# Gordon Laing reviews the two “new” Big White Lenses for the RF mount



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2021)

> Back and April Canon officially announced the Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM and the Canon RF 600mm f/4L IS USM telephoto lenses. Both of these lenses are basically a rework of their EF counterparts.
> Gordon Laing was lucky enough to spend some quality time with these new lenses and gives us his impressions in the video above.
> An interesting note about these new lenses Gordon mentions is that the native RF mount allows more power to get to the autofocus motors making them faster. By the sounds of it, this will be camera-dependent and will likely be available starting with the EOS R3.



Continue reading...


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 19, 2021)

If they really used the same optical formula as for the EF versions, they really need some other convincing advantages to make somebody buy the RF versions, as EF versions work on both mounts. I am not sure if you really need a fast autofocus motor to follow an subject in sports or a bird for example. A fast autofocus motor is only needed if your focus is far off and you need switch from very far to very near for example.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 19, 2021)

Yes interesting that about the motors. It's a moot point as to whether it would help focusing when its only making small adjustments. Does it help tracking or just initial focus. It's hard to justify the premium over the EF lens when the EF lens works on both EF and R. I think Canon had to bring out something so that it was ready for the R3 but took the shortest development path possible. It will be interesting how many years before they make a new design 600 / 400mm for R


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> Yes interesting that about the motors. It's a moot point as to whether it would help focusing when its only making small adjustments. Does it help tracking or just initial focus. It's hard to justify the premium over the EF lens when the EF lens works on both EF and R. I think Canon had to bring out something so that it was ready for the R3 but took the shortest development path possible. It will be interesting how many years before they make a new design 600 / 400mm for R



For new buyers, they're the same price.

You won't lose much by selling your EF version to "upgrade". There is also the adapter issue, I've seen a few of them explode in the field. The other issue is how truly cumbersome teleconverters would become to use alongside an adapter. I think usability is a big advantage if you're all in on RF.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If they really used the same optical formula as for the EF versions, they really need some other convincing advantages to make somebody buy the RF versions, as EF versions work on both mounts. I am not sure if you really need a fast autofocus motor to follow an subject in sports or a bird for example. A fast autofocus motor is only needed if your focus is far off and you need switch from very far to very near for example.



I wonder how many people who are in the market for such expensive glass are willing to make the switch (presumably taking a loss selling their EF example), versus how many will decide to just put an adapter on their old glass. If adapters were readily available and I were in their shoes, I'd be tempted to just buy a dedicated adapter for a hundred bucks., for each lens, and leave it on the lens.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 19, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> For new buyers, they're the same price.
> 
> You won't lose much by selling your EF version to "upgrade". There is also the adapter issue, I've seen a few of them explode in the field. The other issue is how truly cumbersome teleconverters would become to use alongside an adapter. I think usability is a big advantage if you're all in on RF.



"explode?" I had not heard about this. Could you elaborate?


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 19, 2021)

Is the adapter can't take the weight of the camera or lens?


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If they really used the same optical formula as for the EF versions, they really need some other convincing advantages to make somebody buy the RF versions, as EF versions work on both mounts. I am not sure if you really need a fast autofocus motor to follow an subject in sports or a bird for example. A fast autofocus motor is only needed if your focus is far off and you need switch from very far to very near for example.


Canon has already done research and listened to their customers who use the EF version and who are looking to use this on their current/future R bodies. Not having to use a adapter is good enough a reason for them. Canon doesn't care about people's opinion who have no intentions in buying expensive lenses like these. Even if Canon did make every single change for those people (besides dropping the price super low where they are practically giving it away), those dreamers would still not buy it.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2021)

SteveC said:


> "explode?" I had not heard about this. Could you elaborate?


You knock the barrel of the big lens off of something and the adapter can't deal with the torque and breaks. It happens with teleconverters too. You don't need to hit it as hard as you may think.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 19, 2021)

SteveC said:


> If adapters were readily available


Aren't they? At least here in Germany, they are easy to find.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Aren't they? At least here in Germany, they are easy to find.


