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...

chrysoberyl said:

What size is the image circle?

Click to expand...

AlanF said:

Agreed for uwa lenses. In practice, this is true for up to 35mm focal length, fading to hardly any difference at 50mm and all gone by 85mm. Even so,I really don't understand the high prices for some EF big white lenses unless people are still using DSLRs for the other reasons you suggest.

Click to expand...

Etnaphele said:

But are they really so perfect? ....I see the point and find it fascinating, but if they miss the mark, the whole product just doesn't succeed in its already very niche role.

Click to expand...

Old Man FL/FD said:

The Zeiss Otus series are close to perfect ‘optically corrected’ lenses.

These have all metal tight tolerance construction. The resultant lens group mass precludes a practical implementation of either auto focus or image stabilization. IBIS only.

Also, the necessary movement required for image stabilization will slightly degrade the optical correction.

Click to expand...

dolina said:

Hello AlanF, long time no hear! Thank you for your input on lens design.

The EF and RF mounts share a 54mm inner diameter but the flange focal distance is significantly different. The EF mount requires a 44mm gap to clear the mirror box while the RF mount is only 20mm from the sensor. This shorter distance allows RF lens designers to place much larger rear glass elements closer to the sensor. This design principle called telecentricity ensures light rays strike the sensor at a more perpendicular angle.

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...

Old Man FL/FD said:

The Zeiss Otus series are close to perfect ‘optically corrected’ lenses.

These have all metal tight tolerance construction. The resultant lens group mass precludes a practical implementation of either auto focus or image stabilization. IBIS only.

Also, the necessary movement required for image stabilization will slightly degrade the optical correction.

Click to expand...

zardoz said:

I've played with the in-camera upscaling as I feel like I was probably the only person on earth who used the IBIS-operated high resolution mode on the R5, and I've found that it adds detail that's not present in the original scene (even on the RF 85 1.2L). As with most AI-driven technology, you're not actually adding anything real; it's just guessing at best, and the results honestly look horrid to my eyes. The sensor shift tech was great - I've used it a few times in an Olympus body to produce high resolution raw files and it does the job quite nicely as long as the scene is still.

In terms of "sensor flare", I see this issue on the R1 with modern RF lenses including the RF 85L, 28-70 f/2, and even the RF 35 VCM. And sensor bloom where you get vertical flaring with mechanical shutter modes - which wasn't present on the 1DX II - is present on all RF bodies to date including the R1, R3 and R5 II (but oddly not on the 1DX III).

Back on the digital correction argument - Sigma just released a new 35mm f/1.4 DC DN II ART lens. This thing is almost perfect in terms of geometry, sharpness, CA control, is about the same size and is lighter than the 35L VCM. I would pay the same price as the Canon RF 35L VCM for that Sigma lens if there were an RF version. And you bet it performs better in terms of CA, sharpness etc than the RF 35L VCM.

I've said this before - if the RF VCM lenses were geometrically correct, I would have bought everything below the 50 (and probably the 50 as well - the 50 is however, geometrically appropriate). I actually cancelled my first-batch-in-the-country RF 35L pre-order after seeing the reviews, and affirmed my decision with an evaluation loan - but my EF II developed an issue that CPS were struggling to repair, so they offered me the replacement of either the EF II or the RF brand new - I should have gone for the EF, but I figured the increased contrast and size on the RF will be more practical in reality (but my photos are just not up to the same level of quality).

Perhaps there is a compromise on optical performance made to facilitate the use of the VCM AF system, or perhaps to allow for more economical repair or more resilient build quality to stand up to the rigours of professional use (something the Sony 35 GM absolutely fails at).

Click to expand...