There are two protocols for EF and RF, when you use adapter to mount EF lenses on R/RP, it switch to EF protocol. AF speed is same as using on EF body, but the RF lenses have DLO information store in the lenses which EF lenses don’t.Ahhh... I was unaware. What does the control ring let you do with EF lenses? edit Just checked Adorama, the same thing the new RF lenses get... but there are still advantages to native RF, right? As far as AF goes? Or information from lens to camera that EF does not provide? Besides the fact that native RF lenses would be updated and probably have better IQ (newer design) than older EF lenses.
The RF 70-200 is an extending design, it’s shorter than the EF version when retracted, but longer when extended. The EF 100-400 is already an extending design, it won’t be any smaller for RF (in fact, like the 70-200 it may be slightly longer when extended to make up for the shorter flange distance).I hope an RF 100-400 4-5.6L is coming early in 2020, hopefully even made smaller like the RF 70-200 2.8L IS, which is a great update, size-wise.
The RF lenses has more precise Servo AF than the EF lenses. The RF mount has more electrical connections and transfers much more data between camera and lens than the EF mount does. Canon has reported that the EOS R is able to transfer 40 times more data with an RF lens, than the 5D IV is capable of with an EF lens.There are two protocols for EF and RF, when you use adapter to mount EF lenses on R/RP, it switch to EF protocol. AF speed is same as using on EF body, but the RF lenses have DLO information store in the lenses which EF lenses don’t.
The affordable lightweight kit that exists now mostly has EF mounts. In addition to being compatible with Canon DSLR's, it is fully adaptable to both R and M cameras. So the issue seems to be as much about willingness to use adaptors as it is about availability.Yeah, an affordable lightweight kit seems a long way off
Please compare the RF 35/1.8 to the EF 35/2.0+RF adapter.The affordable lightweight kit that exists now mostly has EF mounts. In addition to being compatible with Canon DSLR's, it is fully adaptable to both R and M cameras. So the issue seems to be as much about willingness to use adaptors as it is about availability.
I guess you are wrong: the RF35mm f1.8 IS shows that there is space for lightweight compact glass, I expect an RF85mm f1.8 IS as well as a RF 50mm f1.8, both hopefully with IS...
A 100-400 won't be smaller, just like the 70-200 isn't any smaller. Shorter flange distance isn't any help with telephotos. And it certainly won't be any smaller if you're expecting it to open up to f/4.
You could extend that logic to ask why bother making any RF L lenses in that case, other than the 50mm 1.2 that desperately needed an update? Just stick your EF L on the adapter...
Certainly the RF mount hasn't yet delivered on the smaller / lighter / faster possibilities. The RF 24-105 is marginally better than the EF to the degree that it's not worth changing, and everything else is monstrously big and expensive.
The first 4 RF lens included a $500 35mm prime and a $1000 24-105 zoom. Apparently Canon thinks that these lenses will make some money for them, but I am not sure that it tells us much about what other (relatively) lightweight and low cost primes and zooms will follow. There are rumors of a variable aperture 17-35 that might be next, but Canon may take a while to figure out how it wants to handle this part of the market.I guess you are wrong: the RF35mm f1.8 IS shows that there is space for lightweight compact glass, I expect an RF85mm f1.8 IS as well as a RF 50mm f1.8, both hopefully with IS...
On every level this statement is wrong. We already have the RF 35mm f1.8, Canon have announced the RF 24-240mm. Canon know only too well you need entry points into a system that's why they produced the RP camera and that's why in time they will expand the non-L RF lens line-up. Canon have already stated future cameras will have IBIS higher up the food chain so they are concentrating on the higher end RF lenses to entice pros & prosumers into the top end. Once this line-up has a decent catalogue of lenses they will turn to the entry level again because if they dont they know they will not get the younger, newer customers. Its no different to BMW with the 1 series to the 7 series.Consumer oriented glass from Canon (or Nikon) in their new mirrorless mounts is dead on arrival. Just like consumer oriented compact cameras, there's no real market demand for them any more.
We have no idea what the strategy is for marketing the RF system is and will only know after it is done. The shrinking market in general and a lot of buyers being wealthy hobbyists or those who spend all their disposable income on cameras seems to be what is driving things. It would be nice to see glass for the RF system a bit more reasonably priced and some entry level lenses. But we don't know what is coming so for me as of now I am happy with my 7D as so far nothing in EF or RF is a quantum leap as was when I went from 10D to 7D. (I am not into video at all, that is what the cell phone is for.)Please compare the RF 35/1.8 to the EF 35/2.0+RF adapter.
Which one is lighter and smaller?
If I don't have an EF 50 mm lens yet should I buy that "plastic fantastic" 50 STM or that absolutely outdated 50/1.4 with touchy AF to combine it with the adapter?
Or could Canon offer me a native RF 50/1.8 (maybe with IS)?
The issue is about Canons willingness to also release small affordable RF lenses and not only those high end dreams.
I'm glad, too, that I don't have to decide where to get in.... we don't know what is coming so for me as of now I am happy with my 7D ...
Well indeed the EF Mark I was pretty lousy. I mean there are years of Internet history calling it a 'faux L'.I would never of dreamed of using the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM as a portrait lens, the RF version gives better sharpness right into the corners and