They seem to be very hit and miss in North America.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 19, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Aren't they? At least here in Germany, they are easy to find.


A lot of people have complained here that the adapters are never in stock. However, they may have been talking about the control ring ones.

I actually bought a couple of refurbs before I had either the camera or the lens, since I knew there was an RF in my future; so this didn't affect me (the shortage began after the R5 and R6 were released).


----------



## SteveC (Jul 19, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> You knock the barrel of the big lens off of something and the adapter can't deal with the torque and breaks. It happens with teleconverters too. You don't need to hit it as hard as you may think.



Wow! Though I wouldn't call that "exploding" that's certainly catastrophic. And yeah on stuff that long torque increases more than one would think. Of course, one has to have a tight grip for that to happen, or you'd simply end up wrenching the camera out of your hand before the adapter can break. (And THAT could be bad, too, if it hits the ground. I'm sure it ONLY happens when you're standing on rocks.)


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Wow! Though I wouldn't call that "exploding" that's certainly catastrophic. And yeah on stuff that long torque increases more than one would think. Of course, one has to have a tight grip for that to happen, or you'd simply end up wrenching the camera out of your hand before the adapter can break. (And THAT could be bad, too, if it hits the ground. I'm sure it ONLY happens when you're standing on rocks.)


I've seen it happen off a tripod, off a safari vehicle seat as well as a safari vehicle canopy support. "Explode" isn't an exaggeration either... they're usually in multiple pieces. YMMV.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> They seem to be very hit and miss in North America.


Very hit and miss. Have not seen the vanilla adapter anywhere for a while (but I have one from when I first bought the R). The controls ring adapter was in stock at canon.com a few days ago, and still is. I wanted a drop in CPL and ND, the filters themselves are available but the adapters were not, however I found that Red has the ND drop-in in stock, bought that from them and the CPL and Clear filters from Amazon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> You knock the barrel of the big lens off of something and the adapter can't deal with the torque and breaks. It happens with teleconverters too. You don't need to hit it as hard as you may think.


All EF (and I presume RF) mounts on lenses, adapters and TC's have a built in plastic breakaway ring that is designed into the system to prevent more serious damage to the glass or the bodies. I have broken several and it is an easy fix.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> All EF (and I presume RF) mounts on lenses, adapters and TC's have a built in plastic breakaway ring that is designed into the system to prevent more serious damage to the glass or the bodies. I have broken several and it is an easy fix.


I've killed two TC's that were not repairable


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I've killed two TC's that were not repairable


You’re clever, or very unlucky, or both! 

I’ve broken 4 breakaways over the years and they have all been easily repaired.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 19, 2021)

MoonMadness said:


> Canon has already done research and listened to their customers who use the EF version and who are looking to use this on their current/future R bodies. Not having to use a adapter is good enough a reason for them. Canon doesn't care about people's opinion who have no intentions in buying expensive lenses like these. Even if Canon did make every single change for those people (besides dropping the price super low where they are practically giving it away), those dreamers would still not buy it.


I know what you mean, but that still should not stop us from criticizing marketing decisions. For example I would probably never by a Porsche, even if I had the money, but I will always say that I hate that fake motor sounds. They (and other automakers) have built secret loudspeakers into their cars that produce the motor sound some customers want. I will also criticize that some luxury apartments cost millions of dollars, but you can't open any windows there. 

You say that not having to use an adapter is already good enough for some, but then I have to ask why people, who use their cameras for sports or bird photography and will never use a lens that profits from the shorter flange distance of the RF mount, are also forced to switch to the RF mount, as Canon pretty much abandons the EF mount. Those people probably already earn a 600mm EF lens and now they might learn that they have to switch to the RF version, because the EF version might explode, if you use it with an adapter. What advantage does a sports photographer really have from the RF mount? Wouldn't he prefer a mirrorless camera with an EF mount, which would allow him to keep all his long telephoto lenses? For me it feels like a kind of blackmail by Canon. They only give you all the advantages of a mirrorless camera like IBIS and the much better autofocus, if you switch to the RF mount. Of course that is their way to generate the most money, but it may not be in the interest of their loyal customers.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> All EF (and I presume RF) mounts on lenses, adapters and TC's have a built in plastic breakaway ring that is designed into the system to prevent more serious damage to the glass or the bodies. I have broken several and it is an easy fix.


