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

[@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!

[@RamonLinares]

A good thing of the EF lenses is that it can be adapted to any mirrorless camera. I currently use EF lenses with Sony, Panasonic and Fujifilm. It's the best lens mount out there.

[@JaredHoyman]

That's true! And there is a lot of good deals on that glass.

[@doghouseriley4732]

I am using my old Canon EF 100-400 Mk2 + 1.4 TC Mk3 with my new Fuji X-H2S - works amazingly, far better than it did on my 7D Mk2. But................ the Canon EF 100 L Macro does not focus well with the Fuji and works sporadically with insect specific auto focus. But RF glass and Canon's action against 3rd party lenses was reason enough for me to leave Canon for the first time.

[@davepastern]

EF can be used on older EF DSLRs AND Canon MLCs. RF only on RF bodies...a big issue. I understand why you can't use RF glass on EF bodies, but it's just a silly design from Canon imho. I'll only stick to EF glass for this reason.

[@thedarkslide]

All true - and you can shoot EF lenses with auto-focus, image stabilization and weather sealing on film with something like the EOS 1n or 1v. That's why I just recently bought into the EF system instead of any other full frame system.

[@itacatv2146]

EF lenses have the worst build quality. For the amount of money we pay we get cheap plastic. I own a red ring EF 16-35 f2.8 that snapped above the mount without ever falling to the ground. Imagine this: my cheap apsc Viltrox lenses are all metal and light years better in terms of build quality than the red ring EF plastic lenses.

[@nubscrub]

I sold my EF glass in '21 for top dollar, and quickly. Listings wouldn't sit for more than a day or two before a buyer would show up. Today, I see tons of EF lenses on Marketplace sitting despite crazy low asking prices. Too many motivated sellers trying to unload now has shifted the supply and demand. Great time to build a DSLR kit though, I've seen 5D IV listing for crazy cheap.

[@JaredHoyman]

You are right! Those prices have dropped fast.

[@edrader]

i just bought a LN 5d4 for $1500 to back up my 7-year-old 5d4

[@charlesjames9783]

You can get some good deals on EF glass now. I think the coatings on the RF glass makes it better but you can get great results with EF if you know what to buy.

[@thothheartmaat2833]

5d4 is awesome.. but it has the same problems as all these pre r mount camera bodies.. the auto focus isnt great... with these new cameras now it is.. its hard out here for a pimp to get a picture in focus..

[@markgilder9990]

I purchased all my current Canon kit for £2000 and saved over £4,500 buying new.

[@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

[@cp4512]

I use mostly EF L glass on my EOS R due to price. Usually buy second hand lenses! As an enthusiast and not a pro I can’t justify the new RF prices yet. Still love the camera and the lenses and I’m very happy with the results.

[@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.

[@charlesjames9783]

I adapt EF lenses for my R5. They work great. The first RF I bought was the 28-70 f2. It is my favorite lens. I have EF 24, 35, 50, 24-70, and 24-105. 15-35. I don’t use them much at all. It has a prime look in a zoom.

[@Baltzy24]

The 16-35mm 2.8 iii does great adapted, but all of my other EF lenses seem much less sharp and much less quick than my RF lenses when on the R6 mark II. I have the RF 50mm and 85mm 1.2's. Now thinking of getting rid of my EF 16-35mm 2.8 iii, in favor of the RF 35mm 1.4... and then getting rid of my EF 200mm 2.8 in favor of the RF 135mm 1.8

[@JaredHoyman]

If you stick with wide the 14-35 RF is excellent. I also have the 15-35 2.8 but prefer 14-35.

[@KAGilligan]

Agree, the Tamron EF 70-200 f/2.8 is amazing and works GREAT with my Canon R5 Mark 2 and the EF to RF adaptor. I've used it professionally, it is terrific. No way I am paying an additional $2,000 for the Canon 70-200. Thanks for the video.

[@JavierLopezPR]

That's good to know. Thx

[@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.

