# Next lens for EOS RP



## Lucas Tingley (Jan 15, 2021)

I have the RF 24-105 f4-7.1 and was wondering what lens or lenses( in order ) any of you would recommend I get next. Go EF adapted or save for RF? I shoot mostly landscapes and birds with some sports and macro sometimes.


----------



## LeBlobe (Jan 15, 2021)

I got RF 35mm f/1.8 macro after Rf 24-105 f/4L. Wanted to try something little lighter/shorter and faster but your 24-105 is probably not too heavy/big .
I choose 35mm over 85 macro cause i dont do portraits and could do some landscapes/star shots with it. Not too happy with coma for stars so far , still get some at 2.8 so i could just shoot my 24-105 at f/4. Not sure if its normal for most lenses at 2.8 like this or im too picky and dream of no coma.
Macro is fun, at 0.5X if you want to fill frame maybe 2 inches subject without crop. Expect to crop if you focus stack automatically.
Next i will look for RF 100-500 for wildlife and landscapes and wait for more macro coming.

If you are on budget, a RF 100-400 non L is rumored for this year should be much cheaper than 100-500 right now and of course most EF lenses are good and you can find used.

The RF 100-500 would be good for your landscapes/birds/sports and can be used for some medium macro like butterflies/dragons/probably big flowers or mushrooms too. Not sure what you like to macro. But it cost alot


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Jan 15, 2021)

LeBlobe said:


> I got RF 35mm f/1.8 macro after Rf 24-105 f/4L. Wanted to try something little lighter/shorter and faster but your 24-105 is probably not too heavy/big .
> I choose 35mm over 85 macro cause i dont do portraits and could do some landscapes/star shots with it. Not too happy with coma for stars so far , still get some at 2.8 so i could just shoot my 24-105 at f/4. Not sure if its normal for most lenses at 2.8 like this or im too picky and dream of no coma.
> Macro is fun, at 0.5X if you want to fill frame maybe 2 inches subject without crop. Expect to crop if you focus stack automatically.
> Next i will look for RF 100-500 for wildlife and landscapes and wait for more macro coming.
> ...


So 35 1.8 then 100-400. Should I wait for the RF version or adapt the EF version?


----------



## SteveC (Jan 15, 2021)

Lucas Tingley said:


> So 35 1.8 then 100-400. Should I wait for the RF version or adapt the EF version?



He's assuming that Canon will come out with a non L RF version of the 100-400, and I believe he's suggesting you should wait for that.

I, on the other hand bought an EF 100-400 mk II L before the 100-500 came out, and am perfectly happy with adapting it to the R5. (I'd put it on my RP if I didn't have an R5.)

I suspect the EF lens is better quality than the RF 100-400 non-L will be, so if you can afford it, go for it. If you can't, then wait.

(My other lens for the R cameras is the RF 15-35 L, so I cover everything from 15mm to 400mm. Oh, and I have extenders!)


----------



## LeBlobe (Jan 15, 2021)

Lucas Tingley said:


> So 35 1.8 then 100-400. Should I wait for the RF version or adapt the EF version?



The new RF non L 100-400 version may be cheaper than EF f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM version but we dont know for sure when its coming out. Really depends on your budget , the EF one is really solid for everything.

Also for macro, there is other options in EF someone else can suggest. With higher magnification or longer focal length to be farther from subject. I dont know how specialised you want a macro lens.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 15, 2021)

Lucas Tingley said:


> So 35 1.8 then 100-400. Should I wait for the RF version or adapt the EF version?



I tend to keep track of some of the rumored lenses... the last of heard of a rumored 100-400 was a f4.5-7.1 USM (non-L) and a f3.5-5.6 L... not sure how reliable those are (I think the 1st was more).


----------



## Act444 (Jan 29, 2021)

I use the RF 35 1.8 (the only RF lens I have at the time of this post) exclusively with my RP. Nice relatively compact package that is versatile. 

Based on that list you're probably going to want telephoto reach (200mm or longer). I'd say it's completely dependent on your budget. If you don't mind the size and bulk you can likely save some $ by adapting the EF 70-300 or 100-400L (if you can afford the latter) lenses - particularly if you pick them up secondhand.

The only native option at this point that is similar is the crazy expensive RF 100-500...and it's worth noting that the "old" EF 100-400 is 1/3 stop faster past 250mm or so. $2700 is a whole lot IMO for a F7.1 lens. Then again, if one needs to get to 500mm...


----------



## dwarven (Feb 11, 2021)

The 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2 both have incredible image quality. Over time I'm sure they'll become staples in the RF lineup. The only downside is they're both a little plasticky, but expected for the price.


----------

