Don't Buy Canon RF Lenses - I screwed up!

[@mbrauwolf]

I haven’t purchased any RF glass yet, because I just can’t justify it. The EF glass works so good on my R6. I recently picked up the EF 85mm 1.4 IS. It is so phenomenal on this camera. I also love the 100-400mm mark ii version and even with the 1.4x Teleconverter, it does a great job and takes sharp photos. The classic 135 mm F2 performs really well on mirrorless as well.

[@Dmitrii_88]

I have rf 24 1.8 - its AMMMMAZING lens !!!)) AMMMMMMMMAZING !!!

[@stevenwaldstein2249]

@@Dmitrii_88The EF 85/1.4 L IS is a great lens

[@doohanlim1225]

Definitely love this sort of content. Too many youtubers just suggests the RF lenses as if all of us could afford it 😅 This has been my go to plan when getting the Canon Eos R8 and Im glad someone is sharing their experiences. More so from you, someone whos definitely able to afford this lens as this is what youre doing for a living. Really appreciate the cold heart truth. Cheers from Malaysia.

[@eugenebalubal4950]

Greetings! Have you gotten your EF Lenses? I have an R8 with the RF 24-105 F4 as my workhorse, and currently in MY as well! Looking for an EF 70-200mm in the market. i would love to know what EF lenses you got. Cheers!

[@Mariner1460]

I’m with you, man. I don’t understand all the angst over lenses for the RF mount when the Canon adapter system works so incredibly well. I LOVE the Sigma Art primes on my R bodies where they all share the same VND and CPL filters via the drop-in adapter, and pick up the bonus of IBIS. As for RF 24-70, looks like a great lens, and I’d take one. But, I just don’t love the “standard “ zoom enough to pay for it. When I “need” the zoom, I find the WAY cheaper Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 on the R7 will get the job done.

[@mhsami2150]

did you face any lens vignetting issues while shooting with 18-35 in your R series body?????

[@Mariner1460]

@@mhsami2150 nope. As an APS-C lens it’s perfect on the R7. Maybe you are thinking you could use it on a full frame R body. You can, but Canon will force the body into crop mode to eliminate the vignette. I have a friend who shoots that way and doesn’t mind the lower resolution for his particular use case.

[@mhsami2150]

@@Mariner1460 thanks man.. 😊 i am planning to buy R8... i may go for sigma 24-70....

[@officialvisaural]

Yep, as an RF 24-70 owner myself I think it's one of the few lenses worthy getting native (along with the unique ones). It focuses so much faster than any of my EF lenses do on full frame cameras to the point that I actually have to unlearn waiting for a brief moment after AF confirmation before taking the shot. For other lenses less reliant on speed - eg an EF 85/1.4 - adapting is an excellent choice.

[@camerasutra247]

Everyone on my channel has told me to sell all my EF lenses. I’m glad I have followed my gut feeling and not done that. For the more the more I use Mirrorless cameras, the more I want to gravitate back to dslrs. If you notice I have not made any video for almost a month I have gone back into finding myself paying off all the credit cards, which I have done and now the question do I need the next greatest thing or so-called greatest thing because the new lenses are awesome but how much better are they. They can in 28 to 70 if two lands is one exception that is worth spending the money on if you want to replace at least 3 EF primes. I’ll make a video on that. The 50 mm 1.8 RF and the 16 mm 2.8 are a steel for what they are. Keep up the good work, and you are a good man however, this kind of sound advice for light suit well with the gear junkies that want a new camera and a lens every two weeks.

[@JaredHoyman]

You are right! A lot of photographers buy and sell gear all the time. I have actually been using canon since Canon AE-1 Program. Learned in a dark room in the late 90s. I do get the itch to try new Camera bodies and used to own panasonic G7 and GH5, but when Canon went mirrorless they filled those needs. What Tech Enthusiasts like us need to remind each other is that no gear is worth going into debt over. I pay cash for all my gear, so it hurts when I buy something. Makes me really have to think about it and make sure its worth my money. In practical terms I think about how many jobs does it take to cover the cost of that equipment and then I sober up ;). Took me 3 months to consciously set aside money and save up for my Macbook Pro Max. The 28-70 f2 would knock out a bunch of primes and be excellent. This stage of my career I like the idea of portability and the RF f4 lenses are more attractive to me. I look forward to seeing your next video.

[@chrisfrye5730]

You just saved me a lot of money! I am getting an R8, and now I’ll keep my old lenses. I already am getting the adapter anyways, but I won’t be in a hurry to get RF lenses or be tempted to sell my EFs for RFs. And you saved me $70 on my first RF lens!

[@garyrowe58]

I got an R5 a year and a half ago, and still only use ef mount lenses with it; I kept my sigma primes, macro and my 70-200 f4, I've bought a 16-35 EF since then, and plan to next get a 24-70 f2.8 II EF. I love the adaptor with a polariser always in place, and can use it with all of my lenses, and even when they have their lens hoods on!

[@MegaSoundscapes]

I bought quite a bit of EF L glass over the past few years because it went for relatively cheap and because they are plenty sharp and I like the rendering better. The only RF glass I bought so far are 4 of the non L lenses, the 16, 35, 50 and 80. I payed around 1300 EUR for all four of them used and I like them because they are sharp, small and light. I can carry all four + my camera in a relatively small bag. EF L when it counts, RF for convenience. And: I bought a Canon 5D which I love and the EF L glass comes pretty handy here. Sharpness is not everything ;-) .... Thankx for the video and your thoughts on this matter !

[@Hodenkat]

I'm new to Canon's RF mount system so I only have two EF lenses with adapters. I have five other lenses which are all RF and pretty much cover all my needs. I do like the speed booster concept and may be willing to try it on some 3rd party lenses if Canon drags their feet much longer on allowing 3rd party makers to adopt the RF mount and start producing alternatives to Canon's overblown pricing.

[@harrison00xXx]

You also better cover all your needs with 5 different, super expensive lenses. Im personally pretty happy with this (very affordable, cheap) lens setup: - 10-20mm 3.5 ultrawide (Sigma) - 17-55mm 2.8 (Canon EF-S) - 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM, very compact and useful or alternatively another cheap 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM (Canon EF/Full frame) - 150-600C Sigma, my main telezoom after regretting once a too short 70-300mm. But the thing is, mostly i have only 2 lenses with me and they serve me well enough for pretty much any needs except astrophotography or portrait where i would have to take sharper and faster primes. - 17-55 2.8 Canon + 150-600C Sigma as somewhat acceptable small setup - 10-20mm and 28-135mm for city trips, very tiny and light package. Alternatively to the (garbage!) 28-135 the premium "kit lens" 17-55 2.8 but its mostly too short without additional crop

[@kevindiossi]

Everyone has their particular needs, but I personally couldn’t get away from using adaptors quickly enough. I only have my Sigma Art 24mm and 35mm that basically don’t have enough value to sell because I couldn’t replace them with anything. And they’re lenses I only use at weddings, so I don’t REALLY need to replace them anyway…so they stay and work great when called upon. But yes, I agree. The EF 24-70 versus the RF 24-70, I really wish I still had the EF. I will be sending my RF 24-70 into Canon for a third time in 2 years to have dust removed. It has honestly been a terrible lens for me beyond its optical performance.

[@fbCleaner57]

I partly agree. The telelenses rf 600mm and rf 800mm are not that bad considering the price of less than 1000€ (although they have a constant f11), and they work with the advanced autofocus of my R7, which you cannot say from ef or sigma/tamron lenses. But I agree that for macro, wide or standard lenses, you can go with ef lenses using the rf adapter!

[@stevenwaldstein2249]

Thank you. I ended up selling almost all my EF L based glass for RF L back in 2020 and 2021 when upgrading my original R body to the R5. That was the 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 100/2.8, 135/1.8, 15-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 24-105/4, and 100-500. I still have my EF 300/2.8 L, 35/1.4 L II and rebought my 70-300/4-5.6L. Was it silly, maybe, maybe not. Will see what the R5 II is. The new RF 35/1.4 L VcM is nice but… Also shooting Sony and own a lot of their GM, GM II, and G glass. Need to decide what to do but really like your post. Take care.

