Most Canon shooters that are interested in this comparison aren't deciding which lens to buy - we've already *got* the EF 70-200L. So size/weight aren't an issue since we've all probably been shooting with it for years. It all comes down to whether we can get away with just buying an EF to RF adapter, or whether we really need to replace our existing glass with RF mount versions. If we can get away with just using an adapter with our existing glass? *Scooooooore!* ... and it sounds like that's exactly what we can do. Thanks!
Appreciate this match up. I'm thinking of pulling the trigger on an r6. But unfortunately my budget won't include a new RF 70-200 lens. I will get the adapter because of this awesome video and save up for the RF. I've been torn the last week on the R6 and the Sony A7iv. I think your reviews of sports with the R6 have helped push me to the R6. Not happy about the halt of 3rd party lenses with the new RF lenses or the price of the battery grip but overall I think I'll love the R6. Thank you for the videos!! Cheers!
Indeed. I just pulled the trigger on an R6 II to “replace” my 5D III. Got the adapter to continue using my 70-200 2.8 II, and I’ll put off buying the RF for a few years with that setup.
I have an old EF 35-350 L lens that was released in 1993. Can't get parts for it and canon won't even entertain servicing it. It still works brilliantly which is testament to how well these old EF lenses were built. I use it on both my R6 and R5 bodies.
Let's be honest, when we pull our white zoom lens out of the bag, we really want to always have the bigger lens than the other photographer to our left or right shooting the same event😏. Sticking with my ef 70-200🤣
Worth pointing out that the RF extended at 200mm is the same length as the EF. with the 70-200 IS mk ii and mk iii, both achieve 12 fps, with the mk i you only get 6.9 fps. Do note that the 12 fps is visible by the green H+ mode but it also depends of your battery level and having wifi disabled on the camera. In term of IQ and AF, the EF-RF adapter has no influence on the performances of the EF lens, it is just an electronic pass-through and a hole for the light, no glass involved. I will be harsh, but this video titled "Canon R6 with the EF lens Adapter - Does it work?" could be summarized in 3 seconds: Yes.
Bet I’m mostly a sport shooter bought the 70-200 2.8 iii in the summer, waited for the Eos r to go on sale but it’s like 100$ off considering I’d have to by an adapter, and I need high FPS so my best bet is a r6
Nice video. I got the r6 about a month ago and I can’t say enough about it. Im still blown away by it. I was going to sell my 70-200 f 2.8 mkii but decided to keep it. I’m by no means a pro but want great photo gear. This lens is a keeper now. Especially after watching your excellent video comparing the lenses the way you did. I did purchase the Rf 15-35 f.2.8 L and the Rf 24-70 f 2.8 L . Those lenses along with the 70-200 make for a fantastic trio. I’d also say that the 70-200 on my r6 is so sharp that the photos actually almost hurt your eyes they are so sharp. Thanks for doing an honest video.
Loved this review! For what it's worth, I've owned my 70-200 2.8l IS since 2007. I took it out to shoot tonight on my 6D Mark 1 and it STILL amazes me. I love this combo!!
Up against the glass in a hockey rink I don't want a lens that telescopes in and out....The RF looks nice when its retracted, but I'm sticking with the EF for now.
Absolutely love the RF 70-200 it’s one of a number of reasons I switched to Canon when going mirrorless from Nikon DSLR. Size and weight means it gets used a lot more than previous 70-200’s I had, and output 👌🏻
Good review. Just recently switched to Canon from Sony. Needed a 70-200 2.8 and found the MKI EF for $500 only missing the hood. Thing is sharp and good enough for me. Works perfect with both my R5 and R6 with the adapter with the control ring. Can’t see myself upgrading to the RF version no time soon.
I used the EF Sigma Art 85mm f1.4 and EF Canon 70 200 IS ii and both work flawlessly on my R6 with the EF adapter. They both worked flawlessly on the R as well. Sold the R after I got the R6. Both steller cameras but the IS on the R6 is AMAZING!!!!
Bought my first mirrorless body a few years ago, and I've since sold my SLR bodies. I bought my 70-200 f/2.8 probably fifteen years ago, and I consider it an investment. I don't use it a lot, but I've taken a few really nice shots with it. It works fairly seamless for me with the adapter, and I see no reason to replace it.
@@mfjones5203 I fully agree, a brute workhorse with great Canon colour pictures, yes the Canon firmware is a bit old now, but Magic Lantern card firmware is offering 4K video on the MK3, not tested myself, but for "small video users", I'm going to have to check this out. Peasant's have to look at the MK4, then the R5, maybe go back to the 1DX MK3, us peasants !!
After using an adapted EF 70-200 version II on my R5 for several months, I have now had the opportunity to use the R5 with the RF 70-200. Is it miles ahead... no not really. But, it would be really difficult to go back to the EF version and it’s got me wondering how the other RF lenses compare to the EF lenses I continue to use. Too bad RF glass is so ridiculously expensive.
I'm using the ef 70-200 II f/2.8 on the R6. I actually think the camera has given new life to this lens. I use a 1dx and the R6 and prefer the R6. Can't justify spending the extra for a RF mount right now. Great video!
I think compability with extenders makes the EF 70-200s an even more appealing option. At the moment there isn't any working option for the RF counterparts- and there maybe never will be.
There is just one huge difference between the 2 lenses that you didn't mention and that is the EF version being an internal zoom vs the RF version being an external zoom. That means operationally they feel completely different. The throw of the EF version is miles shorter plus much smoother than the RF version. It depends on the individual, to me it is a big deal. This is especially true when you are shooting fast action such as sports or BIF in birding. This issue is not just on the 70-200mm, it is a corporate decision that Canon decided to go with this stubby and compact design language. Sure, it might look trendy, but I can guarantee you if you are tracking a fast flying bird when you may have to adjust the zoom ring quickly, the external zoom will always feel super cumbersome as compared to an internal zoom. Although I have the R5 which is a fantastic camera, I have to say this "external zoom" situation is beginning to feel like a make-or-break issue for me. I shoot birds and the only internal superzoom in the market now is the Sony FE 200-600mm G. Not only is that a great lens, but it is half the price of the RF 100-500mm L if you can believe that which is just ridiculous in my opinion. Personally, I refuse to get ripped off and may just trade in my R5 to migrate over to Sony once there is an appropriate body for me.
@@kelb89 So, you've moved over to Sony? I have been adapting my Sigma 150-600mm for more than 6 months now on the R5, I think enough is enough. Apart from the communication issues, I am getting errors as the adaptor connection is getting looser over time. Is time to dump all my Canon gear for the A1 and the FE 200-600mm.
