Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Why better?

eddieb
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Why better?

I keep reading about how much better rf lenses are compared to ef lenses with adapters are. I haven’t notice anybody really state what makes rf lenses better. Other than size and weight, what makes them better.

Jul 03, 2024 at 09:11 AM

matejphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Why better?

Just in general more modern optics. Not that much to do with them being mirrorless. The 70-200 f/2.8 probably got much smaller since they can get the lens groups closer to the sensor.

But overall I think it is mostly just them being newer, more complex designs. Also competition got MUCH better. In early 2000s I would say Nikon and Canon were ahead of everyone. Now Sony and Sigma are producing great lenses.

Lenses just get better with time:
The old L zooms (e.g. 20-35 L and 17-35 L) were good for that day. But they are awful by today's standards.

Jul 03, 2024 at 10:07 AM

tr1957
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Why better?

Some RF lenses are also smaller or better balanced than an EF+adapter.

Jul 03, 2024 at 10:28 AM

kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Why better?

There are a handful of things that make the lenses better in theory.

The shorter flange distance (distance from mount to sensor / film) apparently makes some lens easier to design to retain fidelity. Seems that it moves the large elements from the front to the rear of the lens.

By virtue of the shorter flange distance making some designs easier, I think that allows glass elements to be smaller, which can reduce costs or allow for the production of far more exotic designs (e.g. the Canon 28-70 f/2L).

DSLRs rely on the SLR component, a complete mechanical device that will eventually break. Mirrorless lenses do not.

Personally, the size difference is the biggest benefit for me. The smallest Canon full frame DSLR, the 6D/6D II, is still much larger than my Canon RP, but the RP has better IQ, better focusing and great Live View.

If you're happy with your DSLR and EF lenses, don't worry about upgrading. I still kind of miss my EF 28mm f/1.8 lens (I'll have to make do with the RF 35mm f/1.8, I suppose). I only changed over due to size and weight.

Jul 03, 2024 at 10:32 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Why better?

Generally I've found that the RF versions are varying degrees sharper and higher in contrast/saturation with better flare resistance. Certain lenses like the 70-200s are also much lighter and more compact (when at 70mm) than the EF versions, but that also came with tradeoffs some don't like, such as the extending zoom design and no TC compatibility. Certain lenses also don't exist in EF mount, such as the 28-70/2, 24-105/2.8, 100-300/2.8. Certainly those are somewhat specialized and very expensive lenses, but if you can benefit from what they offer, there isn't an EF equivalent. On the entry level side of the system, all of the 'budget' zooms appear to be sharp and no longer the crappy 'kit' zooms of the past. Canon is also doing interesting things with compact, inexpensive lenses like the 16/2.8 and 28/2.8.

EF lenses will continue to be as good as they were on EF cameras, though AF performance tends to improve when adapted to R cameras. RF lenses benefit from current technologies, both optical and electronics... Ultimately it's really going to depend on your photography and whether the RF performance improvements will make any difference for your work.

Jul 03, 2024 at 10:53 AM

Llewtwo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Why better?

It's hard to tell how much of this is objective versus subjective. I have a nice assortment of both EF and RF glass. Similar focal lengths to the EF version seem sharper to me in their RF counterparts. That said if you took an image from each under the same conditions I don't believe anyone could tell them apart reliability or predictably. In some cases, like the 28-70 f2 or 135 f1.8, there isn't an EF counterpart. So the two biggest things I think I notice are the somewhat snappier auto focus and sharpness. The difference in image quality seems small but where I notice the difference in the advances in technology seems to be in the speed of the autofocus and the percentage of frames that are in focus which seems to be a combination of body and lense choice. EF glass likewise seems to perform even better on R bodies though some of that is the function of higher fps and eye focus and so on.

Jul 03, 2024 at 11:03 AM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Why better?

I used the original EF 24-105 L on the 5D through the 5D4 and was very pleased with it. I got the RF 24-105 L with my R5 and noticed stars patterns on night shot lights for the first time. Part of this may be the R5's 45 MP but the RF lens noticeably keeps up with its resolution in my use.

The 24 and 35 STM primes are both f1.8 vs f2.8 and f2. And both go 1:2 magnification. Both are sharp in my use. Their STM focus motors may be a bit slower than the EF USM motors.

The RF 100-500, well, goes to 500. And the detail I get from it on the R5 is noticeable - I was pleasantly surprised by some of the shots I took on a recent Baja trip.

The RF 16 f2.8 and RF 100-400 are good lenses that don't exist in the EF lineup.

