Gordon Laing reviews the two “new” Big White Lenses for the RF mount

[Andy Westwood]

My view on adapting EF lenses to R bodies has always been, that smaller lenses up to big whites I prefer to keep lighter and more compact, so the RF versions appeal more to me.

However, I don’t mind so much adapting bigger EF lenses as they are already big and probably heavy and not compact so adding an adapter isn’t really a big deal.

I only have one of these which is an EF 70-200 2.8 more of a baby white lol. Prior to this discussion I’d never actually thought of the weak link in terms of strength and durability created by adding an adapter or TC, but a good point to know about and the extra care needed when using adapters.

 

[Jack Douglas]

In transitioning from the 1DX2 to the R5 I have not noticed any loss of snappiness of AF with my EF 400DO II X2 but I sure have noticed the disadvantage of not having the dual cross points relative to horizontal line subjects. Having full area AF points with eye tracking is so helpful when live subjects fill the VF!

Jack

 

[Talys]

My view on adapting EF lenses to R bodies has always been, that smaller lenses up to big whites I prefer to keep lighter and more compact, so the RF versions appeal more to me.

However, I don’t mind so much adapting bigger EF lenses as they are already big and probably heavy and not compact so adding an adapter isn’t really a big deal.

I only have one of these which is an EF 70-200 2.8 more of a baby white lol. Prior to this discussion I’d never actually thought of the weak link in terms of strength and durability created by adding an adapter or TC, but a good point to know about and the extra care needed when using adapters.

As someone who owns EF 2.8 II and the RF 2.8, I'd wholeheartedly recommend the RF. The images you get from either is superb, but in comparison, the RF feels tiny. I never shoot it with the collar or foot, and for strap systems I find it perfectly acceptable to carry the camera by the body instead of the lens. If it ever matters, it is also much less daunting to the subject, being physically much less imposing.

The only real advantages of the EF are that it doesn't extend (for things like sand if that matters) and the ability to use a TC (and obviously bring able to use it on mirrored bodies).

 

[InchMetric]

I'd add a column: "I'll never own a super tele" and on the EF only row, write: "Complain on the internet how Canon is selling out loyal old customer who don't buy much any more and is neglecting your personal preferences."

 

[SteveC]

I'd add a column: "I'll never own a super tele" and on the EF only row, write: "Complain on the internet how Canon is selling out loyal old customer who don't buy much any more and is neglecting your personal preferences."

And another: "I might want to put the lens on my EF-M camera someday." OK that might be unlikely for the big whites but I have done it with the 100-400 L (which is a small white). I've done it enough I won't be getting the 100-500 any time soon.

 

[AlanF]

And another: "I might want to put the lens on my EF-M camera someday." OK that might be unlikely for the big whites but I have done it with the 100-400 L (which is a small white). I've done it enough I won't be getting the 100-500 any time soon.

You are far more skillful than me if you can do BIF with a 100-400mm on an EF-M.

 

[john1970]

I always enjoy Gordon's review. They are straightforward and deal with facts. Appears that the the RF lenses should have faster AF than their EF counterparts. I am also curious on what super telephoto lenses Canon will release next. I am hoping for a 500 mm f4 and a 300 mm f2.8, which according to CR might even be a zoom lens.

 

[SteveC]

You are far more skillful than me if you can do BIF with a 100-400mm on an EF-M.

I'm not trying for birds in flight.

 

[AlanF]

I'm not trying for birds in flight.

I was being semi-serious about your not buying the 100-500mm but using a 100-400mm on the M series. I once tried and found it too uncomfortable to hold with insufficient grip on the tiny body. The 100-400mm II works beautifully on the R5 that you have and the 100-500mm is even better. Whether the improvement is worth the cost is another matter and there is no compelling reason to upgrade.

 

[tarjei99]

When the EF telephoto lenses were announced many moons ago, Canon said that the 1d bodies would autofocus faster because they had more power available.

This could still be relevant for the R3 which seems to have a more powerful battery.