Completely agree with this. The internal zoom and fixed length of my 70-200 2.8 II is one of its best features. Extending barrels feel cheap by comparison, especially when you're talking L glass over £2k. It feels like they've sacrificed this 'feature' in favour of having a more compact lens, at least when zoomed out, which feels like nonsense with this class of kit. If size is more important to you than quality then go buy a compact camera.
He mentioned the “longevity” of those lenses. Old EF 70-200mm lens will outlive new RF 70-200mm even without spare parts because it’s bulletproof. First f/2.8 IS was released in 20 years ago and they are still working fine without any issues. Non IS is in the market even longer. The reason is simple. External zooming is a lens killer. Over the time it is sucking dust inside not saying what happened if you drop it while extended. There is a reason why Canon was making EF 70-200mm lens with INTERNAL zooming/focusing for over 25 years and never changed it.
I think you are overstating the differences a bit. External zooming is not a "lens killer"... look at the longevity of the 24-70s or the 100-400. The size and performance of the new rf 70-200s is amazing. The ef 70-200s are definitely tanks but they too need repairs when dropped, they're not bulletproof. Only time will tell how the rf 70-200s will last in comparison to the ef 70-200s. I think the biggest downfall is the fact they don't work with teleconverters.
For me as a photgrapher / videographer who is interested in shooting motocross, it indeed can be a lens killer! If I would zoom in with an external zoomlens and sand drops on top of it, I have to be very careful and clean it first. While I'm cleaning the dirt off, I could miss an important shot! Really depends on what kind of shoots you will do with the lens..
Thank you, really great comparison. Since I am a DSLR 5D Mark IV user first and mirror less second, I opt to use the adapter on the R6. I have found no difference for most EF lens up to 100mm, nearly no difference up to 200mm plus except weight and size. I do not own RF lens so my use has been from borrowing from a friend so it is a bit limited.
Thanks a lovely review. I shoot motorsport mainly bikes Moto X, and race bikes. I mounted my old EF 70-200mm f2/8 IS ll on the newly purchased R6MKll, I could not run to upgrading my lenses so I bought the standard adapter. I have found the images to be tack sharp, one thing I did not know was the mechanical FPS went down to 9 per sec, so thanks for the heads up.
I know the RF is a bit faster, newer but my 70-200 mk ii has IS and is just as good as an EF on a RF mount. No issues, yea it’s bigger but I don’t have to worry about the weather as much with it, some people have said there’s a problem with water inside once you retract the lens in rainy weather. The EF is internal zoom. Happy to stick with it until maybe a after market one comes out. Thank you for the video.
Hey Rob. I believe if you are using the Mkii or Mkiii version of the EF 70-200 2.8 it is compatible with the 12fps Capability according to Canon and the R6 manual. The Mki isn't compatible with 12fps.
I have the 5d mkiii and the 70-200 2.8 mkii, love them both but really want to upgrade to the R6, this has definitely helped with my decision. Great review as always 👏👏👏
Thank you for this and related videos about the Canon R6. I am currently considering trading in my EOS 7D and 5D bodies with the intention of going for a new 5D mk1V but then of course there's the question of the R6, compatible lenses, etc etc etc. I'm encouraged, and frankly persuaded, by your videos to go for the R6...(it would be nice to try the R5, but it's too much money for the apparent difference in my view). So the next question is RF v EF mount and buying new or using existing lenses. I'm again persuaded that from a budget point of view I might just get the adaptor. In your comparison you didn't mention the cost of the adaptor, but I believe they are around £220 so this has to be factored in. So, thanks again for your help in my decision process. I may report back in due course,
Ok I am brand new to the R6. I bought the adapter at the same time I bought the R6. My other camera is the Canon 60D. My older lens is made by Tamron. I took a few shots and the images had a round circle around them. Am I missing a camera setting? I took a few shots and removed the old lens and adapter. Don't worry I bought a red ring lens with the R6. I just found your channel today and I am really enjoying it. Thank you so much for any help you may have for my question. Thinking about returning the lens adapter.
I just got the even older EF 80-200mm 2.8 and use the in-body IS, which was the main downside for the older model. And I get great images out of my R6 Mark II. But I use EF lenses only as I'm still using my Canon DSLRs and only added the R6 Mark II.
Great review, loved the way it was images shot indoors, in bad(ish) lighting conditions. Most of the reviews I have seen were outdoors in great light. Nice one Rob.
I have the Canon 5D Mk IV which I've had for a very long time. I was thinking of getting the R5 with the adapter since I have "L" series EF lenses of 24-70mm & 70-200mm F/2.8 lenses. Also, since my 24-70 mm F 2.8 had a diaphragm issue that Canon could no longer repair, I managed to find a repair person who had the parts to fix it and it works fine. The R5 has a higher resolution over my 5D Mk IV.. I do a lot of sports photography and studio portraits. The eye tracking and resolution is the reason I want this camera. For videos which I don't do much on the Canon, the 4K 120fps could be used in certain situation and 4k is the max I record anyways and not 8K.
ruclips.net/video/okeedXcuCjI/видео.htmlsi=i3ytnFdgoVYp83Qc I just ordered an adapter & R6 MKII that I will use with my 5D MKIV & 90D. I have several EF & EF-S STM lenses. I really want to test my EF 24-105mm f/3.5 to 5.6 STM to see how it does. I believe the STM lenses will work well with the R6 MKII’s autofocus. The STMs are slower lenses except for the primes but focus quickly on my 90D and even my C100 MKII. I plan to pickup an RF 50mm f/1.8 next week as my first RF glass. I’m not a pro and for what I do, I’ll purchase EF (L) series glass MKII IIs & MKIIIs for all cameras and adapt them for the R6MKII. Have a blessed & safe Christmas Holiday Season
Could be the video conversion but the RF shots clearly looked sharper to me. Can you share the stills with us? I think you summed it up well. YEAH R6 and RF lenses are better but it's not a good price performance ratio.. yet. Sounds like sports photography really only even needs 10 out of the 20 possible FPS on the R6 to do the job.
RF is sharper yeah but with full res images there's not much difference. I can't share these specific image files I'm afraid but I'll get some of them onto my Instagram. Yeah I almost find the 20fps too much.
I maybe on the selective hearing mode as I am just going back to photography, but man thanks for pointing out if "Is this 1,500 Pounds better" because that is how I also look at the value of my toys.
I have both lenses and agree 100% with your assessment. The way you shoot local sports EF should work fine. The major advantage of the RF is size and weight. So if you’re a travel photographer the RF makes sense. I got the RF because I’m getting old and wanted the light weight.
