dolina said:

The EOS R1 and R5 Mark II can drive the focus motors of "Big Whites" with more voltage than older DSLRs.

Click to expand...

roby17269 said:

Disagree with you here:

• most Joes and Janes will not buy an expensive L prime for those use cases, they would get a cheaper zoom
• In the specific case, if Joe and Jane were to actually buy a EF 50 1.2, they'd probably go home and wonder why most of their photos are soft and be put off buying another expensive prime and go back taking pictures with their phones
• moreover, the comparison EF 50 1.2 v RF 50 1.2 is one of the very few cases where the extra cost of the RF version is justified by the massive improvement it represents compared to the EF version

Click to expand...

dolina said:

While they are limited to roughly 7 to 10 fps (depending on the model and battery)

Click to expand...

roby17269 said:

You Joes and Janes are becoming a bit better photographers at every line you write
My point was, trying to use your terminology:

• If they do not know (e.g. entry-level soccer mom) then they a) don't use primes and b) don't even know that earlier generation compatible primes exist
• if they know and they can afford it, they will get the RF prime (1.2 or 1.4)
• if they know but cannot afford the RF 1.2, they'll probably get the RF 1.4 prime which is at a similar price point than the EF 1.2
• very few will go for the EF 1.2, mostly because they have "inherited" one from friends or family...

Click to expand...

roby17269 said:

Now, this is my view, mostly based on my abysmal experience with the EF 50 1.2 v my nirvana-like experience with the RF 50 1.2. Maybe I had a bad copy, who knows? But I haven't heard anyone calling the EF 50 1.2 sharp - of course there are people that prefer to call overweight people "non-slim', so there's that, i.e. yes, it is in the eye of the beholder.

Click to expand...

roby17269 said:

If you were to compare different lenses, like big white exotics, it would be different, but in any case I do not really see your J&J's buying those, unless they are rich.

Click to expand...

stillviking said:

Of course I understand, and I'm also taking the comparison to the other extreme. It just seems to me that Canon is exaggerating the prices of these lenses; Nikon currently has high-quality "intermediate" options, and I think that's what's missing.

Click to expand...

DocInfoSci said:

Maybe. I know several people who reached for L primes because:

• Their skills have grown to surpass the limits of non-L glass (they know)
• There is something fun about getting the fancier edition
• They can

All three points equally justify the acquisition of RF glass, but they absolutely apply to EF glass when other purchasing priorities are considered. For a lot of people I know they have non-photography careers, make good but not amazing money, and yet are still skilled enough to push edges of their hobby. These are the people reaching for such glass, probably eyes wide open.

Click to expand...

DocInfoSci said:

My kid? Yeah, STM lenses all the way. Once graduated? Probably VCM primes. But first a zoom as you suggest. (But let's be honest, she'll butter me up for my collection and extol to me the virtues of upgrading my collection to RF...)


OK My experience has not been that, but there are many people I don't yet know in this world.

The 50mm is hardly soft in the eyes of those hobbyists I do know, especially with the usual tricks applied. I am putting together another book for my region and I also don't find it soft in the slightest for what I'm up to in this regard. Soft is probably use case based and subjective, and for the Joes and Janes I work with or hand cameras to plus a little education these older lenses produce marvels. Just as they did in years gone by. Unless you place your subject in the corner. In which case... yeah, soft, especially at 1.2.


My earlier point exactly. Zero complaints with my EF tele glass, and only minor gripes elsewhere outside of astro.

Click to expand...

• If they do not know (e.g. entry-level soccer mom) then they a) don't use primes and b) don't even know that earlier generation compatible primes exist
• if they know and they can afford it, they will get the RF prime (1.2 or 1.4)
• if they know but cannot afford the RF 1.2, they'll probably get the RF 1.4 prime which is at a similar price point than the EF 1.2
• very few will go for the EF 1.2, mostly because they have "inherited" one from friends or family...

dolina said:

Casual/Entry-Level dSLR (and maye mirrorless) user has the body + kit lens. They may even add a nifty fity and that's it making it 1-2 lenses per body.

Enthusiast/Hobbyist users may have 3-5 lenses.

Professionals have 5-10+ lenses.

If you are active in photography forums CR or camera clubs your "personal average" is likely 4 or 5 lenses. You are seeing the "Enthusiast Bubble." The global average is weighed down by thousands of corporate studios buying one lens for headshots, vloggers buying one lens for YouTube and casual travelers who buy one kit and call it a day.

Click to expand...

