MintMar wrote:
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.
Oddly enough, I had never actually considered this constraint before (analog camera compatibility). Now that you point it out, it seems obvious.
garyvot wrote:
Oddly enough, I had never actually considered this constraint before (analog camera compatibility). Now that you point it out, it seems obvious.
I'm sure Canon's engineers are overjoyed at being free from having to design lenses that are compatible with (including AF) on bodies made before many of them were even born. Imagine if PCs were still required to boot from a floppy in 2024.
I'll only speak for the lenses I've personally used, for me, the IS on the EF100L didn't play nice with the R5 at macro distances, the RF100L IS does and it gives me 1.4x magnification as a bonus.
The RF85STM added IS and removed a lot of CA compared to the EF85mm f/1.8, at the expense of focusing speed.
The 100-500L added 100mm, while keeping the same physical aperture size and improved the IS over the 100-400L II
On the flip side, I enjoy using the EF-RF filter adapter, no need to fiddle with front filters on my EF180L, the CPL is in the adapter and I can easily turn it while holding the camera. Same for the MP-E 65mm.
The term "better" is highly subjective, --weight, ergonomics, features, optical performance, adaptability, etc., etc.
To compare a particular lens model like the EF24-105F4L VS the RF24-105F4L is fair game, but to imply that all RF lenses are "better", in every way, than all EF lens is a stretch.
eddieb wrote:
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.
You've received some learned responses to your question. I have no doubt that re-engineering a camera lens after ≈ 40 years of use will provide improvement.
The real questions are 1) Can you see it? and 2) Does it actually make a difference after your photo has been developed? Have only a tiny bit of experience with the whole RF world (a few hours of playing around with a friend's), and quite bluntly, I found it nearly impossible to tell the difference between 2 pic taken at same time, same place with RF and EF lenses and developed the same.
No doubt that the extinction of the shutter has changed the photo world (to say nothing of the cell phone), so likely that's enough motivation to take the leap. OTOH lot of GAS running around this forum, so who knows? I'm sticking with an excellent selection of EF cameras and lenses.
Mike_5D wrote:
I'm sure Canon's engineers are overjoyed at being free from having to design lenses that are compatible with (including AF) on bodies made before many of them were even born. Imagine if PCs were still required to boot from a floppy in 2024.
I don't think the AF plays any role at all - ever since Canon DSLRs had autofocusing live view (450D?), they were doing basically the same as RF cameras do now. All they can get rid of is additional optics that made sure the image projected on the sensor is optically as corrected as possible - since FW will do it now.
OntheRez wrote:
You've received some learned responses to your question. I have no doubt that re-engineering a camera lens after ≈ 40 years of use will provide improvement.
The real questions are 1) Can you see it? and 2) Does it actually make a difference after your photo has been developed? Have only a tiny bit of experience with the whole RF world (a few hours of playing around with a friend's), and quite bluntly, I found it nearly impossible to tell the difference between 2 pic taken at same time, same place with RF and EF lenses and developed the same.
No doubt that the extinction of the shutter has changed the photo world (to say nothing of the cell phone), so likely that's enough motivation to take the leap. OTOH lot of GAS running around this forum, so who knows? I'm sticking with an excellent selection of EF cameras and lenses.
I haven't seen a difference in photos on this forum in 20 years other than high ISO shots. Stills haven't changed as the end results are pretty much the same here. Video on the other hand has come a long long long way.
The newer gear just makes it all much much easier to capture. A lot less skill and luck required.
IMO it's now the software in the last few years that's becoming the game changer.
MintMar wrote:
I don't think the AF plays any role at all - ever since Canon DSLRs had autofocusing live view (450D?), they were doing basically the same as RF cameras do now. All they can get rid of is additional optics that made sure the image projected on the sensor is optically as corrected as possible - since FW will do it now.
That 450D isn't going to AF an f/7.1 or f/11 lens but every RF body will.
Mike_5D wrote:
That 450D isn't going to AF an f/7.1 or f/11 lens but every RF body will.
Well the lens you can mount on 450D will all end at f/5.6 anyway. Yes, you can make it more using the TCs, but I don't see any reason the live view could not focus past physical f/5.6 on low end Canon DSLR. Unfortunately, I cannot check this myself - I don't have a TC + lens combination that would produce EF lens with the maximum aperture of say f/8. I have just 1.4x TC and only two compatible lenses: 70-200/2.8L IS Mk2 and 135L
I've never owned a 450D but my last two DSLRs, the 90D and 6D MK II, could AF at F8 using the optical VF (and in LV as well). As I recall, 27 of the 45 AF points worked with F8 lenses. Very handy when I used an extender. F8 AF was common in the optical VF of the last generation or two of Canon DSLRs. With that said, AF on my R7 and R6 MK II have much higher keeper rates than my last DSLRs in terms of sharp images of moving subjects. Clouds and smooth walls and subjects predominantly made of horizontal lines are the only areas mirrorless struggles whereas late model DSLRs usually snag focus.
Gochugogi wrote:
I've never owned a 450D but my last two DSLRs, the 90D and 6D MK II, could AF at F8 using the optical VF (and in LV as well). As I recall, 27 of the 45 AF points worked with F8 lenses. Very handy when I used an extender. F8 AF was common in the optical VF of the last generation or two of Canon DSLRs. With that said, AF on my R7 and R6 MK II have much higher keeper rates than my last DSLRs in terms of sharp images of moving subjects. Clouds and smooth walls and subjects predominantly made of horizontal lines are the only areas mirrorless struggles whereas late model DSLRs usually snag focus....Show more →
Yes, some last generation DSLRs could AF at f/8, maybe in some limited fashion. My 5D3 could, but only with the center point. But typically, you'd need f/5.6 or better to AF going back to the film cameras that existed when EF was created. No longer being held to f/5.6 opens up options that didn't exist before.
eddieb wrote:
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.
Imo it's useless to make generalisations here.
It's lens specific, and beyond that characteristic specific as well.
I do believe the RF communication protocols allow for better stabilization (yes, I think all RF IS lenses have better IS), but for AF performance I'm not so sure it makes a huge difference. Probably not.
steamtrain wrote:
Imo it's useless to make generalisations here.
It's lens specific, and beyond that characteristic specific as well.
I do believe the RF communication protocols allow for better stabilization (yes, I think all RF IS lenses have better IS), but for AF performance I'm not so sure it makes a huge difference. Probably not.
The move away from mechanical linkage for manually focusing lenses and completely electronic focus has probably provided a boon for contemporary lens focus speed. I think people have become OK with not being able to manually focusing a lens without the camera, which is why L series lenses are using Nano USM motors.
With the EF lenses, they still had to count in the film legacy.