I'm currently using the 70-200 EF III and at the end of the day I just want the native RF as it just flows better and not having the adapter etc. I thought it's not that big a deal but the more and more I shoot w/my 28-70 RF I just prefer the RF glass. But 2700$ US I feel is too steep so I'm waiting for a used deal to pounce on. Appreciate your content. I'm still very happy with the R6 and have only incurred one problematic shooting scenario for the electronic shutter other than that it's been amazing not to see any warping or banding.
The size and weight of the RF was tempting, but when I decided to upgrade my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS (no mark), I went the other way and grabbed the massive Sigma 70-200 Sports. It does outweigh the EF, but mounted to my R with grip, the total package is still lighter than the EF on my old 1Dsiii. Oh, and it was only $1100 on sale! What surprises me most in your review (and in others I've seen) is that there seems to be little to no IQ improvement in going to the RF. The EF no-mark is a 20 year old lens! So, that's a lot of money to spend to save space in the bag and get a control ring. By comparison (at least against my copy of the EF lens) the Sigma has far better sharpness at mid and edge of frame especially wide open (about the same in center), much higher contrast (or maybe it's just better color overall), and a way better bokeh (11 blades vs 7?). Of course, the other big difference is that RF won't work with extenders, even if you did invest in the new RF ones. I guess Canon wants to make sure we blow another load of cash on the RF 100-500 to get into that focal length. I have both the 1.4x and 2x EF extenders, and they work flawlessly between the Sigma lens and mount adapter. Speaking of adapters, the drop in filter one, although pricey, is a real gem. Now all my EF glass shares the same filters without having to carry step up rings, ditch lens hoods, or screw on/screw off all the time. Nice! Ok, I still do appreciate small and light. Maybe I'll consider the new RF 70-200 f/4 for situations that need that.
No extenders? Well, that just puts my mind at easy for investing in some old tech just now. R is nice, but at the current rates, my photography is better improved with older but more nice glass.
If I were to purchase the R6, I would also buy the adapter. I don’t need to repurchase quality glass as I already own them.Nothing wrong for a first time buyer of Canon cameras buying the new lenses for the R6. Just my opinion.
One thing: Now that video is a legitimate component on the canon "still" camera form factor, many of us who are videographers need the fixed internal zoom/focus for accessories like matte box and filters. the EF is still a required option unless the new RFs have similar capabilities with non telescoping functions. Fair enough, still guys wont care.
Thanks for the video, Rob. This is a fair comparison. I have a R6 and some EF-Lenses. I must say, that even my old EF-lenses (EF-S 60/2.8 USM, EF 200/2.8L II USM or EF 85/1.8 USM) perform exzellent on the R6. I have definitively more photos, which are 100% in focus, compared to my old 6D or 70D. So i will not purchase the very expensive RF-Lenses. But the R6 is indeed a nice camera. Greetings Andy
Since the EF-RF adapter has no optics, it has only one real effect: it limits the in-body image stabilization compared to a RF lens. Something you aren't going to notice if you're shooting sports, or really any moving subject. A real test of this would be shooting a stationary subject in low light, and seeing how slow you could get the shutter to go before you get blurring from camera shake. This is the kind of photography I do pretty frequently, i.e. indoor photos of a historical site where they don't allow flash photography, or cave photos where flash isn't going to do you any good at all. This may be as far outside your normal photography as sports is for me.
Thanks for this video. I have a question. I am currently shooting with a Canon 5D3 body. If I were to get the new R62 and use the adapter with my 70-200 IS (same as yours) would I get sharper pictures than I am getting now with the 5D3 body? Would love to hear your opinion and input on this. Thanks!
Hi Rob, all EF lenses work great with the adapter. Perhaps you might be able to do a try out with the RF 100-500 mm IS if possible? Rob, try shooting with the electronic shutter it works well.
@@RobSambles Rob, can you ever see the day you'll go completely mirrorless and get shut of your 1D bodies? I think the R6 out performs my 1DX II on all fronts apart from build quality and weather sealing. What are you thoughts ? Perhaps you could do a video on your thoughts on the future of your gear choices?
You didn't convince me that the RF is better than the EF. It seems like a very subjective comparison to me with no A-B comparison. This is a problem because a lot of people are sort of just making subjective statements that RF lens are better as if they are "peer pressure-ing" others into dumping perfectly fine EF lenses to jump on the RF lens band wagon (you didn't go that far, though, but your did only seem to provide a subjective statement about RF being better). Yes, if I were buying new I'd go with the RF if I have the cash, but if I already have EF lenses then the question becomes should I upgrade? If you are a wedding tog who carries a 70-200 all day, then heck yeah, just the lighter weight is worth the upgrade (I think, anyway). But there are many situations where that is not the case and for that situation, people need hard data. I want to know about how the lens renders images, sharpness, contrast, bokeh, focus speed, etc., before I upgrade. In that sense, and reading between the lines, I doubt if that RF lens is better on many of those fronts. I think reviewers really need to do a in-depth evaluation on points that really matter rather than just saying that newer native mount lenses are better. The REASON I stayed with Canon is because I own a lot of high quality L lenses already and they all seem to work perfectly on the R5. I don't want people just making unsupported subjective statements to induce peer-pressure type GAS-infused purchases. I think a lot of Canon people are falling into this trap.
Thank you for a clear and detailed videos. But a little question. I am useing the R6 with Tamron AF 70-200 G2 with canon adaptor I am very happy with the results (I am photographing dance and sports) does this combination still retain the in camera stebilizer? thak you in advance for your answer.
Thank you, Rob. On the RF, how easy is it to move back and forth between 70-200 with one hand? I have head the throw is much left longer on the RF than on the EF
What about the loss of resolution? I just picked up a R6Mk2, and with my lenses for my D80, it automatically gives a 1.6 crop factor that can't be overridden. The resolution drops from 24 MP to 9.3 MP.
Probably should have used the mkii or mkiii EF lens if sharpness was one of your criteria...? Its well documented they are sharper and just better than the mki lens. Also, seen that newer EF glass doesn't slow the fps down.... the mkii 70-200 seems to be able to work at the full H+ speeds, along with all the big newer primes.
Great video! In my opinion, Canon made a smart move to replace/extend the EF lenses with the RF lenses. As the demand for DSLRs has drastically decreased since the camera quality on smartphones (particularly on the iPhone) has improved phenomenally, the competitive advantage of these professional cameras disappears. Because we all invested years in professional DSLRs with a very extensive collection of professional high quality EF lenses, there was no bright future anymore for Canon (and many others). Canon has responded very cleverly by making a complete 'new' set of lenses together with the EOS R-series mirrorless cameras. The real Canon user will quickly experience the benefits of the R camera and be lured deep into the rabbit hole to buy all their lenses a second time, but now with RF-mount. Releasing the EOS R-series cameras with a completely different mount (RF) is a master move by Canon.