[@JaredHoyman]

Thank you! What did you mean by “decide what to do”? Was it about getting the 35 1.4 RF or just having Sony glass supplement? As a Sony and canon shooter what do you like about Sony compared to canon? I’m always curious since I have never shot Sony.

[@stevenwaldstein2249]

@@JaredHoyman I need to decide if I continue to shoot both Canon and Sony or just commit to one or the other. Originally shot Canon DSLR like the 5DIi, 5DIIII, and 5DIV along with a 1DX. Started to really like mirrorless for its smaller size so bought into first Fuji and then Sony.. Both Sony and Canon are great systems but Canon has been extremely slow in bringing out top quality L primes less than 50mm and while I like f/1.2 lenses (owned EF 50/1.2 L and EF 85/1.2 L II) they didn’t refresh their 35mm, 24mm, and slow on getting to the 135/1.8L and some others. Also Canon restricted offering of third party is becoming a bigger problem as Sigma is really producing very high quality DG DN Art lenses at a reasonable price. Also, Canon’s bodies take for ever to come to market like the the EOS R5 II taking a year of rumors and I’m still not sure what we will get. Also Canon’s new hybrid approach to lenses like the new RF 35/1.4 L has me questioning what the lens is best at compared to the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L I already own.

[@pdel7007]

I have an R6 and used to have a 2nd hand Sigma 150-600 on it. I became frustrated by its occasional poor performance. After a lot of soul searching I bought the RF100-500 and I do not regret it. I don't miss that last 100 mm . I love the close focus. I no longer need my shoulder harness when out and about I can hand hold for hours, I'm getting much better shots, it is my main lens.I bought an EF ii 70-200 f2.8 2nd hand for my R6 and love it, but what a monster weight and pushed out by the adapter. I can't see a time when I'd by the RF 70-200.

[@JaredHoyman]

I've eyed the 100-500 for the last few yrs. I may have to rent it. How is it for travel and weight? That's my big concern.

[@pdel7007]

@@JaredHoyman I think it's good , small and light. I use it a lot. Great for Landscape and almost macro whilst out doing Bird photography. By my standards a hell of a lot of money but worth it

[@rehfeldttw]

Good thing I didn’t sell my EF lens. The only RF lens I bought was the RF 10-20 and the 100-500 L IS. EF I own are, EF 16-35, 25-70 L USM, 70-200 L IS, TSE 24. They are about the same as the RF. So glad I kept it. And they all are 77mm. Except for the RF 10-20, using my Canon R5 C. Oh, and thank you for sharing.

[@mikeo1141]

I just ordered my first mirrorless camera, the R7, along with EF-RF adapter. I plan on using all EF lenses, at least until RF lens prices come down to earth.

[@JaredHoyman]

You will love it!

[@AKSKMY]

Using the EF Holy Trinity+ (70-300 instead of 200) with my R6II. The RF lens is still too crazily expensive now. Only got the RF 24-105 kit lens that came with it.

[@tom_k_d]

I hesitaded to get the RF 50 1.2 far too long... - real fun to shoot with! RF 24-105 4.0 is a great travel companion, I chose it over the 24--70 2.8 as it is lighter and more versatile outdoors, while indoors I tend to shoot with primes. RF 70-200 2.8 is expensive, but worth the money imho: it's image quality is almost prime-like, AF is crazy fast and precise. Only EF I still adapt: 35 2.0 IS USM, great little lens: very sharp, fast and almost silent AF, almost no CAs!

[@harrison00xXx]

But is the RF 50 1.2 L that much better than the regular, "cheap" 1.8? I just saw a comparison where the 1.2 lens was hunting, misfocussing, just WORSE than the much cheaper and smaller 1.8. I mean i get, i would also wish a sharp 1.2 lens, but considering you can get a lot of high quality 50 1.4s as well for much cheaper (and smaller)... whats the sense in this 1.2 lens?

[@tom_k_d]

@@harrison00xXx Yes, image quality is on a totally different level, even when stopped down. The smaller depth of field with 1.2 comes in handy to add background separation when shooting full body portraits or group shots. I own the nifty fifty, too, but didn't use it any more since I own the RF 1.2. The RF 1.2 is not that big that you would have any weight advantage adapting a Sigma 1.4. But I'd be tempted to buy a high quality 'native RF' 50 1.4 on top, if there was one available, as a lighter alternative for travels...

[@harrison00xXx]

@@tom_k_d yes i would wish a modern 50 1.4 as well I had the EF 50 1.4 USM and it was a great portrait lens on full frame, but because of its unsharp image and heavy CA it just „sucked“ for anything else, the 1.8 STM version is not only cheaper but also superior to canons old 50 1.4 optical formula (beside the fact the EF 50 1.4 is one of canons worst lenses when it comes to build quality and robustness)

[@harrison00xXx]

@@tom_k_d its hard to imagine canons EF 50 1.4 was that expensive once for this „garbage“ they produced, definately one of the biggest fails canon made

[@tom_k_d]

@@harrison00xXx I'd expect a Sigma RF 50 1.4 coming within the next two years - and yes, Canon's EF 50 1.4 was neither reliable nor had it decent image quality. Btw: the EF 35 2.0 IS USM is a great lens - a little sharper, better build quality and faster AF motor than the RF 35 1.8 - it's still my light weight walk around prime, both on 80D and R6 (I don't mind the wider field of view on full frame).

[@joshuawilliams1707]

I shoot with that Tamron on my R6 mkii, and it's absolutely amazing. I shot with the RF version side by side, and there's ZERO reason to buy the RF, unless weight is an issue for you.

[@chrisbrown6432]

Please do that with the speedbooster on the R7 .

[@FordSierraIS]

metabones one is rllly good. im on r5 now and dont agree rf isa waste, but i love my ef70-200 2.8 and sigma art 50mm. getting a used rf85 tomorrow

[@1bncxlr]

Just bought the 50mm 1.8 using the code. I wanted a light weight lens for the use on my gimbal. Fits the bill perfectly. The only lens I sold was the 50mm1.8 EF version to a co-worker.

[@dingdingdingdiiiiing]

I don't really care about additional sharpness of RF glass, but I am envious of smaller dimensions: - EF 70-200 mesures 3.3" (84.6mm) Ø max by 7.6" (193.6mm) long, 44.205 oz. (1,253.2g), no collar -RF version measures 3.54" (89.9 mm) Ø max × 5.75" (146.0mm) length. 37.7 oz. (1,070g) no collar It's only 6% fatter, but 33% shorter and 17% lighter. That's substantial.

[@JaredHoyman]

That does make a difference. I have the 70-200 f4 rf and it's smaller and lighter than my 15-35 2.8 rf and 24-70 2.8 rf. I keep it in my bag all the time because of weight and small foot print.

[@CatrielLopezAcosta]

After years in the R system, I arrived to this conclusion: RF lenses for photo, EF lenses (Sigmas particularly) for video. With the C70, R5C, R5 and R6II shooting at Super 35 with speed booster is a reliable, cheaper, and brighter system. (Heavier too, to be fair)

[@randallbarrett3382]

I have the R6ii. It’s my first interchangeable lens camera. Is autofocus still great with ef lenses? Do they even have anything to do with each other? Excited about going EF, after buying 15-35 l is usm, I’m in need of some budget friendlier lenses, I just worry about new tech, updates and wonder if older lenses may limit new body tech? Hopefully that all makes any sense at all. Thanks!

[@JaredHoyman]

Start out with the canon native EF to RF adapter. Canon EF will be just fine on it. All my Tamron lenses worked great adapted. I heard mixed in the comments about Sigma.

[@randallbarrett3382]

@@JaredHoyman Thanks so much for the response. I’ve been enjoying your channel a ton.

