I am also glad that I have switched over to RF lenses for the most part. I will be keeping my adapters for a while, there are no RF TS lenses yet, there may never be an RF version of the MP-E 65, and I don’t see a need to upgrade my 600/4 II, since the MkIII/RF version does not offer any optical improvements.
I mean even in EF days the Ls came in different levels. The 17-40 and 24-105 were much less highly rated than most of the others. Can't say I've ever knowingly encountered silver or gold rings.
The 17-40/4 is notoriously weak in the corners at 17mm. But there were many people who loved it, because it was robust, produced great colours and stopped down or used at 20mm the resolution was good.
In my opinion, the 16-35 f/4 was the first fully usable WA zoom from Canon.
I still love my EF 16-35mm F4L IS for its internal focusing and non-extending during zooming, and it was the start of better UW for Canon L lens if I remember correctly..... I had the EF 17-40mm F4L, and from 20-40mm, that lens was ok.... and had lesser distortion....
Kind of, it was certainly in the early cusp of sharp Canon UWA lenses. I think the tide turned with the EF 16-35mm f2.8 II L, in it's day it was the best there was and far ahead of the competition. optically it's just very dated now. The next really revolutionary UWA was the TS-e 17mm f4L, while it's not a lens that many have tried and even fewer have mastered....it's still peerless. It's an optical gem and a joy to use if you know what you are doing with it.
I bought them the other way round.
Makes sense, I wouldn't sell it as well. I was lucky enough that my EF lenses got RF replacements with upgrades. Only the Sigma 20mm F1.4 has no direct placement yet, but that lens was over 1kg without the adapter and I used it quite seldom. Therefore, I sold it.
IIRC, the 17-40 f/4 was also pretty popular as a high quality standard lens for APS-C cameras. For that usage, the corners didn't matter as much.
As someone with a 100-500, and loves it, I can say that I would still be thrilled if they released an RF 70-300L. Ideally it would be f4-5.6. But it would be a pretty slick travel lens. I would almost certainly sell my RF100-400 for it. For the amount I paid for the 100-500, I want to use it as much as possible, and the 100-400 is too close, but if a 70-300L existed I could almost skip my 24-105 that I usually bring on outdoor trips, and just go with a 14-35/70-300 setup when I'm trying to keep gear to a minimum. Though if I'm being honest, a single lens setup is really where it becomes acceptable to leave the 100-500 at home. Something like a 20-200 f4.5-5.6L would really be the ultimate setup for outdoor trips, as long as the corner performance on the wide end was actually good.
I never really considered buying the 100-500mm since I had the 100-400mm and it was good enough for me to get the shots I needed as a volunteer for church..... but for the Santo Padre visit from 11-13 Sept, and being involved..... I wanted to do a good job and bit the bullet... it also messed up my upgrading plan in a way, but maybe it was a blessing as the next was supposed to be RF 70-200mm F2.8...... and wait for the Z version before deciding....
Yes, I got it with my 400D and the corner did not matter much.... till I got into FF and EF 16-35mmm F4L showed up.... and the GAS relapsed..... and the EF 17-40mm was replaced....
Just wonder why Canon is DOOMED when we look back to the past, they did innovate a lot... no doubt the cripple era did exist due to marketing... they seem to be much more open now.... as R6 will never have an R5 level of AF last time.....
If I was shooting moxed EF and RF, yes I agree that juggling / managing the adapter could be an additional burden. However, I would use one camera body for the EF lenses with a permanent adapter fitted and the other camera body I would use strictly for RF lenses.
The thing is: the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't that much smaller, the difference is about 1 to 1,5cm, compared to the EF version with adapter. And same weight as the adapted EF lens.
I'm expecting 950 to 1000€. I've been consistently able to purchase my RF lenses with rebates just a little over 30% from the MSRP. The 28-70 2.8 here costs 1399€, so I'm expecting close to 1000€. If I can sell my EF 24-70mm II for about 900€ (mint condition), which seems to the be what they're going for, here, these days, selling one adapter (I have two) will make up for the rest.
I miss my Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art, but I had the chance to get back all the money I paid for the lens brand new, and I took it. Now I'm using the RF 24mm f/1.8, but I definitely prefer 28mm, and I'm eagerly waiting for a RF 28mm with at least a f/1.8 aperture.
After going back and forth, I swapped the already fabulous EF 100-400mm L mkii for the RF 100-500mm for the following reasons:
While you are right about that, 1-1,5cm sometime makes all the difference, at least to me. The EF 16-35mm F4 L IS is 11.3 cm and the control ring adapter is 2,4cm. The RF 14-35mm F4 L is 10 cm. There is a difference of 3.7 cm (with adapter) or 1.3 cm (without adapter).