I have a T7 and just picked up an R50 for the 4k Video feature. I already have a nifty fifty for my T7, do I just get an adapter or do I buy another nifty fifty for my R50?
So thinking about getting an adapter to get myself a cheaper used EF lens but my question is if putting an adapter between the camera and the lens removes the weathersealing?
Thanks for the comparison! I've read another Canon RF-EF adapter is awaited soon, with the ability to configure it. Any idea what it could bring in this typical R6 setup?
Configure what? There is the one with the control ring already, which u can configure the same way as the control ring on RF lenses. There is also one with drop-in filters - but u probably didn't mean that.
What’s the build quality of the RF like Rob? Like the R6 but still a bit of a worry with build quality v the 1dx range wondered if the lens is a robust as the EF build
Did you ever get a chance to compare Tamron 70-200 to Canon Ef with R6. I own a R6 and thinking to go for Tamron, because of the pricing ofcourse. To add more context, I'm a hobbyst and use my camera once in 2-3 months, that too while I'm traveling.
Very useful video thanks. I'm currently looking at moving to mirrorless from my 5D3 and am interested how my 70-200 2.8 II and 24-70 2.8 II will perform with the adapters.
Great thing about technology going onward, all those geeks and spec peakers are now selling their gear for cheap, hoping new cams and lenses will make them better, so real photogtaphers now can get a great deals on tools that they need to earn real money.
I concur with Rob. I have the 70-200 2.8 IS Mark II and the RF 70-200 on my R6. The results are similar but I like the portability of the lens and IS would in conjunction with the RF IS and not on my EF lens. There is a chart from Canon that shows which EF lenses IS work together with the R series internal IS. I bought my RF lens from Canon's refurb site here in the states and caught it on sale at 15% off their refurb price. It was $2,189 US with taxes and comes with a 1 year Canon warranty, I couldn't pass it up. 8-)
@@RobSambles I try to buy all my cameras/lemses from Canon refurb. I don't get a fancy new box but I like the savings. I bought both of my 5dIV's through them as well. I have a 24-70 RF lens that I ordered a month ago and am still waiting for it to arrive. Just waiting for the R6 to show up there a save a few dollars, err pounds. 8-)
Quick question: I have EF canon EOS rebel T3i and I ended buying RF 35mm F1.8 MACRO is STM and it doesn’t fit on my camera. So is it possible if buy this adapter will it work.
It;s not working on mine but I got the ef 24-70 used .I have to go back to the camera store and see if there is something wrong with the lens. Odd because it will take photos in automatic but not manual mode. if you have any wisdom please share.
Great video! Question, How much FPS can be reached by using the mechanical shutter with Canon EF 300MM 2.8? Should I expect 5-6 FPS since it's not listed in the supported lens?
Dear Rob I appreciate both lenses get 20fps on the electronic shutter (ES) and that you ‘be been using the ES a lot and done some earlier videos about it. Is there some other issues with the ES and the EF adapter? Why not use it all the time and use mechanical shutter. I appreciate the reasons of comparison but other than that is there some frequently warping issues when shooting sports for example?
would have been a bit better comparison if you'd compare mk3 both quality and price-wise. At least mention that mk3 is rumored to have more or less the same image quality.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Most Canon shooters that are interested in this comparison aren't deciding which lens to buy - we've already *got* the EF 70-200L. So size/weight aren't an issue since we've all probably been shooting with it for years. It all comes down to whether we can get away with just buying an EF to RF adapter, or whether we really need to replace our existing glass with RF mount versions. If we can get away with just using an adapter with our existing glass? *Scooooooore!* ... and it sounds like that's exactly what we can do. Thanks!
Appreciate this match up. I'm thinking of pulling the trigger on an r6. But unfortunately my budget won't include a new RF 70-200 lens. I will get the adapter because of this awesome video and save up for the RF. I've been torn the last week on the R6 and the Sony A7iv. I think your reviews of sports with the R6 have helped push me to the R6. Not happy about the halt of 3rd party lenses with the new RF lenses or the price of the battery grip but overall I think I'll love the R6. Thank you for the videos!! Cheers!
Indeed. I just pulled the trigger on an R6 II to “replace” my 5D III. Got the adapter to continue using my 70-200 2.8 II, and I’ll put off buying the RF for a few years with that setup.
Not true ! I'm trying to decide to spend $1300 or $2600 - i am fine with the 9 frames a sec limit
Sounds kind of elitist, but okay.
@@ddthompson42I want to do this. how has the setup been?
I have an old EF 35-350 L lens that was released in 1993. Can't get parts for it and canon won't even entertain servicing it. It still works brilliantly which is testament to how well these old EF lenses were built. I use it on both my R6 and R5 bodies.
So far you're the only one I've seen who has _actually posted images._ Everyone else just talks and talks...
Let's be honest, when we pull our white zoom lens out of the bag, we really want to always have the bigger lens than the other photographer to our left or right shooting the same event😏. Sticking with my ef 70-200🤣
Haha - valid point!
Worth pointing out that the RF extended at 200mm is the same length as the EF.
with the 70-200 IS mk ii and mk iii, both achieve 12 fps, with the mk i you only get 6.9 fps. Do note that the 12 fps is visible by the green H+ mode but it also depends of your battery level and having wifi disabled on the camera.
In term of IQ and AF, the EF-RF adapter has no influence on the performances of the EF lens, it is just an electronic pass-through and a hole for the light, no glass involved.
I will be harsh, but this video titled "Canon R6 with the EF lens Adapter - Does it work?" could be summarized in 3 seconds: Yes.
Bet I’m mostly a sport shooter bought the 70-200 2.8 iii in the summer, waited for the Eos r to go on sale but it’s like 100$ off considering I’d have to by an adapter, and I need high FPS so my best bet is a r6
But since 2022 is around the corner imma wait and keep saving to see what canon come out with
Lol my t7i looks just as good so except for the FPS, 4K and autofocus I’m doing great
@@andrewphoto4750 stay away from the EOS R
@@sydneynomura281 why?
"1500-pound better images?" Nope - That nails it good one sir
Nice video. I got the r6 about a month ago and I can’t say enough about it. Im still blown away by it. I was going to sell my 70-200 f 2.8 mkii but decided to keep it. I’m by no means a pro but want great photo gear. This lens is a keeper now. Especially after watching your excellent video comparing the lenses the way you did. I did purchase the Rf 15-35 f.2.8 L and the Rf 24-70 f 2.8 L . Those lenses along with the 70-200 make for a fantastic trio. I’d also say that the 70-200 on my r6 is so sharp that the photos actually almost hurt your eyes they are so sharp. Thanks for doing an honest video.