[@mattsmith3135]

I bought my first RF 'L' lens for my R8 yesterday -- the 24-105mm F4. I seriously considered the Sigma Art 24-70 f2.8 (roughly the same price), but went with the RF due to it being much lighter (700g vs 1kg), more compact, and the extra reach. Another big (but possibly odd?) consideration for me was filters; I used to shoot with the Canon EF 24-70 2.8L (ver 1), until it died of natural causes, and so I still have a bunch of quality 77mm filters for it. The 24-70 EF and RF options have moved away from that size filter, but the 24-105 still uses it, so that has saved me hundreds of dollars.

[@JaredHoyman]

I have the 24-70 2.8 RF and although it is tac sharp at 2.8 I am considering the 24-105 RF because of portability in travel. Lighter and more compact. I’ve been shooting with the 70-200 f4 RF and I can’t believe how good the IQ is and how small it is. I owned the EF version 1 ten yrs ago and the quality was good on that.

[@lindahewing1507]

I really appreciate this video. I'm about to pull the trigger on the R6 Mark II, and have been looking for content regarding lenses for it. Really appreciate your honesty.

[@JaredHoyman]

Take your time transitioning to RF. Your EF are good and eventually you will replace them one by one with RF versions. No rush. I pretty much fully went to RF in the last 2yrs and that is 7yrs into the RF system. You date the camera bodies but these lenses will be with you for years, especially if they are L series lenses.

[@jvan253]

I haven't made the jump to Mirror-less, but you have confirmed the way I plan to go, keeping my EF glass and use adapters. Great video!

[@JaredHoyman]

Thank you! That's the most cost-effective way to switch to mirrorless.

[@davepastern]

just be aware that some EF lenses don't retain full functionality on RF bodies. For example, an older mark 1 500f4 L will only hit 20fps and not the full 30fps on the R3, and DPAF coverage is ONLY 80% of the viewfinder, not the full 100% that the mark 2 500f4 enjoys. Does it matter in the field? Not really (at least, from my experience). The same applies to other older EF glass - my 70-200, non IS mark 1 lens works without issue. My 300f4 IS L too. And a host of other Canon EF lenses. None of them with performance hits like my mark 1 500f4 too.

[@Dmitrii_88]

If you have money you MUST buy rf lenses !!!

[@paulhenry7]

Yes, one thing you can do is buy an adaptor with a polariser for use with the EF 11-24mm.

[@markgilder9990]

I know pros who are keeping dslr as there is nothing wrong with them

[@rdm5546]

I love the RF L glass even at the price. I have several of these loved lenses including the RF 15-35, 24-70, 70-200 & RF50f1.2. I have a lot more EF lenses than RF lenses and will keep them as well. They work great for how I use them. I consider the RF lenses my core lenses and the rest are specialty lenses. Everyone has different needs and different budgets though.

[@modenach]

I didn't sell my EF gear and I do not regret it. The EF variants feel way more rugged and are made for decades to be used and abused. The RF guys feel cheap in comparsion, yeah I get it, they are way lighter, but is it worth the tradeoff? And I have seen a RF 15-35mm break in front of the mount for no reason at all. Also I have seen a RF 24-105 break into pieces without reasonable force. So it is possible that you have to buy the same RF lens often, because they don't last. Also I don't like the focus by wire design of the RF lenses. So for now i stick with EF. The downsites are minimal

[@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.

[@tomasz1604-y9b]

Kupiłem R5 Mark I i mój 5D Mark IV został w szafie jako zapas. R5 jest fenomenalny z obiektywami EF

[@andriiiakymenko3164]

I own both Tamron zooms. I just LOVE 70-200 2.8 G2 and using it on R6. Have been checking out videos about Canon, and still cannot get rid of a feeling that it does not worth it. Although, I started to have some issues with EF-RF adapter after some time. In certain position connection seems lost. Probably just heavy lens and gravity do their thing. And this is the only reason why I am looking towards Canon native lens, to replace additional element between camera and lens that can be a weak spot in connection. Anyway, thank you for the video and sharing opinion!

