# R vs Mark IV for Food



## KangPD (Mar 17, 2021)

Hello Guys

I want to buy Camera for Food photography 
i am thinking between R vs Mark IV 
what would you recommended for me?

also which lens good for food?
100mm L macro or 24-70 2.8L ?

Thank you


----------



## Peter Bergh (Mar 17, 2021)

Just a general reflection: DSLRs, such as the Mark IV, are a dying breed. Furthermore, if memory serves, the R is cheaper than the Mark IV. On the other hand, as a group, the RF lenses are more expensive (but better) than the EF lenses. Finally, DSLRs may need micro-focus adjustments, which is a hassle. Mirrorless cameras don't have that problem.

Based on what I have read (I have no experience in food photography), a tilt-and-shift lens may be very useful for food photography. For the most flexibility, you may want to consider a 24-105 (the RF version [24-105F4L] is VERY good and not too pricy). Based on the pictures of food that I have seen, the need for 1:1 magnification appears to be minimal, so I would rule out the macro lens.

Do you really need a maximum aperture of 2.8? If you don't, a possible other candidate is the EF 24-70F4L. That lens also has a maximum magnification of around 0.7, should you need it.


----------



## KangPD (Mar 18, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> Just a general reflection: DSLRs, such as the Mark IV, are a dying breed. Furthermore, if memory serves, the R is cheaper than the Mark IV. On the other hand, as a group, the RF lenses are more expensive (but better) than the EF lenses. Finally, DSLRs may need micro-focus adjustments, which is a hassle. Mirrorless cameras don't have that problem.
> 
> Based on what I have read (I have no experience in food photography), a tilt-and-shift lens may be very useful for food photography. For the most flexibility, you may want to consider a 24-105 (the RF version [24-105F4L] is VERY good and not too pricy). Based on the pictures of food that I have seen, the need for 1:1 magnification appears to be minimal, so I would rule out the macro lens.
> 
> Do you really need a maximum aperture of 2.8? If you don't, a possible other candidate is the EF 24-70F4L. That lens also has a maximum magnification of around 0.7, should you need it.


Thank you for your opinions. it was very helpful


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 18, 2021)

Lighting is also VERY important. If you're new to food photography, may I suggest that you start with continuous lighting.
The R with the 24-105 is an excellent combo. Easier to use than the 5d4, and the RF lens is much better than t he EF version.
I have used the 100mm macro for food, but it's only for more specialsed shots.

Best of luck. It's not as easy as it seems to do a good job.


----------



## mpphoto (Mar 18, 2021)

I would go with the R. If you get the 5D4, you are limited to EF lenses. I doubt Canon will be developing any new EF lenses. By going with the R, you will have access to all the new RF lenses, and you can still use EF lenses if you get an adapter. Best of both worlds.

As for lenses, have you considered the RF 35mm f/1.8? It's not a true macro lens at 1:2 magnification, but it is relatively inexpensive and produces good image quality. Plus a wider perspective may help you better photograph more of the presentation of the food, the place setting, table decorations, etc. The RF 24-105mm f/4L others have mentioned is a pretty useful lens for many purposes.


----------



## KangPD (Mar 19, 2021)

Bennymiata said:


> Lighting is also VERY important. If you're new to food photography, may I suggest that you start with continuous lighting.
> The R with the 24-105 is an excellent combo. Easier to use than the 5d4, and the RF lens is much better than t he EF version.
> I have used the 100mm macro for food, but it's only for more specialsed shots.
> 
> Best of luck. It's not as easy as it seems to do a good job.


awesome !!! 
can i ask one more thing? EOS R is enough for food photography? after few year do i need to upgrade to R5? (i don't like R6 body quality)


----------



## KangPD (Mar 19, 2021)

mpphoto said:


> I would go with the R. If you get the 5D4, you are limited to EF lenses. I doubt Canon will be developing any new EF lenses. By going with the R, you will have access to all the new RF lenses, and you can still use EF lenses if you get an adapter. Best of both worlds.
> 
> As for lenses, have you considered the RF 35mm f/1.8? It's not a true macro lens at 1:2 magnification, but it is relatively inexpensive and produces good image quality. Plus a wider perspective may help you better photograph more of the presentation of the food, the place setting, table decorations, etc. The RF 24-105mm f/4L others have mentioned is a pretty useful lens for many purposes.


