DLO has basically reinvigorated my entire EF lens stable. I have yet to see the need by means of final image quality or mechanical function to upgrade to RF. I do enjoy playing with RF lenses as my friends bring them by, but my EF stable has been quite fit for purpose for what I enjoy photographing when combined with the R cameras. My EF stable covers the focal range from 20mm through 600mm in primes and zooms.
In fact, I'm starting to doubt that many of the RF lenses truly have a quality or mechanical difference that justifies the multi-thousand dollar price hikes vs their EF peers. Yes, some clearly outperform their predecessors — but not the majority. I feel that many RF lenses are living off of hype from the cream of the crop and the fact that EF is starting to fade frm the shelves. Not that I blame Canon for making a buck, but I think many (but not all) photographers would better off buying cheaper yet more reasonable priced glass than RF glass, especially with the inventory clearing deals popping up.
To be clear, I'm not saying the RF glass is bad — it's great on its own merit. I'm saying mm for mm most of it is not worth a premium for the performance difference, for my experience, when mm equivalent EF glass is on the shelf.
Just last year in Canada the EF 50mm f/1.2 and 24mm EF 1.4 II when on sale for ~ 50% off, new with warranty, placing them in the $1,500 +/- range. They are more than adequate for all of my family and friends, whether they print or post. And I'm willing to bet that most photographers aren't so extreme in their needs that the size or focus speed differences are justified in job-accomplishing terms. At the Olympics? Sure! The new 14mm lens for astro? Yup! Photos of children at graduation, gymnastics, hikes, picnics, family reunions, or travel? Not a chance. Any need for RF in those moments for the typical well heeled person would be gear-head need (and yes, I can fall into that category too) or lack of EF glass availability due to time.
I say this as a guy who can afford the newer stuff. But most of my family and friends cannot, and I'd rather see the cost-benefit balance of Canon's EF lenses return to the fold. If smaller is what Canon needs to do to put good glass in the hands of family and friends going forward, well so be it. But history and competition shows this is more a modern Canon choice, and one self-imposed, than anything else.
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
With last year getting the 2025
RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM.
From 2019-2023 I hardly did enough photogrpahy to merit any upgrades.
