Rf lenses are sharoer than ef using adapter?

[Anoop143hcl]

I have a question. I have rf 24-105, canon 85mm 1.4 usm L , 100mm macro 2.8 usm l tamron 45mm sp 1.8 , looking to sell everything and buy rf 85mm n keep rf 24-105. I shoot potraits and people say rf lenses are sharper than ef lenses. Kindly help. Thanks

 

[YuengLinger]

I think we are seeing that some of the native RF primes cannot be beat by their EF counterparts, but not because of the adapter.

From personal experience, the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS and the EF 35mm f/1.4L II are just as sharp on the R. So is the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 IS Macro.

The ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a little different story. It seems I'm not alone in having some trouble with the balance and steadiness on the R when held vertically. First of all, the adapter adds length, and, secondly, the R is smaller and lighter than the dSLR's I'm used to. Maybe I can improve this with practice, but for now, I'm avoiding the combo. It's possible there are other ergonomic aspects involved too, such as the shape of the grip and where the AF area of the touch-and-drag is set.

So, right now, my conclusion is that if a lens is short and light, the adapter is not going to be a factor in reducing sharpness. Or, as in the case of the Sigma 180mm, if it is so long and heavy it rarely gets used without a tripod, the adapter does not seem to cause problems. Lenses in between will be ok for some photographers, less so for others.

 

[Maximilian]

Other than the important aspect of balancing and potential higher risk of shake out of that what YuengLinger mentioned one could see this question from the pure technical, optical aspect:

The adapter is adding no additional optical elements, like an converter does. It's pure air and the space of about 2 cm you need from EF to RF Bajonett so the optical plane of the EF formula is corresponding to the sensor of the EOS R. (with the exception of the adapter with the drop in filter, of course )

Then you have the electrical contacts to access the AF from the R body and I suppose the RF AF communication protocol is different to the one of the EF.
But all three components (body, adapter, lenses) are designed and made by the same manufacturer. So Canon should be able to design an AF communication protocol that makes the EOS R and EF lenses.

So from the pure point of view of the optical formula there will be absolutely no difference in the projections that reach the sensor.
Maybe there could be AF issues, but I haven't heard about that yet.

And the RAW or JPEG processing within the body is yet a totally different topic, but could lead to apparent differences in the resulting picture.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its case by case. Some of the new RF lenses are better, but unless you have a special need and don't have a EF lens in that focal length yet, its not worth the extra money to me. You need to look at the many tests and reviews online and decide if its worth the extra cost. You lose the ability to use your lens on a EF based camera, there are no backward adapters. That might be a big issue for some.

 

[YuengLinger]

Bryan has precious few comparisons of lenses with the EOS R finished yet, but a few show some variations in brightness. Harder to say about sharpness. The fairest comparison would seem to be the R against the 5D Mark IV (because they are sensor siblings).

Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[Joules]

The fairest comparison would seem to be the R against the 5D Mark IV (because they are sensor siblings).

It was my impression that especially this comparison is misleading as the RAW files differ between these cameras in such a way that the 5D IV images get more sharpening applied to them and therefore may look better due to different processing instead of lens differences. Has that been addressed in the TDP images now?

Edit: Doesn't seem to be the case, as the R looks softer than the 5D IV with the lens example you linked. Maybe it are the different micro lenses that case this, but if it is actually a difference in digital processing, it makes it difficult to compare lenses unless the both were used on the R.

 

[YuengLinger]

It was my impression that especially this comparison is misleading as the RAW files differ between these cameras in such a way that the 5D IV images get more sharpening applied to them and therefore may look better due to different processing instead of lens differences. Has that been addressed in the TDP images now?

Edit: Doesn't seem to be the case, as the R looks softer than the 5D IV with the lens example you linked. Maybe it are the different micro lenses that case this, but if it is actually a difference in digital processing, it makes it difficult to compare lenses unless the both were used on the R.

I understand what you are saying about the different processing, but at least the pixel density is the same on both sensors. I tried a looking at a few other comparisons, such as with the 5D III, and the different sensor sizes just makes it too hard for me to "process" the difference in sharpness. Same with the 5Ds R.