[@JaredHoyman]

@@randallbarrett3382 i appreciate hearing that. Thank you!

[@friday3001]

​@@JaredHoyman sigmas work for me without any issue adapted on R bodies. You may have to upgrade the lens's firmware though, that much is true. And sigmas tend to backfocus on dslr bodies, but mirrorless aren't affected by that, because they use a very different focus method than dslrs

[@paulhenry7]

I have a crazy mix of FD (converted by the Lens Doctor), ZE (Classic, Milvus & Otus), EF & RF. My favourites include: FD 135mm f2; ZE 100mm f2 Makro Classic; ZE 135mm f2 APO Classic; EF 28-80mm F2.8-4 (mini Magic Drainpipe); EF 11-24mm f4 L; EF 70-200mm f4 L II; EF 35mm f1.4 L II; EF 85mm f1.4 L IS. But for an everyday workhorse, RF 24-105mm f4 L. I really should slim my kit down, occasionally I do, but it's so hard parting with nice glass.

[@TubaSolotheHiker]

I'm deep in RF lenses...deep. But I still have the trinity of EF lenses, the 85mm F1.4L IS USM, and a 300mm F2.8L IS USM and have no plans of selling any of them. But its not why some may think. Having those EF lenses allows me to use legacy DSLR's, which I love. There is just a character on older DSLR's that I can't let go of. I know RF and mirrorless is the future so I'm ready there, but I love using older cameras as they still produce some amazing results. I'm also looking at film photography. If I were to purchase a 1V or an EOS 3, I'd be ready from day one with a bunch of great pro glass to start experimenting with film photography. RF and mirrorless is the future so keep chipping away at it, but keep that EF glass. Its still extremely valuable and useful.

[@TilsonGuitar]

I so agree about the Tamron 70-200 G2. I have tried a lot of lenses (though admittedly no rf lenses), and the Tamron is my favorite. I never understood when people talked about colors from a lens until I bought it. The shots look pre-edited straight from the camera. I particularly like how it represents green (I always find myself adding some blue hue to greens in lightroom because yellowish grassy nastiness is gross as a background- but not with this lens). And yes, it’s tack sharp!

[@benoregan3318]

Still sitting on my 5D4 with a large collection of EF glass. Just not sure about taking the jump to an R5 yet.

[@JaredHoyman]

R6 II would be a large jump in tech over the 5d4.

[@og3139]

I got a total of 18 lenses right now, mostly Ef L series. This year, I learned a lesson quickly after selling two lenses and two cameras. Because of my regret, I brought a similar camera again and couldn't buy the same lenses because the prices are going up. I learned a valuable lesson, which is if you are a photography you shouldn't sell your equipment because you don't know when you'll need it. especially when you get ridiculous offers at that point I leave my cameras and lenses sitting on the shelf till I need them 😊

[@JaredHoyman]

@@og3139 I learned that lesson late too. Money sounds good at the time and then you want the lens back.

[@TheRealTonyCastillo]

I started buying used EF lenses when I had my 90D, had 1 EF-S the 10-18, first lens was the 70-200 F4, eventually bought an older 28-70L 2.8, the 17-40, the 70-200L IS II, 100-400L IS ver 1, and the Sigma 150-600 C. Grabbed a few yellow ringed EF lenses, the 85 and 100mm macro with the anticipation of eventually going with a RF body in the near future. I bought the R7 right away with the kit combo as that was all that was available at the time. Picked up the RF 16, RF 50 and the 100-400 so far and have been happy with them. I am a hobbyist, would I like some L series RF glass? Sure I would, but I can't justify the price, as a full time photographer it makes sense to invest in those lenses and write them off for the business. Never been a Tamron fan as it seems the AF is slower from reviews I've seen, which if AF speed isn't a issue they might be a option. I'm shooting more with the R6MII than my R7 now, it is just a better camera all around, but I wish it has a 32 mp sensor vs the 24.

[@JaredHoyman]

Tamron 10yrs ago was very slow. They have greatly improved. I love the reach you get on the R7, but full frame does give you nice wide shallow depth of field. I did just buy the canon 70-200 f4 rf refurbished on canons website for $1,350 so you can get deals. I'm still in the real world testing phase, but I'll report back in a upcoming video on my thoughts of that lens.

[@beerborn]

I finally got the Sigma 24mm F 1.4 EF Art lens for my Canon R 5 camera from this guy for only $250. Talk about a steal. I have been using it a lot lately too. I never thought I'd switched to an RF camera from Canon since I have the Canon DSLR 5D Mk IV. I was glad I did. There is a difference when a subject you are shooting is first reflected from a mirror on a DSLR versus the subject going straight into the CMOS of Canon R5.

[@JaredHoyman]

That is an incredible deal. I’ve thought about that lens for awhile. Huge difference from 5d mark IV YO R5. Enjoy!

[@christopherleecowan]

That Tamron 24-70 is a great lens i kept the 16-35 f4 and I sold off all my ef glass and went out and loaded up on really good vintage glass.

[@TL1000S97]

Thanks Jared for this great video! I also "screwed" up. First I bought the R7 after long considerations. Found that the real desirable lenses (few) for the RF-mount are extremely expensive. Then I bought some used EF lenses (70-200 F/2.8 and 300 F/4) which with adapters are just amazing value! These can even be used on my Fuji X-H2 (40mp) with a Fringer adapter.

[@zergwof]

I'm running R5. I will never part with my EF135mm L 2.0. It's sharp (enough) and most importantly, organic in image quality. For theater and ballet, my use, it's a steal and full of beauty

[@RWAquariumPages]

such a great reminder that the ef lens didn't stop working just because a new rf one came out. I screwed up also, one of my all time fav was my 70-200 2.8 ef ii lens, my best images were from that lens from the past 15+ years (maybe had the non is version before also) i sold mine for cheap thinking i'd upgrade to the rf version one day. these days i shoot prime for some reason, i don't know why, i can't get past the f1.2 bokeh everything stage. i shot my boys running an obstable course yesterday and the 85 1.2 rf focus was spot on, rarely missed focus, the issue was framing, with a fixed focal length some shots needed to be cropped or it was too close. a 70-200 would have been much better for that situation. my other thoughts was the 135mm, i want the rf but it's so $$ and i rarely use the focal length, so i'm looking at some used 135mm ef lens just to sastify that itch. first world problems keep up the great video! new sub here!

[@JaredHoyman]

Welcome aboard! I picked up a 70-200 f4 rf, but still hanging onto my tamron 70-200 2.8 g2 ef for similar reasons you stated. Mobility and price of the rf f4 is great, but the option of adapting ef to non canon bodies and using speed booster on the r7 is a nice option.

[@igorcicala7]

I use my Sigma EF 50 mm f1.4 Art and the Sigma EF 105 mm f 2.8 on my Canon R6 and they are both amazing

[@tayloriginals999]

Canon's resistance to allowing third party lenses for the RF mount (There is one currently, but for APS-C lenses only) is why I may upgrade to a different brand. I have a really old Canon T1i and I am looking to upgrade. I am a hobbyist and not a pro so the high cost of RF glass is prohibitive. I have been thinking, if I can adapt my current EF lenses, why should I have to stay with Canon?

[@JaredHoyman]

If you are a hobbyist then I think there are definitely other options that are less expensive. But, if you buy an expensive camera you don't want to hinder it with the weakest link, which would be the lens at that point. Weather it's EF or RF I strongly encourage people to buy L series lenses. Buy nice or you'll end up buying twice.

[@chriswoodman_photography]

I use sigma/tamron primes on my R5 and no need to update but I'm happy I sold my tamron 70-200 2.8g2 and bought the RF 70-200 2.8. images look the same quality wise but the reduction in size and weight means I carry the lens more and not leave it at home so often like I did the tamron.