[@JaredHoyman]

I did end up buying the 70-200 RF f4 and after testing it against the tamron G2 I sold the G2. The canon is much lighter, shorter and even at f4 lets in more light than tamrons at 2.8.

[@andriiiakymenko3164]

@@JaredHoyman Wow! What? How is that possible that f4 lets in more light? 😅

[@JaredHoyman]

@@andriiiakymenko3164 no clue. My histogram changed enough to notice. I do recommend renting before buying because everyone’s wants and needs are different but this lens just came with me on vacation in Mexico and the images it captured were amazing. I would not bring the g2 beast traveling at all.

[@andriiiakymenko3164]

@@JaredHoyman that is very intriguing! Thank you for a hint!

[@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.

[@peterjulianphotos4659]

I'm still using a 90D and there's not much between it and the R7 sensor wise. I have the Sigma 18-35 1.8 (APS-C Beast) and today I picked up a second hand copy of the Sigma 24-105 F4 for $400 (that's 1/3 the cost of a of new lens) and it is in mint condition, so along with a 10-18 and the Canon 75-300 IS USM II, I have a pretty well rounded hobby kit, which will convert nicely when I eventually purchase an R7 mark x. I don't see a compelling case for change at present. Yes they're lighter and blah but the sensor is not offering twice the value.

[@JamesReader]

Awesome video Jared! There's some real gems on EF mount that I just don't think we'll see Canon release anything similar for a while. The Sigma 28mm 1.4 is one of my favourite lenses of all time.

[@JaredHoyman]

I agree! I want to go on a renting frenzy now. The sigma 105 1.4 EF would be an interesting fit. Any experience with that lens?

[@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.

[@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.

[@neelsfer]

I loved my EF 24-70 mkii, untill the day it let me down bigtime at a wedding, due to the aperture control module inside packing up - a problem that apparently frequently happens to some of the EF zooms, after a few yrs of use. I am switching to RF now.

[@JikoMuskato]

I had the problem with my EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM. But the repair actually wasn't too expensive - FAR cheaper than even a used lens of the same model.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@ernstvandeursen9254]

Having shot Canon for 20 years (EOS-3, 10D, 5D, 1DmkII, 5DmkIII), I switched to Sony A9. I still use my Canon TS-E 17mm + TS-E 24mm a lot on my Sony. I even kept my Canon EF f2/35mm, EF f1,8/50mm and Canon EF f2,8/70-200mm. I always loved the Eye AF on the EOS-3, and will have a look at the EOS R3 for that reason. Curious if the AF of these EF lenses is good enough for the R3.

[@JaredHoyman]

The EF are pretty good on the latest eye autofocus systems. I have the R5 II and it's tracking is actually better than the R3.

[@gus.smedstad]

Just moved to an R5 from a 7D II. My wide-angle and mid-range lenses are EF-S, so I need replacements. The RF 15-35 f/2.8 isn't that much more expensive than the EF 16-35 f/2.8, and the RF version is image stabilized. The RF 24-105 f/2.8 has no EF equivalent. I have a used copy coming in the mail. The Canon EF 24-70 is a L lens, and is almost as expensive as the RF lens. The Tamron is a nice lens, but it's not really the same as a L-series lens, and I don't think it's appropriate to compare prices without taking that into account. For the moment I'm retaining my EF 70-200 and 100-400 II, but I'm eyeing the RF 100-500. Not so much for the extra reach, though that's nice, but because it's notably sharper with a teleconverter than the 100-400. Sometimes with birds that matters.

[@Sutterjack]

Good observations. I own a EOS R and a C70 that both take RF glass but I haven’t bought any RF lenses yet. It makes total sent to me that the RF glass, being closer to the sensor is going to be superior optically and have less chromatic abhorations. That said, the price of the new glass is breathtaking and I’ve had to take a hard look at needs vs. wants - will buying this expensive lens really make me more money? Will my clients appreciate it? Most time the answer is no. My EF glass is still excellent and now the availably of so much new and used EF glass at a very good price point is very compelling. Many of my old EF lenses still look great, and I’ve never had a problem with the EF to RF mount. Sigma makes great glass too - very sharp, but sometimes the color and contrast is not as great as EF glass IMHO.

