# Are RF lenses worth it at the moment?



## wockawocka (Sep 25, 2019)

So hear me out. I'm only talking from my own perspective right now but I'm not a fan of focus by wire, feel the lenses are way heavier than their EF counterparts even with the adapter and when comparing L lenses they're just as sharp on an R body other than the 50 1.2

On the subject of the RF50 it's staggeringly sharp, but massive at the same time and doesn't have the softer more organic look of the EF50 which doesn't have the back focusing issues once on the R.

The 85 1.2 is frikking massive again and we have a great EF 1.4

The 28-70 is awesome but HUGE and heavy.

The RF35 while having a nice macro feature can't seem to acquire focus at distance in low contrast and the STM hunts lots in servo when the EF 35 F2 IS nails it always.

It's almost as if in the pursuit of being different Canon went too far and stepped backwards...other than in the IQ department which is def improved but only for pixel peeping?


----------



## Viggo (Sep 25, 2019)

To me absolutely worth it. The EF 85 IS is nowhere near the RF85 in any way shape or form, and the biggest one for me in that regard, the AF is MUCH better with the RF. I mind the weight, but only in the 200 f2 scale of things. Both the 85 and 50 are very nice to handhold even if they are somewhat heavy. And corner performance is very important to me when you can place an AF point anywhere. I don’t notice any issues with focus by wire. To me the RF50 and RF85 is FINALLY where I always wanted the EF counterpart to be, but wasn’t.
I enjoyed the flexibility of my EF 24-70 f2.8 II, but at f2.8 I felt it lacking to create that special look of a faster lens. So while I’ve got no plans to buy the 28-70, if I needed a standard zoom that would definitely be it since it halfway bridges the gap between primes and zooms and is the perfect middle ground.


----------



## padam (Sep 25, 2019)

If they came up with new EF lenses, they would have priced them about the same, so it does not really matter if they are RF or EF.
The main line is that they are newly developed Canon lenses that surpass previous ones for more money, that happen to belong to a new system, where it will take some time to sell them a bit better (potentially with newer cameras, that will make even better use of them than today's ones) and reduce the price somewhat.
And the older EF lenses with plenty of stock everywhere are already available for less, which they are still happy to sell whoever buys them (their video cameras are still centered around the EF-mount anyway). That's basically it. Look where the 85/1.2 L II was priced at the start, and where it is now, and they've managed to do one with much better CA control as well as much faster AF, for nearly the same weight and also a second derivative with even smoother rendering. Not bad at all imho.

For shooting people, the RF 28-70 f2 can be used wide open all day at all focal lengths without penalty (very fast AF as well, considering the amount of glass it moves), so if buys it at grey market price, it is not too bad value at all, considering it can genuinely be used a replacement for some L primes. But it is definitely a bit of a handful.

And again, let's not forget the upcoming holy trinity, all equipped with IS now, they all look quite interesting.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 25, 2019)

I have the rf 50mm f/1.2L and see only improvement over images I have seen produced by the ef version. I think the bokeh is better at all apertures, and the sharpness is certainly no drawback. So many easy ways to deal with wrinkles if you think a face is too sharp, including just globally pulling back on default sharpening and adding a touch of noise-reduction beyond what we'd normally use.

I'm just now getting ready to sell my ef 85mm f/1.4L IS. I've tried it on the R, it works just the same as on the 5D IV, meaning it is ok, achieves AF a little less often than I like...And it remains, to my eye, my expectations, a bit underwhelming. It takes more post-processing than my other lenses to get good separation from the background, pleasing skin tones, and any kind of distinctive look or "punch." I've felt that way about it for nearly two years. Plus, I think the IS gets in the way of itself sometimes, not quite as good as the old ef 100 f/2.8L IS or the old 24-105mm IS either.

