I post too Much on Here!!
- Jul 21, 2010
I would, for the TS-E 17/4L and the EF 11-24/4L. The front filtering options for those lenses are a massive PITA, the TS-E has no rear gel slot and though the 11-24 does have the rear slot, gel filters don’t deliver the best IQ and polarizing isn’t an option. Even if Canon delives RF versions of those lenses, it seems unlikely they’d replicate the rear CPL/ND option, doing so would defeat the claimed advantages of the RF’s shorter flange distance (incidentally, regarding your point #2, see this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...eter-of-the-eos-r’s-rf-mount-explained.36465/).Canon keeps on pointing out the "features" of its adapters but I see them more as stop gap measures. Once the RF f/2.8 zooms are out and assuming they are superior to their EF counterparts, then who will buy EF lenses to adapt onto R bodies just to use a drop in filter? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of having only 1 polarizer or 1 set of ND filters, but it's not natively part of the RF system. We'll be back to the front filter systems (i.e. Lee).
Granted, it’s a niche use case, but it’s one of the main reasons I’d consider getting an EOS R.