.
😮
Damn I must be broke barely affording FD lenses for my EF system
fucking great video
Thanks @oldDan-l1c!
I'm having deja vu. At
ruclips.net/video/G8w8MS1cJQI/видео.htmlsi=aud0xQca17jL66ph&t=113
are you near the AZ/NM border?