Loved this review! For what it's worth, I've owned my 70-200 2.8l IS since 2007. I took it out to shoot tonight on my 6D Mark 1 and it STILL amazes me. I love this combo!!
Up against the glass in a hockey rink I don't want a lens that telescopes in and out....The RF looks nice when its retracted, but I'm sticking with the EF for now.
That's a good point
Me too. Plus its a massive rip off, 25% more than the EF version
I have no issues shooting with the RF 70-200 f/2.8 doing hockey photography 🤷🏼♂️
Absolutely love the RF 70-200 it’s one of a number of reasons I switched to Canon when going mirrorless from Nikon DSLR. Size and weight means it gets used a lot more than previous 70-200’s I had, and output 👌🏻
Good review. Just recently switched to Canon from Sony. Needed a 70-200 2.8 and found the MKI EF for $500 only missing the hood. Thing is sharp and good enough for me. Works perfect with both my R5 and R6 with the adapter with the control ring. Can’t see myself upgrading to the RF version no time soon.
I used the EF Sigma Art 85mm f1.4 and EF Canon 70 200 IS ii and both work flawlessly on my R6 with the EF adapter. They both worked flawlessly on the R as well. Sold the R after I got the R6. Both steller cameras but the IS on the R6 is AMAZING!!!!
Bought my first mirrorless body a few years ago, and I've since sold my SLR bodies. I bought my 70-200 f/2.8 probably fifteen years ago, and I consider it an investment. I don't use it a lot, but I've taken a few really nice shots with it. It works fairly seamless for me with the adapter, and I see no reason to replace it.
I'm a peasant, still sticking with my 5D MK3 and 70-200 MK2, never let me down once. And I still gasp on how sharp the images are.
That camera is a work horse. If I only shot photography and not film I would head happily kept my Mark III
@@mfjones5203 I fully agree, a brute workhorse with great Canon colour pictures, yes the Canon firmware is a bit old now, but Magic Lantern card firmware is offering 4K video on the MK3, not tested myself, but for "small video users", I'm going to have to check this out. Peasant's have to look at the MK4, then the R5, maybe go back to the 1DX MK3, us peasants !!
We must have different definitions of peasantry 😂
Keep it. I bought the R6 and wish I would’ve stayed with the 5DIV
I still love my 5D MkII and all the EF L-series lenses I have.
This is the review everybody should do !!!!!!
@@alectadeo6280 no nobody cares
After using an adapted EF 70-200 version II on my R5 for several months, I have now had the opportunity to use the R5 with the RF 70-200. Is it miles ahead... no not really. But, it would be really difficult to go back to the EF version and it’s got me wondering how the other RF lenses compare to the EF lenses I continue to use. Too bad RF glass is so ridiculously expensive.
I’m guessing the difference would be a lot less noticable on the R6 than the R5?
I'm using the ef 70-200 II f/2.8 on the R6. I actually think the camera has given new life to this lens. I use a 1dx and the R6 and prefer the R6. Can't justify spending the extra for a RF mount right now. Great video!
Thanks Theron, Great to hear you're getting on well with it
I'm using the same set up , and prefer the short zoom throw on the ef 70-200 II f/2.8
I agree. My R6 ii has brought my 70-200 ii to life. Focus is staggering and it’s so sharp wide open. It’s good on my 1DX ii but this is just 😮
Thanks for doing this comparison. The price difference now is even wider, so this is pretty compelling.
I think compability with extenders makes the EF 70-200s an even more appealing option. At the moment there isn't any working option for the RF counterparts- and there maybe never will be.
There is just one huge difference between the 2 lenses that you didn't mention and that is the EF version being an internal zoom vs the RF version being an external zoom. That means operationally they feel completely different. The throw of the EF version is miles shorter plus much smoother than the RF version. It depends on the individual, to me it is a big deal. This is especially true when you are shooting fast action such as sports or BIF in birding. This issue is not just on the 70-200mm, it is a corporate decision that Canon decided to go with this stubby and compact design language. Sure, it might look trendy, but I can guarantee you if you are tracking a fast flying bird when you may have to adjust the zoom ring quickly, the external zoom will always feel super cumbersome as compared to an internal zoom. Although I have the R5 which is a fantastic camera, I have to say this "external zoom" situation is beginning to feel like a make-or-break issue for me. I shoot birds and the only internal superzoom in the market now is the Sony FE 200-600mm G. Not only is that a great lens, but it is half the price of the RF 100-500mm L if you can believe that which is just ridiculous in my opinion. Personally, I refuse to get ripped off and may just trade in my R5 to migrate over to Sony once there is an appropriate body for me.
I sold my RF lens because of this purpose. The throw is too much for me and I prefer to zoom with only my thumb.
@@kelb89 So, you've moved over to Sony? I have been adapting my Sigma 150-600mm for more than 6 months now on the R5, I think enough is enough. Apart from the communication issues, I am getting errors as the adaptor connection is getting looser over time. Is time to dump all my Canon gear for the A1 and the FE 200-600mm.
Honestly the external zoom seems like a kit lens thing
@@andrewphoto4750 It makes the lens look cheap when extended, kind of like a toilet plunger.
Completely agree with this. The internal zoom and fixed length of my 70-200 2.8 II is one of its best features. Extending barrels feel cheap by comparison, especially when you're talking L glass over £2k. It feels like they've sacrificed this 'feature' in favour of having a more compact lens, at least when zoomed out, which feels like nonsense with this class of kit. If size is more important to you than quality then go buy a compact camera.
He mentioned the “longevity” of those lenses.
Old EF 70-200mm lens will outlive new RF 70-200mm even without spare parts because it’s bulletproof. First f/2.8 IS was released in 20 years ago and they are still working fine without any issues. Non IS is in the market even longer.
The reason is simple. External zooming is a lens killer. Over the time it is sucking dust inside not saying what happened if you drop it while extended.
There is a reason why Canon was making EF 70-200mm lens with INTERNAL zooming/focusing for over 25 years and never changed it.
I think you are overstating the differences a bit. External zooming is not a "lens killer"... look at the longevity of the 24-70s or the 100-400. The size and performance of the new rf 70-200s is amazing. The ef 70-200s are definitely tanks but they too need repairs when dropped, they're not bulletproof. Only time will tell how the rf 70-200s will last in comparison to the ef 70-200s. I think the biggest downfall is the fact they don't work with teleconverters.
For me as a photgrapher / videographer who is interested in shooting motocross, it indeed can be a lens killer! If I would zoom in with an external zoomlens and sand drops on top of it, I have to be very careful and clean it first. While I'm cleaning the dirt off, I could miss an important shot! Really depends on what kind of shoots you will do with the lens..
