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 thresholds 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.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

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.

Good to know, thx. I'll probably get a used copy of EF version then. I just looked and the difference is about 500 €. Enough money to get the adapter and some left over for maybe another lens. Since the RF 14mm F1.4 and 20mm F1.4 are out of my price league for my rare use cases, I thinking about getting the sigma 20mm f1.4 for the summer once again. I´d like to take some nightscapes at the North Sea.