OTOH, most of the RF-S lenses pale in comparison to their EF-S counterparts and often are slowed down EF-M lenses. The RF-S 18-150 is the exception and really nice on my R7. I have the RF-S 10-18 which is slow but sharp and small. One has to remember that the R bodies can autofocus slower than f5.6 or f8. An acceptable trade-off in some circumstances?

Jul 03, 2024 at 11:09 AM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Why better?

matejphoto wrote:
Just in general more modern optics. Not that much to do with them being mirrorless. The 70-200 f/2.8 probably got much smaller since they can get the lens groups closer to the sensor.

But overall I think it is mostly just them being newer, more complex designs. Also competition got MUCH better. In early 2000s I would say Nikon and Canon were ahead of everyone. Now Sony and Sigma are producing great lenses.

Lenses just get better with time:
The old L zooms (e.g. 20-35 L and 17-35 L) were good for that day. But they are awful by today's standards.

"Awful" is a bit too strong for me. Look at this comparison of the 17-40L to RF lens. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=1414&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4 The 17-40 L is considered by most to be not great but its light, its cheap, and at f8 beyond 20mm and longer its excellent for landscape functionally and iq.

The older lens are fine. The biggest difference is that the new software corrects the flaws in design.

Jul 03, 2024 at 11:52 AM

matejphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Why better?

Scott Stoness wrote:
"Awful" is a bit too strong for me. Look at this comparison of the 17-40L to RF lens. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=1414&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4 The 17-40 L is considered by most to be not great but its light, its cheap, and at f8 beyond 20mm and longer its excellent for landscape functionally and iq.

The older lens are fine. The biggest difference is that the new software corrects the flaws in design.

I meant the flagship (in 1996) 17-35mm f/2.8 L. At that time that lens was something, a zoom that went all the way to 17mm.
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef336.html

The budget 17-40mm was my first real lens on the 10D and at the time I thought it was incredible. I don't even remember when I sold it.
I still have the 16-35mm II and it is worth very little now (also has a spider in it).

And I meant "awful" with respect to the original prices of these lenses in late 1990s and early 2000s. A kit sigma zoom from 2000 will be much worse.

Edited on Jul 03, 2024 at 12:27 PM · View previous versions

Jul 03, 2024 at 12:24 PM

Pixelpuffin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Why better?

I miss the build quality and faster aperture of older ef glass, particularly the zooms. 7.1 is absolutely nothing to boast about …. Looking at you 24-105😳

Funny you mention the 17-35mm 2.8
I bought a new one in 1997….£1575!!
Still have a 17-40, it almost worthless these days so keeping it.

Jul 03, 2024 at 12:27 PM

Tim Kamppinen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Why better?

I don’t know how much this applies to the other RF primes (I shot Nikon before going Canon mirrorless) but I have used the EF 50 1.2 and for my purposes it’s almost unusable wide open. Maybe for a specific portrait shot where I want a blurry soft focus look but that’s about it. I guess some people like that but I generally want whatever is in focus to be sharp… The RF 50 1.2 by comparison is extremely sharp and has great contrast wide open and I will shoot all day at a wedding at 1.2 only stopping down when I need more DoF.

Jul 03, 2024 at 12:39 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Why better?

When the EF 50/1.2 was released everyone expected it to be a 50mm version of the 85/1.2L. But it wasn't. Canon never stated it but it's clearly a 'character' lens and somewhat similar to Nikon's 58/1.4, which I believe is also a love/hate type of lens among Nikon shooters.

But I agree, the EF 50/1.2 was usually a frustrating lens to use, in part due to its focus shift slightly stopped down and at nearer distance. That was a consequence of its high spherical aberration, but that SA was also a reason for its 'gentle' rendering, which I really liked in the f/2 range.

Llewtwo wrote:
It's hard to tell how much of this is objective versus subjective.

I started transitioning to RF in late 2022 with only EF lenses. I shoot a lot of events with relatively high image volumes and spend a lot of time working on those in post. As I integrated RF lenses into the system, it quickly became clear while in post that my EF lenses were less 'punchy' than the RFs and required separate tweaks to unify the look from a shoot. This isn't unique to Canon either as I have experienced subtle differences between lens models in other systems too. But IMO the difference between some of the EFs I used for many years vs. the new RFs added to the system were somewhat less subtle. And I still see it with the EFs I regularly use: 85/1.4L IS and 200-400/4.

But differences aren't just in post. Some of my EFs were relatively old, like the 135/2. With that lens in the rotation, every time I would use it, it just felt like everything slowed down a lot. In EFCS or full mechanical shutter, the R6/R6II's fps rate drops a fair amount with old lenses like the 135. And that would throw me off because it just felt a lot less responsive (even though focus was still fast).

Jul 03, 2024 at 02:22 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Why better?

