Indoor gigs, lens dilemma with R5

Feb 12, 2021
6
1
I've come to Canon from Fuji so I'm adjusting to full-frame etc.

I recently bought an R5 with the 24-105mm F4. I was always considering adding the RF 70-200 F2.8. Mainly for family events indoors and occasional indoor gigs.

My main reason for going for another RF lens was the smaller size/weight and the short supply in the UK of the EF>R adapter. Well, I managed to get an adapter yesterday!

As you all know the 70-200 2.8 is a cracking lens at a high price. I can afford to buy it however, it will take me several months before I can buy more lenses if I spend that all on one lens.

Is the RF the lens to go for or now that I have an adapter are there older sharp EF lenses I should consider?
 
Feb 12, 2021
6
1
Thanks for throwing that lens into the pot. I had avoided 35mm focal length due to not getting on with the 23mm (similar) focal length on my Fuji.
 

Peter Bergh

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Sep 16, 2020
15
7
I've come to Canon from Fuji so I'm adjusting to full-frame etc.

I recently bought an R5 with the 24-105mm F4. I was always considering adding the RF 70-200 F2.8. Mainly for family events indoors and occasional indoor gigs.

...

Is the RF the lens to go for or now that I have an adapter are there older sharp EF lenses I should consider?
I have had the RF 70-200 2.8 since just after it was released and I love it. It's light and very sharp. I find it's useful to have some overlap in the focal lengths. (I also have the 24-105 F4.) Although, if you don't need F2.8, why not consider RF 70-200 F4? It's smaller, lighter, and cheaper than its sibling.

With today's technology, I believe there's little need for primes, except for specialized purposes such as macro.
 
Feb 12, 2021
6
1
I have had the RF 70-200 2.8 since just after it was released and I love it. It's light and very sharp. I find it's useful to have some overlap in the focal lengths. (I also have the 24-105 F4.) Although, if you don't need F2.8, why not consider RF 70-200 F4? It's smaller, lighter, and cheaper than its sibling.

With today's technology, I believe there's little need for primes, except for specialized purposes such as macro.
Thanks for replying. I agree with the F4 option. As I haven't used full-frame at any gigs let alone such a high resolution if I'm been honest I can't be sure F4 is sufficient. The saving, however, is tempting.
 

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,048
166
I had an EF 70-200 f/2.8 that I sold (as well as a few other older EF lenses) to get the RF 70-200 f/2.8. Truly a wonderful lens and it is lighter plus does not need an adapter. Depending on your needs, I'd think this or the f/4 variety is the way to go. If you had an EF equivalent already, then I'd wait and see because the prices on the RF will likely come down in time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnastieByte
Feb 12, 2021
6
1
I had an EF 70-200 f/2.8 that I sold (as well as a few other older EF lenses) to get the RF 70-200 f/2.8. Truly a wonderful lens and it is lighter plus does not need an adapter. Depending on your needs, I'd think this or the f/4 variety is the way to go. If you had an EF equivalent already, then I'd wait and see because the prices on the RF will likely come down in time.
Thanks for responding. I'm so close to buying the 2.8. After looking at the huge savings going for the Sigma equivalent I looked at its weight and size. Scary although superb value. My uncertainty stems from owning around £2000 worth of Fuji glass that I rarely used. I tended to stick with the 16-55mm 2.8 and used the telephoto for specific occasions. Trying to learn lessons....
 

Czardoom

EOS 90D
Jan 27, 2020
181
404
I've come to Canon from Fuji so I'm adjusting to full-frame etc.

I recently bought an R5 with the 24-105mm F4. I was always considering adding the RF 70-200 F2.8. Mainly for family events indoors and occasional indoor gigs.

My main reason for going for another RF lens was the smaller size/weight and the short supply in the UK of the EF>R adapter. Well, I managed to get an adapter yesterday!

As you all know the 70-200 2.8 is a cracking lens at a high price. I can afford to buy it however, it will take me several months before I can buy more lenses if I spend that all on one lens.

Is the RF the lens to go for or now that I have an adapter are there older sharp EF lenses I should consider?
Lots of great EF lenses in the used marketplace. EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM for less than $450 (US$), EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM for less than $700, EF 70-300mm L IS USM for less than $700.
 

WriteLight

Landscape and Architecture, R5
CR Pro
Mar 15, 2020
57
76
Des Moines, IA
I've come to Canon from Fuji so I'm adjusting to full-frame etc.

I recently bought an R5 with the 24-105mm F4. I was always considering adding the RF 70-200 F2.8. Mainly for family events indoors and occasional indoor gigs.

My main reason for going for another RF lens was the smaller size/weight and the short supply in the UK of the EF>R adapter. Well, I managed to get an adapter yesterday!

As you all know the 70-200 2.8 is a cracking lens at a high price. I can afford to buy it however, it will take me several months before I can buy more lenses if I spend that all on one lens.

