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.

 

[ctk]

Cheap FF is not an oxymoron. This is one of those gate-keeping opinions that discourages new people from starting photography. Have you actually used cheaper modern RF lenses? The real secret weapon of cheap mirrorless FF is a 30€ SLR mount adapter. It allows new photographers to use all the old lenses relatives has lying in drawers without a crop-factor.

OK, cheap new FF is an oxymoron. There is a lot of great used FF gear. But the implication that the only way into photography is through a new FF camera just isnt true. If anything that's gatekeeping. Id wager the vast majority of folks who started photography with a digital camera did not start on full frame.

And yes I shot an EOS R for about a year with a wide array of EF glass, largely because at the time there basically wasn't any RF glass. It was not an enjoyable experience. The only decent 50s were absolutely gargantuan for example. The lack of IBIS made handheld video a dubious affair even with wide angle IS glass.

RF has filled in to where I could make do, but if budget is a constraint, new FF is off the table. You will get so much money going used and/or crop, and compared to the RP, probably not lose any IQ. FF does not wash all sins. The 6D2 was meh in 2017 so the same sensor in an MILC just doesn't work IMO. But Canon had to release something so they did. IMO R really started with the number bodies.

 

[HMC11]

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.

Based on forum members' testing shared in a thread from DPReview, it seems that the focus shift issue has somehow been resolved (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/rf100mm-f2-8-l-macro-focus-shift-is-fixed-addressed.4771391/).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Based on forum members' testing shared in a thread from DPReview, it seems that the focus shift issue has somehow been resolved (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/rf100mm-f2-8-l-macro-focus-shift-is-fixed-addressed.4771391/).

Somehow? According to Canon, focus shift is part of the lens design...it's not going to 'somehow be resolved' for the lens itself. Two issues there...one, the person testing it doesn't know how to test for focus shift (hint: you don't take pictures of a flat subject), and two, as I pointed out above if the camera supports and is set to use DoF simulation, then AF is performed with the lens stopped down and focus shift doesn't happen. I suspect the latter is the 'resolution' that was reported (without that explanation or an understanding of it, seemingly).

 

[Del Paso]

Somehow? According to Canon, focus shift is part of the lens design...it's not going to 'somehow be resolved' for the lens itself. Two issues there...one, the person testing it doesn't know how to test for focus shift (hint: you don't take pictures of a flat subject), and two, as I pointed out above if the camera supports and is set to use DoF simulation, then AF is performed with the lens stopped down and focus shift doesn't happen. I suspect the latter is the 'resolution' that was reported (without that explanation or an understanding of it, seemingly).

I am using DoF simulation, having heard of it a bit lately...
I works perfectly, focus is always where I want it to be.

 

[PinholeR5]

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.

I am using DoF simulation, having heard of it a bit lately...
I works perfectly, focus is always where I want it to be.

Using Exposure + DOF simulation will hurt low-light AF performance, won't it? I've switched to having Exposure + DOF simulation as the default setting on my cameras, but on occasion I'll switch it off in some low-light conditions (if I remember). I also often use the camera in burst mode and that helps get good images, but is tedious in post.

I've read somewhere about possibly setting it to Exposure only and have DOF only when pressing the DOF button (which I currently have assigned to other functions), so the idea would be to focus then press the DOF button and then the shutter while still holding the DOF button. I haven't tried it, but seems cumbersome to me.

I rarelly, if ever, have issues with both at the same time, so it is more of a settings management topic I guess.

Curious to learn how others have managed the focus shift vs low-light settings.

 

[Del Paso]

Using Exposure + DOF simulation will hurt low-light AF performance, won't it? I've switched to having Exposure + DOF simulation as the default setting on my cameras, but on occasion I'll switch it off in some low-light conditions (if I remember). I also often use the camera in burst mode and that helps get good images, but is tedious in post.

