Save money with EF lenses and still get sharp photos?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 ноя 2024
- Canon has brought out various interesting RF lenses for wildlife photographers, such as the RF100-500 or RF200-800. However, for many people this involves a large financial investment. Is it possible to save money with cheaper EF lenses without losing too much?
My favourite Canon RF lenses (affiliate links):
Canon RF 14-35 f/4 L IS bhpho.to/3QeMPuq
Canon RF 100-300 f/2.8 L IS bhpho.to/3JO43vu
Canon RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 IS bhpho.to/474osGx
Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 L IS bhpho.to/45FriR5
Canon RF 200-800 f/6.3-f/9 IS bhpho.to/4722bZm
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro bhpho.to/3Oa5RBT
I love EF lenses on my RF camera. The first thing I noticed when I upgraded to the Canon R7 was ... no more need of lens calibrations! Several of my EF lenses had needed calibrating in order to get the best focus out of them. This was tedious work which a few times I had to re-do because it can be difficult to nail down. Calibrating my 18-400mm was a nightmare. Plus, the calibration for one camera body did not necessarily mean it was going work on another. It was maddening. But as soon as I deleted the calibrations from an EF lens and plopped it on my R7 it worked as good as possible and often better than it had on my EF bodies.
Another big benefit was that my wide angle lenses with bulbous front elements could now all benefit from the ability to use filters by using an adapter with a filter slot, or could use multiple filters (like a graduated filter on front and a polarizer in the adapter slot) without any vignetting.
And another big advantage, the ability to use an EF to RF SpeedBooster! This not only increases the light gathering ability by 1 f-stop, but also gives 2 apparent focal lengths to EF lenses when used on a crop sensor body. So my 85mm f1.4 can serve as a 136mm f1.4 and a 93mm f1 (note only the amount of light changes, DOF remains the same). Or my 800mm f5.6 can function as a 1280mm f5.6 or a 880mm f4.5.
AND the is a very slight but noticable apparent increase in IQ. This is due to an illusion similar to when you upscale an image and then print it at a smaller size. Illusion or not, it works.
I just hunted down a new Laowa 100mm f2.8 2x macro lens in EF mount. Paid $50 less for the EF mount with contacts to automatically control aperature and confirm focus than I would have paid for a "dumb" (no electrical contacts) RF mount.
Some good points, thanks for sharing
Not to mention non-telephoto lenses where there are such gems as Sigma 24-35 f2 A, Sigma 40mm f1.4 A, Sigma 12-24mm f4 A, Samyang 10mm f3.5, Canon 100mm 2.8 L macro, Sigma 85mm f1.4 A, Sigma 135mm f1.8 A
Yes, I‘m more experienced with the telephoto lenses
I still use all EF glass. 16-35mm f2.8 III, 24-70mm f2.8 II, 70-200mm f2.8 III, 100mm F2.8, 600mm F4 II. I am only just... about to invest in my first RF lens, the RF 100-500mm. Also have the 200-800mm on back order like the rest of the world. At some point, I will think about upgrading to the RF 15-35mm F2.8 and the 24-70mm F2.8 as it would be nice to have IS on those lenses. Otherwise, I'm still very happy with the EF glass connected to mirrorless.
Thanks for sharing
I adore my EF 300mm/2.8ii paired with the EF 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. As long as Canon can still service the EF lens, it's unclear if I'd ever want to upgrade to the RF 100-300mm/2.8. Having a zoom range does seem very useful, but not for twice (!) the price, no significant improvement to image quality, and increased lens length and weight. I primarily shoot macro, so my telephoto is mostly for birds or mammals of opportunity that happen to appear while I'm crawling around in the dirt--having a relatively compact lens that I can stuff in my backpack is the most important thing to me.
The EF300/2.8 II definitely has some advantages as well, especially for closeups. But the weight of the RF100-300 is almost identical (if you add the EF adapter)
I agree with your points about RF features over EF. Price on there used market is too good to pass up for my needs. I’m waiting for some special RF lenses to really dedicate myself to an expensive purchase. EF70-200/2.8ii is perfect for my sports, 100-400ii for general outdoors and picked up the RF600/11 for some fun. However I probably would have been just fine with the rf100-400 and might even have preferred the weight saving over the light gathering ability of the ef. I wouldn’t mind the 400DOii either
Thanks
I bought an EF180L, new, 2 years ago, to get more ‘reach’ for getting close-ups of dragonflies. I couldn’t find a used one that was cheap enough :) The 180L is also a lens that really shows how much better AF and aperture motors are nowadays.
I replaced my EF100L with the RF version because I felt that the ILIS was fighting with the IBIS at macro distances, I’m not convinced it was objectively worth the price difference. But I started enjoying using a 100mm lens again, so I decided not to think about the price again 😅 For RF bodies with IBIS I’d recommend getting the EF100mm non-L macro.
I also use the MP-E a lot, that really shines on RF. The filter adapter allows using CPLs without them directing the light from your flash into the lens!
Sounds like fun with that macro collection. I only dable with it and seen the 180mm L for not so bad used prices and same with the MP. However the EF100L works fine in my case. I am looking for the Mieke drop in adapter as it apparently controls colour shift much better than the canon version. Canon really need to show off what they can do with the 180 and MP replacements!