Is the RF the lens to go for or now that I have an adapter are there older sharp EF lenses I should consider?
I bought the R5 the minute it came out and paired with with the 24-105 f/4 like you did. Perfect all-purpose combo. From there I went wide and got the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 which has AF and is a wonderful lens, great for astro, architecture, and RE, especially for the $. Next I went with the Canon 100-500 and with those 3 lenses I pretty much have the entire zoom range covered. I then picked up the RF 50mm 1.8 because why not, and just this weekend got the Samyang 85mm 1.4 for a corporate headshot gig. I got the Samyang lens station to update both Samyang lenses to their latest firmware and both are wonderful. Those two primes scratch the wide aperture/DOF itch. The only bank-buster out of the whole group is the 100-500, and otherwise there's really nothing I can't shoot except macro (I rented the Canon 85mm f/2 for portrait and macro and didn't really like it).

That's a long way of saying that there aren't really any disadvantages to sticking with RF, and there are many advantages. There are even enough lower-cost options now, with more on the way, which was the main sticking point keeping a lot of people from transitioning earlier on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnastieByte

Kiton

Too deep in Canon to list! :o
Jun 13, 2015
103
65
Thanks for responding. I'm so close to buying the 2.8. After looking at the huge savings going for the Sigma equivalent I looked at its weight and size. Scary although superb value. My uncertainty stems from owning around £2000 worth of Fuji glass that I rarely used. I tended to stick with the 16-55mm 2.8 and used the telephoto for specific occasions. Trying to learn lessons....
Have you made your 70-200 purchase yet? This is always a tough debate. I will never ditch my EF 2.8, ver 3, but I don't love carrying it around all day either. I bought the f4 RF and got it just a few days ago. Very nice lens, but, like you you, I shoot a lot of indoor events and there will be times when the 4 is just not enough (case competitons at the local uni, concerts in small clubs etc). Even with the R5 being able to boost the iso. It is hard for someone else to tell you how to spend your money, but if the revenu and pleasure mainly comes from those events, the 600 dollar difference may be worth it. The EF performs well with the adapter, but when you move the focus point out to the extreme edges, there seems to a be a very slight reduction in focus time. Nothing compared to using the Sigma adapter Canon to Sony, which was almost useless way out at the edges. (I started to switch to an A9, and retreated back to canon). If you sit and do the math, if can you get a deal on an EF 2.8 AND get the new RF 4 and pack depending on what the day will serve you?

The vast majority of my assignments are shot either 16-35 or 70-200.
 
Feb 12, 2021
6
1
Have you made your 70-200 purchase yet? This is always a tough debate. I will never ditch my EF 2.8, ver 3, but I don't love carrying it around all day either. I bought the f4 RF and got it just a few days ago. Very nice lens, but, like you you, I shoot a lot of indoor events and there will be times when the 4 is just not enough (case competitons at the local uni, concerts in small clubs etc). Even with the R5 being able to boost the iso. It is hard for someone else to tell you how to spend your money, but if the revenu and pleasure mainly comes from those events, the 600 dollar difference may be worth it. The EF performs well with the adapter, but when you move the focus point out to the extreme edges, there seems to a be a very slight reduction in focus time. Nothing compared to using the Sigma adapter Canon to Sony, which was almost useless way out at the edges. (I started to switch to an A9, and retreated back to canon). If you sit and do the math, if can you get a deal on an EF 2.8 AND get the new RF 4 and pack depending on what the day will serve you?

The vast majority of my assignments are shot either 16-35 or 70-200.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I decided to bite the bullet and I'm pleased I did and went for the 2.8. It is sharp, fast to focus, and not too heavy. I'm pleased with my decision. I'm now thinking about my next lens and the 16-35 is one option at that end. At an extreme, for occasional fun use I'm considering a telephoto for trying some birding but on this occasion don't fancy paying the price for the RF 100-500. So may look at third-party options. As said earlier the problem is I like sharp lenses!
 

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,048
166
Rented and have been trying the RF 800 in my yard. Weather permitting, might try some birds this weekend with this lens. Despite limitations (f/11), this might be a good option for "occasional" birding at a much lower price.
 

Kiton

Too deep in Canon to list! :o
Jun 13, 2015
103
65
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I decided to bite the bullet and I'm pleased I did and went for the 2.8. It is sharp, fast to focus, and not too heavy. I'm pleased with my decision. I'm now thinking about my next lens and the 16-35 is one option at that end. At an extreme, for occasional fun use I'm considering a telephoto for trying some birding but on this occasion don't fancy paying the price for the RF 100-500. So may look at third-party options. As said earlier the problem is I like sharp lenses!
Nice!
I am sure you will love the 2.8 too.
I will hold fast for the 16-35 f4. I wish they could speed this up a touch!
 
Feb 12, 2021
6
1
I hired this week the Sigma 150-600mm Sport and a Canon RF 100-500mm. I took around a dozen random garden shots with the Sigma and put it away. It was very heavy compared to the RF and quite soft. I have nothing other than the price to complain about regarding the RF 100-500mm its superb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger
<-- start Taboola -->