| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/04/2023 10:39:35 AM · #1 |
| I was curious if anyone has moved from the regular lenses to the mirrorless version? |
|
|
|
12/04/2023 12:33:14 PM · #2 |
Yes... and No.
I upgraded my 24-70 and 70-200 zooms, for slightly different reasons. The 24-70 because the RF version is optically better and not having to use the adapter results in a somewhat shorter and better-balanced camera/lens combination. The RF 70-200/2.8 was not something I initially thought I would buy. I had sold my EF 70-200/2.8 and was using my EF 100-400. I was seduced by the very compact size of the RF 70-200, and I have been very impressed by the performance of the lens. I'm not selling the 100-400 though.
For the future, I do see myself buying some additional RF lenses. The RF 135/1.8 may be something I spring for, it is supposed to be optically superior to the EF 135/2.0 which I currently own. I may also look at a wide zoom. I'm really intrigued by the RF 10-20/4, though the lens corrections absolutely must be applied to get useful images.
I will not be replacing most of my primes, for now, nor will I be upgrading my EF 100/2.8L Macro in the near future. I have both the control ring and drop-in filter EF -to-RF adapters, which allow for rear-filtering of the WA lenses, something that is valuable and only possible using the EF lenses and adapters.
In summation, I think that Canon has really well-managed the EF-to-RF transition, and is offering some wonderful new technology in the RF mount, while enabling full use of all the older EF lenses. Arguably, third-party EF lenses actually gain an advantage on the RF mount in that focus calibration issues go away. There should be no need for me to "recalibrate" my Sigma 50mm, for example to eliminate focus offsets. |
|
|
|
12/04/2023 12:55:41 PM · #3 |
| I'm a little confused Wendy. Do you still have your Canon? I thought you had fully moved over to the Sony platform? |
|
|
|
12/04/2023 03:14:40 PM · #4 |
| Any new lens I buy is an RF, otherwise still using my EF lenses with the basic adapter. |
|
|
|
12/04/2023 08:26:35 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I'm a little confused Wendy. Do you still have your Canon? I thought you had fully moved over to the Sony platform? |
Two reasons: Just asking for someone else. But also on the lookout for an affordable 24-105ef, and wondering if a lot of people were upgrading, maybe there would be ones out there. |
|
|
|
12/05/2023 12:04:35 PM · #6 |
| FWIW, checked fredmiranda.com's buy/sell forum, and it seems that copies of the EF 24-105 mkII in good condition are typically going for between $650 and $750. There aren't a ton of them being sold, though. I suspect that folks who own them really like them, and many are probably using them with adapters on mirrorless. |
|
|
|
12/05/2023 12:41:03 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Any new lens I buy is an RF, otherwise still using my EF lenses with the basic adapter. |
+1 |
|
|
|
12/06/2023 06:14:14 PM · #8 |
| All mine are mirrorless, but I had sold all my EF gear just as mirrorless was starting to become a thing. The RF 28-70 f2 is amazing and weighs about the same as my old EF 70-200 f2.8 ii. The RF 70-200 f2.8 is compact, light and has impressive IQ. This is my primary lens. I am interested in an EF 500 f4, which I will probably pick up used. The rumoured RF 200-500 f4 would fit my needs nicely, just not the wallet. |
|
|
|
12/06/2023 08:14:41 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by wolf:
...I am interested in an EF 500 f4, which I will probably pick up used. The rumoured RF 200-500 f4 would fit my needs nicely, just not the wallet. |
Unless you *really* need f/4, a very good option would be the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1. IQ is supposed to be really good, and the price is reasonable, at least when you are talking 500mm reach. |
|
|
|
12/08/2023 12:20:15 AM · #10 |
| I have the kit lens, I got the camera and wanted to see what it was like before dropping cash on lenses. Since then, I've picked up the RF 16mm f2.8 and the RF 50mm 1.8. I still have a bunch of EF glass I use with my EOS when I shoot film. I'll probably skip over the new L lenses until I start making enough money with my camera. I'll just buy some EF L lenses. Even if I buy an adapter for every lens, they EF lenses are still significantly less expensive. |
|
|
|
12/09/2023 12:58:40 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
...Even if I buy an adapter for every lens, they EF lenses are still significantly less expensive. |
That can be true, especially if you take advantage of buying lightly used gear. It is good to have the control ring adapter, gives you an extra manual control. For instance, you coud give every one of your old EF lenses an "instant" aperture control ring. The basic adapter is fine for a lot of uses. For some WA EF lenses that do not take front filters, the drop-in filter adapter can also be useful, but it is rather expensive. There are some 3rd-party alternatives appearing though. |
|
|
|
12/09/2023 04:18:55 PM · #12 |
For my purposes being an average photography enthusiast I have not really seen the need to convert my EF lenses to RF. Certainly if I were to purchase a new lens it would be an RF. I just can't justify paying for a duplicate lens I already have. I understand Kirbic's justification but as far as image quality there is so much now that you can do in editing that I feel it negates many of the differences one sees in the lenses. That being said if money were no object I would probably get the RF lenses and keep the old lenses as I still have my EOS 5D Mark IV as a backup.
On a different note. I am purchasing a new 65\" OLED 4K TV. My present TV was made in 2010! I'm blown away by the new technology. Never new what I was missing. Best of class is the Sony A95L, LG G3, or the Samsung S95C. I think I'm going with with the Sony. It's considerably more expensive but in addition to the state of the art video it has an excellent on board sound system so I may save some on not having to buy a sound bar. Anybody have any experience and opinion on this?
Message edited by author 2023-12-09 16:23:29. |
|
|
|
12/09/2023 04:37:24 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GolferDDS:
...Best of class is the Sony A95L, LG G3, or the Samsung S95C. I think I'm going with with the Sony. It's considerably more expensive but in addition to the state of the art video it has an excellent on board sound system so I may save some on not having to buy a sound bar. Anybody have any experience and opinion on this? |
If you're sticking with what's on-board for sound, that is certainly a big concern. After all, the audio is a big part of the experience, especially for movies.
One thing to consider: While the top-of-the-line TVs do have some image advantages, you do pay a very large premium for them and the advantages are moderate. I replaced our aging (2005 vintage) plasma set with an LG C-series OLED a few years ago. Couldn't be happier.
If you look at the price difference between the C-series and the top of the line, the difference is enough for some pretty decent sound equipment.
Full disclosure, I'm just a little over the average with what I am running for sound; I'm using the amplifier and speakers for my main audio system, which works really well but is not something that most folks would want to do.
ETA: Sorry to the OP for the detour, we now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Message edited by author 2023-12-09 16:38:20. |
|
|
|
12/09/2023 07:11:19 PM · #14 |
| Thanks for the input kirbic. What made me think of asking the question on this forum was similar to the question about the visual quality of the RF lens versus the EF lens and adapter on the mirrorless camera. Who better to ask about picture quality on a TV than a photographer! I actually use headphones when I watch TV as I like the TV a little louder than my wife. The best of both worlds! |
|