[@cameronward9443]

I just picked up an F4L 24-105 is II for $500 CAD and a F4L 70-200 is for $450 CAD. They are both in perfect condition. So many pros dumping their EF lenses right now you can really find good deals. For F2.8L zoom or a Macro lens I would go with the RF for the better light gathering and the control ring, but for F4 it literally doesn't make any difference for a general walk around lens.

[@JaredHoyman]

I have most of the RF L zooms, but I am tempted to either pick up a sigma 24 1.4 ef art or a 24 1.4 ef L. Sigmas is pretty affordable used and even new.

[@sophietucker1255]

I have a EOS R but only three RF lenses, 100-500, 600 f11 and a 70-240. The rest are EF for my 6D MKII and I won’t be getting rid of that or the lenses anytime soon. The 100-500 is nice but not really that much better than EF 100-400 that I have. The 600 f11 is actually really nice when shooting in bright and not so bright conditions. The 70-240 is a nice walk around lens but nothing to write home about.

[@JaredHoyman]

I love hearing all your opinions on the glass you use. 100-500 is tempting. How is the weight and portability?

[@sophietucker1255]

It doesn’t seem to be heavier or that much lighter than the EF100-400. What I dislike most is that when using a 1.4 or 2x extender you must zoom out to at least 300mm to even put the extender on. When on it can’t be zoomed to less than 300mm. This makes finding and tracking a moving subject harder to do sometimes for these 71 yr old eyes. I use the camera in manual mode and set the f stop to wide open and the adjust shutter speed to about 1/1250 or faster for birds in flight and use the ring on the lens to set the ISO manually for the correct exposure. I have also started using ⅓ to ⅔ over exposure compensation to make sure there is info in the shadows.

[@sidvicious3129]

Do the R7 with speed booster and the Tamron 70-200mm. This is outstanding information. Keep it coming.

[@popcornparam]

I totally agree with you .. if you guys don't shoot extremely fast subjects then the Tamron is more than a good lens to choose from

[@KaReEdCa]

And even so...most of my ef glass has gotten quicker to focus with the R6.

[@TizOnly1]

I have a C70 and an R5C and I'm running EF and RF. I originally was all about EF when I had my R5 instead of the R5C. But on the R5C, my Tamron lenses don't work in video mode.. so I've been using RF for that camera. It's a clunky setup right now, tbh. Definitely less than ideal. On EF I've got the Tamron G2 2.8 trinity, Sigma 20 1.4, Sigma 105 1.4 On RF I've got Canon f4 trinity and the 50 1.2. It's honestly overkill, but working for me at the moment.

[@JaredHoyman]

That is quite the setup for lenses. How do you like your c70 and R5C? Which one do you like the most out of those two cameras? I've been leaning towards the R70 because of clod2 and built in ND.

[@TizOnly1]

It really really depends tbh. The main things I think about when grabbing one over the other is A) will I need to do photo that day, then B) do I want a crisp image or a beautiful organic image. I really can't say I like one over the other. What I'll say is, generally speaking, whenever I grab one over the other, I'm almost always thrilled with the choice I made. I really love both of these cameras.

[@BOLANGTHANG]

I exchanged my 24-70 f2.8 to the 15-35. Now i have a 15-35, 70-200 and still waiting for a 3rd party release a 50mm f1.4 prime lens for RF system. I don't like the STM on rf50f1.8 and I don't like the price on rf50mmf1.2 lol😅

[@JaredHoyman]

That's actually the logic I have had over the last few yrs. 15-35 and 70-200 is only missing 50mm.

[@gregfisher216]

Jared I Feel your pain ! In 2020 .My wife decided that we would go Mirrorless! So we got on line to B&H photo. We bought 2 EOS R 's ,which at the time was the only one available .the R5 may have just come out , but it was crazy expensive . She got the 15-35 F2.8 , the 35mm 1.8 macro ,a 70-200 F4 . She got me the 24-70 2.8 and the 100 -500 F4.5/7.1 . She had the 24-105 f4 that came with her EOS R . I bought the 50.18 RF .I sold a lot of my EF glass to B& H . I still had the 16-35 F4 L and the 100mm 2.8 macro L series. I recently sold the 100mm 2.8 to B&H and was selling my 16-35 F4 to them but they couldn't buy because they said it mad a grinding noise when they mounted it on a DLSR. They are sending it back to me. I used it on my EOS R with the adaptor and it worked great ! My plan now is to get the RF 100 .28 macro from B&H . I guess I will keep the 16-35 for now .I think it will work great with the adaptor . I figured we more in Glass than what the cameras cost . My thing is , the Native RF glass is better than the EF, well sorta . If you have the coin get the RF glass .If you don't get the adaptor and you will get amazing images!

[@JaredHoyman]

I don't disagree with you. If you have the coin get RF, but for most people the EF will perform well and no one will know the difference. I'm finding the lighter weight build of the RF and the compactness makes all the difference in my bag. I've been tempted to get the 100-500 RF. How are you liking it? Also, the 100mm macro rf has always interested me, but I'm not sure how often I would shoot macro.

[@gregfisher216]

@@JaredHoyman I love it it is nicely sharp . I prefer to use it with a tripod . The reach is handy . But as you know they don’t give them away . The 100 Rf 100 is just creamy and crazy sharp . I sold my Ef 100mm , which bought used back in 2015. I was going to sell my EF - 16-35 F4 which is an amazing lens but the bayonet ring had some scoring on it . I put my Ef adapter on it and Rock and Roll baby !

[@marknongkhlaw1674]

I have the RF 24-105MM It's the only RF I have at the moment. But being a wildlife shooter, I hardly use it. Even the Tamron 70-200 G2 would fall short, I feel. But of course I'd love to see your review of it with the speedbooster and Canon R6 ii. Thanks

[@marknongkhlaw1674]

On after thought, I don't see any way of using a speedbooster with the R6ii 😢 it being full frame camera

[@rayspencer5025]

I prefer EF to RF because the adapters add some versatility. The Metabones Speedbooster Ultra actually very slightly improves image quality due to the compression of the light path. It is like when you interpolate and image to a larger size but then print it smaller. Also, since I shoot the R7, carrying a regular adapter and the speedbooster is like carrying another lens. With the speedbooster any FF lens will be a stop faster & more wide angle, but with a standard adapter that same lens is slower and more telephoto. An adapter with a filter slot allows me to put filters on my bulbous extreme wide angles, which I could never do before. Plus I have lenses that canon doesn't even make, like my 6.5mm FF ultra wide, 8-16mm, 300mm catadioptic, or my 300-800mm f5.6.

[@ArnsteinBjone]

I have been a photogarpher for 53 years and have no plans what so ever to switch to MILCs. I am perfectly happy with my EOS 5DsR (51 MP, FF) and 90D (33 MP, APS-C). And my EF 11-24mm, 300 2.8 II, Sigma 24-105 Art, Tamron 45 1.8 and 90 2.8. And a few more. (a Sigma 135 1.8 are incoming...). Ps. I rarely miss animal-AF.

[@jesse2450]

The only EF Mount Lens I have is the Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 and it is awesome

[@majun26]

This is basically why I haven't bought any RF lenses, or sold any EF lenses yet. The EF lenses can be adapted to Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, and maybe more cameras in addition to the Canon RF cameras. Now I buy manual focus lenses in PK mount for brand agnostic mirrorless lenses. I haven't made up my mind yet if I'll buy RF lenses or just jump ship, but I doubt I will be buying a whole set of lenses for any mirrorless mount, most of them are wacky prices and they're all super proprietary, wheras with the manual focus lenses, I'll be able to use them on whatever mirrorless camera I prefer at any given time. I think the lenses I'd be most likely to buy for any of the mirrorless mounts would be the manual focus ones too, since they're generally pretty cheap. I can't see going out buying a two or three thousand dollar lens that's more proprietary than one I could have for under 1000, if I haven't got one like it already.