Thank you, really great comparison. Since I am a DSLR 5D Mark IV user first and mirror less second, I opt to use the adapter on the R6. I have found no difference for most EF lens up to 100mm, nearly no difference up to 200mm plus except weight and size. I do not own RF lens so my use has been from borrowing from a friend so it is a bit limited.
Thanks a lovely review. I shoot motorsport mainly bikes Moto X, and race bikes. I mounted my old EF 70-200mm f2/8 IS ll on the newly purchased R6MKll, I could not run to upgrading my lenses so I bought the standard adapter. I have found the images to be tack sharp, one thing I did not know was the mechanical FPS went down to 9 per sec, so thanks for the heads up.
Thanks for the comparison and sharing your views. Not yet ready to upgrade to the RF version so will maximise the 70-200 f2.8 II.
That size difference makes me want to upgrade, but for the price the image quality isn't worth it. Maybe next year.
The RF actually extends out and the EF doesn’t. No big size difference when extended.
@@marvinajimenez But you don't carry them around or pack them in your bag extended. It's also a little more than half a pound lighter.
I know the RF is a bit faster, newer but my 70-200 mk ii has IS and is just as good as an EF on a RF mount. No issues, yea it’s bigger but I don’t have to worry about the weather as much with it, some people have said there’s a problem with water inside once you retract the lens in rainy weather. The EF is internal zoom. Happy to stick with it until maybe a after market one comes out. Thank you for the video.
If you were going to compare 2 70-200 2.8 's..
The 70-200 2.8 IS III Would be the one to compare it to.
Yeah that bugged me too 😩
@@Nuggiismand I'll be happy with my 70-200 2.8 IS III for a long time. It's a beautiful lens.. and built like a Tank
Great and balanced, real-world use review .....covers all the bases. Kudos
Hey Rob. I believe if you are using the Mkii or Mkiii version of the EF 70-200 2.8 it is compatible with the 12fps Capability according to Canon and the R6 manual. The Mki isn't compatible with 12fps.
I have the 5d mkiii and the 70-200 2.8 mkii, love them both but really want to upgrade to the R6, this has definitely helped with my decision. Great review as always 👏👏👏
Great information. I want to get an R7 as a step up from my T5i. I hope my EF-S lenses do as well
Thank you for this and related videos about the Canon R6. I am currently considering trading in my EOS 7D and 5D bodies with the intention of going for a new 5D mk1V but then of course there's the question of the R6, compatible lenses, etc etc etc. I'm encouraged, and frankly persuaded, by your videos to go for the R6...(it would be nice to try the R5, but it's too much money for the apparent difference in my view). So the next question is RF v EF mount and buying new or using existing lenses. I'm again persuaded that from a budget point of view I might just get the adaptor. In your comparison you didn't mention the cost of the adaptor, but I believe they are around £220 so this has to be factored in. So, thanks again for your help in my decision process. I may report back in due course,
I think that the frames per second difference is due to much better AF motor in RF glass.
I’ve found the focusing and eye AF all over the place with the MKII & the R6.
Rob Smashing information in a very clear and detailed phrase
but end of video 2nd last picture with RF bit more sharper than EF
EF 70-200 f2.8 mk3 is a God of lens
Ok I am brand new to the R6. I bought the adapter at the same time I bought the R6. My other camera is the Canon 60D. My older lens is made by Tamron. I took a few shots and the images had a round circle around them. Am I missing a camera setting? I took a few shots and removed the old lens and adapter. Don't worry I bought a red ring lens with the R6. I just found your channel today and I am really enjoying it. Thank you so much for any help you may have for my question. Thinking about returning the lens adapter.
I just got the even older EF 80-200mm 2.8 and use the in-body IS, which was the main downside for the older model. And I get great images out of my R6 Mark II.
But I use EF lenses only as I'm still using my Canon DSLRs and only added the R6 Mark II.
Great review, loved the way it was images shot indoors, in bad(ish) lighting conditions. Most of the reviews I have seen were outdoors in great light. Nice one Rob.
Thanks Paul
I own same EF lens and it works perfectly with the r5.
I have the Canon 5D Mk IV which I've had for a very long time. I was thinking of getting the R5 with the adapter since I have "L" series EF lenses of 24-70mm & 70-200mm F/2.8 lenses. Also, since my 24-70 mm F 2.8 had a diaphragm issue that Canon could no longer repair, I managed to find a repair person who had the parts to fix it and it works fine. The R5 has a higher resolution over my 5D Mk IV.. I do a lot of sports photography and studio portraits. The eye tracking and resolution is the reason I want this camera. For videos which I don't do much on the Canon, the 4K 120fps could be used in certain situation and 4k is the max I record anyways and not 8K.
ruclips.net/video/okeedXcuCjI/видео.htmlsi=i3ytnFdgoVYp83Qc
I just ordered an adapter & R6 MKII that I will use with my 5D MKIV & 90D. I have several EF & EF-S STM lenses. I really want to test my EF 24-105mm f/3.5 to 5.6 STM to see how it does. I believe the STM lenses will work well with the R6 MKII’s autofocus. The STMs are slower lenses except for the primes but focus quickly on my 90D and even my C100 MKII. I plan to pickup an RF 50mm f/1.8 next week as my first RF glass. I’m not a pro and for what I do, I’ll purchase EF (L) series glass MKII IIs & MKIIIs for all cameras and adapt them for the R6MKII.
Have a blessed & safe Christmas Holiday Season
Excellent video and has given me a lot to think about as a new R6 owner. Keep up the great work, you got a new sub! :)
Thanks Joe that's awesome
The thing I have noticed with the RF version is that although it is shorter if you put in your camera bag with the hood it is just so wide.
Could be the video conversion but the RF shots clearly looked sharper to me. Can you share the stills with us?
I think you summed it up well. YEAH R6 and RF lenses are better but it's not a good price performance ratio.. yet.
Sounds like sports photography really only even needs 10 out of the 20 possible FPS on the R6 to do the job.
RF is sharper yeah but with full res images there's not much difference. I can't share these specific image files I'm afraid but I'll get some of them onto my Instagram. Yeah I almost find the 20fps too much.
I maybe on the selective hearing mode as I am just going back to photography, but man thanks for pointing out if "Is this 1,500 Pounds better" because that is how I also look at the value of my toys.
Good points. You are probably correct that the EF series will eventually be discontinued.
I don't mean anytime soon though
I have both lenses and agree 100% with your assessment. The way you shoot local sports EF should work fine. The major advantage of the RF is size and weight. So if you’re a travel photographer the RF makes sense. I got the RF because I’m getting old and wanted the light weight.