 

[schneidermax.photo]

I wonder how many people who are in the market for such expensive glass are willing to make the switch (presumably taking a loss selling their EF example), versus how many will decide to just put an adapter on their old glass. If adapters were readily available and I were in their shoes, I'd be tempted to just buy a dedicated adapter for a hundred bucks., for each lens, and leave it on the lens.

I don´t know that for a fact, but can you use an televonverter on a EF 400 mm adaptet do the RF Mount?
If yes, you are right, there is no need for the III Version owner to switch.
But if not, you have an new / lose an old feature of thes big whites.

I ordered a RF 400 2.8 and both televonverters, so i can be as flexible as possible at a start point of f2.8

btw... it´s so sad that the teleconverters do not work on the RF 70-200 f2.8!
The only downside of the RF system for me at the moment.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don´t know that for a fact, but can you use an televonverter on a EF 400 mm adaptet do the RF Mount?

You can use an EF teleconverter with an EF supertele lens mounted via an adapter on an R body (body > EF-RF mount adapter > EF TC > EF lens).

I do not know for sure, but I strongly suspect you cannot use an RF teleconverter with an EF lens on an R body (body > RF TC > EF-RF mount adapter > EF lens). Even if it works electronically, it would be the equivalent of putting an extension tube between a TC and lens, which 'works' on a DSLR but you lose the ability to focus on distant subjects.

 

[SteveC]

I was being semi-serious about your not buying the 100-500mm but using a 100-400mm on the M series. I once tried and found it too uncomfortable to hold with insufficient grip on the tiny body. The 100-400mm II works beautifully on the R5 that you have and the 100-500mm is even better. Whether the improvement is worth the cost is another matter and there is no compelling reason to upgrade.

My point being that I personally not only have no compelling reason to upgrade (I agree with your statements above), I have a compelling reason not to upgrade.

 

[koenkooi]

You can use an EF teleconverter with an EF supertele lens mounted via an adapter on an R body (body > EF-RF mount adapter > EF TC > EF lens).

I do not know for sure, but I strongly suspect you cannot use an RF teleconverter with an EF lens on an R body (body > RF TC > EF-RF mount adapter > EF lens). Even if it works electronically, it would be the equivalent of putting an extension tube between a TC and lens, which 'works' on a DSLR but you lose the ability to focus on distant subjects.

You can, but it requires grinding away the baffles: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=35054&utm_source=dlvr.it

 

[Jack Douglas]

I was just thinking... seems like this would be right up AlanF's alley for testing and reporting the results.

Jack

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If they really used the same optical formula as for the EF versions, they really need some other convincing advantages to make somebody buy the RF versions,

According to Canon, they made these lenses because people specifically requested them.
Canon makes money whether people buy the EF or RF versions.
It seems like a minimal investment.

 

[AlanF]

I was just thinking... seems like this would be right up AlanF's alley for testing and reporting the results.

Jack

If anyone wishes to send me a 400mm or 600mm III and/or the RF equivalents, I'd be willing to accept and test them.

 

[Jack Douglas]

If anyone wishes to send me a 400mm or 600mm III and/or the RF equivalents, I'd be willing to accept and test them.

Actually. I was thinking more along the line of the RF extender ahead of EF glass and/or extenders.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

Actually. I was thinking more along the line of the RF extender ahead of EF glass and/or extenders.

Jack

I’ll extend my offer to other lenses.

 

[tron]

You can use an EF teleconverter with an EF supertele lens mounted via an adapter on an R body (body > EF-RF mount adapter > EF TC > EF lens).

I do not know for sure, but I strongly suspect you cannot use an RF teleconverter with an EF lens on an R body (body > RF TC > EF-RF mount adapter > EF lens). Even if it works electronically, it would be the equivalent of putting an extension tube between a TC and lens, which 'works' on a DSLR but you lose the ability to focus on distant subjects.

I tried it but the RF TC does not fit to EF-R adapter so game over. We have to use EF TC and then use the EF-R adapter to connect to the R type camera. By the way the EF500mm f4L IS II and EF 2XIII worked superbly with my R5.