[@lisawilliams1750]

Awesome review, I agree with you. I bought the R6 and R7, was too hasty & sold my EF lenses (with the exception of my EF 85mm 1.4) to purchase RF Glass. RF Glass is amazing, but I'm sorry I sold my EF Lenses. I mainly use the R6 paired with the EF 85mm 1.4 L and love it!!! I miss my Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art Lens, selling it was a "huge" mistake. I do have the RF 50mm 1.8, RF 70-200 F.2 and RF-s 18-150 all great lenses, but regretful that I sold my EF glass.

[@Ydkoll]

Jared, thank you for a very cool informative video. Just two days ago I bought the Canon R6ii (before they reduced the $$$!) and my first lens to go with it is an RF 85mm f2. After watching your video you made me realize that you have a point. As an enthusiast its really not worth the cost for such a premium price to pay for RF lenses. So buying an adaptor to go along with Sigma EF lenses makes good sense. Although my question to you is (as of now) would you be patient for Sigma to come out with full frame RF lenses or would just simply go out and get an adaptor and buy EF lenses? Your input would be greatly appreciated.

[@Yankeededandy62]

Very valid points. I use a Canon R6 with Tamron 2.8 zoom lenses. For most parts, I'm happy with the results. I'm not a professional, I mostly take pictures of animals and cars. Focussing speed is the one thing where i do think, the original Canon RF lenses would be better. I'm lusting after the 28-70 F2.0 RF lens to get more image separation as an additional benefit. But the price is holding me back. As you said in your video: The small benefits won't justify the huge price gap.

[@JaredHoyman]

Definitely rent before you buy those lenses. You may find you don’t like it as much. The 24 1.8 or 35 1.8 would be good for separation.

[@PeterSzaban]

I'm curious if your opinion regarding adapters has changed . I have come to HATE Canon's EF-RF adapter tax. I got a few used Canon adapters with control rings., to avoid playing musical adapters when forced to use them in bad weather. The adapter control ring randomly works with some adapted lenses, and not with others. Much of my reason to upgrade from DSLR was to get things like viewfinder focus peaking, focus guide, IBIS, control ring, multiple exposure and focus bracketing. All those features don't even work consistently across all RF lenses, forget about consistent operation on adapted lenses;. It's so confusing to remember which functions work which way with which lenses. Best thing I did was dump the EF100-400 and EF teleconverter for an RF100-500; cost difference was well under $1000, and image quality went up...and no more frozen finger teleconverters and adapter gymnastics. Replacing the EF100 macro with the amazing 1.4X RF 100 macro was even cheaper, I agree that some RF lenses seem to be varying degrees of overpriced, but my pet peeve with the RF mount is that the lens caps are difficult to align correctly, where the EF lens caps were much easier to put on.

[@JaredHoyman]

At this point I think you and I agree on all points that you mentioned. Having the option for adapted lenses is great and can I do recommend it for most people moving into RF from EF. But, if your budget allows it or you are a working pro then I do recommend buy native RF and more specifically RF First Party L series or whatever your best quality rating is with another manufacturer. Since that video I did sell the Tamron 70-200 2.8 EF, (which is an amazing lens for what it is) after I bought the Canon 70-200 F4 RF L and realized it brought in more light and was way sharper with amazingly better contrast. The only non RF lens I have now is the Rokinon 12mm EF Fisheye. That used to be a big money maker for me when I did 360 Panos, but now it just sits in my closet. I will be curious how Sigma stacks up with my R7 when they release their new RF mount lenses later this year. I do plan on buying them solely for the purpose of testing and reviewing for all of you. Thanks for the question!

[@user-vj9qw6ok1b]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but speed boosters don't actually give shallower depth of field. They do increase the quantity of light reaching to the sensor by reducing the image circle projected on the sensor plane, thus apparently reducing the f number, but for the same reason, reducing image size, depth of field is in fact increased (more stuff in focus, less bokeh).

[@JaredHoyman]

You are right! I guess what I was trying to say was now with a wider field of view the subject is framed closer to the camera giving shallower depth of field with a speed booster.

[@RicCederholm]

Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art on the R6 is stellar. Super sharp and the look of the photos is amazing. Far better than the 50mm 1.8 I have (EF version). Not even close. I bought it used for around $525 and was totally worth it for portraits.

[@JaredHoyman]

I may have to rent before I buy that one. I tend to fall in love without meeting LOL. That could be a good comparison video there.

[@omerbinyounos]

I use R6, R and R10 with Sigma Art 35mm, 50mm and 85mm f1.4. Razor sharp and amazing performance at 1/2 price of native canon and for rf 85mm f1.2 vs Sigma 85 Art f1.4, Sigma is 1/3 of price with 95% performance compared to Canon

[@joshuawilliams1707]

I'm shooting the new R6 mkii, and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is on the front 90% of the time. I've owned ALL the lenses, and the 50 from sigma is my favorite lens.

[@joylox]

I've been using mine (which I also got used but for more than that, but still less than half of Canon's RF one), and it's fantastic with both the R and the R7. Now that I have two camera bodies, I usually have the 50 on one of them, and a zoom of some sort on the other. The Canon 24-105 RF that came with the R looks so ugly on the R7 when comparing it to the Sigma 50 1.4. I wouldn't mind getting the 35mm or even wider angle one if I can find one used. The bokeh is fantastic, it gets beautiful portraits, and it looks exactly the same (when using the R) as the RF Canon 1.2 L series one, and quite a bit better than the EF L series one. Yes, it is heavier, but that's totally worth it.

[@drewhollings]

As always, a great video👍 I use the R6 and R7 with various EF/RF lenses. RF50 1.8, RF85 F2, RF24 70 2.8, EF 70 200 iii, EF 100 400 ii, Sigma 35 1.4 and 50 1.4. Both sigma definitely have the best IQ with the RF 85 close. Most disappointing is the 70 200 🤷‍♂️

[@shawnwright240]

Thanks sir. Just saved me big money $200 lens for just $100 - awesome. My R6 Mk II will love it.

[@JaredHoyman]

Yes it will. Easy and portable on the r6ii.

[@bryantwalley]

I have no RF but still watched the entire video. Most of my lens are EF-S. Would they work on the R7?

[@JaredHoyman]

I appreciate your time. Thanks for watching. Yes, your EF-S will work on the r7 with the canon EF to RF adapter. They sell for around $100

[@bryantwalley]

@@JaredHoyman that is good to know. I see decent prices on the R7 from time to time and been thinking about making the jump.

[@Bob-oq5du]

There are some third-party lens issues with the Canon R cameras. For example, the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary (which is a fantastic lens for the money) has focusing issues with the R6 and even greater issues of focus pulsing with the R6ii. Sigma originally claimed compatibility but now admits there is an issue. At present, they do not have any known plans to resolve this.

[@JaredHoyman]

Tamron has worked well on my r7 and r6 ii.

[@seanmuller5145]

Your correct about the Sigma 150-600mm. I have that lens with R6MARK2. I do have the jumping focus point problem at times. The tell you truth it's not that big of a deal. The auto focus still works 100 better then any of my DSLR did. I may have low standards considering I upgraded from a Canon 6D mark1 . Lol

[@omerbinyounos]

I have used both Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and Sports. Sports doesn't have pulsing issues and faster / more positive focus grabber. Currently using the 150-600mm sports with R6 and R10

[@MasonPollock]

However the rf system as a whole is much more light weight, has better autofocus motors and sharper so professionals shooting sports, photo journalism and people freelancing can fit more in their bag with the full frame bodies offering more to their clients giving a reason to charge more.