I also have the light, useful, and fun rf 24-105mm f/4L IS, and here's the rub. It AF's astonishingly fast, but that brings out the drawback of the EOS R: The EVF simply cannot keep up with any kind of action _tightly framed_, even with optimal settings, and I find myself trying to more or less keep a moving subject within the frame while bursting away. Hoping for good results. And the EOS R's tracking, to me, covers too many AF points and is a bit erratic, though it did settle down noticeably after going with Viggo's suggested settings for sensitivity, etc. As many of us are saying, fingers crossed for the AF tracking improvements in the firmware expected tomorrow.

I'm going to think hard before getting the RF 85mm. Not because I doubt any performance and "magic" aspect of it, but because, as much as I love the 50mm, right now, the EOS R seems pretty much limited to portraits where the subject is staying put, moving in a limited, predictable way, or is small enough in the frame to have room for error. Of course this is pretty much what I see fast 85mm portrait lenses as being the best at, but I am not getting used to the R's EVF as well as hoped. Maybe in another week I'll have learned to work with and around the EVF and not be feeling this way.

So, bottom line, I have no doubt the lenses, at least the best ones, heavy as they are, deliver as hoped and promised, but maybe they will be even more attractive on a better mirrorless body.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 25, 2019)

I have not yet purchased RF lenses, I have the lenses I need, and they are EF. If I needed a new lens, as long as I keep both my R and my 5D MK IV, I'd get EF. A exception might be a single walk around lens for the R. Once I decide to sell my 5D MK IV, I'll likely only acquire RF lenses in the future.


----------



## Memdroid (Sep 25, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> And the EOS R's tracking, to me, covers too many AF points and is a bit erratic, though it did settle down noticeably after going with Viggo's suggested settings for sensitivity, etc. As many of us are saying, fingers crossed for the AF tracking improvements in the firmware expected tomorrow.



Hi YunengLinger. Forgive me my asking. But do you mind sharing Viggo's suggested settings? Thanks.

Also on topic: I have the EOS R and I have found myself using it almost exclusively now. My 5DIV, and 1dXII are not seeing any action since I've been getting more and more familiair with it. One of the biggest advantage is the AF accuracy, it is always tack sharp! And the RF 50, and 85 1.2 are definitely worth it. Trust me you will always have a big smile on your face while shooting and enjoying the post processing. I have rented 28-70 f2 to shoot exclusively with it on a wedding. While the images were good but not great and to me it did not have the POP like the other lenses. The weight, cost and performance is not really worth it and it did not look that much different than the 24-70II in my opinion. The RF 35 IS however is a beast for its price. It definitely beats the EF 35 F2 IS version, other than AF sound.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 25, 2019)

RF 28-70mm f/2L and RF 85mm f/1.2L = worth it _to me_. Waiting for an RF 105, 120, or *135mm* f/X.xL or zoom. I like big lenses. The weight is fine with me.


----------



## bhf3737 (Sep 25, 2019)

I have RF24-105 IS and it is an excellent multi-purpose lens for almost everything. I had the EF 24-105 (version 1) and can say that the RF is much better from picture quality perspective. The only issue I have found so far was that the combination of EOS-R and this lens cannot cope instantly with the sudden change of the zoom range. Perhaps firmware update will help.
I think the "unique" lenses such as 28-70 and 24-240 are worth to look at. No doubt, the 28-70 has been mentioned to be "The Lens" and the statement lens for RF mount. But how about the 24-240 for mere mortals who want something cheaper and lighter? 
Last week I borrowed an RP and 24-240 to check the possibility of using a single camera-lens combo for travel. In spite of some reviews, it has been very good for landscape and casual shots, even at higher ISO. 
The following evening sky was taken by EOS RP, RF24-240mm, at 35mm, ISO 6400. 
We don't have any lens similar in EF mount and I will be happy to have this lens when traveling light.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 25, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> I have RF24-105 IS and it is an excellent multi-purpose lens for almost everything. I had the EF 24-105 (version 1) and can say that the RF is much better from picture quality perspective. The only issue I have found so far was that the combination of EOS-R and this lens cannot cope instantly with the sudden change of the zoom range. Perhaps firmware update will help.
> I think the "unique" lenses such as 28-70 and 24-240 are worth to look at. No doubt, the 28-70 has been mentioned to be "The Lens" and the statement lens for RF mount. But how about the 24-240 for mere mortals who want something cheaper and lighter?
> Last week I borrowed an RP and 24-240 to check the possibility of using a single camera-lens combo for travel. In spite of some reviews, it has been very good for landscape and casual shots, even at higher ISO.
> The following evening sky was taken by EOS RP, RF24-240mm, at 35mm, ISO 6400.
> ...