That may be true, but the fact of the matter is that they fail... a lot. I know what I have seen, you're free to have seen something else.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I know what you mean, but that still should not stop us from criticizing marketing decisions. For example I would probably never by a Porsche, even if I had the money, but I will always say that I hate that fake motor sounds. They (and other automakers) have built secret loudspeakers into their cars that produce the motor sound some customers want. I will also criticize that some luxury apartments cost millions of dollars, but you can't open any windows there.
> 
> You say that not having to use an adapter is already good enough for some, but then I have to ask why people, who use their cameras for sports or bird photography and will never use a lens that profits from the shorter flange distance of the RF mount, are also forced to switch to the RF mount, as Canon pretty much abandons the EF mount. Those people probably already earn a 600mm EF lens and now they might learn that they have to switch to the RF version, because the EF version might explode, if you use it with an adapter. What advantage does a sports photographer really have from the RF mount? Wouldn't he prefer a mirrorless camera with an EF mount, which would allow him to keep all his long telephoto lenses? For me it feels like a kind of blackmail by Canon. They only give you all the advantages of a mirrorless camera like IBIS and the much better autofocus, if you switch to the RF mount. Of course that is their way to generate the most money, but it may not be in the interest of their loyal customers.


For the record, there are no "secret" loudspeakers. There is a cabin noise processor in these cars for engine sound that comes through the audio system, if you don't like the sound, just unplug it. Most of them are in the trunk of the car or behind the dash.

Secondly, anyone that uses a big white lens professionally knows that adapters and teleconverters are the weakest link, and it's up to the shooter to decide whether or not they care.

Thirdly, Canon isn't blackmailing anyone, you can continue to use your EF glass for as long as you want. The fact is the EF mount has limitations, and IBIS (the way it works with lens IS) and autofocus can be affected by the EF mount protocols when comparing them to the RF mount. The EF mount is also a 35-year-old technology, I think it has run its course and no one should be too upset that they have moved on.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Jul 19, 2021)

Sometime ago I traded my old EF 24-70 f/2.8 and put towards the new RF version. First thing I’m going to do in the morning when I open my camera bag is check the lens.

Just in case the retailer sneaked my old EF lens round the back and glued a mount adapter to it, then re-introducing it to me as my new RF 24-70 f/2.8


----------



## Otara (Jul 19, 2021)

I dont think they're going to have much trouble selling them at their probable initial production rate.

Im sure the adapters can 'explode' but some idea of the failure rate vs anecdotal experience would be interesting, and the overlap between broken camera/lens vs broken adapter. Are people using the camera as the strap holder or something, because I cant think of many reasons for it to be challenged torsionally the way I use them, I guess a hard knock on a 600mm would be a lot of leverage and I only have a 500mm and dont safari a lot (ha, I dont get to travel 5km right now).

Teleconverters are a non-issue for me in that on my 500 its just leaving the adapter on the camera when changing over, no real difference in practice that I can think of.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 20, 2021)

Otara said:


> I dont think they're going to have much trouble selling them at their probable initial production rate.
> 
> Im sure the adapters can 'explode' but some idea of the failure rate vs anecdotal experience would be interesting, and the overlap between broken camera/lens vs broken adapter. Are people using the camera as the strap holder or something, because I cant think of many reasons for it to be challenged torsionally the way I use them, I guess a hard knock on a 600mm would be a lot of leverage and I only have a 500mm and dont safari a lot (ha, I dont get to travel 5km right now).
> 
> Teleconverters are a non-issue for me in that on my 500 its just leaving the adapter on the camera when changing over, no real difference in practice that I can think of.


I have never seen anyone use a lens strap. I have always been confused why anyone would. 

The number of ruined teleconverters we got back when I owned Lens Rentals Canada almost made us not rent them anymore.


