Canon EOS RP Officially Discontinued: End of an Era for the Budget Full-Frame

[neuroanatomist]

I am currently looking at macro lenses: the decision is between the EF 100mm F2.8 L and the RF 100mm F2.8. Do I really need the magnification of 1,4:1? Is it worth a premium of about 400-600 €? I don't think so because I am not that much into macro... only thing with the EF... I need an adapter once again... grrrr

I had both, but I swapped the EF version for the RF version really for the convenience. The SA control on the RF lens is fun to play with sometimes, but I don't find it of significant benefit. Same with the extra magnification (but I have the MP-E 65 when I want higher than 1x).

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I had both, but I swapped the EF version for the RF version really for the convenience. The SA control on the RF lens is fun to play with sometimes, but I don't find it of significant benefit. Same with the extra magnification (but I have the MP-E 65 when I want higher than 1x).

Yeah, the RF would be convenient because I wouldn't need an adapter. On the other, size and weight seems to similar including an adapter for the EF. I guess it really comes down to whether I want to use an adapter again. There are some vintages lenses for EF mount that do spark my interest, but so far I haven't found used copies that´d make sense for me. The SA control seems like a fun gimmick, but not a necessity for me.

Is there any difference between the two lenses in terms of sharpness, iq or AF behavior?

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I've considered the above scenarios previously and because I'm a 2 camera body user, I will probably put the EF adapter on one camera and use taht as my EF lens camera and then go R mount native lenses on my other camera. With one caveat, I'd still have a spare Ef to R adapter in my gear bag, just in case.

I really like the idea of one camera with a permanent adapter for EF lenses and one for native lenses sounds like a great solution!

 

[Exploreshootshare]

btw: a great fit for this thread: Canon RP for 599 $ at Canon refurbished.

 

[koenkooi]

At the time, spending less on the RP over the R, and putting the difference toward a lens was the right move for me. However, today, the R8 is worth paying a bit more for. Hopefully, they drop its price a little (or at least that of the R10) for the budget conscious.

I did the same, a local camera store had the option to rent the R+RP+RF50L for free and that made me realize the R wasn't €1000 better than the RP. So I bought an RP + EF100L macro lens and sold my EF100-non-L macro.

I'm not sure what features in an R8II would make me replace my R8, it still works great for everything I do. Flash with ES is the bare minimum, but not enough

 

[neuroanatomist]

Is there any difference between the two lenses in terms of sharpness, iq or AF behavior?

Not that I have noticed. The RF lens does exhibit mild focus shift, but only at magnifications over 1x and in any case, if your camera supports exposure + DoF simulation then focus shift is a non-issue because focusing is done with the lens already stopped down.

 

[roby17269]

For example, the EF 100-400 f5.6 LIS II vs the RF 100-500mm f7.1 LIS. Sure the newer lens is slightly lighter, longer and it's AF is a bit better too. However optically, the old one is brighter and equally sharp. In the UK, the nwer lens retails at around £2.5K, the trade in for a the EF lens is often quite low, maybe £800 in trade in. So I would still need to find £1.7K, which is a LOT for something that's only a bit better than my existing lens.
Other lenses like the RF 50mm f1.4 VCM L and the RF 24mm f1.4 VCM L have no direct EF lens comparision that is worth mentioning.

Considering that tele zooms are most often used at the longer end, at least the way I tend to use them, I find the fact that the RF reaches 100mm farther to be quite meaningful. And since I do hike with it, the weight difference is very welcome too.

The difference in brightness / max aperture is really minimal - these are the max aperture value threaholds as per TDM:

RF 100-500
100-150mm = f/4.5
151-253mm = f/5.0
254-362mm = f/5.6
363-471mm = f/6.3
472-500mm = f/7.1

EF 100-400 II
100-134mm = f/4.5
135-311mm = f/5.0
312-400mm = f/5.6

So in the equivalent ranges the difference is practically non-existent.

Having said so, I do agree that 1700 GBP is a tough ask for these benefits.