I'm currently using the 70-200 EF III and at the end of the day I just want the native RF as it just flows better and not having the adapter etc. I thought it's not that big a deal but the more and more I shoot w/my 28-70 RF I just prefer the RF glass. But 2700$ US I feel is too steep so I'm waiting for a used deal to pounce on. Appreciate your content. I'm still very happy with the R6 and have only incurred one problematic shooting scenario for the electronic shutter other than that it's been amazing not to see any warping or banding.
Yeah I agree it's a great camera
I’ll stick with my “ancient technology” 5DIV. As people jump in the mirrorless wagon, the price of EF L lens and bodies come down. Win for me!
The Ef is much softer and a flatter image makes sense obviously but we should be honest also not bad for such old equipment
The size and weight of the RF was tempting, but when I decided to upgrade my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS (no mark), I went the other way and grabbed the massive Sigma 70-200 Sports. It does outweigh the EF, but mounted to my R with grip, the total package is still lighter than the EF on my old 1Dsiii. Oh, and it was only $1100 on sale! What surprises me most in your review (and in others I've seen) is that there seems to be little to no IQ improvement in going to the RF. The EF no-mark is a 20 year old lens! So, that's a lot of money to spend to save space in the bag and get a control ring. By comparison (at least against my copy of the EF lens) the Sigma has far better sharpness at mid and edge of frame especially wide open (about the same in center), much higher contrast (or maybe it's just better color overall), and a way better bokeh (11 blades vs 7?). Of course, the other big difference is that RF won't work with extenders, even if you did invest in the new RF ones. I guess Canon wants to make sure we blow another load of cash on the RF 100-500 to get into that focal length. I have both the 1.4x and 2x EF extenders, and they work flawlessly between the Sigma lens and mount adapter. Speaking of adapters, the drop in filter one, although pricey, is a real gem. Now all my EF glass shares the same filters without having to carry step up rings, ditch lens hoods, or screw on/screw off all the time. Nice!
Ok, I still do appreciate small and light. Maybe I'll consider the new RF 70-200 f/4 for situations that need that.
No extenders? Well, that just puts my mind at easy for investing in some old tech just now. R is nice, but at the current rates, my photography is better improved with older but more nice glass.
Then again, with 45 mp, you don't need as much of reach as I do now with 24 mp. Just crop in.
Great advice Rob.........definitely price could come into your choice........amazing photos.........stay safe.......thanks for sharing
If I were to purchase the R6, I would also buy the adapter. I don’t need to repurchase quality glass as I already own them.Nothing wrong for a first time buyer of Canon cameras buying the new lenses for the R6. Just my opinion.
One thing: Now that video is a legitimate component on the canon "still" camera form factor, many of us who are videographers need the fixed internal zoom/focus for accessories like matte box and filters. the EF is still a required option unless the new RFs have similar capabilities with non telescoping functions. Fair enough, still guys wont care.
Thanks for the video, Rob. This is a fair comparison. I have a R6 and some EF-Lenses. I must say, that even my old EF-lenses (EF-S 60/2.8 USM, EF 200/2.8L II USM or EF 85/1.8 USM) perform exzellent on the R6. I have definitively more photos, which are 100% in focus, compared to my old 6D or 70D. So i will not purchase the very expensive RF-Lenses. But the R6 is indeed a nice camera.
Greetings Andy
Do your EF-lenses keep the same focal lenght with an adapter on the R6 ?
For size comparison you should compare 1DX versus R3.
This lens is actually sharp on my r10!!! It’s very capable!
Thank you for all Rob!! Regards from Mexico!
Intro beat was GANGSTA!!!
Since the EF-RF adapter has no optics, it has only one real effect: it limits the in-body image stabilization compared to a RF lens. Something you aren't going to notice if you're shooting sports, or really any moving subject.
A real test of this would be shooting a stationary subject in low light, and seeing how slow you could get the shutter to go before you get blurring from camera shake. This is the kind of photography I do pretty frequently, i.e. indoor photos of a historical site where they don't allow flash photography, or cave photos where flash isn't going to do you any good at all. This may be as far outside your normal photography as sports is for me.
but if IS version you dont use in-body stabilization, use the one built into the lens...
Thanks for this video. I have a question. I am currently shooting with a Canon 5D3 body. If I were to get the new R62 and use the adapter with my 70-200 IS (same as yours) would I get sharper pictures than I am getting now with the 5D3 body? Would love to hear your opinion and input on this. Thanks!
Excellent and very informative video. A big help in my decision making by covering all aspects.
Thank you
Hi Rob, all EF lenses work great with the adapter. Perhaps you might be able to do a try out with the RF 100-500 mm IS if possible?
Rob, try shooting with the electronic shutter it works well.
Thanks Ron, I've been using the electronic shutter a lot yes. You get 20fps with either lens on that.
@@RobSambles Rob, can you ever see the day you'll go completely mirrorless and get shut of your 1D bodies? I think the R6 out performs my 1DX II on all fronts apart from build quality and weather sealing. What are you thoughts ? Perhaps you could do a video on your thoughts on the future of your gear choices?
@@chimpy9823 Yeah I can definitely see it happening in the future. I'll do that good idea
@@RobSambles No problems mate, keep up the good videos 👍
Really good video Rob!
Thank you
Really really helpful review. Thanks man!
Thank you so much, Rob! This video realy helped me a lot. Cheers!!
You didn't convince me that the RF is better than the EF. It seems like a very subjective comparison to me with no A-B comparison. This is a problem because a lot of people are sort of just making subjective statements that RF lens are better as if they are "peer pressure-ing" others into dumping perfectly fine EF lenses to jump on the RF lens band wagon (you didn't go that far, though, but your did only seem to provide a subjective statement about RF being better). Yes, if I were buying new I'd go with the RF if I have the cash, but if I already have EF lenses then the question becomes should I upgrade? If you are a wedding tog who carries a 70-200 all day, then heck yeah, just the lighter weight is worth the upgrade (I think, anyway). But there are many situations where that is not the case and for that situation, people need hard data. I want to know about how the lens renders images, sharpness, contrast, bokeh, focus speed, etc., before I upgrade. In that sense, and reading between the lines, I doubt if that RF lens is better on many of those fronts. I think reviewers really need to do a in-depth evaluation on points that really matter rather than just saying that newer native mount lenses are better. The REASON I stayed with Canon is because I own a lot of high quality L lenses already and they all seem to work perfectly on the R5. I don't want people just making unsupported subjective statements to induce peer-pressure type GAS-infused purchases. I think a lot of Canon people are falling into this trap.