----------



## Otara (Jul 20, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I have never seen anyone use a lens strap. I have always been confused why anyone would.
> 
> The number of ruined teleconverters we got back when I owned Lens Rentals Canada almost made us not rent them anymore.


 Yeah I can see they'd be at some risk, its more are they any more at risk or difficult to use with an adapter involved as well. Havent seen it myself but I dont have much of a dataset I guess. If the adapter goes before the TC/lens/camera, Id call that a good thing probably, depending on how easily it went.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 20, 2021)

Otara said:


> Yeah I can see they'd be at some risk, its more are they any more at risk or difficult to use with an adapter involved as well. Havent seen it myself but I dont have much of a dataset I guess. If the adapter goes before the TC/lens/camera, Id call that a good thing probably, depending on how easily it went.


I've never busted a lens mount on a big white, I have on smaller lenses twice, but both were big drops.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 20, 2021)

Sorry, what exactly is new about them. They are nothing but EF lenses with the adapter glued on. I can't even see the point f releasing, them, the EF III lenses work the same with adapter. Priorities should have been on actually all new 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. The notion someone would be stupid enough to fork out for the RF version if they already own the EFIII version is ludicrous.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 20, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Sorry, what exactly is new about them. They are nothing but EF lenses with the adapter glued on. I can't even see the point f releasing, them, the EF III lenses work the same with adapter. Priorities should have been on actually all new 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. The notion someone would be stupid enough to fork out for the RF version if they already own the EFIII version is ludicrous.


They aren't "new" in optical design, but there appears to be some boost in AF performance with compatible RF mount cameras. It's also nice to see that the RF versions are priced the same as the EF versions, so there's no premium if you're in the market for a 400 2.8. The R3 may be the death knell to a lot of shooters' EF camera bodies.

I am moving on from the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III, which I just sold tonight for $10,250 USD (shipping and paypal included). That leaves me less than $2000 short for the new RF version. That's really not a big hit financially if you don't have a DSLR anymore. If you're looking to get an R3, it's an even better upgrade.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 20, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> They aren't "new" in optical design, but there appears to be some boost in AF performance with compatible RF mount cameras. It's also nice to see that the RF versions are priced the same as the EF versions, so there's no premium if you're in the market for a 400 2.8. The R3 may be the death knell to a lot of shooters' EF camera bodies.
> 
> I am moving on from the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III, which I just sold tonight for $10,250 USD (shipping and paypal included). That leaves me less than $2000 short for the new RF version. That's really not a big hit financially if you don't have a DSLR anymore. If you're looking to get an R3, it's an even better upgrade.



I'm sort of in the opposite boat. Granted I don't have a Big White, just the 100-400 II L, but I actually _don't_ want the 100-500 upgrade (and not because I suffer from "OMG f/7.1!!!!" phobia--I don't because I understand the issue). But I wouldn't even trade straight across for it. Because I sometimes use that lens on my M6-II, something I'd never be able to do with the RF version.

Of course that's flat out not a consideration for most people with the big whites who could reasonably want to switch for the reasons you've named. Conversely, I don't have to worry about torque-shattering my adapter or extender, either, because the lens is quite a bit shorter.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 20, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I have to ask why people, who use their cameras for sports or bird photography and will never use a lens that profits from the shorter flange distance of the RF mount, are also forced to switch to the RF mount, as Canon pretty much abandons the EF mount.


You aren’t forced to switch. But if you feel forced it’s because these market experts think that they will create more customer satisfaction by focusing on mirrorless. 


Skyscraperfan said:


> Those people probably already earn a 600mm EF lens and now they might learn that they have to switch to the RF version, because the EF version might explode, if you use it with an adapter. What advantage does a sports photographer really have from the RF mount?


The advantage of the RF version who wants all the benefits that the mirrorless technology enables. The experts might be wrong but I’d wager they have better market data and the only market you’re an expert at is your own personal preferences 


Skyscraperfan said:


> Wouldn't he prefer a mirrorless camera with an EF mount, which would allow him to keep all his long telephoto lenses?