DocInfoSci said:

Maybe. I know several people who reached for L primes because:

• Their skills have grown to surpass the limits of non-L glass (they know)
• There is something fun about getting the fancier edition
• They can

All three points equally justify the acquisition of RF glass, but they absolutely apply to EF glass when other purchasing priorities are considered. For a lot of people I know they have non-photography careers, make good but not amazing money, and yet are still skilled enough to push edges of their hobby. These are the people reaching for such glass, probably eyes wide open.

My kid? Yeah, STM lenses all the way. Once graduated? Probably VCM primes. But first a zoom as you suggest. (But let's be honest, she'll butter me up for my collection and extol to me the virtues of upgrading my collection to RF...)


OK My experience has not been that, but there are many people I don't yet know in this world.

The 50mm is hardly soft in the eyes of those hobbyists I do know, especially with the usual tricks applied. I am putting together another book for my region and I also don't find it soft in the slightest for what I'm up to in this regard. Soft is probably use case based and subjective, and for the Joes and Janes I work with or hand cameras to plus a little education these older lenses produce marvels. Just as they did in years gone by. Unless you place your subject in the corner. In which case... yeah, soft, especially at 1.2.


My earlier point exactly. Zero complaints with my EF tele glass, and only minor gripes elsewhere outside of astro.

Click to expand...

dolina said:

I still have the 2012 EF 40mm f/2.8 STM and its form factor is a reason I want to collect all future RF pancake lenses.

If I get the lightest RF body like the 2023 EOS R8 or R100 + RF 28mm f/2.8 STM would have a camera that weighs a total of 581g & 476g respectively. The ideal travel camera with FF & APS-C image sensor.

Click to expand...

roby17269 said:

Disagree with you here:

• most Joes and Janes will not buy an expensive L prime for those use cases, they would get a cheaper zoom

Click to expand...

• Their skills have grown to surpass the limits of non-L glass (they know)
• There is something fun about getting the fancier edition
• They can

roby17269 said:

• In the specific case, if Joe and Jane were to actually buy a EF 50 1.2, they'd probably go home and wonder why most of their photos are soft and be put off buying another expensive prime and go back taking pictures with their phones

Click to expand...

roby17269 said:

• moreover, the comparison EF 50 1.2 v RF 50 1.2 is one of the very few cases where the extra cost of the RF version is justified by the massive improvement it represents compared to the EF version

Click to expand...

DocInfoSci said:

If they made a 28mm pancake with weather sealing I'd be so all over that. The weather sealing + size combo would make every other compromise a secondary concern. Even a pudgy pancake would be OK (muffin? biscuit?).

Click to expand...

DocInfoSci said:

For family and friends doing typical family and friends things, I still thing all of the mentioned advantages of RF glass is nice to have and not essential for the job improvements. If a Joe or Jane can pick up a new EF 50mm f/1.2 for $1,500 or RF 50mm f/1.2 for $3,199 (today's Vistek price) I'd still recommend the EF edition at this point — for what they do. The VCM edition at $2,099 (again, today at Vistek)... hmm, if they wanted to buy into an RF prime line I'd say yeah but otherwise I'd still recommend the EF.

Click to expand...

• most Joes and Janes will not buy an expensive L prime for those use cases, they would get a cheaper zoom
• In the specific case, if Joe and Jane were to actually buy a EF 50 1.2, they'd probably go home and wonder why most of their photos are soft and be put off buying another expensive prime and go back taking pictures with their phones
• moreover, the comparison EF 50 1.2 v RF 50 1.2 is one of the very few cases where the extra cost of the RF version is justified by the massive improvement it represents compared to the EF version

dolina said:

My priority right now would be RF 28mm f/2.8 STM & RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM.

Click to expand...

dolina said:

The RF lenses I pointed to are for lenses I would not have if I sold 1999-2005 EF lenses by 2017 & for focal lengths I never had in the first place.

My priority right now would be RF 28mm f/2.8 STM & RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM.

Click to expand...

Malm said:

Good question! I hope that reviews will give us an answer!
Canons 3rd party politic is recently supporting Zeiss as they are the only high-quality 3rd party lens manufacturer for the RF mount (full-frame).
I would like to see the New Sigma 35/1.4 lens on my Canon camera as manual-RF or adapted EF, but Sigma is obviously not going into that direction.

Click to expand...

dolina said:

The 2020 EOS R5 included sensor shift as a firmware update. This required taking 9 separate photos while moving the sensor. This method is now absent in newer RF bodies for three reasons:

Speed: High-speed stacked sensors in the R1 and R5 II are designed for 30–40 fps action. Multi-shot sensor shift requires the camera to be perfectly still for up to a second which limits its use for pros.

