# If you go R/RF?



## Ozarker (Apr 30, 2019)

What would be your basic kit (lenses and body) if you switched to the Canon R/RF system? (Gear does not yet have to be available)
Me:

Canon RP or R.
RF 28-70mm f/2L
RF 85mm f/1.2
RF 135mm f/1.2L

I shoot fashion and portraits. I'm told I need a 35mm and a 50mm for that kind of work. I don't think I do. Have the 35mm covered in EF anyway.


----------



## andrei1989 (Apr 30, 2019)

R+24-240+35+adapter+150-600=


----------



## Viggo (Apr 30, 2019)

It is the R + RF 50 L. If I had to choose from your list, the RF85 L (not DS).


----------



## Aussie shooter (Apr 30, 2019)

Interesting if I replace the holy trinity with native lensesit would be those three pluse the ef 11-24 with drop in filter adapter.


----------



## Dantana (May 1, 2019)

If I was constraining this to lenses that have been announced:

Cannon R (possibly the RP)
RF 24-105 f/4L
RF 70-200 f/2.8L
RF 35 1.8
If I was to chooses from not announced, but lenses that will probably come out (or something close):

Cannon R (possibly the RP)
RF 24-70 f/4L
RF 70-200 f/4L or 70-300 f/3.5-5.6
The most compact of the wide f/4 L zooms (like the RF 16-40mm f/4L from the patent posting a few days ago)
RF 35 1.8, or a similar compact prime


----------



## bhf3737 (May 1, 2019)

I will be happy with R with EF-RF adapter glued onto it and all available EF lenses to select from. 
Specially, EF 11-24L (very wide), EF 24-70L and EF 100-400L (long) lenses, to name a few.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 1, 2019)

I have a R alongside my 5D MK IV. Its smaller and handy to have for casual shots, but my 5D MK IV is better. You already know which lenses you like to use, that will not change with mirrorless, just use EF until you are ready to entirely switch over.

As far as usage, the R is very similar to using liveview on the 5D MK IV, so I already knew how to use it. I put my 24-70 II on the R and my 70-200 II on the MK IV, so I don't need to change lenses.

For my use as a 2nd body, the RP would probably be fine.


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 1, 2019)

If I go R? Unlikely, since I like my 5DIV, but if Canon introduced a RF 400 4.5 or 5.0 or a RF 500 5.0 or 5.6, I might. Unless Canon introduced an EF 400 5.0 or an EF 500 5.6.


----------



## Maximilian (May 2, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> What would be your basic kit (lenses and body) if you switched to the Canon R/RF system?



RP (best RP successor with IBIS  ) first body and later just for travelling light
24-105/4 IS L
35 + 50 + 85 each f/1.8, IS if available (50, 85 like the already existing 35)
5D V equivalent (yes, V) as soon as it is available as my main body
telezooms ump to 400 mm as soon as they offer advantage over EF+adapter
someone who gives me his/her creditcard for all that


----------



## David the street guy (May 6, 2019)

For now, the RP is very pleasant to shoot with, but when the RX comes out, I might very well upgrade.

As for lenses, I've rapidly grown fond of the lens ring. Clever thing! The kit lens for the RP, the 24-105 f/4, would be perfect at f/2.8 or better, though. I'm new to 24-105, I enjoy the flexibility.

The EF 100mm f/2.8 macro is a good match with the RP, but I will have to push it a bit more to know for sure.

There seems to be something wrong with my 70-200 f/2.8: the af is constantly hunting like crazy. It doesn't act like that with my (very) old 1Dii.

*So, to answer your question*, my *basic* kit is
1- *RP*
2- *RF 24-105 f/4*
3- *EF adapter*
4- *EF 100mm f/2.8 macro*
5- *EF 16-35 f/2.8*

But my wished kit would be
1- *RX*
2- *RF 24-105 f/1.2*
3- *RF 70-200 f/2*
4- *RF 100mm f/1.2 macro*
5- *RF 16-35 f/2*
6- *RF 50 f/1.2*


----------



## jd7 (May 6, 2019)

If I went to the R system - which I don't have any immediate plan to do - I'd want the R rather than the RP, and I may (or may not) be tempted by the RF 24-105 f/4L IS in place of my current 24-70 f/4L IS. Otherwise, I'd just use my existing EF lenses and wait and see on other RF lenses when they are released. I'm pretty happy with my existing lenses, although I think about adding an UWA lens from time to time, and I keep saying I will sell one of my primes (I have more than I need, but I'm still deciding whether I'd rather part with the 50 or the 85).