Thank you for a clear and detailed videos. But a little question. I am useing the R6 with Tamron AF 70-200 G2 with canon adaptor I am very happy with the results (I am photographing dance and sports) does this combination still retain the in camera stebilizer? thak you in advance for your answer.
Thank you, Rob. On the RF, how easy is it to move back and forth between 70-200 with one hand? I have head the throw is much left longer on the RF than on the EF
Wouldn’t a better comparison have been the 70-200ii or iii?
Rob, will it be possible to do performance assessment of more EF lenses on the RF adaptor?
Yeah I'll definitely do some more
What about the loss of resolution? I just picked up a R6Mk2, and with my lenses for my D80, it automatically gives a 1.6 crop factor that can't be overridden. The resolution drops from 24 MP to 9.3 MP.
Probably should have used the mkii or mkiii EF lens if sharpness was one of your criteria...? Its well documented they are sharper and just better than the mki lens. Also, seen that newer EF glass doesn't slow the fps down.... the mkii 70-200 seems to be able to work at the full H+ speeds, along with all the big newer primes.
Hi Rob! Really enjoy your videos. My youngest son is currently living in Didsbury outside Mancheste, what part of the England do you call home? 😄📸
I'm down South
Great video! In my opinion, Canon made a smart move to replace/extend the EF lenses with the RF lenses. As the demand for DSLRs has drastically decreased since the camera quality on smartphones (particularly on the iPhone) has improved phenomenally, the competitive advantage of these professional cameras disappears. Because we all invested years in professional DSLRs with a very extensive collection of professional high quality EF lenses, there was no bright future anymore for Canon (and many others). Canon has responded very cleverly by making a complete 'new' set of lenses together with the EOS R-series mirrorless cameras. The real Canon user will quickly experience the benefits of the R camera and be lured deep into the rabbit hole to buy all their lenses a second time, but now with RF-mount. Releasing the EOS R-series cameras with a completely different mount (RF) is a master move by Canon.
I have a T7 and just picked up an R50 for the 4k Video feature. I already have a nifty fifty for my T7, do I just get an adapter or do I buy another nifty fifty for my R50?
So thinking about getting an adapter to get myself a cheaper used EF lens but my question is if putting an adapter between the camera and the lens removes the weathersealing?
Thanks for the comparison! I've read another Canon RF-EF adapter is awaited soon, with the ability to configure it. Any idea what it could bring in this typical R6 setup?
Ah ok wow - I actually hadn't heard that yet. I suppose it depends what it enables you to configure
Configure what? There is the one with the control ring already, which u can configure the same way as the control ring on RF lenses. There is also one with drop-in filters - but u probably didn't mean that.
@@apep713 This is exactly what I was thinking about. I thought these new adapters had configuration options, but I guess I read too quickly... :)
Great comparison. Haven’t gone mirrorless yet but soon.
It's amazing. I went from canon to sony. Everything its just easier and getting the shots you want is just simpler.
What’s the build quality of the RF like Rob? Like the R6 but still a bit of a worry with build quality v the 1dx range wondered if the lens is a robust as the EF build
Yeah it feels just as solid John. The push/pull zoom makes it feel a bit more fragile but in reality its just as good.
Really should use EF 70-200 II /III to compare which they deployed fluorite that is absent in both EF I and RF 70-200.
Did you ever get a chance to compare Tamron 70-200 to Canon Ef with R6. I own a R6 and thinking to go for Tamron, because of the pricing ofcourse. To add more context, I'm a hobbyst and use my camera once in 2-3 months, that too while I'm traveling.
Very useful video thanks. I'm currently looking at moving to mirrorless from my 5D3 and am interested how my 70-200 2.8 II and 24-70 2.8 II will perform with the adapters.
Great thing about technology going onward, all those geeks and spec peakers are now selling their gear for cheap, hoping new cams and lenses will make them better, so real photogtaphers now can get a great deals on tools that they need to earn real money.
Canon eos R + 70-200mm f4 will be good when i shoot in golden hour - for example, I take photos 10 minutes before sun hide above mountain?
Super helpful! Thank you for sharing.
Glad it was helpful!
I use 24-70 2,8 L with canon RP and ef eos r adapter works GOOD
Awesome
I concur with Rob. I have the 70-200 2.8 IS Mark II and the RF 70-200 on my R6. The results are similar but I like the portability of the lens and IS would in conjunction with the RF IS and not on my EF lens. There is a chart from Canon that shows which EF lenses IS work together with the R series internal IS. I bought my RF lens from Canon's refurb site here in the states and caught it on sale at 15% off their refurb price. It was $2,189 US with taxes and comes with a 1 year Canon warranty, I couldn't pass it up. 8-)
Sounds like a great deal
@@RobSambles I try to buy all my cameras/lemses from Canon refurb. I don't get a fancy new box but I like the savings. I bought both of my 5dIV's through them as well. I have a 24-70 RF lens that I ordered a month ago and am still waiting for it to arrive. Just waiting for the R6 to show up there a save a few dollars, err pounds. 8-)
One thing you did wrong with this video is that you didn't use the Canon 70-200 II f/2.8, it would have been the ideal comparison
Quick question: I have EF canon EOS rebel T3i and I ended buying RF 35mm F1.8 MACRO is STM and it doesn’t fit on my camera. So is it possible if buy this adapter will it work.
It;s not working on mine but I got the ef 24-70 used .I have to go back to the camera store and see if there is something wrong with the lens. Odd because it will take photos in automatic but not manual mode. if you have any wisdom please share.
Great video! Question, How much FPS can be reached by using the mechanical shutter with Canon EF 300MM 2.8? Should I expect 5-6 FPS since it's not listed in the supported lens?
Dear Rob I appreciate both lenses get 20fps on the electronic shutter (ES) and that you ‘be been using the ES a lot and done some earlier videos about it. Is there some other issues with the ES and the EF adapter? Why not use it all the time and use mechanical shutter. I appreciate the reasons of comparison but other than that is there some frequently warping issues when shooting sports for example?
I've found the distortion issues to really be minimal. I do find the 20fps to almost be too much though!
really useful video .....thank you so much
Thanks for your great review
Its Amazing!!! Thank you, love your style!!
Thank you
would have been a bit better comparison if you'd compare mk3 both quality and price-wise. At least mention that mk3 is rumored to have more or less the same image quality.
Bro 5d mark iv and and EOS R and r6 which one is best for wedding photography and long term use
Thanks for this video. Can you recommend some prime EF glass for the R6?
Pretty much all EF lenses work with the adapter
I always love the EF 85mm F1.8. You have to try so hard not to get a good shot with that lens. My fave Canon prime in the sensible money class.
Would you go from a 5D MK 4 to the R6 though? Is 1k GBP worth the spend?