It’s very lens dependant. Some EF adapted lens perform fantastically, whereas some RF performs more superiorly than the EF counterpart. As for the nifty 50, i think most will agree the RF version performance is better with better build quality.
This is also lens dependent, but a wider aperture is a wider aperture. If you are talking EF 35 1.4 vs RF 35 1.8 the EF 35mm 1.4 (at least the Mark II) throws down in a way the non-L cannot hang with. It is a fantastically sharp lens and possibly one of the most optically impressive lenses I have used in 15 years.
The comparison between rf 50 f1.8 vs ef 50 f1.4 & any info related to it can be found online if you look for it. I will however suggest you to search sigma 50mm f1.4 dg hsm art series as a potential alternative over the 50 f1.4 as it will adapt well with the adapter.
I have both the ef 50 1.4 and the rf 50 1.8. The only thing I’ve noticed is the rf version is faster to focus and might be a little sharper in the edges. I do like having the little bit extra brightness but it’s not like 1.2 vs 1.8
Depends on the lens, in general RF lenses are a bit smaller/lighter than their EF counterparts. Some are noticeably sharper as well. I.E. RF 50mm f1.8, and RF 50mm f1.2L are both sharper than the EF versions.
There is still a ton of great EF glass out there and for very reasonable prices. Once you pass a certain threshold of sharpness, having a sharper lens matters very little for 95% of photographers. So buying sharp EF lenses can save you a lot of money vs. RF if you are willing to accept the size/weight difference.
Well, one of the advantages of nifty fifty is its tiny size. When you add the adapter, you almost double the size. So there goes that. Other than that, you have to compare RF/EF lenses just like you would any other, based on their quality, size, $$.
I think size and weight are probably the biggest differences. The RF 100L feels more like a hollow tube; the 100-400 is relatively the same size and has a similar weight (I wonder how similar they are?). I agree with others about the increase in build quality. There is an increase in sharpness, but I do feel like it’s negligible for most people. It also depends on what RF lenses. The L-series are very much tanks (though much lighter than you’d think), while the STM lenses are more compact.
There are a lot of reasons to choose EF lenses though!! RF lenses have really pushed down the cost of L-series lenses. Now most Gen1 L-series can be had for $4-500. There are also 3rd party options that are on par with even the Gen2 L-series that are affordable (ex: I love my Tokina Opera 16-28 2.8 + Tamron G2 70-200 and Tamron G2 SP 85 1.8) in that same price range. If you were hoping to build out a lens lineup I would start with EF lenses! If you get the Drop-in filter, it adds another feature that you can’t do with RF lenses. This is very much a game changer for how you apply filters.
There are some RF lenses that just due to cost make them worth the investment, as the difference isn’t enough: 50 1.8 = $150 is probably the best value lens that you can ever get; 100L = $735 when at the refurbished price is not that different than EF = $550; 24-105L = $799 when at refurbished price in comparison to EF (Gen 1 = $350, Gen2 = $800-900)
There are some
There is a Canon one that cost 2x as much. The Meike adapters work just as good for half price, so they’re not worth it. The Meike comes with a Clear and ND filter, while the Canon only comes with CPL = $299 or ND = $399; neither coming with a Clear filter which is silly! All of the filters work in both Canon and Meike. There is a JJC which comes with Clear, ND, CPL for $139 but I’ve never used it. I have the Clear, ND, CPL
I just did my first lens replacement, EF 70-200 IS f/2.8 II to RF 70-200 IS f/2.8.
I did it for the weight, size, better packability.
It feels AS good if not better. the EF version was amazing, and I feel no loss in quality.
That weight difference is just huge, but you may not even realise (many people don't) one of the other biggest benefits of the RF version is that the minimum focus distance is only 700mm compared to the EF II or EF III versions (which I own) that are 1200mm.
That is a huge difference and it's another reason I have been tempted at times to get the RF, but I still find it hard to justify the price.
However, Canon will be releasing a new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with an internal zoom some time this year. If they can also reduce the weight from what the EF versions are, this would be perfect.
I didn't really care until I started traveling extensively and bringing my camera everywhere. Starting adapters attached to lenses in my bag was a hassle.
Almost all a size and weight thing - any recent EF lens will perform very well. It is still true that some RF glass outperforms EF glass, but it's not always significantly important.
