Barnswallows collecting mud and and material for nest building. First is by my wife with the R7 + RF 100-400mm. Next 2 from me with the R5ii and RF 100-500mm. It's been a very hot day in Norfolk.

EricN said:

I'm guessing the 45mm was a test: "Will enough people buy a cheaper 1.2 from Canon?"

Click to expand...

Or part of a strategy to widen customer basis.

Hector1970 said:

Canon R5 II with 100-500mm. A beautiful puffin quite a small bird and hard to catch in flight. The R5 II wasn’t perfect but it was good at tracking the Puffin as it came in from the sea. Far superior camera to the R5 in tracking ability. Image quality between both is similar.

Click to expand...

Well done, Hector.

Beautiful series, Helmut.

A few photos I managed to take this year

Nach der frühmorgendlichen Paargymnastik by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

Frühmorgendliche Paargymnastik by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

Alcedo atthis by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

Haubentaucher by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

neuroanatomist said:

Not that I have noticed. The RF lens does exhibit mild focus shift, but only at magnifications over 1x and in any case, if your camera supports exposure + DoF simulation then focus shift is a non-issue because focusing is done with the lens already stopped down.

Click to expand...

Good to know, thx. I'll probably get a used copy of EF version then. I just looked and the difference is about 500 €. Enough money to get the adapter and some left over for maybe another lens. Since the RF 14mm F1.4 and 20mm F1.4 are out of my price league for my rare use cases, I thinking about getting the sigma 20mm f1.4 for the summer once again. I´d like to take some nightscapes at the North Sea.

I’m excited about this lens and definitely am the target audience. Right now I prefer the M6ll with the 32 1.4 over the R8 with the 501.8, and when the M6 dies an R10 / 50 with the 35 1.8 will be the substitute but I don’t look forward to that day,and this lens will be competing with the Sigma 56 1.4 on APSC, which I use much more than the 85 f2 on the R8, which is so bulky I like it less than the EF 85 1.8. Maybe these fast modest lenses will tip the balance from EOS M to R for walkabout with family, it’s not a slam dunk yet.

How about that. My order (9) will arrive in 2 days. Maybe a sign that my pre-ordered RF 20-50 will arrive soon too.

Del Paso said:

It should be much better, think of what Canon did achieve with the RF 28mm f/2,8, which also uses resin lenses.
The only real issue might be a psychological one, and some brainless internet "experts"...

Click to expand...

I'm guessing the 45mm was a test: "Will enough people buy a cheaper 1.2 from Canon?"

el peso said:

If it would provide the same image quality as RF 45/1.2, then no thanks.

Click to expand...

It should be much better, think of what Canon did achieve with the RF 28mm f/2,8, which also uses resin lenses.
The only real issue might be a psychological one, and some brainless internet "experts"...

GMCPhotographics said:

For example, the EF 100-400 f5.6 LIS II vs the RF 100-500mm f7.1 LIS. Sure the newer lens is slightly lighter, longer and it's AF is a bit better too. However optically, the old one is brighter and equally sharp. In the UK, the nwer lens retails at around £2.5K, the trade in for a the EF lens is often quite low, maybe £800 in trade in. So I would still need to find £1.7K, which is a LOT for something that's only a bit better than my existing lens.
Other lenses like the RF 50mm f1.4 VCM L and the RF 24mm f1.4 VCM L have no direct EF lens comparision that is worth mentioning.

Click to expand...

Considering that tele zooms are most often used at the longer end, at least the way I tend to use them, I find the fact that the RF reaches 100mm farther to be quite meaningful. And since I do hike with it, the weight difference is very welcome too.

The difference in brightness / max aperture is really minimal - these are the max aperture value thresholds as per TDM:

RF 100-500
100-150mm = f/4.5
151-253mm = f/5.0
254-362mm = f/5.6
363-471mm = f/6.3
472-500mm = f/7.1

EF 100-400 II
100-134mm = f/4.5
135-311mm = f/5.0
312-400mm = f/5.6

So in the equivalent ranges the difference is practically non-existent.

Having said so, I do agree that 1700 GBP is a tough ask for these benefits.

candyman said:

I can fully understand that. Testing it yourself works best for decision-making.

I also read Richard's article from CanonNews about the RF 20-50's MTF. His explanation of the MTF confirms that the mid-frame and periphery are not as good as the center. Based on my own tests, I want to see what this means for architecture photography (indoor and outdoor) and landscape photography. I certainly believe this is a great lens for street photography.

Click to expand...

Sure, mid-frame , periphery and corners are never as good in general as the centre. The Rf 20-50 shares this
characteristic with 99% (or more?) of all photo lenses.

foda said:

Golden-fronted Woodpecker with a palm fruit, seen while birding in Belize, April, 2026.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

View attachment 230140

Click to expand...

Beautiful

Noreaster said:

Swamp SparrowView attachment 230280View attachment 230281

Click to expand...

Beautiful. Lovely capture

Canon R5 II with 100-500mm. A beautiful puffin quite a small bird and hard to catch in flight. The R5 II wasn’t perfect but it was good at tracking the Puffin as it came in from the sea. Far superior camera to the R5 in tracking ability. Image quality between both is similar.

Exploreshootshare said:

Is there any difference between the two lenses in terms of sharpness, iq or AF behavior?

Click to expand...