[@JaredHoyman]

I've been in the RF mount since 2018 so I have transitioned mostly over to RF L glass, but some of the longer zooms make more sense on EF price wise. A lot of EF Primes have come down in price too, which is nice to see.

[@skfineshriber]

I used to be a Canon user, but having used LUMIX cameras alongside my 5D III and 77D I came to the conclusion that their older crop sensor had virtually no better IQ than my 20MP MFT cameras, and the G9 was making my 5D III seem like a brontosaurus. After leaving Canon behind I bought a LUMIX S5 and discovered Panasonic was making fast, FF, weather-sealed lenses of excellent quality that are half the price of RF glass (or even less). AND Sigma is producing incredible lenses as part of the L mount alliance that are about half to two-thirds the cost of RF lenses. Canon makes great gear, but they sure are tough on the wallet these days, unless you’re okay with extra-slow, consumer zooms.

[@JaredHoyman]

I used to own a GH5 and it was amazing. Lumix has come a long way.

[@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

[@jeffcsMN]

Still rockin' several EF mount L lenses on my R6 MK II, but 'll be glad when 3rd party RF mount lenses are available.

[@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 !

[@wellingtoncrescent2480]

I rely on my Canon R7 with a number of RF lenses, primarily the RF 100-500 zoom, which I use for birds and wildlife. It's a fantasic combination: lighter than the EF lenses I replaced, the OIS works well with R7 IBIS, and the image quality is simply stunning. While I appreciate your perspective I wouldn't trade my system for anything. In the end, I guess it depends on your specific application.

[@JaredHoyman]

I agree! I wouldn't give up my 15-35 rf. It my money maker and nothing compares. For many people an EF will fit their needs while deciding what direction they want to go.

[@wellingtoncrescent2480]

@@JaredHoymanI previously used the Sigma 150-600C with the EF mount. But I experienced "AF pulsing", which has been described by others with both third party and older Canon EF lenses, where the AF doesn't keep up (there is an excellent series of KZbin videos by Duade Paton with more details). Although I was initially reluctant to "move up" to the RF 100-500 due to the price, it also eliminated this problem, which was mildly frustrating, in addition to the other advantages I mentioned above. It seems to be very lens-specific, though.

[@majorpayne0195]

EOS R8 user here. My current lens: Canon RF 24-105mm f4 IS L USM, Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 and Tamron 35mm f1.4. I'm planning to buy a RF 16mm f2.8 for wider end but if have extra cash will buy RF 15-35mm f2.8 instead.

[@JaredHoyman]

Another person made the comment, but I will reiterate it. Glass will outlast the bodies we buy and in most cases are more important for the image. The 15-35 2.8 is amazing if you can save up for it.

[@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.

[@JasonMcNamara]

Thanks Kanye. I'm buying a Canon R5C this week. Been researching Lenses. This was interesting food for thought. Thanks.

[@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.

[@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.

[@whfowle]

I already have a full set of Canon EF glass so I don't need to pick RF versions. So, just for travel purposes, I bought three non L RF lenses: 50 f1.8, 15-30 and 24-200 zooms which cover everything I will need and are a lot lighter than the L glass.

[@saralang9547]

Im glad you have this video. I have the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 and was thinking of getting rid of it and switching to the RF version. But now I think I’ll keep it. I did get the RF 100-500mm and it’s a HUGE upgrade from the Tamron 150-600mm I have. That was a winner.

