Quick question about the EF/RF Adapters. Does it impact field of view, magnification ratio, aperture or any other aspect of a lens?
I've shot with extension tubes and teleconverters but cannot say that I've shot with a lens adapter. My gut says that if anything, it would increase the magnification ratio slightly, much like an extension tube would. With no optics I don't think it would impact field of view or apertures. Could be wrong.
No...affects nothing. It is a hollow tube just for electronics and to move the lens further from the sensor. The EF lenses are designed to project their image over the sensor to mount distance of a DSLR. The sensor in the MILCs are closer to the mount so the EF lens needs to be moved the difference in sensor to mount difference between a DSLR and MILC further away on the MILC.
So unlike extension tubes that move the rear element further away from the sensor, because the R6's sensor is closer to the mount, there is no change in magnification ratio?
The adapter essentially creates the gap between rear element and sensor that is normally there with a DSLR?
Correct. It is essentially a pass through tube to make the registration distance equal to that on a DSLR. The adapters don't even have any electronics...they're a direct pin out, and the RF pins have a resistor or something across to tell the camera to use the EF protocol rather than RF...the EF 'conversion' if you will is done in the camera, as R mount bodies are fully compatible with both EF and RF lens protocols (and in fact, things like the Samyang RF lenses are actually EF protocol lenses with an RF mount).
So in effect, the adapter turns the R body into an EF mount mirrorless camera.
JMAN - Does the R5 or R6 use the combination of in-body and in-lens stabilization with EF lenses that have in-lens stabilization, like the 70-200mm f4L IS? Or is that only with RF lenses that you get the combination of the two (i.e. up to 7.5 stops of IS)?
coppertop wrote:
So unlike extension tubes that move the rear element further away from the sensor, because the R6's sensor is closer to the mount, there is no change in magnification ratio?
The adapter essentially creates the gap between rear element and sensor that is normally there with a DSLR?
Exactly. EF mount flange depth is 44mm. So EF lenses were designed to be 44mm from the sensor. If you don't maintain the distance, they cannot focus properly. RF mount is 20mm flange depth. So we have to pad that mount to 44mm deep with a 24mm thick adapter. Once we do that it's like an EF mount SLR with the mirror removed. No change to anything optical at all.
It's the same when adapting older film lenses. You just have to use an adapter that pads enough to maintain the register distance. We could even do this on SLR, too, if the mount was short enough. I used to use some m42 and Nikon film glass on my Canon SLR. Those are only a few mm thicker than EF, so it was basically just a thin adapter ring that barely changed the lens length. But we couldn't mount Canon FD lenses, because that mount is 42mm deep and EF is 44mm. So you'd end up with a lens that can't focus outside of a narrow range.
In my experience, EF glass has worked as well (often better) on RF as it did on EF bodies. I see no change in anything optical and AF is often more accurate.
Jman13 wrote:
So far in my experience it's just the lens IS when adapting EF IS lenses. Definitely that way with he EF 70-200/4 IS.
I don't believe this is correct. The IBIS still works with EF glass. The overall effectiveness in stops is not as high as it is with certain combos of RF glass and body, but both still work.
jedibrain wrote:
I don't believe this is correct. The IBIS still works with EF glass. The overall effectiveness in stops is not as high as it is with certain combos of RF glass and body, but both still work.
_Brian
Well, apparently we're both part right, and I was definitely part wrong. The IBIS does work to control the X/Y and roll, but there is no coordinated control between the IBIS and optical IS with EF lenses. On RF lenses, the IBIS does X/Y and Roll and also works together with the optical IS to improve pitch/yaw as well.
I will say that in my own testing with the 70-200/4L IS, I notice absolutely no difference in performance with regards to that lens on the R6 vs the RP I also own (about 3-4 stops regardless). Likely because the X/Y and roll IS isn't a big component unless you are shooting close up.
I notice a huge improvement on lenses like my RF24-105L and RF 35/1.8, where I get an additional 2-3 stops of stabilization on the R6 vs. the RP.
Jman13 wrote:
Well, apparently we're both part right, and I was definitely part wrong. The IBIS does work to control the X/Y and roll, but there is no coordinated control between the IBIS and optical IS with EF lenses. On RF lenses, the IBIS does X/Y and Roll and also works together with the optical IS to improve pitch/yaw as well.
