EF 400mm f/2.8 III or the RF 400mm f/2.8?

[Dockland]

I'm heading for an upgrade (from RF 100-500mm) to the 400mm f/2.8. In Sweden the price difference is approx. $717 (EF 400mm is $16464 and the RF 400mm is $17181)

Would be nice to have the native mount of course but it's $717 price difference.

As I understand it's virtually the same lens. Don't know if the RF comes with the RF control ring thou?

I have the adapter already, but would I benefit buying the RF-version perhaps?

 

[privatebydesign]

That is a question I wouldn’t like to have to ask myself! Paying $717 for a built in adapter that makes the lens less adaptable seems wrong to me, but there is no doubt the EF lenses are on the way out.

Very difficult decision.

 

[Joules]

I haven't seen anything that properly supports it, but there was language in the Canon marketing material that could suggest improved AF operation in the case of the RF version.

Might be worth doing some research on that before deciding.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I haven't seen anything that properly supports it, but there was language in the Canon marketing material that could suggest improved AF operation in the case of the RF version.

Might be worth doing some research on that before deciding.

I believe that was mentioned regarding the R3, specifically.

 

[Dockland]

Thank's, well I'll wait and see whenever some reviews are hitting the youtube or likewise. The EF 400 is in stock here in Sweden, and the RF will arrive somewhere around July/August (same release date as the RF 100mm macro I assume) I'm in no hurry at all and perhaps it's good to wait until the RF-version lands and make the decision then.
Then it'll be the RF 100mm, one of the two 400mm versions and a perhaps a RF 1,4 adapter in the case of buying the RF one.

 

[Dockland]

I chose neither A local store had a great deal on the EF 600 f/4III so I bought that one instead. Will arrive tomorrow. Cheaper than any of the alternatives I was looking at.