Would be nice if Canon would do a 150 or 180mm macro lens for RF
Size and weight differ from lens to lens. I’ve kept my EF 200 L IS macro, as I don’t need to go to 1:1.4 and the new RF 100 macro is just as long as the EF with the adapter fitted - and has focus breathing issues. But I sold my excellent EF 16-35 L IS as it was enormous with the adapter, and the RF 14-35 is smaller, lighter and goes wider.
Sorry, my old macro is of course the 100mm
Yes, however I would consider this a „special case“ since the maximum magnification is much better with the RF version. But it totally makes sense to keep the EF version if that’s not something you need
I use Fuji as well as Canon, and being able to adapt EF glass on both systems is great. AFAIK you can’t adapt RF to anything. I’d love my RF 100-500 on APS-C, just am not convinced by the R7.
I never tried to adapt glass to another brand, so I don’t know
I really appreciate that we still can use EF L lenses on R cameras. The used market provides us with excellent EF L lenses that we can buy to great prices. I am amazed over the price level the new RF L series has. It is expensive. In addition, given the fact that Canon still not allow third parties to develop for RF only for RF-S I am pleased to use EF L lenses. Sure, some EF L lenses are heavy and bulky compared to RF lenses. But the other way also exist. The RF L 100mm have similar weight as the EF L 100 mm + adapter.
Yes, definitely some nice options out there!
Fabian let me tell you something the Sigma 180 F 3.5 macro I have absolutely love .
I get fantastic shots with Lens doing Butterflies that's my lens to go to , even with the R series camera's that I use which is the R3 and the R7 .
I can imagine! It’s a pity that there is no RF 150 or 180mm macro
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Fabian it is really sad that nobody not even Sigma or Tamron is building macro lenses bigger than 105 mm and I photograph butterflies alot .
Having A 200 lens is certainly great to have when photographing Butterflies .
excellent video! I only recently purchased the RF100-500, super light weight and fast focus....but i love my EF500mm L is II with the 1.4x .
All my other lens are older used EF L series lenses that work great with the canon EF to RF adapter on the R5 and R7.
The new RF lenses are overpriced, you can get a much better value and just as sharp an image with the EF L series!
Thanks!
From the begin I questioned the need for an RF series. I'm not tech savvy, but I don't understand why they couldn't keep the same mount connection or at least have adapters in built as part of the camera. To me it seemed like the new mirrorless technology was used as an excuse to open another market for new lenses. Because quality glass usually has more shelf life than camera bodies
It‘s the same with Nikon and Sony - it allows to build more compact lenses
I have mixed reviews on this - I had an EF100-400 V2 on my 90D - I purchased an R5 paired the 1-400 on it, while it works, the AF is very suspect and especially the eye detection rarely works, maybe 50% of the time - now I also had a 600mm F/4 V2 lens and it works flawlessly - not sure what is making the 100-400 not work so great.
Interesting. I only heard good things about the R5 & EF100-400 II combination so far
That lens worked perfectly on my R5
I heard that IBIS in R-bodies does not work with non stabilised EF glasses at all, so non stabilised glasses has great disadvantage compared with RF lenses
I never heard about that. Do you have a link?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I don't have a link, i just read this somewhere in internet. But it corresponds with my own experience: i am using sigma 35/1.4 and canon 24-70/2.8 with my R6 and, despite IBIS is on, usually i receive mixed results when shooting still objects with relatively long time of exposure (1/50 or more). If i lower the time to 1/100 or less, results are much more consistent
Thank you for this. Very informative. I have the R6 and R7 with various EF and 1 RF lens. I do have the Sigma 150-600 on the R7 for bird photography and generally happy with results but in the future would like to trade it in for an RF. Either 100-500 or 200-800.
Plenty of vids on the comparison of these two lenses but im still not sure which one at this stage. 100-500 $4100 AUD(on sale)or the 200-800 $3200 AUD on sale. Which one would you recommend?
When I upgraded to the R7 for birding, I replaced my Tamron 100-400 Di VC and Sigma 150-600C with the RF 100-500. Between the trade in value and a 20% off sale here in Canada, I was not much out of pocket. And I am thrilled by the new lens. Not only is it smaller and lighter than both of the EF lenses it replaced, the dual focus motors are fast and accurate, the lens OIS works well with the R7 IBIS, the minimum focus distance is under 1m for all focal lengths, and the image quality is simply spectacular. If you can manage the cost, it's a fantastic combination! Especially for birds and wildlife.
I did a comparison of these two lenses
I love my EF 600 f/4 II, but it's definitely a lot heavier than the RF, and the auto-focus is way slower. In July 2025 the support ends for that lens. Hopefully there will be a version 2 of the RF 600 to bring the price of used RF 600's down. It's hard to even find one used now.
Yes, that’s what why I ended up buying it new
The Ef 600mm f4,0 mk3is actually more expensive than the RF 600mm f4,0, and the same for the 400 f 2,8. Quite strange to me?
Thats in Sweden, in the US they are exactly the same in the big photo stores.
That‘s really weird
Luckily Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary is not the only Sigma telephoto EF lens. In fact it is the worst one. There is also better Sigma 150-600mm Sport and much better in all regards 60-600mm Sport, as well as 500mm f4 Sport. I tested last two on a R5 and R7 and their AF is more than useable. Quite OK I would say. OIS was very good for stills and OK-ish for video.
Thanks for sharing
I work with EF lenses - no difference and save money
There is a clear difference - it’s more a question if that difference is worth the extra price for you