EF and EF-s lenses on R- cameras

[Deleted member 393686]

A lot of people use EF lenses with an adapter on their R- camera.
Is there a site were you can find how they behave on an R-camera FF and APS-c?

 

[AlanF]

A lot of people use EF lenses with an adapter on their R- camera.
Is there a site were you can find how they behave on an R-camera FF and APS-c?

Try Canonrumors - threads where we post images.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What do you mean by ‘how they behave’?

 

[Deleted member 393686]

What do you mean by ‘how they behave’?

e.g. sharpness, fall off, frames per minute on an R-camera, are they just as good or is an R-lens better. Does the EF-50 perform the same as the RF-50.

 

[neuroanatomist]

EF lenses perform the same optically on an R body as on a DSLR. In some cases (especially older lenses), they may limit some capabilities of the body. For example, an R body capable of shooting 30-40 fps with electronic shutter may not achieve that with an older lens (because the aperture can’t move fast enough). But the fps you get would still be faster than possible on a DSLR.

The bottom line is that using EF/EF-S lenses on an R body gives performance that’s generally better than on a DSLR and at worst the same.

Many R lenses offer additional capabilities over EF counterparts, although the RF-S lens selection is still limited.

You mentioned the 50mm – the RF 50/1.8 is optically a bit better than the EF, the RF 50/1.2 is far better optically than the EF (a completely different design, but it’s also much bigger and heavier), and of course if you want a 50/1.4 there is no RF.

One more note is that most R bodies have IBIS, so you get some stabilization for non-IS lenses, whether EF or RF.

 

[HeavyPiper]

I'm finding that all my EF lens seem sharper than what I experienced with my 6D Mark II. Those lens mounted on my R5 just blew me away the fist time viewing them in Lightroom.

 

[Deleted member 393686]

EF lenses perform the same optically on an R body as on a DSLR. In some cases (especially older lenses), they may limit some capabilities of the body. For example, an R body capable of shooting 30-40 fps with electronic shutter may not achieve that with an older lens (because the aperture can’t move fast enough). But the fps you get would still be faster than possible on a DSLR.

The bottom is that using EF/EF-S lenses on an R body gives performance that’s generally better than on a DSLR and at worst the same.

Many R lenses offer additional capabilities over EF counterparts, although the RF-S lens selection is still limited.

You mentioned the 50mm – the RF 50/1.8 is optically a bit better than the EF, the RF 50/1.2 is far better optically than the EF (a completely different design, but it’s also much bigger and heavier), and of course if you want a 50/1.4 there is no RF.

One more note is that most R bodies have IBIS, so you get some stabilization for non-IS lenses, whether EF or RF.

Thanks for your answer. It helps choosing a new (or old) lens!

 

[Deepboy]

Optically they're the same, as the adapter ring...is just a distancing ring, full of air, no optics involved, so lens performance doesn't change; speaking about AF performance, all my lenses go at least as fast as before, and all of them benefit from a much more precise AF (but I was coming from a 6D, so I was used to pretty basic and old AF system).
So basically the lens are as good as before, and usually benefit from better AF capabilities, so they're better then before.

Personally (again, personally), while I see some benefits in buying RF lenses for video (improved IS performance between IBIS and lens IS, aperture scale of 1/8stop instead of 1/3 stop, etc), I don't see any real benefit in buying RF lenses for photo; you can work with EF lenses on R cameras for the next 20 years without really missing, and messing, anything, as they work just as good as native RF lenses.
Yeah, the adapter is a pain sometimes, but the (avoided) humongous price difference with RF lenses is well worth the pain of using the EF lenses with the adapter; and you can also feature many interesting third party lenses, with solution that are not available in RF and are 30yo (and sh*tty) in EF (50 f1.4 hellooooo).

 

[Deleted member 393686]

Try Canonrumors - threads where we post images.

I found some tests on youtube, tested 10-18 and 11-22 on an R7.

 

[Sporgon]

I'm finding that all my EF lens seem sharper than what I experienced with my 6D Mark II. Those lens mounted on my R5 just blew me away the fist time viewing them in Lightroom.

I’ve found the same thing, though I only have the RP compared with my 5DS cameras. Assuming your lenses are precisely AFMAed I find it’s the mechanical shutter of the dslr, not inaccuracies in focus.
When I get a new lens the first thing I do is set up on a studio tripod, shoot a test in LV, then shoot using PDAF. But I have to first let the camera focus, then switch AF off on the lens, then go into LV and take the shot. This is to get a genuine comparison between LV and PDAF. If I just go ahead and shoot having focused through the viewfinder (PDAF) the image is always softer than LV, which can then make me think the focus is off, when in fact it isn’t, it’s just the shutter action.
Using this method has really enabled me to nail AFMA and I’m happy to the point I’m not really driven to mirrorless for the better AF.