RF to EF adapter

gui

Jun 22, 2022
8
0
Currently I use a 5D mark IV with a set of lenses that I have in my bag for years. But now my old 24-70 f2.8 has broken.
I know that I want to change to an R series camera in the future so I want to invest in an RF 24-70 f2.8 but these new lenses do not fit on my DSLR.
Is there an adapter ring available to fit RF lenses on older EF mount camera's?
I know there is one available to fit EF lenses on R Series camera's. But that is for other reasons a few years away.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
456
321
Sorry, but there isn't. The RF & EF have different sensor distances relative to the mount. The RF basically removes the mirror from the design, making its distance much smaller than the EF. So an RF>EF works because the basically add the difference back on to the lens (by means of the adapter) to keep the same relative distance as an EF>EF would be. However, when you are using an EF Body, the distance would have to be reduced to use an RF lens... which is impossible using a simple adapter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,416
509
So an RF>EF works because the basically add the difference back on to the lens (by means of the adapter) to keep the same relative distance as an EF>EF would be. However, when you are using an EF Body, the distance would have to be reduced to use an RF lens... which is impossible using a simple adapter.
It can be done with glass elements in the adapter, and AFAIK there were adapters allowing to mount [some] FD lenses on EF cameras.

Point is its more expensive than the EF->RF adapter (which is just an extension tube), hurts IQ, and less likely to be made due to limited demand. Most customers would rather upgrade to an RF camera and adapt the EF lenses to it.
 
Upvote 0

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
456
321
It can be done with glass elements in the adapter, and AFAIK there were adapters allowing to mount [some] FD lenses on EF cameras.

Point is its more expensive than the EF->RF adapter (which is just an extension tube), hurts IQ, and less likely to be made due to limited demand. Most customers would rather upgrade to an RF camera and adapt the EF lenses to it.
I stated, 'a simple adapter'.

I know someone 'could' technically make any conversion adapter optically. But felt that was out of scope for what was being asked. As an optic adapter for EF>RF doesn't exist afaik. And not only that, it's not just optics you would have to account for... but you would also have to translate the EF communications to the RF lens (if you want more than a manual lens... which the OP would need since he wants to use a native RF).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Not a big fan of the new RF lenses. Weight is not an issue. As a photojournalist for 50years I moved to the R bodies R5 and 7(still waiting on the 7) Love the 24-105 EF which by the way is the same weight as the RF. When I got the RF version the barrel was so loose it had to go back to CPS for repair. As for the 70-200 2.8 RF I will not be buying. Again not a fan of the extending barrel and most importantly you can not use a 1.4 extender. A must have for the bag when I'm not carrying the 300 or 400 2.8 and not wanting to go back to the car for one. When you are in spur of the moment shooting it's great to pull out the converter for that extra reach. The adapter is working great on all my EF lenses. I have the 70-200 f2.8 vII and will grab a vIII before they are gone.
 
Upvote 0