The pro who shoots with big lenses doesn’t much care if his upgrade to a new body requires him or his employer to buy an RF lens. Used lenses have their market value and can be sold. 


Skyscraperfan said:


> For me it feels like a kind of blackmail by Canon. They only give you all the advantages of a mirrorless camera like IBIS and the much better autofocus, if you switch to the RF mount. Of course that is their way to generate the most money, but it may not be in the interest of their loyal customers.


It’s not blackmail to offer improved technology. And you might be surprised to learn that the only way to generate the most money is to satisfy tue interests of their customers.

It seems more greedy and worthy of criticism for one to expect others to labor and undertake risk to serve the needs of oneself against the others’ own best self interests.


----------



## Otara (Jul 20, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I've never busted a lens mount on a big white, I have on smaller lenses twice, but both were big drops.


Fair enough. Im just a bit surprised as Ive never seen any reports before now of actually physically broken ef-rf adapters as a significant issue, but if its mostly about 600mm or the like on safari its probably a bit niche I guess.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 20, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Sorry, what exactly is new about them. They are nothing but EF lenses with the adapter glued on. I can't even see the point f releasing, them, the EF III lenses work the same with adapter. Priorities should have been on actually all new 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. The notion someone would be stupid enough to fork out for the RF version if they already own the EFIII version is ludicrous.


The point you can’t see is that some RF owners would not buy a lens requiring an adapter for any number of reasons you don’t need to agree with.

It’s irrelevant to the wisdom of the strategy that most EF owners arguably won’t buy an RF. Who cares? Canon has a better chance to sell the lens of both formats are offered. Why would you think they’d be smarter to deny RF owners an appealing choice they might greatly prefer? 

What’s your real issue?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 20, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I have never seen anyone use a lens strap. I have always been confused why anyone would.
> 
> The number of ruined teleconverters we got back when I owned Lens Rentals Canada almost made us not rent them anymore.


A lens strap coupled with an over the shoulder, under the opposite arm, arrangement can give great support as the strap tensions up when the camera is brought up to the eye. I would never use the camera strap with a big lens. It also places the camera higher when walking and puts my gimbal lens foot just where I like it to hang onto. Hiking through the bush my hand on the lens mount handle or the strap alternately support the heavy lens and the camera tucks into my elbow pit. On rough terrain the handle is always in my hand with slack on the strap and there is little possibility of an adapter or extender getting any stress. 

Jack


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 20, 2021)

I can’t still understand why the hell they are silver at the ends…

I m still hoping for new tele lenses! Those with TC included and lower aperture (5.6?!).


----------



## tarjei99 (Jul 20, 2021)

I would still go for an EF lens. That would open up the possibility of buying cheap used EF cameras to use it with. And I have a few of those.

Even with the nice AF, a crop camera like the 7D2 or 90D give me more reach without having to mess around with a teleconverter. At range the advantage of a R6 is not that big.

One subtle advantage for a EF camera is reaction time. They are almost instant on when I press a button. A mirrorless will give me a "black wall" instead of what I aiming at when I lift the camera and presses a button. It is just enough to be annoying and loose potential images.


----------



## David_D (Jul 20, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> An interesting note about these new lenses Gordon mentions is that the native RF mount allows more power to get to the autofocus motors making them faster. By the sounds of it, this will be camera-dependent and will likely be available starting with the EOS R3.


I assume this faster AF drive is in addition to the normal 1-series advantage from the higher voltage. (I have not had time to watch the video yet, which may cover this. I believe Canon mentioned an additional power pin.) Will be interesting to see the difference between the R3 (which should have both) and the R5 (which has neither).

I'll give it a try soon after my numbers win.


----------



## edoorn (Jul 20, 2021)

tarjei99 said:


> I would still go for an EF lens. That would open up the possibility of buying cheap used EF cameras to use it with. And I have a few of those.
> 
> Even with the nice AF, a crop camera like the 7D2 or 90D give me more reach without having to mess around with a teleconverter. At range the advantage of a R6 is not that big.
> 
> One subtle advantage for a EF camera is reaction time. They are almost instant on when I press a button. A mirrorless will give me a "black wall" instead of what I aiming at when I lift the camera and presses a button. It is just enough to be annoying and loose potential images.


