Lens Difference between RF and L lenses

[Jack]

As kzurro says, RF is the new EF - lenses for Mirrorless bodies and they do regular and L series too.

Quality of RF is better - as there's no mirror in the way the rear element sits much closer to the sensor, shortening the light path and can be placed exactly where the best image quality is achieved for that particular lens design, 2mm or 2 inches from the sensor.
Rear element is also larger so less edge distortion and what distortion there is (the 24-105 STM is pretty bad) is more easily corrected with the in-body processing. I think Lightroom has a profile for that lens too and they'll catch up for others that need it soon for those who only shoot RAW

The 100MacroL gives 1.4x mag and has a 'Bokeh control' ring to adjust the out of focus 'feel' and AF on Mirrorless is faster and more accurate, the focusing is done on the image sensor rather than separate AF sensors so no 'front or back' focus issues or need to micro-adjust / calibrate.

That said it'll be a while before DSLR is dead, there's no crop body (probably be the R7 when it eventually arrives) and there's no cheap camera for the masses or kit lens - if you're happy with the camera you've got and want a 24-70 then just get it and enjoy it, and you'll get a good trade in price for it a few years from now when you go mirrorless

you have really good collection of lenses. I'm happy that the L lenses still can be used on RF cameras, in case if I'm buying an RF camera I can use my L lenses without buying new RF lenses which are very expensive. I still use my EF lenses on my M50 with an adapter which I'm happy as well.

You can see my equipment here:

Equipment

Show off your equipment here.

macroderie.com

I don't have many, taking in consideration that all them I purchased brand new.

(don't trust second hand equipment, even if they are more affordable)

 

[Helix_2648]

I read a lot about the new RF lenses and the quality seems really to be not comparable but is it worth the money? Not sure... maybe for professional photographs but not for me.

 

[Jack]

I read a lot about the new RF lenses and the quality seems really to be not comparable but is it worth the money? Not sure... maybe for professional photographs but not for me.

Didn't had any rf lenses or tried. But I would say that these lenses are for professionals, or photographers from national geographics or similar to it. Not sure if worth the money. You need to invest a lot just for a lens.

 

[JayLT]

I just made the switch last year from Canon DSLRs (90D and 5Ds) to Canon mirrorless bodies and mostly RF lenses. I went with the R5 as a lot of what I shoot is far away and the more ability I have to crop in and retain good detail the better.

In terms of RF versus EF lenses, well the RF lenses are better but usually not a substantial amount when only looking at image quality. I switched from the EF 100-400L MKII lens to the RF 100-500L lens and the overall image quality was very similar up to 400mm (as far as the 100-400 could go) when both were used on the R5 body. However, where the RF 100-500 beat the RF 100-400L MKII was in image stabilization, and AF speed. The added 100mm on the long end of course is there as well. The newer AF design that Canon is using in the RF-L lenses, which is usually a dual nano-USM motor system is lightning quick. Couple that with the AF accuracy of a mirrorless body and you have a very potent combination.

I also recently switched from the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens to the RF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens. Again, image quality, while better, is not a huge step up and in most cases would probably be barely noticeable without really zooming in and comparing side-by-side. Where the RF lens wins is the max magnification of 1.4x compared to the 1x of the EF version, and again on the AF system. Just like the 100-500L, the RF Macro uses dual nano-USM motors and the AF is MUCH faster (and quieter) that the EF version

In the end is there a problem using the EF lenses on the mirrorless bodies? Nope, they work great. If it's in your budget the RF lenses are better, however the difference may not be worth the cost difference to you. It was easier for me as I had the older lenses that I could sell and really help offset the cost of the newer ones.

 

[Jack]

I just made the switch last year from Canon DSLRs (90D and 5Ds) to Canon mirrorless bodies and mostly RF lenses. I went with the R5 as a lot of what I shoot is far away and the more ability I have to crop in and retain good detail the better.

In terms of RF versus EF lenses, well the RF lenses are better but usually not a substantial amount when only looking at image quality. I switched from the EF 100-400L MKII lens to the RF 100-500L lens and the overall image quality was very similar up to 400mm (as far as the 100-400 could go) when both were used on the R5 body. However, where the RF 100-500 beat the RF 100-400L MKII was in image stabilization, and AF speed. The added 100mm on the long end of course is there as well. The newer AF design that Canon is using in the RF-L lenses, which is usually a dual nano-USM motor system is lightning quick. Couple that with the AF accuracy of a mirrorless body and you have a very potent combination.

I also recently switched from the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens to the RF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens. Again, image quality, while better, is not a huge step up and in most cases would probably be barely noticeable without really zooming in and comparing side-by-side. Where the RF lens wins is the max magnification of 1.4x compared to the 1x of the EF version, and again on the AF system. Just like the 100-500L, the RF Macro uses dual nano-USM motors and the AF is MUCH faster (and quieter) that the EF version

In the end is there a problem using the EF lenses on the mirrorless bodies? Nope, they work great. If it's in your budget the RF lenses are better, however the difference may not be worth the cost difference to you. It was easier for me as I had the older lenses that I could sell and really help offset the cost of the newer ones.

Thanks J JayLT for the information. Because most of my lenses are L , I believe there is no reason at all switching to RF lenses ? I also planning to add new L lens to my collection, but as there are new Rf series, I’m thinking if is still worth investing in EF L lenses, what you’d say about that ?