Generally, I'd say whatever difference there might be in sharpness would come from technique, but beyond that it would be so insignificant as to not justify replacing an EF with an RF based solely on sharpness. Just my perception and opinion, of course.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I understand what you are saying about the different processing, but at least the pixel density is the same on both sensors. I tried a looking at a few other comparisons, such as with the 5D III, and the different sensor sizes just makes it too hard for me to "process" the difference in sharpness. Same with the 5Ds R.

Generally, I'd say whatever difference there might be in sharpness would come from technique, but beyond that it would be so insignificant as to not justify replacing an EF with an RF based solely on sharpness. Just my perception and opinion, of course.

Here is what Brian says, its in his EOS R Review. He uses the same sharpness setting of 1 in the "R" , same as 5D MK IV. When I received my R, I noticed that my development settings tended to be different, even in RAW.

"There is a long pipeline between the imaging sensor and the final image file and not all cameras utilize identical hardware and software (most often, they do not). More specifically to the point, the amount of sharpening showing in a final JPG image processed using the same settings is not always the same. And, that is the case here. Adding some headspace at the bottom of the sharpening scale doesn't seem like a bad idea.

If you zoom in your browser (try CMD/CTRL +, CMD/CTRL 0 to reset) while looking at the 5D IV noise results (discussed below), you will see some slight over-sharpening halos, slightly brighter colors around the border of the darker ones. I gave strong consideration to using a sharpness setting of "2" as the default for the EOS R (Canon defaults the EOS R unsharp mask strength setting to "4" vs. "3" in other recent EOS models), but the halos began showing at "2". So, we are staying the course with the site-standard sharpness setting of "1". You of course can increase your sharpness setting as desired. An EOS R setting of about "2" is approximately equivalent to the 5D IV at "1". Download the crops shared on this site and apply your preferred sharpening routine."

 

[YuengLinger]

Just used the ef 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro on the EOS R. Wow! Great sharpness and great balance/feel. This is definitely a good match with the adapter.

Not sure that the AF is as snappy as on dSLR's. Need some more time to work with it.

Note that I have the standard adapter (to save money and because I see no need to use a lens-based ring).

 

[koenkooi]

Just used the ef 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro on the EOS R. Wow! Great sharpness and great balance/feel. This is definitely a good match with the adapter.

Not sure that the AF is as snappy as on dSLR's. Need some more time to work with it.

Note that I have the standard adapter (to save money and because I see no need to use a lens-based ring).

That combo has the same issue as the new 600 and 400 lenses: IS is affected by first curtain shutter around 1/160s. I could get sharp images at 1/100 and 1/250, but 1/160s the shutter shock ruined the shot.
I default to EFCS, but I had rented the RF85 and didn't want the clipping effect at f/1.2 to I enabled full mechanical shutter. I forgot to turn it off when shooting butterflies.

I have the filter adapter, I love having a CPL for all my macro lenses, especially the MP-E where front filters will pick up the flashes. But it is very expensive since you also need to buy the clear filter separately to avoid the big hole in the side.

 

[YuengLinger]

That combo has the same issue as the new 600 and 400 lenses: IS is affected by first curtain shutter around 1/160s. I could get sharp images at 1/100 and 1/250, but 1/160s the shutter shock ruined the shot.
I default to EFCS, but I had rented the RF85 and didn't want the clipping effect at f/1.2 to I enabled full mechanical shutter. I forgot to turn it off when shooting butterflies.

I have the filter adapter, I love having a CPL for all my macro lenses, especially the MP-E where front filters will pick up the flashes. But it is very expensive since you also need to buy the clear filter separately to avoid the big hole in the side.

Please remind me, what is the clipping effect?

EDIT: Ok, koenkooi, I took a deep dive into learning about ECFS (Silent Shutter, in Canon speak) and now have a better understanding of the issues and limitations. And now I have my quick menus set up accordingly. Thank you for bringing it up!