Points in Focus Photography

Lenses for your RF Camera: To EF or RF EOS R5 Project Ep 6

+2

https://youtu.be/bMy4nJyq23A

Canon’s new EOS R platform raises some interesting questions when it comes to lens selection. Of course you can go straight for the new hotness that is the RF mount lenses. However, thanks the the shorter flange-focal distance of the RF mount, you can also adapt virtually all DSLR lenses to work on the camera too. Probably the most important, and useful of these is Canon’s own EF lenses.

The question then becomes, should you focus on buying RF glass across the board, or are EF lenses still a viable option?

To EF or RF?

The question of whether to EF or RF depends on a number of factors. Put simply, if you’re playing the very long game, the RF mount is the future for Canon. Ultimately sooner or later the EF mount is going to be supplanted by RF. However, in the shorter term — by which I mean the next 5-10 years or so — the EF mount is still going to be a viable option.

For starters, there’s the simple reality that Canon doesn’t currently make every lens option in RF mount. There are plenty of lenses, right now, that you simply can’t get without adapting an EF lens; for example, a 35mm f/1.4L or a tilt shift, or a 100mm macro. Now it’s entirely certain that over the next several years, Canon will be rolling all these options out to the RF platform, but they’re not there now.

If you’re still shooting with Canon DSLRs — for example, I’m still using my two EOS 5D mark IVs, and I don’t expect to replace them for another year or two — you’re going to need to have EF lenses.

Additionally, if you’re using, or planning on using, one of the many “cine” style cameras out there — for example, the Canon C200, C300, C500, BlackMagick Design URSA Mini Pro or Pocket Cine 6K, or most of the camera from Z-Cam — EF lenses are something you’re going to continue to need to consider.

As things stand now, at the time of writing, there’s only one RF mount Cine style camera; Canon’s own Cinema EOS C70. However, it’s expected that there are more RF cine cameras in the works.

From a technical perspective on the lenses, there are some reasons you might want to lean one way or another too.

For starters, all RF lenses are focus by wire designs. While there are some EF lenses that are focus by wire — all the STM lenses — the majority have mechanically coupled focus rings. This has some implications when it comes to manually focusing these lenses, especially in video situations.

On the other hand, RF lenses, have the advantage of being typically smaller, lighter, have better optical quality, and increased features (such as longer zoom ranges, or image stabilization) that aren’t otherwise available on an EF predecessor. Additionally, RF lenses have a new programmable control ring that I’ve found to be quite handy at times — though the control ring can be had with adapted EF lenses with the control ring mount adapter.

Ultimately though, what might be the biggest deciding factor between the two mounts, at least for me, are the costs. All of the RF lenses are both new enough, and in high enough demand, that they’re still carrying the new lens premium. Eventually the costs will come down, but probably not for several years to come.

As a point of comparison, consider the 24-70mm f/2.8 options. An EF mount Canon factory refrub 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM and a control ring mount adapter can be had for around $1920. Buying a new lens, brings that cost up to $2100. However, buying the RF mount variant will run $2300. Granted, the RF mount lens has IS, but then so do the EOS R5 and R6 bodies too.

On an even more expensive side of things, the the difference between an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 and an EF one plus a mount adapter, is between $400 and $725 depending on whether you get a new or factory refurbished EF lens.

Admittedly, all of these RF lenses have some advantages over their EF predecessors. The 24-70 has image stabilization, and in conjunction with the in-body stabilizer of the R5 and R6, gets a very impressive 8 stops of shake reduction. Likewise the 70-200mm f/2.8 is 2 inches shorter, and 2/3rds of a pound lighter than it’s EF counterpart.

In either case, there’s certainly value to the improvements of the RF lenses, but the question  you have to ask yourself is how much are those improvements worth to you. There’s a lot that can be done with $200-$700.

My Advice:

The question, to me at least, comes down to what can I do to get the best bang for my buck. While RF lenses are definitely the future, and in some cases, the future is now, there are plenty of really good EF lenses available now and at substantial savings. That said, I’ll over up my usual advice for people asking about buying lenses.

First, don’t go around looking for general advice on what lens you should buy next. Lenses, like your photography, are a personal thing, and the right lens for you is not necessarily the right lens for someone else.

Before you start asking around about what lenses you should by, sit down and honestly evaluate what you’re problem areas are, what you really need, what you want, and what sounds like it’s important because the marketing makes it sound impressive.

Start with where you’re finding you’re having problems. Are your existing lenses not long enough? Wide enough? Fast enough? Is there a certain focal length you’re always shooting at and maybe it’s just not doing it for you?

Second, be honest with yourself about your needs, wants, and what just sounds good. It’s real easy to see numbers like 8 stops of image stabilization and think that’s really important to have; but maybe it’s not, or not for the added cost over something else.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not here to poo-poo technological advancements. A better IS system, faster focusing, more resolution, etc. are all useful things to have. They certainly make better images, and make it easier to make better images. However, more purely for the sake of having more won’t make you a better photographer.