Canon has your answer: Canon RF lenses are better than EF lenses because the RF mount architecture enables much faster communication between the camera and the lens, much greater data transfer, and support for the latest focusing, image stabilisation and optical technologies. The reduced back focus distance also allows for lens designs with no performance compromises.

https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/#:~:text=Canon%20RF%20lenses%20are%20better,image%20stabilisation%20and%20optical%20technologies.

Jul 03, 2024 at 02:41 PM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Why better?

Pixelpuffin wrote:
I miss the build quality and faster aperture of older ef glass, particularly the zooms. 7.1 is absolutely nothing to boast about …. Looking at you 24-105😳

It succeeds in being an inexpensive, small-ish, full frame lens with good image quality and excellent IS that reduces the need to buy a second, smaller, system for travel or other less photo-intensive situations.

Jul 03, 2024 at 02:50 PM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Why better?

Pixelpuffin wrote:
I miss the build quality and faster aperture of older ef glass, particularly the zooms. 7.1 is absolutely nothing to boast about …. Looking at you 24-105😳
Mike_5D wrote:
It succeeds in being an inexpensive, small-ish, full frame lens with good image quality and excellent IS that reduces the need to buy a second, smaller, system for travel or other less photo-intensive situations.

I tried that lens and it didn't compare well to the RF L version. There was the EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM that received little notice and probably didn't compare to the EF L. Dusting Abbot said it wasn't very exciting but had no major flaws. It had a faster aperture but weighed more than a quarter pound more. It was 1:3.3 vs the RF 1:2.5.

Jul 03, 2024 at 03:12 PM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Why better?

Of course it doesn't compare to an L lens. It's also smaller and MUCH cheaper. than an RF L lens. I have an EF 24-70 f/2.8 II. It's a better lens. Both have their uses depending on the situation.

Jul 03, 2024 at 03:48 PM

MintMar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Why better?

matejphoto wrote:
Just in general more modern optics. Not that much to do with them being mirrorless. The 70-200 f/2.8 probably got much smaller since they can get the lens groups closer to the sensor.

Medium and long lenses don't really benefit from the removal of the mirrorbox, since their focal length is longer than the flange distance of the EF mount is. It's wide lenses that benefit most, because there had to be additional optics to get those short focal lengths' pictures on that pretty distant sensor deep in the mirrorbox. Now with RF sensor much close to the mount, a lot of this is not required anymore, maybe just to make the light rays hit the edges of the sensor as close to perpendicular as possible.

Most probably the internal zooming RF 70-200 zoom (provided Canon makes one) would be as long as the EF 70-200 with the EF-RF adapter attached.

Canon of course made a different approach to the RF lenses, there is a lot of image corrections that are now made in firmware, as there will be no RF camera that would ever use film.

With the EF lenses, they still had to count in the film legacy. Now, they can perhaps simplify the lenses a bit with a less of optical correction in glass.

I'm still not sure if I like that approach. :-)

Jul 03, 2024 at 05:02 PM

Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Why better?

While most RF designs are smaller and lighter, a few are larger than their EF counterparts, e.g., EF 50 1.2L vs RF 50 1.2L. Not a fan of adapters on small lenses, albeit on larger lenses I'm okay with it. For me the smooth video focus of Nano USM on RF L lenses is a big improvement over jerky and abrupt ring USM on EF L series. I don't know if every RF design is optically better than late model EF designs but my RF 24-105 4L and RF 70-200 4L were a step up from the EF counterparts I sold.

Jul 03, 2024 at 07:12 PM

Mike_5D
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Why better?

Gochugogi wrote:
While most RF designs are smaller and lighter, a few are larger than their EF counterparts, e.g., EF 50 1.2L vs RF 50 1.2L. Not a fan of adapters on small lenses, albeit on larger lenses I'm okay with it. For me the smooth video focus of Nano USM on RF L lenses is a big improvement over jerky and abrupt ring USM on EF L series. I don't know if every RF design is optically better than late model EF designs but my RF 24-105 4L and RF 70-200 4L were a step up from the EF counterparts I...Show more →

The RF 24-70 2.8 is also longer than the EF version 2, pretty much matching the size of the EF+adapter. It does add IS though. I've avoided using EF lenses for video because the USM isn't quite silent. I don't own any RF-L lenses, but I find the 24-105 STM and 24-240 are quiet enough.

Jul 03, 2024 at 07:21 PM

Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Why better?

My old ring USM lenses—besides jerky focus—made high pitched chirps on the audio track. Not motor noise or moving elements but some type of RFI? I use outboard audio for sound (music performances) but could hear the chirps on the camera guide/scratch tracks.

Jul 03, 2024 at 07:31 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.