I think the idea of these lenses is they're aimed at people that only shoot mirrorless from now on. And with bodies like the R3 in mind (and the alledged 'R7' crop camera that's supposedly in the pipe line). 

You can bet that an R3 will have a much improved reaction time as well. But of course that's an expensive body as well (although, if you can spare the dough for a lens like this..). 

Luckily the EF version will still be around for a very long time.


----------



## rbielefeld (Jul 20, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> For new buyers, they're the same price.
> 
> You won't lose much by selling your EF version to "upgrade". There is also the adapter issue, I've seen a few of them explode in the field. The other issue is how truly cumbersome teleconverters would become to use alongside an adapter. I think usability is a big advantage if you're all in on RF.


I have been using the control ring adapter with my EF 600 f/4 II and the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs on my R5s and I have not had any issues with usability. It all works great. One thing to note is Canon did not put a Control Ring on the new RF versions of the 600 f/4, unless I missed it, and this is big for me. I like the Control Ring and using the adapter gives me that functionality on all my EF lenses. If I go with the RF 600 f/4 I am taking a small step backwards in the functionality department.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 20, 2021)

Learned that more contact points will be used to supply energy to power the AF. Very curious as to how fast they can make it. In Gordon's video, there did seem to be an initial lag then it found focus quickly. I am wondering if the initially lag disappears and AF is essentially instantaneous. There will definitely be a market for that. 

Oddly, as I shoot my 500 f/4 II on my R5 all the time, his lag seemed longer than mine. I have played with the 1DX III and would say the biggest difference in AF in favor of the 1DX III was initial acquisition. 

Not sure why so many people are bent out of shape. RF is the future. Personally, I have a complete kit of EF lenses that do what I want them to do. I haven't found a reason yet to jump to RF. It will happen some day. But I am thinking several more years.


----------



## David_D (Jul 20, 2021)

docsmith said:


> Not sure why so many people are bent out of shape. RF is the future. Personally, I have a complete kit of EF lenses that do what I want them to do. I haven't found a reason yet to jump to RF. It will happen some day. But I am thinking several more years.


It is a simple decision process:

I already own an EF super-teleThis is my first super-tele*I own EF bodies and have no plans to move to RF, ever*KeepGet an EF as the RF won't fit*I want it to work with EF & RF bodies (and will do for some time)*Keep and use with adapter_Probably the hardest decision._ Buy the EF if it must work on all bodies.*I have have EF bodies but will move to RF sooner rather than later*Keep and use with adapter, and consider upgrading later if you want/need the improved AF & IS or find the adapter too cumbersome_Another hard decision._ Only buy the EF if it must work on the EF bodies, if not postpone and get the RF when migrated to RF bodies..*I only own RF bodies and will never look back*Keep and use with adapter, unless you want/need the improved AF & IS or find the adapter too cumbersomeGo for the RF, unless you really want a dedicated control ring

Short version, If you plan to stay committed to the EF system keep or buy the EF version of these lenses, but the more committed you are to RF system the more reasons to get the RF version


----------



## Andy Westwood (Jul 20, 2021)

My view on adapting EF lenses to R bodies has always been, that smaller lenses up to big whites I prefer to keep lighter and more compact, so the RF versions appeal more to me.

However, I don’t mind so much adapting bigger EF lenses as they are already big and probably heavy and not compact so adding an adapter isn’t really a big deal.

I only have one of these which is an EF 70-200 2.8 more of a baby white lol. Prior to this discussion I’d never actually thought of the weak link in terms of strength and durability created by adding an adapter or TC, but a good point to know about and the extra care needed when using adapters.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 20, 2021)

In transitioning from the 1DX2 to the R5 I have not noticed any loss of snappiness of AF with my EF 400DO II X2 but I sure have noticed the disadvantage of not having the dual cross points relative to horizontal line subjects. Having full area AF points with eye tracking is so helpful when live subjects fill the VF!