[@JaredHoyman]

I did end up buying the RF 70-200 f4 and was blown away on how sharp and most of all compact & light it was for everyday use in my bag. I ended up selling the Tamron g2 because I just never took it out anymore. Convenience won in that battle. I find myself always looking at the RF 100-500 but not pulling the trigger. Do you miss the 600mm from the tamron? How is the weight and size? I liked the tamron 150-600 but way too big for me to justify bringing it places.

[@seanmuller5145]

Great video once again. I almost bought the Tamron you have used. Up her in Canada is was $1100 on the used market. I decided to get the RF 70-200mm F4($1,900 Can) because it's small and the weight is under pound. Also the Ra6mark 2 can handle very hi ISO which also opens up a new door to F4 glass. I already have Bigma Sigma lenses 150-600, the 14-24f2.8 and 35 F1.4. They all work great and are also amazing. I never regret buying Sigma . For Canon glass I have 50mm F1.8 and my boy " Old Blue" Canon 24-105mm f4) I have to tell the EF glass work amazing on my Canon R6mark 2. If you want to think about being practical and base things on what you need vs what you want. Ef glass or 3rd party EF will get it done every day. That being said me buying the RF 70-200mm F4 kinda makes me a hypocrit. Lol. I did pay more but I needed something small easy to carry for a 2 or 3 day shoot. Just today us RF users will have more options with Sigma finally coming to Canon RF System. Anyways using the adapter for me works great , auto focus is incredibly with every lens I have. The only mistakes made is from me. Perhaps with 3rd party coming soon to RF the used EF glass will get even more cheaper for the rest of us.

[@JaredHoyman]

Thanks for commenting and I love hearing about people getting the RF 70-200 F4. I wouldn't sell my Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2, but I have been thinking about getting the 70-200 F4 RF for travel and street photography. The fact its a pound or less is awesome! My G2 weights a ton! Most portrait photographers stop down to F5.6 anyways to make sure the subject or subjects are in focus, so the F4 wouldn't bother me. BTW...all Photographers are hypocrites. It's admitting it that makes it OK.

[@seanmuller5145]

@@JaredHoyman Lol. I guess the first step Shangula is admitting your a hypocrite. Yes the the 70-200 f4 is sharp and at 100mm and especially 200mm you can get really blurry back grounds. I would say this lens is as sharp as a Sigma but has that Bonus of light weight. This lens is about the size of the 24 -105mm perhaps 1/4 inch longer. Its amazing how new technology can these lenses , smaller and faster.

[@JaredHoyman]

You are all selling me on the idea of getting the 70-200 f4 RF...STOP IT! You had me at hello. Dang it...now I have to explain to my wife why I bought that too.

[@seanmuller5145]

@@JaredHoyman ok I will stop. I don't want to trigger your GAS

[@finnurhrafn]

@@JaredHoyman The 70-200 F4 RF is a great lens, I got it second hand and it is one of my best buys. I have a R6m2, like to shoot indoor sports in poorly lit venues (about EV 7). I normally use 1/1000, F4 and ISO 8000 to ISO 16000. After processing with DxO 3, I get sharp noise free pictures. The low light performance if the R6 is amazing, this combo leaves the F2.8 unnecessary. However I still regret selling my Tamron G2 70-200 F2.8, built and heavy like a tank but great quality.

[@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.

[@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.

[@Jackson_Weaver-34]

I’m still wondering if I should go with a 55-210 mm RF lens, I think this video just gave me more insight on just buying an adapter instead. Thanks a bunch.

[@cephotoclub]

yep kept the EF and did buy the meike slip in filter ef to r mount. I can put a polarizer on the lens and ND in the Meike for amazing images especially in water / reflected surfaces etc.

[@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.

[@ThreeCeeProductions]

I am 100% with you. I own the Tamron you mention and it is great on my R5. I kept all my classic EF glass and it isn’t always as sharp as RF glass but those lenses have unique character missing in the newer glass. The RF28-70 is my favorite lens but my adapted EF135 f2 is right there for way less money in terms of quality!

[@JaredHoyman]

The EF 135 f2 seems like a really good option over the RF 1.8 version and you save $1000. How is the focus and detail with your R5?