Thank you for your opinions. !!


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 19, 2021)

Any camera and almost any lens will be fine for general food photography. I’d rate the EOS M line with the very high quality 32mm macro as every bit as capable as an R or R5 for that genre.

The comment that the 5D IV ‘limits you to EF lenses’ is ridiculous. High end food photographers are going to be using macro and tilt shift lenses none of which are available in RF mount yet.

Get whatever camera you can afford and get taking photos. If you are any good you will climb the ladder very quickly.

Best lens to stand out from the crowd with an R or 5D IV? TS-E 45mm secondhand.


----------



## mpphoto (Mar 19, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The comment that the 5D IV ‘limits you to EF lenses’ is ridiculous. High end food photographers are going to be using macro and tilt shift lenses none of which are available in RF mount yet.


I'm not saying EF lenses are bad. I currently own every macro lens Canon has made since the EF mount debuted, excluding the TS-E macros and the RF 85mm. What I'm saying is by going with an RF-mount camera, the OP can take advantage of the entire EF *and *RF lens catalog by simply getting an adapter. The 5D4 is a great camera and I still like mine, but by going with an RF-mount camera, they will have more lens options. Should an RF lens come out that piques the OP's interest, they'll be able to use it. That won't be an option if they go with the 5D4. That said, the OP will still be able to make awesome photos with a 5D4 and the enormous variety of EF lenses out there.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 19, 2021)

mpphoto said:


> I'm not saying EF lenses are bad. I currently own every macro lens Canon has made since the EF mount debuted, excluding the TS-E macros and the RF 85mm. What I'm saying is by going with an RF-mount camera, the OP can take advantage of the entire EF *and *RF lens catalog by simply getting an adapter. The 5D4 is a great camera and I still like mine, but by going with an RF-mount camera, they will have more lens options. Should an RF lens come out that piques the OP's interest, they'll be able to use it. That won't be an option if they go with the 5D4. That said, the OP will still be able to make awesome photos with a 5D4 and the enormous variety of EF lenses out there.


My point was the op is obviously budget constrained and there is no advantage to buying RF for that specific genre at this time. Buy what you can afford and take photos.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 21, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Best lens to stand out from the crowd with an R or 5D IV? TS-E 45mm secondhand.


Do you really mean the 45, or the 50 ? I’d always thought that the 45 wasn’t really up to par when compared with more recent lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 21, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Do you really mean the 45, or the 50 ? I’d always thought that the 45 wasn’t really up to par when compared with more recent lenses.


I did mean the 45 because I assumed the op was budget constrained. As you know I am a huge fan of the newer TS-E 50 and if budget wasn’t a consideration I’d 100% go for that, plus both TC’s. But the older 45 can be bought for a bargain and can produce distinctive images.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 21, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I did mean the 45 because I assumed the op was budget constrained. As you know I am a huge fan of the newer TS-E 50 and if budget wasn’t a consideration I’d 100% go for that, plus both TC’s. But the older 45 can be bought for a bargain and can produce distinctive images.


Your comments sent me to look at Keith’s review of the TS-e 45 at North Light Images and I can see that as long as you stay more or less in the sweet spot it will produce very good results.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 21, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Your comments sent me to look at Keith’s review of the TS-e 45 at North Light Images and I can see that as long as you stay more or less in the sweet spot it will produce very good results.


Indeed, whilst by modern standards the lens is comparatively modest the truth is lots of people used it for years with great results. Yes the new TS-E 50 is in another league for IQ and functionality, but the 45 is a bargain secondhand and for somebody on a budget looking to take standout images it is a good suggestion. As with all TS-E’s it has a learning curve, but that is the fun of photography surely!

Though as I said in my first post, I’d be equally happy with an M50 or M5 and the EF-m 28 macro for most general ‘food’ photography and the better advice is to get something, pretty much anything, and get taking pictures.


----------