Jack


----------



## Talys (Jul 20, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> My view on adapting EF lenses to R bodies has always been, that smaller lenses up to big whites I prefer to keep lighter and more compact, so the RF versions appeal more to me.
> 
> However, I don’t mind so much adapting bigger EF lenses as they are already big and probably heavy and not compact so adding an adapter isn’t really a big deal.
> 
> I only have one of these which is an EF 70-200 2.8 more of a baby white lol. Prior to this discussion I’d never actually thought of the weak link in terms of strength and durability created by adding an adapter or TC, but a good point to know about and the extra care needed when using adapters.


As someone who owns EF 2.8 II and the RF 2.8, I'd wholeheartedly recommend the RF. The images you get from either is superb, but in comparison, the RF feels tiny. I never shoot it with the collar or foot, and for strap systems I find it perfectly acceptable to carry the camera by the body instead of the lens. If it ever matters, it is also much less daunting to the subject, being physically much less imposing.

The only real advantages of the EF are that it doesn't extend (for things like sand if that matters) and the ability to use a TC (and obviously bring able to use it on mirrored bodies).


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 20, 2021)

I'd add a column: "I'll never own a super tele" and on the EF only row, write: "Complain on the internet how Canon is selling out loyal old customer who don't buy much any more and is neglecting your personal preferences."


----------



## SteveC (Jul 20, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> I'd add a column: "I'll never own a super tele" and on the EF only row, write: "Complain on the internet how Canon is selling out loyal old customer who don't buy much any more and is neglecting your personal preferences."



And another: "I might want to put the lens on my EF-M camera someday." OK that might be unlikely for the big whites but I have done it with the 100-400 L (which is a _small_ white). I've done it enough I won't be getting the 100-500 any time soon.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 20, 2021)

SteveC said:


> And another: "I might want to put the lens on my EF-M camera someday." OK that might be unlikely for the big whites but I have done it with the 100-400 L (which is a _small_ white). I've done it enough I won't be getting the 100-500 any time soon.


You are far more skillful than me if you can do BIF with a 100-400mm on an EF-M.


----------



## john1970 (Jul 20, 2021)

I always enjoy Gordon's review. They are straightforward and deal with facts. Appears that the the RF lenses should have faster AF than their EF counterparts. I am also curious on what super telephoto lenses Canon will release next. I am hoping for a 500 mm f4 and a 300 mm f2.8, which according to CR might even be a zoom lens.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 20, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You are far more skillful than me if you can do BIF with a 100-400mm on an EF-M.



I'm not trying for birds in flight.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I'm not trying for birds in flight.


I was being semi-serious about your not buying the 100-500mm but using a 100-400mm on the M series. I once tried and found it too uncomfortable to hold with insufficient grip on the tiny body. The 100-400mm II works beautifully on the R5 that you have and the 100-500mm is even better. Whether the improvement is worth the cost is another matter and there is no compelling reason to upgrade.


----------



## tarjei99 (Jul 21, 2021)

When the EF telephoto lenses were announced many moons ago, Canon said that the 1d bodies would autofocus faster because they had more power available.

This could still be relevant for the R3 which seems to have a more powerful battery.


----------



## PrimusDiMaximus (Jul 21, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I wonder how many people who are in the market for such expensive glass are willing to make the switch (presumably taking a loss selling their EF example), versus how many will decide to just put an adapter on their old glass. If adapters were readily available and I were in their shoes, I'd be tempted to just buy a dedicated adapter for a hundred bucks., for each lens, and leave it on the lens.


I don´t know that for a fact, but can you use an televonverter on a EF 400 mm adaptet do the RF Mount?
If yes, you are right, there is no need for the III Version owner to switch. 
But if not, you have an new / lose an old feature of thes big whites. 

I ordered a RF 400 2.8 and both televonverters, so i can be as flexible as possible at a start point of f2.8

btw... it´s so sad that the teleconverters do not work on the RF 70-200 f2.8! 
The only downside of the RF system for me at the moment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2021)

PrimusDiMaximus said:


> I don´t know that for a fact, but can you use an televonverter on a EF 400 mm adaptet do the RF Mount?