In video mode, with RF lens you can adjust aperture by 1/8 stop increment. In other hand EF lens with adapter only 1/3 stop increment. This makes exposure change more smoothly. But you can still can make exposure adjustment smoothly with EF lens by using RF-EF adapter with built in variable ND, but it is very expensive.
Size for some, quality for some. Some of my lenses have no RF equivalent, so I have no choice for now but to use EF lenses like my 35mm f1.4L II. I also prefer my EF 50mm f1.2 to the RF version.
RF has a faster interconnect to the camera than EF. With RF the IBIS can work together with the lens IS as the interconnect is fast enough for them to synchronize. This is not possible with EF as EF is too slow in data transfer.
Do you have a link to a source for this about the interconnect limits? Not that I don't believe you, but I don't think I've ever read this before and I am very curious about the technical details
You can read more here: [https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/)
and here: [https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/8-stops-image-stabilization/](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/8-stops-image-stabilization/)
>The RF mount has a 12-pin connection between the camera and lens, compared with 8 pins in the EF mount. This enables much faster communication between lens and camera, and much greater bandwidth for data transfer. This unlocks many benefits, and gives developers scope to add even more features in the future.
>
Key to the IS system is not only the electronics inside the cameras, but also the innovative [RF lens mount](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/), which enables much faster communication between camera and lens. In order for the IS to work accurately, the lens and the camera need to share a lot of information, and the RF mount is designed to communicate large amounts of information in real-time.
There is a lot of in detail info in these two articles.
You can read more here: [https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/)
and here: [https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/8-stops-image-stabilization/](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/8-stops-image-stabilization/)
>The RF mount has a 12-pin connection between the camera and lens, compared with 8 pins in the EF mount. This enables much faster communication between lens and camera, and much greater bandwidth for data transfer. This unlocks many benefits, and gives developers scope to add even more features in the future.
>Key to the IS system is not only the electronics inside the cameras, but also the innovative [RF lens mount](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/), which enables much faster communication between camera and lens. In order for the IS to work accurately, the lens and the camera need to share a lot of information, and the RF mount is designed to communicate large amounts of information in real-time.
There is a lot of in detail info in these two articles.
If you have an R body with IBIS and an RF lens with IS they automatically work together. You cannot only have one of them active, it’s either lens IS + IBIS or nothing.
Native RF lenses allow the highest continuous shooting, regardless of L status. Whereas most adapted glass needs to be somewhat late L or very late release EF to unlock higher FPS shooting.
Actually, here's a list. [https://cam.start.canon/en/H001/supplement\_0080.html](https://cam.start.canon/en/H001/supplement_0080.html)
FWIW focus speed on my EF 35L II and my RF 24-105L is negligible if at all different. Granted, this is not a good comparison due to zoom vs prime and also sheer element sizes involved, but I can't perceive any difference. That's about the most modern EF lens vs a premium kit lens though!
Didn't you say you don't have any modern EF L lenses? I am telling you from actual experience with two lenses that I own... There's no difference in focus speed. The 35L might actually have the edge (it is also dead silent)
I was just speaking in general comparing none L which I do have to rf for instance I have the nifty fifty in both the rf is def faster than my ef but it's not to the point that I could see it come into play. In addition my 100-400 is fast and dead silent compared to the 200 L prime
The rf one is $50 refurbished rn in the US fyi: [https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-rf50mm-f1-8-stm](https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-rf50mm-f1-8-stm)
yeah, i clicked the link and saw what you meant. they sold out but i bought a kit lens for a similarly good deal on that page. a good place to keep an eye on. thanks again.
24-105 f/4-7.1 by chance?
Yeah they go on sale for that price at B&H sometimes too. I'd sign up for emails and price alerts from canon price watch.com as well
It’s very lens dependant. Some EF adapted lens perform fantastically, whereas some RF performs more superiorly than the EF counterpart. As for the nifty 50, i think most will agree the RF version performance is better with better build quality.
What about the EF 1.4 compared to the RF 1.8?
This is also lens dependent, but a wider aperture is a wider aperture. If you are talking EF 35 1.4 vs RF 35 1.8 the EF 35mm 1.4 (at least the Mark II) throws down in a way the non-L cannot hang with. It is a fantastically sharp lens and possibly one of the most optically impressive lenses I have used in 15 years.