I've read somewhere about possibly setting it to Exposure only and have DOF only when pressing the DOF button (which I currently have assigned to other functions), so the idea would be to focus then press the DOF button and then the shutter while still holding the DOF button. I haven't tried it, but seems cumbersome to me.

I rarelly, if ever, have issues with both at the same time, so it is more of a settings management topic I guess.

Curious to learn how others have managed the focus shift vs low-light settings.

Not really an issue, since in low-light situations the aperture usually stays fully open.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Using Exposure + DOF simulation will hurt low-light AF performance, won't it? I've switched to having Exposure + DOF simulation as the default setting on my cameras, but on occasion I'll switch it off in some low-light conditions (if I remember).

What do you mean by low light? AF sensitivity for current MILCs is below –6 EV (the R8 is –6.5 EV, for example). That light level is something like a 8 minute exposure at f/5.6, like shooting a landscape under a sliver of moonlight. In moderately dim light, when I stopped the 28-70/2 down to f/22, it opened the aperture to around f/11 for AF (video in a prior thread on the RF 45/1.2 discussing focus shift).

 

[PinholeR5]

Not really an issue, since in low-light situations the aperture usually stays fully open.

What do you mean by low light? AF sensitivity for current MILCs is below –6 EV (the R8 is –6.5 EV, for example). That light level is something like a 8 minute exposure at f/5.6, like shooting a landscape under a sliver of moonlight. In moderately dim light, when I stopped the 28-70/2 down to f/22, it opened the aperture to around f/11 for AF (video in a prior thread on the RF 45/1.2 discussing focus shift).

Thanks guys. Yes, clearly not an issue..

 

[DocInfoSci]

What do you mean by low light? AF sensitivity for current MILCs is below –6 EV (the R8 is –6.5 EV, for example). That light level is something like a 8 minute exposure at f/5.6, like shooting a landscape under a sliver of moonlight. In moderately dim light, when I stopped the 28-70/2 down to f/22, it opened the aperture to around f/11 for AF (video in a prior thread on the RF 45/1.2 discussing focus shift).

But that's for an f/1.2 aperture, right? Aperture limited scenarios, like lenses with a base f/4 or adding extenders, does reduce the performative effect, right? (As opposed to just stopping down, which the camera largely ignores when focusing.) Being pedantic, an R3's -7.5 EV for an f/1.2 lens would effectively become -4.0 if the attached lens is natively f/4 (7.5 reduced by ~ 3.5 stops penalty for the f/4 maximum aperture). That's not nothing, but it's there.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But that's for an f/1.2 aperture, right? Aperture limited scenarios, like lenses with a base f/4 or adding extenders, does reduce the performative effect, right? (As opposed to just stopping down, which the camera largely ignores when focusing.) Being pedantic, an R3's -7.5 EV for an f/1.2 lens would effectively become -4.0 if the attached lens is natively f/4 (7.5 reduced by ~ 3.5 stops penalty for the f/4 maximum aperture). That's not nothing, but it's there.

Canon's spec is with an f/1.2 lens (without a DS coating), yes. But even something like –4 or –3 EV is really dark...say a landscape under a gibbous moon instead of a sliver of a moon.

 

[DocInfoSci]

Canon's spec is with an f/1.2 lens (without a DS coating), yes. But even something like –4 or –3 EV is really dark...say a landscape under a gibbous moon instead of a sliver of a moon.

Totally agreed — it's been a game changer for my 300 f/4 + 1.4x and 2x extenders in the PNW forests. Figured I'd throw that out there because a) you'd probably educate me if I were off (ha!) and b) people are trying to understand the impact of DOF preview impacts (probably more pertinent if the button is changed to a switch instead of a hold-down preview).

 

[mangobutter]

ive seen the 100-400L II value spike back up after some decline, after canon announced they stopped making them. ive gotten some good offers on mine from the big stores, but i hesitate to sell it cause it's so good. i use it on my 40mp x-t5 too with spectacular performance.