Lens Difference between RF and L lenses

The member want's to discuss about the lens specified in the topic.

Jack

Love Macro
Staff member
3 3 1
Mar 13, 2020
11,901
24
8,217
1,339
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:

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

Real-Typer
Legend TEAM
5 3
Apr 20, 2020
5,566
11
7,751
1,340
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.
 
Reactions: Jack

Jack

Love Macro
Staff member
3 3 1
Mar 13, 2020
11,901
24
8,217
1,339
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

New Member
Jul 24, 2021
5
19
5
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.
 
Reactions: Jack

Jack

Love Macro
Staff member
3 3 1
Mar 13, 2020
11,901
24
8,217
1,339
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 ?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…