You can use an EF teleconverter with an EF supertele lens mounted via an adapter on an R body (body > EF-RF mount adapter > EF TC > EF lens).

I do not know for sure, but I strongly suspect you cannot use an RF teleconverter with an EF lens on an R body (body > RF TC > EF-RF mount adapter > EF lens). Even if it works electronically, it would be the equivalent of putting an extension tube between a TC and lens, which 'works' on a DSLR but you lose the ability to focus on distant subjects.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 21, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I was being semi-serious about your not buying the 100-500mm but using a 100-400mm on the M series. I once tried and found it too uncomfortable to hold with insufficient grip on the tiny body. The 100-400mm II works beautifully on the R5 that you have and the 100-500mm is even better. Whether the improvement is worth the cost is another matter and there is no compelling reason to upgrade.



My point being that I personally not only have no compelling reason to upgrade (I agree with your statements above), I have a compelling reason _not_ to upgrade.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You can use an EF teleconverter with an EF supertele lens mounted via an adapter on an R body (body > EF-RF mount adapter > EF TC > EF lens).
> 
> I do not know for sure, but I strongly suspect you cannot use an RF teleconverter with an EF lens on an R body (body > RF TC > EF-RF mount adapter > EF lens). Even if it works electronically, it would be the equivalent of putting an extension tube between a TC and lens, which 'works' on a DSLR but you lose the ability to focus on distant subjects.


You can, but it requires grinding away the baffles: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=35054&utm_source=dlvr.it


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 22, 2021)

I was just thinking... seems like this would be right up AlanF's alley for testing and reporting the results. 

Jack


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 23, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If they really used the same optical formula as for the EF versions, they really need some other convincing advantages to make somebody buy the RF versions,


According to Canon, they made these lenses because people specifically requested them.
Canon makes money whether people buy the EF or RF versions.
It seems like a minimal investment.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 23, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> I was just thinking... seems like this would be right up AlanF's alley for testing and reporting the results.
> 
> Jack


If anyone wishes to send me a 400mm or 600mm III and/or the RF equivalents, I'd be willing to accept and test them.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 24, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If anyone wishes to send me a 400mm or 600mm III and/or the RF equivalents, I'd be willing to accept and test them.


Actually. I was thinking more along the line of the RF extender ahead of EF glass and/or extenders.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Jul 24, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> Actually. I was thinking more along the line of the RF extender ahead of EF glass and/or extenders.
> 
> Jack


I’ll extend my offer to other lenses.


----------



## tron (Jul 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You can use an EF teleconverter with an EF supertele lens mounted via an adapter on an R body (body > EF-RF mount adapter > EF TC > EF lens).
> 
> I do not know for sure, but I strongly suspect you cannot use an RF teleconverter with an EF lens on an R body (body > RF TC > EF-RF mount adapter > EF lens). Even if it works electronically, it would be the equivalent of putting an extension tube between a TC and lens, which 'works' on a DSLR but you lose the ability to focus on distant subjects.


I tried it but the RF TC does not fit to EF-R adapter so game over. We have to use EF TC and then use the EF-R adapter to connect to the R type camera. By the way the EF500mm f4L IS II and EF 2XIII worked superbly with my R5.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 24, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> I can’t still understand why the hell they are silver at the ends…
> 
> I m still hoping for new tele lenses! Those with TC included and lower aperture (5.6?!).


I really enjoyed the 200-400 f/4 with the built in extender 1.4x.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 24, 2021)

Ian K said:


> I really enjoyed the 200-400 f/4 with the built in extender 1.4x.


I think they are silver at the end to be clearly distinguishable from the EF versions. Imagine somebody owns both and discovers too late that he took the wrong version with him.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 24, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I think they are silver at the end to be clearly distinguishable from the EF versions. Imagine somebody owns both and discovers too late that he took the wrong version with him.


I stretches the imagination someone owning both. Jeff Bezos?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 24, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I stretches the imagination someone owning both. Jeff Bezos?


Maybe an agency or a newspaper with a lot of lenses.


----------