Once you’ve considered your needs and your situation, sit down and make a plan. I like to keep 2-3 years of future purchases in mind at this point. I have good enough glass that I’m not hurting, so I can be both strategic about my purchases and I can afford to bide my time and wait for a the best deals I can find.

It’s also important to keep in mind that while cameras are advancing rapidly, the pace isn’t such that you can expect a lens now to be utterly obsolete next year. The RF mount is almost certainly designed to support extremely high resolution lenses, likely much higher than the EF mount’s designers ever envisioned when they were designing the mount in the early 1980s. However, many EF lenses now, especially L series ones, are more than capable of meeting the demands of at least 50 MP cameras. With camera’s like the EOS R6 at only 20 MP, it’ll be a few generations and many years before a good EF lens won’t be adequate to support that sensor.

Finally don’t be afraid to alter your plan over time. Your needs may change, new lenses will be released, and new information about a product may change your mind about it.

This was certainly the case for me. When Canon announced the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 IS USM I was dead set that I was going to get that lens to replace my go to EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM. It’s one of my most used lenses, and the 100-500 looked like a really good upgrade. However, as reviews came out on the 100-500, I became aware that you can’t collapse the lens past 300mm with a teleconverter attached, and this really concerned me. As a result, for the time being I’m sticking with my 100-400 and biding my time when it comes to big RF telephoto zoom and I’ll see what else Canon offers as a big pro telephoto zoom. Or ultimately I may get some time with the RF 100-500 and my concerns over the teleconverters will prove to be unfounded — or the price will come down enough that it’s enticing enough to buy on those grounds.

In any event, the short of it is that EF lenses are still perfectly viable options for RF platform users. It doesn’t hurt either that they can save you some money and still provide great quality images. That said, in the long run, say more than 10 years down the road, they will be supplanted. But for the next decade? Go for the glass that best does the job and fit your budget; whether that’s EF, RF, or a combination of both.

Comments

Ethan Cane

Hi there,

Well written and possibly even better timed article.

My very first camera was the Canon EOS 750D which got me started alongside some affordable EF-S lenses. Soon after I caught the bug I upgraded to the Canon EOS 80D and soon built a reasonable collection of EF L Series lenses and then finally made the jump to full-frame with the upgrade to the Canon EOS 6D II.

Last year I upgraded my Canon EOS 6D II to a Canon EOS 5DS and at the same time switched my entire Canon EF L Series collection to all Zeiss EF (ZE Mount) primes. I now own zero Canon L Series glass and shoot exclusively with all Zeiss Milvus and Otus lenses and with the recently released Canon EOS R5 and the hotly anticipated Canon EOS R5S (the purported upgrade to the Canon EOS 5DS) I have considered this topic of late also.

Here is my current lens line up:

Zeiss Milvus 15mm f/2.8
Zeiss Milvus 21mm f/2.8
Zeiss Milvus 25mm f/1.4
Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4
Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/2
Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4
Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/2
Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4
Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2
Zeiss Milvus 135mm f/2

As you can see I have invested heavily in my lens upgrade from Canon and chose to shoot solely manual as I prefer the fuller control and emotional connection when shooting (all hands on – right on down the focus) and simply prefer the famed Zeiss 3D micro-contrast afforded by this glass. I shoot primarily on tripods and monopods touching upon multiple photographic disciplines (I am not professional at all and don’t get paid to shoot and probably never will) with photography just being an expensive hobby for me.

Currently I have zero interest the the RF mount lenses as I made the firm decision to switch to Zeiss and invest heavily financially so as never to require another upgrade to any of the above focal lengths as I believe each lens noted is about as good as things can be (for me at least) so moving forwards the only upgrade to consider is a new body. Thankfully I can use the EF-RF mount adapter to make the move to Canon EOS mirrorless but steered well clear of the Canon EOS R as that was first out the gate and lacked what I wanted in an upgrade. The Canon EOS R5 comes close (45MP) to the 50MP of the Canon EOS 5DS but the rumoured 90MP of the Canon EOS R5S (hoping 100MP) is what might finally make the move to mirrorless.

I suppose the question is whether I would ever buy another piece of Canon glass. Currently I’ve got every focal length covered that matters to me. I’ve shot super telephoto and decided the ideal maximal range stops at 135mm, beyond that moving into wildlife which is not my area of interest. The RF line up does of course look impressive but thus far nothing seems to usurp the Zeiss equivalents I already own. I hear the 50mm f/1.2 is on par perhaps (possibly better than the Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4) but I’d rather get the Zeiss given the choice since at some point a mark II for the Canon will be released whereas I don’t see that happening anytime soon with the Zeiss.

I’m writing this now quite tired so am rambling somewhat so will wrap here but would be interested in your feedback.

Kind regards and thanks for posting this. Actually found and bookmarked your site from another separate and equally well written review. Keep up the great work.