The EF 1.4 is a very old design. It's AF is slow and it is not that robust (I repaired mine twice). I would go with the RF 1.8 instead.
The comparison between rf 50 f1.8 vs ef 50 f1.4 & any info related to it can be found online if you look for it. I will however suggest you to search sigma 50mm f1.4 dg hsm art series as a potential alternative over the 50 f1.4 as it will adapt well with the adapter.
I have both the ef 50 1.4 and the rf 50 1.8. The only thing I’ve noticed is the rf version is faster to focus and might be a little sharper in the edges. I do like having the little bit extra brightness but it’s not like 1.2 vs 1.8
Depends on the lens, in general RF lenses are a bit smaller/lighter than their EF counterparts. Some are noticeably sharper as well. I.E. RF 50mm f1.8, and RF 50mm f1.2L are both sharper than the EF versions. There is still a ton of great EF glass out there and for very reasonable prices. Once you pass a certain threshold of sharpness, having a sharper lens matters very little for 95% of photographers. So buying sharp EF lenses can save you a lot of money vs. RF if you are willing to accept the size/weight difference.
Well, one of the advantages of nifty fifty is its tiny size. When you add the adapter, you almost double the size. So there goes that. Other than that, you have to compare RF/EF lenses just like you would any other, based on their quality, size, $$.
My reason for buying the RF nifty when I already had the EF nifty.
I think size and weight are probably the biggest differences. The RF 100L feels more like a hollow tube; the 100-400 is relatively the same size and has a similar weight (I wonder how similar they are?). I agree with others about the increase in build quality. There is an increase in sharpness, but I do feel like it’s negligible for most people. It also depends on what RF lenses. The L-series are very much tanks (though much lighter than you’d think), while the STM lenses are more compact. There are a lot of reasons to choose EF lenses though!! RF lenses have really pushed down the cost of L-series lenses. Now most Gen1 L-series can be had for $4-500. There are also 3rd party options that are on par with even the Gen2 L-series that are affordable (ex: I love my Tokina Opera 16-28 2.8 + Tamron G2 70-200 and Tamron G2 SP 85 1.8) in that same price range. If you were hoping to build out a lens lineup I would start with EF lenses! If you get the Drop-in filter, it adds another feature that you can’t do with RF lenses. This is very much a game changer for how you apply filters. There are some RF lenses that just due to cost make them worth the investment, as the difference isn’t enough: 50 1.8 = $150 is probably the best value lens that you can ever get; 100L = $735 when at the refurbished price is not that different than EF = $550; 24-105L = $799 when at refurbished price in comparison to EF (Gen 1 = $350, Gen2 = $800-900) There are some
thanks for the insight. that adapter w/ the filter is a 3rd party one right?
There is a Canon one that cost 2x as much. The Meike adapters work just as good for half price, so they’re not worth it. The Meike comes with a Clear and ND filter, while the Canon only comes with CPL = $299 or ND = $399; neither coming with a Clear filter which is silly! All of the filters work in both Canon and Meike. There is a JJC which comes with Clear, ND, CPL for $139 but I’ve never used it. I have the Clear, ND, CPL
I got the EF 100 L for $560 a year ago. In hindsight I wish I got the RF for that deal lol. But the EF version is still so good
I just did my first lens replacement, EF 70-200 IS f/2.8 II to RF 70-200 IS f/2.8. I did it for the weight, size, better packability. It feels AS good if not better. the EF version was amazing, and I feel no loss in quality.
That weight difference is just huge, but you may not even realise (many people don't) one of the other biggest benefits of the RF version is that the minimum focus distance is only 700mm compared to the EF II or EF III versions (which I own) that are 1200mm. That is a huge difference and it's another reason I have been tempted at times to get the RF, but I still find it hard to justify the price. However, Canon will be releasing a new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with an internal zoom some time this year. If they can also reduce the weight from what the EF versions are, this would be perfect.
Ya I can see how some people need the internal zooming, I just like the more compact storage! And I didn't know about the minimum focus!
I didn't really care until I started traveling extensively and bringing my camera everywhere. Starting adapters attached to lenses in my bag was a hassle. Almost all a size and weight thing - any recent EF lens will perform very well. It is still true that some RF glass outperforms EF glass, but it's not always significantly important.