I will say that in my own testing with the 70-200/4L IS, I notice absolutely no difference in performance with regards to that lens on the R6 vs the RP I also own (about 3-4 stops regardless). Likely because the X/Y and roll IS isn't a big component unless you are shooting close up.
I notice a huge improvement on lenses like my RF24-105L and RF 35/1.8, where I get an additional 2-3 stops of stabilization on the R6 vs. the RP.
There is zero difference in image quality with the adapter. In fact I like to think it is better because the focus is spot on with no MFA needed. I have the CPL adapter, control ring adapter, and a pile of the pass through adapters. All work flawless.
Should/Can IBIS be turned off when taking long exposures on a tripod? With some of my testing, not sure if blurry image is a result of the fact that it was windy (usually not an issue with lens/tripod when used with my 5ds/5dsR).
I don't think its the focus, trying to narrow down, whether the issue is IBIS being on during a min expose on a tripod, lack of sharpness of ND filters, or from user error like potentially have breathed on filter when putting into adaptor ring. Will do more testing this weekend, paying ore attention to differences in settings and between the sharpness between ND/Clear filters, in order to get to root cause.
Yes, I find that in 2020, IBIS is very important.
Of course, generations of photographers have gotten by without IS.
But it is certainly a huge convenience.
The moment Canon releases a new RF body with IBIS under $1500 (with sales/refurbished), I will be buying it.
Curious. Could Canon have produced a mirrorless body with an EF lens mount? I get where losing the mirror allows you to produce a thinner camera, but the R6 isn't much thinner than the 90D. Or at least it doesn't feel thinner (haven't peaked at the stats).
But if the distance created by the adapter to accommodate EF/EF-S lenses does not impact lens performance or image quality, why not set the sensor back a little further in the body to eliminate the need for a new lens mount?
My new R6 arrived the other day. Just waiting for the adapter to arrive and I'm looking forward to taking it out for a spin.
coppertop wrote:
Curious. Could Canon have produced a mirrorless body with an EF lens mount? I get where losing the mirror allows you to produce a thinner camera, but the R6 isn't much thinner than the 90D. Or at least it doesn't feel thinner (haven't peaked at the stats).
But if the distance created by the adapter to accommodate EF/EF-S lenses does not impact lens performance or image quality, why not set the sensor back a little further in the body to eliminate the need for a new lens mount?
My new R6 arrived the other day. Just waiting for the adapter to arrive and I'm looking forward to taking it out for a spin.
EB-1 wrote:
Yes, but then Canon would not be able to create new and more expensive lenses.
There are also optical advantages for wide-angle lenses.
EBH
There are optical resolution advantages on uwa with RF but from what I have seen most uwa, wa pick up significantly more vignetting/barrel distortion. Although vignetting (and barrel distortion) is 'fixed' by lightroom or in camera in jpg, the fix degrades image quality in corners that really matter for landscape shooters. [Sony/Canon are now making lens that we would not consider acceptable 2 years ago eg canon 24-240 and Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM 4%distortion, 3.5stops wide open at 16mm]
[the new RF 15-35 has 5stop vignetting/3% barrel at 15mm !!! - it takes a lot to correct this and requires mega dynamic range in corners. RF15-35 at f8/18mm is 3800/3300, 2.5 stops vig.at 30mpx vs TS17 3300/2900, 1stop vig. [similar iq after adjusting for mpx but worse vignetting on RF]
In addition, practically, I am finding that my flip in vari nd with my TS17, TS24, zeiss 15/2.8.... just make filters way easier to use and cause me to think it will be a long time for me to switch to RF UWA, WA. Practically in landscape, while shooting in the early light/dark not having multiple filters is a big bonus. eg You don't need multiple nds/cpls with permutations at 77mm and 88mm.
eg I anticipate the resolution gain of RF on my ts17 (vs rf15ts? with more vign ?) or Zeiss 25/2 (vs ?) is marginal but the practical gains are very significant with flip in vari nd. I am now thinking I will skip canon RF TS 15 for the laowa 15 shift (lighter and EF).
I hope Zeiss, Sigma, Laowa, Tamron continue the EF mount stuff. I don't want to go RF on wa.