Ethan Cane

    Jason Franke  | admin

    The Canon EOS R5 comes close (45MP) to the 50MP of the Canon EOS 5DS but the rumoured 90MP of the Canon EOS R5S (hoping 100MP) is what might finally make the move to mirrorless.

    The question I have to ask is what do you feel you’ll gain, or need to have, from having more resolution?

    My experience going from 1D3 (10 MP) to 5D3 (23 MP) to 5D4 (30 MP) to R5 (45 MP) has been that the value of the gains has continually diminished to the point that more resolution isn’t a selling point (for me) anymore. I bought the R5 in spite of it being 45MP not because of it.

    If I was sitting on a 5Ds, I would have jumped to the R5 faster than I did from my 5D4. Quite honestly, I’d argue that the 5D4 is a better camera than 5DS for pretty much anything but shooting MTF charts. Which is actually why I went 5D4 instead of 5DS when I upgraded form the 5D3. But the R5 brings a nearly 2 stop peak (actually 3 stops if you use DPRAW files) increase in dynamic rang at ISO 100, and resolution loss is almost entirely meaningless in practice.

    I’m also certainly going to pass on an R5s largely because I don’t see 80 or 90 MP getting me anything of value in my prints. I’d still have to stitch panos for the big landscapes to get the kind of res I want to work with, and for the rest of my work the res is lost in all the mitigating factors (camera shake, atmospheric distortion, subject movement, not having or wanting $10,000+ lenses, not having a 2 ton solid granite camera support, etc.).

    I suppose the question is whether I would ever buy another piece of Canon glass. Currently I’ve got every focal length covered that matters to me. I’ve shot super telephoto and decided the ideal maximal range stops at 135mm, beyond that moving into wildlife which is not my area of interest.

    IMO, you buy what fits your needs, not what brand makes it.

    If you’re not interested in wildlife, and don’t see the world through a telephoto eye, there’s no real compelling reason to care about RF glass if you already have the glass you need covered.

    Personally, I’ve only ordered 1 RF lens, the RF 28-70 f/2. I’ve already got good EF L glass, and I see no reason to simply throw money away on replacing it with the same thing in RF mount. I know eventually I’ll end up with native RF glass, but I’m not in any rush, and I don’t see a compelling reason to worry or care about it in the short/medium term.

    IME, the mount adapters work just fine.

    The RF line up does of course look impressive but thus far nothing seems to usurp the Zeiss equivalents I already own. I hear the 50mm f/1.2 is on par perhaps (possibly better than the Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4) but I’d rather get the Zeiss given the choice since at some point a mark II for the Canon will be released whereas I don’t see that happening anytime soon with the Zeiss.

    Again, as far as I’m concerned, chasing resolution is a fools errand. So the simple reality is you buy and shoot the glass that gets you the image you’re after; period, full stop. For you that sounds like the Zeiss glass you already have, so you’re good there.

    There’s only a few cases where it makes sense to care about a lens’s resolution. One is that the lens is simply so crap that the resulting image looks like a bad Instagram filter. The other is that your interest in photography is to shoot MTF charts. For everything else, your eye and the subject matter far more than the gear you’re shooting it with.

    I’m writing this now quite tired so am rambling somewhat so will wrap here but would be interested in your feedback.

    Kind regards and thanks for posting this. Actually found and bookmarked your site from another separate and equally well written review. Keep up the great work.

    You know, the longer I do this the harder it is for me to give feedback to people on their plans and objectives.

    I’m always like, stop worrying about the bloody gear and go make awesome pictures.

    I can almost guarantee that it’s not your camera or lens holding you back.

    I think you’d find an R5 to be a reasonable upgrade over the 5DS. I’d say you could probably expect the R5s (or whatever Canon calls it) to be better still; but that doesn’t exist, and may be more than a year away, so who knows.

    I don’t think buying Canon RF glass really matters that much. The Zeiss glass you have is more than good enough, and the mount adapters work fine. Manual focus on the R5 will almost certainly be better than the 5DS. At a minimum you have peaking, and magnification in the viewfinder not just on the LCD. I think you should also get the focus guide, but I’m not completely sure about that one.

    I’m not sure if that helps at all, or even if makes any sense. But if you’d like to continue this conversation, feel free to reply here, or use the contact form and we can take it to email.

Leave a Reply

Basic Rules:
  • All comments are moderated.
  • Abusive, inflamatory, and/or "troll" posts will not be published.
  • Links to online retailrs (eg., Amazon, Ali Express, EBay, etc.) either directly, or indirectly through 3rd party URL shorternrs, will be removed form your post.
  • Extremely long comments (>1000 words) may be blocked by the spam filters automatically.
  • If your comment doesn't show up, it may have been eaten by the spam filters; sorry about that.
  • See the Terms of Use/Privacy Policy for more details.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.


Follow me on twitter for updates on when new comments and articles are posted.

Email Notice Details: By checking the above checkbox, you are agreeing to recieve one email at the email address provided with this comment, for the sole purpose of notifing you that the article author has been reseponded to your comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Our cookie and privacy policy. Dismiss