[@gerrya2133]

If you ever want to have an RF camera converted for IR/UV photography, most RF lenses have an IR light inside (To help with focusing I think I read). That will of course mess with your photo. EF lenses do not have that issue.

[@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.

[@Kinadnuf]

Thanks for this info mate. Well presented with no stupid unnecessary background music - excellent! Although I'm with Sony at moment, I'm thinking of jumping to Canon R5, so will go looking for more of your videos. Thanks 🇬🇧

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@ryannelson9523]

I'm on a R6mkll I use the RF 15-35 2.8 and the RF 24-70 2.8 but still use the EF 70-200 2.8 lll and it works great I love them all!!

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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).

[@Hubieee]

I did and I am happy. What did I do wrong? How can I remedy my mistake?? 😖 Still own EF though.

[@JaredHoyman]

Lol

[@sjcproductionsandmedia]

I sold my Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 because the auto focus was hit and miss for video. It looked beautiful (when it focused correctly). Do you agree?

[@JaredHoyman]

@@sjcproductionsandmedia I agree. Amazing image but the RF 24-70 2.8 is much better.

[@sjcproductionsandmedia]

@@JaredHoymanI’m on a budget for one lens to add to my bag for 2025. I already own these Canon RF L line lenses: Canon 14-35mm f/4, 50mm f/1.2. I’ve also got the Canon 85mm f/1.2 EF L lens. To add there’s also the Canon 35 & 50mm STMs that are rarely used. I’m a wedding photographer that also offers videography. So I’m wondering if I should invest in the newish Canon 24-105mm RF f/2.8 Z lens or the 28-70 or the 24-70mm. Haha. Any advice? My camera bodies are the Canon r6 and r6m2.

[@bigrobotnewstoday1436]

I think the problem sometimes is since we are big boys now and not playing with Star Wars toys cameras became the replacement of toys for use. I use to have gas but I try and think of it now I have anything I need and for the most part I'm done buying gear unless I really need it for work. Some people have reported they like the look of the EF lens better then the RF lens. I saw a review of the Canon 85mm RF f1.2 Vs the Canon 85mm EF f1.8 and reviewer took some photos of a woman maybe in her 40's or something and the reviewer said the RF one was better but in the comments everyone was saying the EF was better and that the RF was way to sharp. I know you can soften images in post but who wants to do that with a lot of weddings images?

[@JaredHoyman]

It is easier to soften than to sharpen but I hear you. Older lenses do often offer more character than new lenses.

[@Herkulez1981]

Still shoot with 5d3 and will soon go over to mirrorless. Was thinking about changing brand because they are so god Damn expensively and no middle ground with great third party options . But this made me rethink and just keep my ef lenses and buy a r6 or something . Plus now that tamron and sigma announced they will start making rf-a lenses that gives me hope that in the future I can buy native sigm at lenses I sure love them )

[@donangeloreyes8658]

Buy the R6 mark II for better battery life, or the R8 (has the same sensor) . :)

[@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

[@sidvicious3129]

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

[@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.

[@afcl1984]

I’m so mad at Canon at this point for not letting sigma and tamron to make rf glass… If I knew that before I would have chosen Sony. Thanks for the great video, it reminds us that we still have good options.

[@latenightmark]

This is seriously making me doubt moving to the R5.

[@frnvito]

Probably will just be a couple more years until they start allowing it. Won't be forever so for now we can just bear with EF glass w/ adapter. I know there is a Samyang RF 85mm f1.4.

[@afcl1984]

@@frnvito I have that Samyang, it's quite good. And I'm using the cheap RF glass for now. We'll have to wait.

[@garyrowe58]

Sigma are going to be making lenses for RF mount

[@JJohnson313]

That is over. Sigma is working on 2 RF lens right now.