----------



## Jethro (May 9, 2019)

David the street guy said:


> But my wished kit is
> 
> 4- *RF 100mm f/1.2 macro*


Man, I'd pay silly money for that (especially if it was IS).


----------



## kaihp (May 10, 2019)

I will switch to the R-system when Canon have a replacement for the 1DX and my EF bodies (1DX, 5D3) are either significantly outclassed in AF and IQ or they are dead or duying.


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (May 11, 2019)

David the street guy said:


> For now, the RP is very pleasant to shoot with, but when the RX comes out, I might very well upgrade.
> 
> *So, to answer your question*, my *basic* kit is
> 1- *RP*
> ...



Works for me, but with the addition of the 70-200 f/2.8

Wish the 24-105 were faster, but... ya know. And my 300/4 and extender 1.4 are for my use, not gigs, so not really part of the basics. The 100 f/2 is a great lens, but although larger, slower, not as nice bokeh, I'll pick the either 100 f/2.8 macro.


----------



## David the street guy (May 12, 2019)

Boudreaux&Thibodeaux said:


> Works for me, but with the addition of the 70-200 f/2.8



Does your 70-200 f/2.8 work flawlessly with your RP? There must be something wrong with mine, I can only use it in manual focus mode.


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (May 12, 2019)

I've got the II version, and it works perfectly. Someplace here is a thread about a filter issue I had with the 300 f/4 non-IS (and later the IS version). Still haven't figured that one out, but the culprit was the protective filter. Used another filter, and no filter, and it works just fine. Examining the "bad" filter shows no issue, but... as a further test.... I rotated the filter a bit, and found it causes backfocus, or front focus, depending on the very small change in angular rotation. And, the 300 f/4 (either of them) work perfectly on my 5D3 with no "correction" needed. Weird. Only saying all this because, it was a lesson learned for me, and you might try removing the filter if you're lens is sporting one.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (May 12, 2019)

Boudreaux&Thibodeaux said:


> I've got the II version, and it works perfectly. Someplace here is a thread about a filter issue I had with the 300 f/4 non-IS (and later the IS version). Still haven't figured that one out, but the culprit was the protective filter. Used another filter, and no filter, and it works just fine. Examining the "bad" filter shows no issue, but... as a further test.... I rotated the filter a bit, and found it causes backfocus, or front focus, depending on the very small change in angular rotation. And, the 300 f/4 (either of them) work perfectly on my 5D3 with no "correction" needed. Weird. Only saying all this because, it was a lesson learned for me, and you might try removing the filter if you're lens is sporting one.


Boudreaux&Thibodeaux, I recall your comments elsewhere about the filter issue. Out of interest, what brand (and type) of filter was it?
Thanks.
Stoical


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (May 12, 2019)

The filter was a Hoya HMC Sky-1B. Thought I said that in the previous posts. 

I don't think the "type" of filter is a determining factor in this case. I think what is going on is some sort of micro striations in the glass, unable to be seen with the eye, but which throw the dual pixel focus off. I'm thinking more about that, due to being able to rotate the filter only 5 or 10 degrees and go from back focus to front focus. There was one position that was actually "good focus". And its also weird the bad filter works well on the 24-105 f/4. It could be that it happens to line up right, but I'm thinking that's a pretty slim chance, so its more like things are not effected at those focal lengths or with that designs way of presenting rays to the sensor. At this point, its above my pay grade to figure out.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (May 12, 2019)

Boudreaux&Thibodeaux said:


> The filter was a Hoya HMC Sky-1B. Thought I said that in the previous posts.
> 
> I don't think the "type" of filter is a determining factor in this case. I think what is going on is some sort of micro striations in the glass, unable to be seen with the eye, but which throw the dual pixel focus off. I'm thinking more about that, due to being able to rotate the filter only 5 or 10 degrees and go from back focus to front focus. There was one position that was actually "good focus". And its also weird the bad filter works well on the 24-105 f/4. It could be that it happens to line up right, but I'm thinking that's a pretty slim chance, so its more like things are not effected at those focal lengths or with that designs way of presenting rays to the sensor. At this point, its above my pay grade to figure out.