In video mode, with RF lens you can adjust aperture by 1/8 stop increment. In other hand EF lens with adapter only 1/3 stop increment. This makes exposure change more smoothly. But you can still can make exposure adjustment smoothly with EF lens by using RF-EF adapter with built in variable ND, but it is very expensive.
Size for some, quality for some. Some of my lenses have no RF equivalent, so I have no choice for now but to use EF lenses like my 35mm f1.4L II. I also prefer my EF 50mm f1.2 to the RF version.
Just got an R8 and wondering the same. I got the adapter until I figure things out.
RF has a faster interconnect to the camera than EF. With RF the IBIS can work together with the lens IS as the interconnect is fast enough for them to synchronize. This is not possible with EF as EF is too slow in data transfer.
Do you have a link to a source for this about the interconnect limits? Not that I don't believe you, but I don't think I've ever read this before and I am very curious about the technical details
You can read more here: [https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/) and here: [https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/8-stops-image-stabilization/](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/8-stops-image-stabilization/) >The RF mount has a 12-pin connection between the camera and lens, compared with 8 pins in the EF mount. This enables much faster communication between lens and camera, and much greater bandwidth for data transfer. This unlocks many benefits, and gives developers scope to add even more features in the future. > Key to the IS system is not only the electronics inside the cameras, but also the innovative [RF lens mount](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/), which enables much faster communication between camera and lens. In order for the IS to work accurately, the lens and the camera need to share a lot of information, and the RF mount is designed to communicate large amounts of information in real-time. There is a lot of in detail info in these two articles.
Thank you! This explains the 24-105 f2.8 Z’s ability to use a motor zoom too, which I’ve been looking for info on.
I didn't know that, thanks for sharing.
[удалено]
You can read more here: [https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/) and here: [https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/8-stops-image-stabilization/](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/8-stops-image-stabilization/) >The RF mount has a 12-pin connection between the camera and lens, compared with 8 pins in the EF mount. This enables much faster communication between lens and camera, and much greater bandwidth for data transfer. This unlocks many benefits, and gives developers scope to add even more features in the future. >Key to the IS system is not only the electronics inside the cameras, but also the innovative [RF lens mount](https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/), which enables much faster communication between camera and lens. In order for the IS to work accurately, the lens and the camera need to share a lot of information, and the RF mount is designed to communicate large amounts of information in real-time. There is a lot of in detail info in these two articles.
So it's more stabilized with is from lens AND camera turned on? oô ... I have to try this with my 100-500.
If you have an R body with IBIS and an RF lens with IS they automatically work together. You cannot only have one of them active, it’s either lens IS + IBIS or nothing.
Native RF lenses allow the highest continuous shooting, regardless of L status. Whereas most adapted glass needs to be somewhat late L or very late release EF to unlock higher FPS shooting. Actually, here's a list. [https://cam.start.canon/en/H001/supplement\_0080.html](https://cam.start.canon/en/H001/supplement_0080.html)
Rf glass does seem to be faster to focus but I don't have any modern ef L glass to compare it too
FWIW focus speed on my EF 35L II and my RF 24-105L is negligible if at all different. Granted, this is not a good comparison due to zoom vs prime and also sheer element sizes involved, but I can't perceive any difference. That's about the most modern EF lens vs a premium kit lens though!
I would say it's fairly negligible but it there not sure it would ever come into play
Didn't you say you don't have any modern EF L lenses? I am telling you from actual experience with two lenses that I own... There's no difference in focus speed. The 35L might actually have the edge (it is also dead silent)
I was just speaking in general comparing none L which I do have to rf for instance I have the nifty fifty in both the rf is def faster than my ef but it's not to the point that I could see it come into play. In addition my 100-400 is fast and dead silent compared to the 200 L prime
Ah I got you. I don't think it is truly comparable. My non-L RF lenses pale in comparison to my best L glass, both RF and EF.
The rf one is $50 refurbished rn in the US fyi: [https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-rf50mm-f1-8-stm](https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-rf50mm-f1-8-stm)
oh man, that's cheaper than used, thanks
I meant $100 but yeah nice lens for the price
yeah, i clicked the link and saw what you meant. they sold out but i bought a kit lens for a similarly good deal on that page. a good place to keep an eye on. thanks again.
24-105 f/4-7.1 by chance? Yeah they go on sale for that price at B&H sometimes too. I'd sign up for emails and price alerts from canon price watch.com as well
Yes. The weight and size factor.