[@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

[@GregShaw]

EF all the way. I went from the Canon 600d which I owned for 3 years to the R6 last year, then purchased second hand EF L glass over the year rather than RF and use the EF/RF adaptor with control ring. I now have the 16-35 f2.8 L iii, 24-70 f2.8 L ii, 70-200 f2.8 L ii, 100-400 L ii and 85mm f1.2 L ii

[@JanineMKartist]

the idea I can get an adapter is a life saver for my budget and great need for f2.8. .. luckily I can get the 24-70 mm Ef used and get the adapter and still save heaps of $. I'll still put my sigma prime lens towards trade in though because all I need is the 24-70 mm lens. no real need for prime lens as I would have thought.

[@jremi]

I saw this video a year late. I own the R7, the RF 50, the RF 100-400 and an adapter which I use with the Sigma Art 18-35 1.8 that I really like.

[@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 😂).

[@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!

[@KennyGPhotography34]

I have the R7. My current lenses are the RF 35 1.8, EF 70-200 2.8, and sigma EF 150-600. Just using the standard canon adapter. I’m happy with the results, but am curious if buying the speed booster would make enough of a difference to justify its cost. My next purchase most likely will be the RF 14-35 4.0 unless a better deal presents itself.

[@JaredHoyman]

I think a speedbooster test would be a good comparison. I'll work on that.

[@bilfoto]

@@JaredHoyman I am most interested in whether the speedbooster only gives more light or if it also affects better bokeh and blurring of the background.

[@JaredHoyman]

@bilfoto it does both. I made vid on it a week after this vid.

[@tysonator5433]

I upgraded from 7Dii to R7, and purchased a Sony A6600 before the R7 was even announced. I use EF 70-300L, 100-400L mkii, sigma 150-600 contemporary, 100mm L macro, sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS HSM. I have adapted all my lenses to the A6600 and they well reasonably well. You do not get edge to edge AF, and the ficus speed is slightly slower. I do have 3 Sony e mount lenses one being sigma 18-50 f2.8 which is a great sharp lens. As for R7 all the Canon EF L glass works amazingly well, especially the 100-400L mkii. The sigma do have slight pulsing even after firmware updates via the Dock. What I am writing for ( if the rumours are true ) is sigma RF 17-70 f2.8 for APSC RF cameras. I will buy this lens if it is available, as can jo have no decent fats walk around lens for ASPC RF cameras.

[@JaredHoyman]

Sigma 3rd party rf will be a nice addition.

[@BillHibbler]

Thanks for the tip. I just received my R8 and EF lens adapter yesterday. Just a heads up, the promo code for the 50mm RF lens is no longer valid at BH.

[@JaredHoyman]

Awesome! I'll have to update that. Thanks for the heads up.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

Go nifty fifty! Love that lens! And I am THRILLED that my Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 is compatible with the R5C. I was afraid I was going to have to replace my favorite lens.

[@JaredHoyman]

@@chuckschillingvideos it’s an awesomely sharp lens.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

@@JaredHoyman It is indeed. Many years ago I had the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L and, sadly, had to part with it to finance a cross-country move. I was incredibly sad to have to do so, but priorities. In any event, after the move, I was able to spend a little money on the replacement. I consider a constant aperture 70-200 mm lens the most useful lens in my (smallish, very smallish) arsenal so I had to find an affordable replacement. I took a chance on the Tamron (if I recall, the comparable Sigma was having some focus and calibration issues). Well, I was completely blown away by the Tamron. I'm not going to claim it is better than the Canon L, but then again I never really compared them side by side. What I do know is that the Tamron makes me no longer miss the L glass. And that's enough for me. 15 years later, it's still going strong.

[@friday3001]

I have an R and an R6ii for work and i only use EF glass which i buy second hand from fb marketplace and shit like that. They are all in pristine condition (i always meet up with the seller and inspect the stuff i buy and try it on camera) and this way, i literally saved thousands of dollars so far. I have the canon holy trinity and an almost full lineup of sigma art primes. The possibility of using one VND and CPL filter in the drop-in filter EF/RF mount adapter is just huge, a few hundred dollars can be saved there too, when you can avoid purchasing multiple sets of filters. On another note: try the sigma art 50 1.4, you won't regret it

[@JaredHoyman]

I'll have to try the sigma 50 1.4 art. I hear too many good things about it.