Thanks - and sorry, you may have previously named and shamed, but I did't recall and the thought just occurred to me as I read you latest post on this thread. I would guess you were probably right about something in the glass, which is why I was intrigued about whose (brand) it was.
Cheers.


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (May 12, 2019)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Thanks - and sorry, you may have previously named and shamed, but I did't recall...



Either did I.... and I almost went back and looked! No worries! That particular Hoya filter was purchased with the 300mm f/4.0 USM non-IS, when I bought the lens from B&H back in ..... a long time ago... 1994 or 1995, so its about 25 years old. Was never an issue on the EOS-5 or EOS-3 film bodies. Never an issue on the Rebel's I got started with in digital, and then 5D2, 7D, 5D3.... all worked great. I gave the 5D2 and that lens to a friend, so they could get started in the "full frame" experience. If they ever get a mirrorless (doubtful), I'll warn 'em!


----------



## stevelee (May 13, 2019)

David the street guy said:


> 4- *RF 100mm f/1.2 macro*



At 1:1 macro and f/1.2, you should get at least a couple molecules depth of field.


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (May 13, 2019)

I'd personally like a few SMALL, moderately fast primes. A 100, 50, and 28 would do me well, if they were small.


----------



## David the street guy (May 14, 2019)

stevelee said:


> At 1:1 macro and f/1.2, you should get at least a couple molecules depth of field.



Of course, using the full aperture would not be mandatory in macro, but let's not forget that the EF 100mm f/2.8 is a great portrait lens. Wouldn't the RF 100mm f/1.2 also be?


----------



## stevelee (May 14, 2019)

David the street guy said:


> Of course, using the full aperture would not be mandatory in macro, but let's not forget that the EF 100mm f/2.8 is a great portrait lens. Wouldn't the RF 100mm f/1.2 also be?



Maybe. I have been using the 100mm f/2.8 for portraits. Some of them look good, and some just look too sharp, clinical almost. It is a great lens for general short-telephoto use, not just macros. When I got my full-frame camera, I did use it for portraits. I don't shoot a lot of them, and thought I'd be OK with it doubling in that niche. Recently Canon had the 85mm f/1.8 refurb on sale, so I bought one. (I had been using the 50mm f/1.4 on my Rebel for portraits before I got the FF.)

But I still have trouble imagining the usefulness of a 100mm f/1.2 macro. It surely would be large, heavy, and expensive. It wouldn't be any more useful for shooting macros than slower lenses. And someone who can afford it is not likely be someone who is content to make do. Probably it would be cheaper just to buy a lens to shoot portraits and another one for macro work, with each lens likely better suited to its job.


----------



## Ozarker (May 14, 2019)

Viggo said:


> It is the R + RF 50 L. If I had to choose from your list, the RF85 L (not DS).


The choice between the RF 85 and RF 85 DS would be a hard one for me. I've never used a lens with that feature so this might be the one time I decide to rent before buying.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 14, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The choice between the RF 85 and RF 85 DS would be a hard one for me. I've never used a lens with that feature so this might be the one time I decide to rent before buying.



Agreed, although I'd lean toward the DS. The DS has a T-stop penalty but for portraiture with strobes this isn't much of an issue and you gain smoother and rounder bokeh (from Canon's sample images). I see this as an ultimate portrait lens. An example that they gave for someone who would favor the non-DS is someone who shoots available light in dim venues (i.e. concerts), which wouldn't be amongst my primary use cases. I tend to favor the shorter fast primes for indoor available light stuff, so this really would be a more formal portrait lens.