[@kenhuang3820]

My pursuit of the ideal 70-200 lens commenced with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 sports lens , a marvel on my R camera. However, its hefty 1.8kg weight became a hurdle for my preferences. The exploration for alternatives kicked off with the EF 70-200 f4. While adequate for my R, the lens struggled to match the 15fps of my R7. Disheartened by its inconsistency, I tested the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, lighter than Sigma but lacked sharpness. A UV filter hiccup led me to reconsider (filter I brought $55 USD may have stuff up the focus I tried another version it was sharp but because of bad experience I have decided to keep searching). The EF 70-200 f2.8 Mark 2 was next, but it fell short at 15fps and distant shots. Second-hand purchases from a camera shop marked each trial. I been using Canon 70-200 f2.8 mark 2 for over 6 months and did so many real world test was disappointed and, I recently transitioned to the RF 70-200 f4 used for about 2 weeks now, parting with the EF 70-200 f2.8 Mark 2 and RF 24-105 f4. Selling both lens gave me 75% of the cost of a brand-new RF 70-200 f4, my journey concluded. My advice? Testing a lens with static subjects won't unveil its true capabilities. Take it to the streets, capture moving subjects, and scrutinize the results. RF lenses may not be budget-friendly, but as a hobbyist, every cent invested is justified. The swift focus and remarkable sharpness of the RF 70-200 f4 make it a worthwhile addition, concluding my quest for the perfect lens.

[@JaredHoyman]

Did you get a chance to watch my video from yesterday? It’s all about the 70-200 f4 RF. It is an amazing lens.

[@kenhuang3820]

​@@JaredHoymanI'll go watch it I couldn't afford f2.8 version but I try so so hard to find fault in this RF 70-200 f4 so far I couldn't find any issue beside low light condition (but I don't think that is flaw though it's not a fast lens 😂).

[@timelesstruths]

Enjoyed your commentary and advice. My current lense library includes a 50 mm ef 1.8, bought for 50 dollars at a pond shop, very noisy. Ef 17mm to 40mm L F4, Rf 24mm 105mm L F4 super sharp and finally Ef 70mm to 200mm L F4. Looking a possible blackmagic in future, with faster glass.

[@JaredHoyman]

Check out B&H deal below for the RF 50 1.8 for $99. Not silent like your 24-105 but a big upgrade.

[@Burritosarebetterthantacos]

Im also about to sell all my rf glass and body because all these issues you talk about are canon exclusive. Not sure what your photography looks like but for me weight and form factor is biggest factor.

[@JaredHoyman]

Weight is a factor. With my real estate shoots I have shot with the 15-35 2.8 rf for the last 3yrs, but for the last month I have been shooting with the 14-35 f4 RF and the weight difference alone maybe worth the switch. Same reason I love my 70-200 F4 RF because it is small, light and easy to walk around with. Sony doesn't have one that compact. Check out my latest video with that lens.

[@gerhardbotha7336]

One year later.... I have yet to by an RF lens (other than my TTArtisan 35mm F0.9 manual lens for RF mount. I sold all my EF glass I had except for the 400 F5.6 L and got the R7. My EF collection was all primes. And I had a Sigma EX 300 2.8. With the change to RF in the rest of the world, the EF glass prices dropped. I got the EF 100-400 L ii for under $900. I got a 500 F4 L is mk1 for $1600. I have never had glass like that. And then I got the speedbooster! Man! I have an equivalent 550mm F2.8 now! And the 100-400 becomes a 110-440 ish F4! Maybe I will get a used RF 100 macro? But the EF is so much less! No point in looking for Sigma although the ART line does look good. But I can get a used EF L for a similar price so....

[@JaredHoyman]

Those are amazing prices. Sigma art always grabs my attention but I do love the canon L series look and feel.

[@rolandrick]

The biggest mistake I made is to purchase the RF100-500 and sold the EF100-400. Why? Because the RF Extenders limit the RF100-500 to the 300-500 zoom range. Never thought that will bother me, well, it turned out it does, extremely. Despite of that, the optical quality of RF100-500 and RF Extender x 1.4 are awesome. Don’t have the RF x 2.0 Extender, can’t say anything about it.

[@hangfire6368]

RF 24-70 2.8 L IS RF 50mm 1.8 EF 17-35 2.8L EF 70-200 2.8 L IS EF 15mm F4 fisheye C70 & EOS R. I'm getting good images from EF and RF lenses. I'm Interested in an EF 300mm f2.8 L IS.

[@JaredHoyman]

The 300mm ef is intriguing, especially for the price.

[@WalfredoCirne]

Yes, please, make a video on the speed booster on the R7

[@Jeevan_Official]

You’d have a great Voiceover career LOL

[@rptaraporevala]

So, I have come full circle. I bought the Canon R5 and the RF to EF converter in Feb 2021 (I think) after reading all the raves and comparing specs and looking at all the KZbin videos where folks shared their likes and dislikes. I am an amateur photographer. I hardly ever shoot videos. I had at that time a 5D3 and a 7D2. Lens wise, I had the 24-105, the 100-400 L II, 100m Macro and the 7-200L 2.8. The first plan was to keep my EF lenses and use the RF to EF converter. I sold the 5D3 and the 7D2 soon after obtaining the R5, so I had to let go of the 24-105 EF lens which meant I needed to buy the 24-105 RF. I think that is a great buy because for a fair amount of time that is the lens that sits on my R5. I then planned to sell my EF lens kit and purchase RF lenses. The prices were steep, so I held off. Then came the news that Canon was blocking third party lens makers and so I again considered switching over to the RF lenses. The high prices meant I would have to do that later as I am not a professional photographer. So, I waited a while and used my EF lenses on my R5. I find that I am very comfortable shooting with the EF lenses and so I have decided to keep them and use them on my R5 with the converter! Unless I win the lottery - but then since I do not buy lottery tickets so I think I'll stick with my EF lenses. 😊

[@JaredHoyman]

The RF are excellent lenses, but most people should not switch to all RF from their EF....at least not right away. I loved my EF 24-105 F4, but sold it a few years back. I am now realizing how useful that lens was on trips and walk around where I just re-ordered it in the RF mount.

[@3dtrip870]

Do that r7 video, we (I) love budget quality setups

[@JustinWild]

Damn, thank you for the B&H referral! I've been eyeing the 50mm f/1.8 refurbished for $140. Getting it at $100 is a steal! I wish they had a similar discount on the 24-240mm.

[@JaredHoyman]

You are welcome! I assume the promo code stilled worked? I wasn't sure how long this was going to last.

[@JustinWild]

@@JaredHoyman It was a different code but it was auto-applied.

[@jeramiej]

From a carry around lens I love the rf 16, 35, 50. Those are great small and relatively cheap lenses. However I will always keep my ef l glass. It’s hard to beat.

[@VirtualTourPhotographer]

I have the R, R7 and RP - AND the 70-200G2 and was just thinking of selling it - don't have a speed booster. So that review would be cool

[@JaredHoyman]

I ended up selling my 70-200 g2 and bought the 70-200 f4 RF and was totally worth it for the weight and sharpness.

[@VirtualTourPhotographer]

Funny that@@JaredHoyman I have that lens too. Much lighter but I sometimes think I could use a bit more light. Oye... sometimes we just need to shut up and shoot eh? Thanks for the quick reply!

[@JaredHoyman]

@@VirtualTourPhotographer agree! Shooting is so much more fun than shopping specs.

[@Dstonephoto]

Canon lost the plot the moment they began pricing their lenses like Leica and Hasselblad. If you read the white paper on the OG speedbooster you’ll discover some interesting aspects of them that are glossed over. You get better image quality. Massively underrated optical wonders. Try a 40mm ef 2.8 pancake with a Viltrox speedbooster on an M50 and thank me later.

[@mitchlazorko]

R6ii and R7 user here. I have the RF 24-70 and as a hybrid shooter, it has been invaluable for the focus breathing compensation during long form video interviews as well as the silent focusing for when I happen to need on camera audio. That being said, I do adapt the Sigma EF 35mm 1.4 and Canon EF 85mm 1.8 when I need shallower depth of field and they work great. I think its worth it to invest in whatever lenses you shoot with for the majority of your work and then choose more budget friendly options for the rest to fill out your kit for those rare times you need them.

[@JaredHoyman]

Yes! Buy native for what you need and EF for what you want. -70-200mm doesn't make me money. We have the exact cameras and I love the 24-70 on my r7 over the r6 ii. Just personal preference.