[@friday3001]

@@JaredHoyman definitely worth it, you won't regret.

[@timothyroe5020]

I just purchasex EF 300 and 400 mm F2.8 lenses because i needed some bigger lenses, ut couldnt afford the RF versions. I got both lenses for $8000 a lot less than a single RF lens of the same length and Fstop. Cant wait to try them out on my R6 MKII

[@JaredHoyman]

@@timothyroe5020 that’s awesome!

[@EmberStudios]

I to this day use C100 MK II’s for my video production needs. And I picked up an R7 to have a easier gimbal/broll cam. For the R7 I use the sigma 18-35 1.8 and the sigma 50-100 1.8, and the efs 24mm pancake 2.8 with the meike drop in vnd filter. It’s a bloody beautiful combination. I have zero need for EF glass, although I’ll probably grab that 50 for kicks 🤣 great vid, thanks!

[@jesse2450]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@shawnwright240]

To answer your question on EF glass... I got my dream lens for a steal last year.... 300mm f2.8 - it was rough on exterior but works fine. Anyway I used it with R7 and the images of birds for fun were amazing. It was actually too long at times. Worked perfectly on sports and portraits also. I am now getting R6 MarkII when it gets off back order July 3rd and cant wait to try it. Also use 24-105 f4 and 16-35 2.8 EF glass is great on the R systems. Good job

[@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.

[@jonathanhabens9795]

I have so many great EF lenses from the L-Series - it's sad to see them selling so cheap now and finally looking to make the jump to mirrorless from the 5D IV I don't even know whether i can justify the cost of sticking with Canon and not jumping to Sony.

[@JaredHoyman]

Adapt your EF L series lenses to the new mirrorless Canon Cameras. They will function just as good if not better. That way you can take your time migrating to RF lenses. There is no rush.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@martinhommel9967]

I have an R7 and I am mainly using either the RFs 18 - 150 mm or the EF 100 - 400 L II. Not planning to buy RF lenses as they're either too expensive for the good quality glass or too slow on the affordable end. I have a number of EFs lenses that work with the R7 + adapter.

[@mikede2464]

The only RF lens I ever purchased that I liked was the RF 100-300 2.8. Every other RF lens was returned. Never could figure out why I don't like the look of RF glass. I know I don't like how sharp they are but it's more than that. Color rendition? Contrast? Don't know....but I dislike RF glass so much I purchased all my EF glass new for fear I may have to actually use an RF lens before I die.

[@JaredHoyman]

lol. I have found the 70-200f4 RF better than the EF version in all ways and so is the 24-70 2.8 RF. Plus there isn’t a EF 14-35 and I find the 2 extra mm a must in real estate photography.

[@TFtoysAddict]

Thanks for this video. I still use all EF L series lenses on both my R and R6ii using the standard canon adapter. RF L series glass is crazy expensive. I’m in Canada and Canadian retail prices for RF L series fast lenses nearly start at 3k and up… The EF L glass already costed me a lot to build my kit (wedding kit) I don’t want to go through rebuilding it again. I still have them cuz I had the 5d4 before upgrading it to the R6ii. For the EF lenses I still use in my wedding photography kit is for zooms is 16-35 f4L is, 24-70Lii, 70-200Lii, for primes I have the 35Lii, 85F1.4L is, and 100L macro & they all work well with the adapter. I use to have the 50f1.2L but I sold it a whiles back and want another 50 again. Was looking at the RF 50L but the price scares me away from it. So the RF 50mm f1.8 and the RF 35mm macro is tempting cuz of the much cheaper price 😂

[@JaredHoyman]

You may also want to rent an RF L lens first to compare the experience with your EF.

[@TFtoysAddict]

@@JaredHoyman thanks. Never thought about that. 😂