Beautiful! Well done!


----------



## Viggo (Sep 25, 2019)

Here you go, I also got a tip that -2 for track sens. is very useful with erratic movement.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 25, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> I have RF24-105 IS and it is an excellent multi-purpose lens for almost everything. I had the EF 24-105 (version 1) and can say that the RF is much better from picture quality perspective. The only issue I have found so far was that the combination of EOS-R and this lens cannot cope instantly with the sudden change of the zoom range. Perhaps firmware update will help...



Zooming like this? Taken during the "Window Blinds Focus Testing."


----------



## bhf3737 (Sep 25, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Zooming like this? Taken during the "Window Blinds Focus Testing."


I mean
1. If I focus on something close and then something else far away, without turning the focus ring the R+RF24-105mm combo acquires focus very fast, as expected.
2. But if I set the lens to 24mm and focus on something close then quickly change to 105mm and try to focus on something else far away, the combo of R+RF24-105mm struggles quite a bit to acquire focus.
I don't know whether this is normal (e.g. trying to be parfocal?) or not (I have a lemon?), but for example with R+100-400mm LII this does not happen.
BTW. nice abstract window blinds picture!


----------



## jd7 (Sep 25, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> So hear me out. I'm only talking from my own perspective right now but I'm not a fan of focus by wire, feel the lenses are way heavier than their EF counterparts even with the adapter and when comparing L lenses they're just as sharp on an R body other than the 50 1.2
> 
> On the subject of the RF50 it's staggeringly sharp, but massive at the same time and doesn't have the softer more organic look of the EF50 which doesn't have the back focusing issues once on the R.
> 
> ...


I understand where you are coming from. For me, if I bought into the R system at the moment, the only RF lens I might actually buy is the RF 24-105. Taking into account price, weight, size, and what you can get for your money with an EF lens, I wouldn't buy any of the others. I have to admit the RF 28-70 does catch my eye, but I am not interested in paying the current asking price for it. Of course, I'm not saying the RF lenses aren't good - clearly they are, and the RF 85 has substantially better CA control than any other fast 85mm lens I've seen (interested to know if anyone else has seen another 85mm which is comparable). All I'm saying is that, for me, when I look at what I can get with Canon EF lenses and third party EF lenses, I don't see enough in the RF lenses, from the the sample shots I've seen around the place and my very limited time trying out a couple, to make me keen to spend the money. (And of course, RF lenses mean an R system body, which means things like an EFV and poorer battery life, which I'm not keen on either - although I do like the sound of what I read about the AF accuracy.)

That said, from what I've read, one of the big benefits of the RF lenses seems to be AF speed. (Accuracy seems to be down to the R bodies rather than the lens, so applies to EF and RF lenses, I gather.) I have handled the RF lenses only briefly so maybe if I spent more time with them, the AF benefit would make me change my mind.

Also, I wonder if I would feel differently if I shot professionally. The costs would be business costs then, so might feel a little easier to swallow. On the other hand, if my old lenses were still working fine, you'd have to question whether changing to RF lenses was really going to increase income.

Anyway, I'm really pleased for the people who've bought into the R system and are enjoying it. For my own part, though, I'm not in any hurry given the current RF lens prices. And if I buy an R system body, I expect I'd mainly be using with EF lenses for the time being.


----------