Not that I have noticed. The RF lens does exhibit mild focus shift, but only at magnifications over 1x and in any case, if your camera supports exposure + DoF simulation then focus shift is a non-issue because focusing is done with the lens already stopped down.

esglord said:

At the time, spending less on the RP over the R, and putting the difference toward a lens was the right move for me. However, today, the R8 is worth paying a bit more for. Hopefully, they drop its price a little (or at least that of the R10) for the budget conscious.

Click to expand...

I did the same, a local camera store had the option to rent the R+RP+RF50L for free and that made me realize the R wasn't €1000 better than the RP. So I bought an RP + EF100L macro lens and sold my EF100-non-L macro.

I'm not sure what features in an R8II would make me replace my R8, it still works great for everything I do. Flash with ES is the bare minimum, but not enough

btw: a great fit for this thread: Canon RP for 599 $ at Canon refurbished.

neuroanatomist said:

For me, the use case for the 20-50/4 will be as a walkaround lens on the R8. That will often include architecture

Click to expand...

That is my use case as well. Combined with the R8.
Often, I don't have the opportunity to return to the location very quickly, or to stay there longer. So, I try to get the most out of it. I notice that traveling with a combination of R5 II, TS-E, 24-105, and 14-35 has a bit more impact on endurance during a day of city walking. So, I try a lighter (smaller) combination. But naturally, I want to sacrifice as little quality and flexibility (focal length choices) as possible. However, if the subject is worthwhile, and the result of the smaller/lighter setup is inferior (and I don't think this will be dramatically), then I put it on the list to go back to. But first, it remains to be seen how satisfied I am with the 20-50. So, just a little more patience.

GMCPhotographics said:

I've considered the above scenarios previously and because I'm a 2 camera body user, I will probably put the EF adapter on one camera and use taht as my EF lens camera and then go R mount native lenses on my other camera. With one caveat, I'd still have a spare Ef to R adapter in my gear bag, just in case.

Click to expand...

I really like the idea of one camera with a permanent adapter for EF lenses and one for native lenses sounds like a great solution!

neuroanatomist said:

I had both, but I swapped the EF version for the RF version really for the convenience. The SA control on the RF lens is fun to play with sometimes, but I don't find it of significant benefit. Same with the extra magnification (but I have the MP-E 65 when I want higher than 1x).

Click to expand...

Yeah, the RF would be convenient because I wouldn't need an adapter. On the other, size and weight seems to similar including an adapter for the EF. I guess it really comes down to whether I want to use an adapter again. There are some vintages lenses for EF mount that do spark my interest, but so far I haven't found used copies that´d make sense for me. The SA control seems like a fun gimmick, but not a necessity for me.

Is there any difference between the two lenses in terms of sharpness, iq or AF behavior?

Exploreshootshare said:

I am currently looking at macro lenses: the decision is between the EF 100mm F2.8 L and the RF 100mm F2.8. Do I really need the magnification of 1,4:1? Is it worth a premium of about 400-600 €? I don't think so because I am not that much into macro... only thing with the EF... I need an adapter once again... grrrr

Click to expand...

I had both, but I swapped the EF version for the RF version really for the convenience. The SA control on the RF lens is fun to play with sometimes, but I don't find it of significant benefit. Same with the extra magnification (but I have the MP-E 65 when I want higher than 1x).

GMCPhotographics said:

Some lenses like the EF 11-24mm f4 L are amazing performers and gain the option of using drop in filters behind the lens when using a EF to R adapter. This means that a large and bulbous lens like this can use filters very efficiently when crossing the EF to R mount divide. It's RF equivelent is the sublime RF 10-20mm L. Which is a stunning little lens. It's a little wider, not as long and it looses the drop in adapter option (obviously). But it is so much smaller and easier to use than the giant EF version. Sure, the EF version doesn't rely on corner stretching / math geometric correction, but compare the size difference and it's a night and day experiance. As you can see, you gain some features and loose some others. it's not quite a like for like comparison.

Click to expand...

I had the EF 11-24/4, and I held off purchasing the RF 10-20/4 in part because of the drop-in filter capability of the adapter. But there came a day when packing for a trip and trying to force the massive 11-24/4 into a nearly full bag, that I ordered the 10-20/4 when I got back. I bring the 10-20/4 along far more often than I did the 11-24, because of the smaller size and lighter weight.

One thing to keep in mind with the drop-in filter behind the 11-24/4 is that the utility of the stock filters is limited by the ultrawide angle of view. A CPL can be useful for taming reflections, but you'll get uneven polarization of the sky. Likewise, the vND shows artifacts at ultrawide angles (for the same reason – a vND is essentially multiple polarizers. The filter that I use the most is a 10-stop ND, and for that I can use the gel slot on the rear of the 10-20/4.

candyman said:

...I want to see what this means for architecture photography (indoor and outdoor) and landscape photography. I certainly believe this is a great lens for street photography.

Click to expand...

For me, the use case for the 20-50/4 will be as a walkaround lens on the R8. That will often include architecture, but just casual shots (for 'serious' shooting, I come back at blue hour with a tripod and a TS-E lens...for example (14-35/4 on the left, TS-E 17 on the right).



I'll have to choose between the 20-50/4 and the 24-105/4 for any given trip/outing, but in most urban settings the 20-50mm range will be more useful to me.