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (May 14, 2019)

David the street guy said:


> ....let's not forget that the EF 100mm f/2.8 is a great portrait lens.....


A 100mm f/1.2 would probably be a good portrait lens, but in practical photography, shooting at f/1.2 is a tricky item with an 85mm lens, and the extra focal length would make it a bit harder. I don't mean just obtaining focus, but getting things all "just so" to make the image look pleasing and not out of focus due to the total lack of depth of field.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 18, 2019)

very true, even at 85/1.2 the issue is real. looking at the image below, I keep asking myself: I cannot see models tip of the nose... ears are a mess... Why Canon, why?



https://i1.wp.com/ymcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/RF-85mm-sample.jpeg?ssl=1


----------



## stevelee (May 18, 2019)

There are folks who post here who like to have one eye in focus and one out, it seems from what they say. Sometimes it is left; sometimes right.


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (May 19, 2019)

And the ears and nose are still oof on most of those. And, what works if not well, then at least ok for female subject matter, does not work all that well for male. 

The online calculators say 1.4 inches total DoF at 6.5 feet with an 85mm lens, at f/1.2 covering a 24x36 format. Seems smaller than that. You'd need f/5.6 to get nose and ears in focus. And.... you don't really want that porous bulb of a proboscis all that sharp to begin with, so you're probably better off with f/4 or f/4.5. 

Then again when I took a year of formal photography training, it was 1975, and we were taught to shoot at f/5.6 for a head shot, and focus on the eyes.


----------



## Act444 (May 21, 2019)

I'm pretty content with my 5D4 as my main camera at this point. With the R system I would want a smaller package in exchange for the lack of speed. I'd be looking for compactness - how about an RP-size FF camera with compact 35, 85 and 24-70 lenses.




stevelee said:


> Maybe. I have been using the 100mm f/2.8 for portraits. Some of them look good, and some just look too sharp, clinical almost. It is a great lens for general short-telephoto use, not just macros. When I got my full-frame camera, I did use it for portraits. I don't shoot a lot of them, and thought I'd be OK with it doubling in that niche.



I've used the 100 Macro for portraits too (not a portrait photographer per se, but when the occasional opportunity comes up)...the sharpness is in fact one of my favorite features of that lens! It's a personal thing though. The 85 1.4 IS is decent too.



Boudreaux&Thibodeaux said:


> Then again when I took a year of formal photography training, it was 1975, and we were taught to shoot at f/5.6 for a head shot, and focus on the eyes.



I think that rule is still good today, from my own experience. Although at 85mm I prefer using f/4 - good compromise of strong background separation and all major facial features in sharp focus. For half or 3/4 body shot I like f/2.8, sometimes picking f/2 if the background is busy.


----------



## jeffreybehr (May 25, 2019)

I just got tired enough of my Sony a7r3 and ordered an R/24-105/adapter kit from B&H.. (Tried to buy locally but the store with stock doesn't take PayPal.).. For the Sony, I have the 24-105 and 70-200 F4/G zooms and Canon TS-Es in 24mm (gen.2) and 50mm (gen.3).. Will be keeping the TS-Es and the RF 24-105.. Won't be buying a tele for a while.

The R felt VERY good in my hands...MUCH better than the too-small Sony.


----------



## jeanluc (May 25, 2019)

jeffreybehr said:


> I just got tired enough of my Sony a7r3 and ordered an R/24-105/adapter kit from B&H.. (Tried to buy locally but the store with stock doesn't take PayPal.).. For the Sony, I have the 24-105 and 70-200 F4/G zooms and Canon TS-Es in 24mm (gen.2) and 50mm (gen.3).. Will be keeping the TS-Es and the RF 24-105.. Won't be buying a tele for a while.
> 
> The R felt VERY good in my hands...MUCH better than the too-small Sony.


That’s why I got an R...if you just hold the R, Z6/7 and A7R, that’s the exact order of how ergonomically well designed they are IMO...the R just feels a lot better in the hand.


----------