Click to expand...

DocInfoSci said:

Yours is an awesome reply. I'd love more like this.

For family and friends doing typical family and friends things, I still thing all of the mentioned advantages of RF glass is nice to have and not essential for the job improvements. If a Joe or Jane can pick up a new EF 50mm f/1.2 for $1,500 or RF 50mm f/1.2 for $3,199 (today's Vistek price) I'd still recommend the EF edition at this point — for what they do. The VCM edition at $2,099 (again, today at Vistek)... hmm, if they wanted to buy into an RF prime line I'd say yeah but otherwise I'd still recommend the EF.

But, if you know you know — if you know the EF drive is insufficient, or you know the weight will kill you over the day, or you know the financial risk due to a repair is high, or you know you lean more on a spray of pictures and hope some come out sharp with the computer doing most of the work (Olympics...) then you know that you need the latest and greatest and the $1,500 price difference in the above example is worth every penny from warranty to AF speed. And today that is the RF glass.

But, for $1,500... you really ought to know.

Click to expand...

dolina said:

As much as I sing praises for in-camera DLO's ability to correct optical aberrations sadly it cannot fix hardware limitations. Modern sensors like the 45MP R5 Mark II and the high-density 32.5MP R7 reveal softness in older EF glass. The EOS R1 uses a high-speed bus that EF lenses cannot fully saturate. Native RF lenses provide 12-pin communication for faster data transfer and more precise AF tracking than the 8-pin EF system.

The price of RF lenses includes new tech like Voice Coil Motors (VCM) and Nano USM. These motors move heavy glass faster and quieter than old Ring USM motors found in lenses like my 2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM or 1999 EF 500mm f/4L IS USM. Many older EF lenses use "Focus-by-Wire" systems. When these electronic motors fail the lens cannot be focused manually. Canon typically stops making parts 7 years after a lens is discontinued. If I bought the last 1988 EF 200mm f/1.8L USM with the 1st batch of 2003 EOS 10D before its 2004 discontinuation and 1989 EF 50mm f/1.0L USM when it was discontinued in 2000 I wouldn't be able to get brand new spare parts in 2026 as they're past this support window.

RF lenses are designed for the short flange distance of the RF mount. This allows for larger rear elements that hit the sensor with straighter light rays. This reduces purple fringing and corner softness. Older EF wide-angle lenses such as your 2007 EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM or 2007 EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM show more distortion on mirrorless sensors compared to native RF versions. The R1 and R5 Mark II also offer Coordinated Image Stabilization. This combines sensor movement with lens movement for up to 8 stops of shake correction. Older EF lenses often provide only 3 to 4 stops or zero correction if they lack lens IS.

Focus speed is a critical difference for professional work. The EOS R1 can shoot at 40 fps. Most EF lenses released before 2006 cannot move their focus elements fast enough to keep up with this rate. Using a 2001 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM on an R1 will result in fewer sharp shots during fast action compared to the RF version. For revenue-generating work the risk of a motor failure on a discontinued lens like the 1999 EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM represents a total loss of the tool with no path for official repair.

The size and weight of RF lenses improve ergonomics for long workdays. Newer designs move the center of gravity closer to the camera body. This reduces fatigue for photographers. While EF lenses are cheaper on the used market they require an adapter which adds length and weight. For hobbyists this is a fair trade. For mission-critical professionals the lack of spare parts and slower communication speeds make pre-2006 EF lenses a liability.

As we approach the 10th year anniversary of the RF mount in 2028 more and more EF lenses will cease getting the 7 years of spare parts support with no path of repair except from donor lenses.

This is why I wish by 2017 I unloaded 30% of my oldest EF lenses and 2008 EOS 5D Mark II & 2009 EOS 1D Mark IV. By Q1 2024 unloaded 2014 EOS 7D Mark II & 2015 EOS 5Ds R to get the R1 & R5 Mark II released months later with these RF lenses

• 2019 RF 50mm f/1.2L USM
• 2020 RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM
• 2020 RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
• 2020 RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
• 2021 RF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
• 2023 RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM
• 2023 RF 28mm f/2.8 STM
• 2024 RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM

With last year getting the 2025 RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM.

From 2019-2023 I hardly did enough photogrpahy to merit any upgrades.

Click to expand...

stillviking said:

Non-sense: 1200mm is a "special" lens that sells close to zero. 400mm is a normal tele focal length.

Click to expand...