[@BOLANGTHANG]

Same cameras but I actually traded my rf24-70 to rf15-35. I have a 70-200 f2.8. The ranges 36-69mm that need to be larger than F2.8 for portrait, I don’t see any other purposes that need a larger aperture than f2.8 for portrait and art.

[@CyclopsJoeVideos]

I’ve watched this video like 3 times . Awesome channel and content

[@JaredHoyman]

As always I appreciate it!

[@plisskenetic]

I bought RF lenses for my R5 & R5c and haven't regretted any of them

[@JaredHoyman]

Me neither! The hard part is for those that are just coming over to RF for the first time and have a lot of EF glass. My advice is take your time and find out what you really need or want. There is a lot of good EF glass from tamron and sigma. For me the rf 15-35 and 24-70 2.8 rf make me money, so for me and anyone else who makes money off those lenses, then go for RF.

[@mhw9332]

yes please! share ur experience with the speedbooster :)

[@dar7a_saif]

I want to buy a Canon R7 with a Sigma 18-35mm lens and a Sigma 50-100mm lens. What do you think of this gear?

[@JaredHoyman]

The R7 is actually my favorite camera. I shoot mostly full frame professionally but I like the look of aps-c more. The sigma 18-35 1.8 is sharp on the R7. I tried it out.

[@MariansPetrs]

The 70-200 tamron is incredibly sharp, but I ended up sell it because it was too heavy to carry around.

[@JaredHoyman]

It is heavy. I have been shooting with the canon 79-200 f4 rf and it is so light and small.

[@Claytonh3]

I have an R7 with a sigma sport 70-200 2.8. Great lens, great combo for indoor sports. I shoot ice hockey. I picked up a rf 70-200 f4 used , for travel purposes. The rf is 1/2 the size and weight. What I didn’t expect was how much better the stabilization is with the rf r7 combination. The rf is tack sharp every time! The sigma has stabilization but isn’t as good. It has replaced my sigma 2.8 shooting indoor hockey even at f4. I’m debating on a sigma 24-70 2.8 or rf 24-70 2.8 for indoor concert photos. The rf 70-200 f4 has me leaning toward the rf version.

[@JaredHoyman]

We are in very similar boats. I have the 24-70 2.8 RF and it performs amazingly at indoor events. My Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 is super sharp, but weights a ton. I'm about to pull the trigger on a Canon 70-200 f4 RF. If I do portraits I'm either stopping down to 5.6 or shooting a Prime wide open.

[@TonyGrant.]

A video on the R7 with speedbooster would be good. How sharp is it? I have the R7 with the EF 85 1.4 IS - it's amazing on a cropped body. I also use the EF 70-200 2.8 and the EFs 10-22 which don't miss a beat. I have the RF 50mm 1.8 which is optically pretty identical to the EF. The auto eye focus is a game changer with these lenses - almost a 100% certainty of a sharp shot of people and pets. I can't work out if the IBIS works with them though.

[@MichaelFrederickPhoto]

I am legit PO’d at the cost of the RF glass so I use EF mount glass. I have the R6, the 20mp doesn’t “deserve” the high IQ of the RF glass, like putting 87 gas in a Ferrari. If I shot the R5 then I 100% get it. I have rented several RF zooms/primes, they are fantastic to MY eyes but guess who doesn’t know the difference? CLIENTS! If I take a family portrait with the G2 70-200, never had someone say “wish you used a RF 70-200!”. My money lens for headshots is the Sigma 105 1.4. That is an amazing combo!!! The RF cost actually pushed me to adding a Fuji X-H2 to my collection. The cost of the lenses vs IQ is fantastic. I am using Viltrox primes and Sigma zoom. The end result is amazing and I am shooting Fuji 85% of the time so far. My main shooting season is coming up, I will be shooting both rigs for the different looks.

[@JaredHoyman]

I'll have to check out the 105 1.4 sigma. Sounds awesome!

[@BDNADLER]

I just received my new Canon R6 MK II; an R5 MK II is on pre-order. I have two RF lenses; a 100 to 500 mm lens as well as a 16 mm RF lenses. I also have several EF lenses. Even if I did not have my EF bodies; 5D MK II and 5D MK IV, it is my intention to retain all of my EF lenses. I will have one EF adapter for each Canon R mount.

[@JaredHoyman]

You will LOVE the R6 II, but you will REALLY LOVE the R5 II when you get it. They are amazing cameras.

[@twrea]

I just liked and subscribed nice viewpoint, I have been looking to the R7 as I do shoot a large volume of sports and wildlife, mostly from my 7dM2. I also use a 1D-X m2 as my primary body.. While I have many lens for these systems; I use an adp to give me access to by old Nikor glass, my landscape go to primes.. And my all time nightlife an street lens the amazing Nik 50m f1.4 - - My take away from this, is that my mindset going in to the research of getting an R7 to fill the sports role of my 7Dm2 - is :Yes get it. and Yes use an ADP to link the old with the new, don't waste the fat cash for RF glass; IF you have the older better line. Granted, I do think I will get one RF lens for the R7. And that is the 100mm-500mm and the reason being, the R7 crop like its distant hanger mate the 7Dm2 is has a 1.6x Crop factor. So yea, that or the RF400mm maybe. Cheers can't wait to see that speed boost vid!

[@JaredHoyman]

I appreciate it! If you are use to the 7dm2 you will love the R7. 100-500 is a very tempting lens. Speedbooster test will be a good one.

[@twrea]

@@JaredHoyman Thanks, I have been on the fence, but I do think now, my mind is set on the R7.. Looking forward to the speedbooster video

[@oastorga]

I"m using the Canon 180mm L 3.5 Macro with my Nikon Z and Sony. Bought it used and yes heavy but I just really like the images I'm getting from it. The R7 with speed booster may be in order.

[@beau__]

I sold all my RF lenses and went back to my Canon EF lenses. RF is better but not THAT $$$ much better. The only RF lens I would really wanna buy is when they release the 35mm 1.2L, but the EF 1.4L is still a beast.

[@JaredHoyman]

I did end up ordering a refurbished 70-20 f4 rf for $1350 and that was for travel purposes. Can't beat 1 pound lens.

[@JavierMadinabeitia]

I think mostly depends on your work. I still have both ef and rf, and as I still the sigma ef 35mm 1.4 is pure magic, I will never regret to buy the RF 24-70 because is the most versatile lense I have owned, focus fast, reliable, and gogogochopchop beast. So more than good and bad, affordable or stupidly expensive lenses, is more about your style, how you work and what kind of photography you do, at the end, a lens is a pure tool.

[@JaredHoyman]

Agree!

[@modenach]

I don't know I compared the EF 24-70mm II with the RF 24-70mm and the picture quality is about the same the AF too. Also I prefer the mechanical focus ring compared to focus by wire of the RF. The EF L is build like a tank and the RF L reminds me on a chepo plastik lens. I saw a RF 15-35 L fall apart for no reason at all, broken on the barrel before the mount. So I doubt that the RF lenses will last for decades like the EF did. Also I recently got a Tamron 24-70mm G2 with the Tap-In console for 450, sharp, fast and reliable AF and the EF 16-35mm F4 for 400 bucks or, I just bid 310 on a EF 100 L IS Macro and it's as good as mine . Soooo I don't see much advantages in RF right now.

[@o.aldenproductions.9858]

The speed booster hasn't been available for months!! 😔

[@JaredHoyman]

That stinks. It was at the time of shooting this video.

[@saurabhthale]

Would love to see the Review with speed booster and R7 with 70-200

[@saurabhthale]

I have one question though, What do you think if I should go for Canon R7 with speed booster or Canon R6 (Mark 1) used getting around $1700?

[@TheRealMarxz]

I purchased the R7 for the sole purpose of using my very old EF 300mm F2.8 (original non IS version which I consider the best IQ wise) I paid a stupidly low price for it way back late 2000's certainly not something I could afford to buy the new model, not then, not now, - on the R7 it's performance is spectacular much better than on my 90D or 5Div bird in flight hit ratio, between the in body stabilisation and focus system is easily ten times that of the DSLRs, - the kit lens that came with the R7, the 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 RF-s however, big disappointment, I've not been more disappointed by a kit lens since the 75-200 MK I that came bundled with one of my EOS crop cameras ... can't remember which one probably one of the xxxD/rebel/kiss jobs. did get the 16mm RF for use as a general purpose snap shot lens while out birding which is not too bad but the reality is that I mostly use the EF and EFS Canon/Sigma/Tamron lenses which I might pack in the bag when I go out birding with the EF 300... if I want light mirrorless for non birding shoots I'll pack one of my MFT bodies and as much as a half dozen lenses and still come in under the weight of the R7 and two EF lenses

[@livestreamsuk6004]

Same I had pristine copies of the f1.2 lenses!!!

[@mikkirurk1]

Why would someone ever sell a Tamron 24-70?

[@JaredHoyman]

Stop rubbing it in 😉

[@Tacochamp123]

You got that silky smooth voice!

[@NiNJARiCK]

I am a quite newbie in this area. I have recently bought R10 and RF 50mm f1.8 STM lens. I mainly do street photography and planning to click portraits. I am planning to buy a zoom lens. Should I invest on the RF 24-70mm USM lens. That's quite pricy though. Please suggest me what should I do.

[@JaredHoyman]

You may one to try the canon 24-105 f4 Rf. You can always rent it first to see if you like it. Here is a link where to find it for purchase. amzn.to/3ZvUnNv

[@zedpassway4140]

Unless of course, there is no EF lens that comes close. I only have two RF lenses: the RF 24-240 and the RF 800. In both cases, there is nothing in the EF world that comes close for the price. I also use an EF Irix 150mm macro, because Canon doesn't currently make that mm and when they did it wasn't as sharp as the IRIX. And a Tamron EF 17-35 because I use it for astro, and it has a very low coma distortion, something Canon just doesn't care about.

[@thedarkslide]

The 16mm f2.8 is a no-brainer on RF, so might the new 28mm f2.8 RF pancake. Those are the only two RF lenses I plan to get, for anything else I will continue to use my EF glass.

[@simonmaduxx6777]

the 16 is not a good lens. serviceable. not good. the 28 might be decent, but dont expect really great optics for non L canon stuff.

[@thedarkslide]

@@simonmaduxx6777 it all depends on expectations. And what sensor you are matching the lens against. I don't have an R5, I only need to resolve for a 26MP sensor on RF and for the 51MP on my 5DsR I got the latest EF L glass which I'll share with RF mount. You might be right about the 16mm, I am waiting for more reviews on the 28mm, but I'd like a compact pancake lens as a EDC on my RF camera body.

[@simonmaduxx6777]

@@thedarkslide I just go by the optics. I'm a pixel peeper, so with a design background I'm used to editing visuals at the pixel level. The optics are everything at the end of the day. As far as resolving power, even for 26 megapixel you still want to just stick the best glass you can on a body regardless of the limitations of the sensor. All the pieces you put in place ultimately determines the IQ. That said everyone's not about the best image quality they can they can get and I understand that. Photography is an expensive hobby or profession and for me personally I'd rather take good glass. Doesn't have to be the latest and greatest just has to be good. Cheers.

[@KaReEdCa]

Still sporting mostly ef glass. I love my sigma sport 70-200, and my daily carry sigma 100-400.

[@marvinlovenfeldt]

I own the R7 and the Canon RF 50mm f1.8 STM, the Canon RF 100-400 f5.6-8.0 and the Canon RF 70-200 f4 L. Plus I got the Canon EF-S 15-85mm and the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 as well with the Meike ND filter adapter. And I made the most awesome video rig with Atomos Ninja V and connect unit plus V-Mount Battery that is mounted on a Nitze V Mount Battery plate with usb-c which the battery also have. So I lieve the regular Canon battery in the camera, connect a short usb-c to usb-c cable from battery plate to usb-c on the R7, and connect the ninja with battery eliminator to the battery plate and plug in the hdmi into a micro hdmi to hdmi adapter from smallrig which is mounted on the smallrig big mamba Cage for R7 and mount my lens for the job. The ninja is updated with all available codecs and everything is perfect.

[@JaredHoyman]

That is an amazing set up. Vmount batteries do help.

[@thecoreelementsmoto]

I ran into issues with my ef 70-200. Firmware not compatible. I saw it coming. Worked with live view on the 5d mk3 but not the 4. Not at all on my r6 mk2

[@AlexandreNarbert]

I did have this problem on my Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 G1. Its working on 5D III but not working in 77D live view due to the dual pixel AF. I sent to Tamron Distributor in Malaysia and let them update the lens for free. Now, it’s completely working with dual pixel af. Still waiting for my R6 to arrive arghhh

[@ConsciousConversations]

Do you think the promo code still works? It seems there is no promo code box

[@JaredHoyman]

I think it was just for that time. I do know that the promo codes are usually not visible until you are at check out too. Doesn't hurt to try.

[@alansach8437]

EF glass works very well with an adapter, and if you need a specific lens that is available in EF you can likely find it for less money than an RF version. Also, I am definitely not selling my old EF glass and taking a bloodbath financially! However, there are some amazing RF lenses coming out, and there are many more on the horizon. Lenses not available in EF mount. Also, if you can afford the new lenses, I'm not really sure that sinking a lot of money into an obsolete technology makes a lot of sense. No one knows what the future will hold. Another mount change at some point may make EF unusable, while RF can be adapted. Even reselling that glass might prove difficult. Not all EF glass can take full advantage of the incredible AF system in modern mirrorless cameras. They may work, and may work well, but still be slower than an RF equivalent. My point being, take advantage of deals that can be had, but don't completely eschew the amazing RF lenses coming available. Given a choice, if the savings are only moderate, I would go with the new technology, if for no other reason than to help future proof my investment.

[@joylox]

Honestly, when I got my R, it had pretty bad compatibility with EF lenses, being slow, struggling to focus, and just not working right. However, after a few updates, most work fine. Now with an R7, I use my two Sigma lenses most (50 1.4 A, and 150-600 C). The biggest surprise had to be with two of Canon's most well known lenses. Generally, prime lenses are seen as better than zoom, but some lenses I tried were weird. The Canon 50mm f1.2 L EF lens was absolutely horrible! When I compared it to the RF version and the Sigma 50 f1.4, the Sigma came out on top if you don't mind a slight focus noise, and a metal case rather than plastic. But the EF one was not great on the R. And with the 70-200 after the updates to the firmware, they're pretty much the same, but the RF one is faster, so I like it better for birds. But the other surprise is that the kit lens from the R, the 24-105, doesn't work nearly as good on the R7, as when I use the Sigma 50. Either Sigma is that good, or that kit lens should not have had the L series label. I traded in the EF version with the camera that it came with, and now I wonder if the EF one works better on the R7. I might have to borrow a friend's and see what it does. I do hear that in both cases, the 24-70 is better, and I used the really old one with the weird lens hood that was attached to the part of the lens that didn't move, and it was great at the time, so if I could afford it, I'd like to see what they'd do. But for now, I'm going to keep my eyes out for used Sigma lenses at my local store.

[@harrison00xXx]

I was also once nearly switching from EF to RF, mainly in the regular zoom range (24-70 2.8) and in the tele range with the RF 800 F11. The RF 800 F11 i got and i love it, but i also had the RF 50 1.8 (on full frame EOS RP, BEST COMBINATION!!!!) Until i used a Meike EF RF filter adapter where i realized - EF all the way, its a charme to have a single small and affordable set of V ND and C PL as well clear insert for protection while swapping EF lenses on the go! Since then, i switched from the EOS RP to the R7 and i am so happy i have not sold my EF glasses yet.