rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
@LuckyStrike88 the 100-300 is indeed an amazing lens but I'm not sure it would be noticeably faster focusing than the 300/2.8 IS v2. The major benefit (obviously) is that it's a zoom and appears to be as sharp as the prime.
From my own experience transitioning from EF lenses, if the lens was fast focusing on an EF camera, it was fast on an R but focus was consistently more accurate. I noticed when culling 20 and 40 fps sequences that the camera (R6II in my case) can make substantial focus correction between a single frame, if for some reason it 'blips' for a frame or two. My impression is that AF updates are much faster/higher rate than they were on EOS DSLRs. And that's with the EF 200-400, which is not as super-fast focusing, in my experience, as the EF 400/2.8 and 600/4 primes. There can be situations, such as low subject contrast, when an R camera will considerably slow down AF drive, but this isn't EF lens specific.
IMO the major downside with adapting older EF lenses is, as mentioned, the frame rate drop in the mechanical shutter modes (and apparently possibly also slight drop in e-shutter frame rate). If you were shooting a v1 IS super-tele (or some other older EF lens from before ~2012), on something like a 1DX series, you'd be disappointed with non e-shutter frame rates on R (but focus would still be more consistent than DSLRs).
Focus speed can also vary within the RF lineup, and is dependent on various lens design factors. I've noticed this between the 28-70/2 and the new 24-105/2.8. The 28-70 is what appears to be a traditional USM motor design found in many EF lenses, whereas the new 24-105 is a linear motor design driving a smaller, lighter focusing group. Based on a couple weeks with the 24-105, it does have snappier focus. Whether it got me more correctly focused images than the 28-70 is less certain. I guess my point here is that even in the RF lineup there may be some differences in lens focusing speed depending on the type of focusing motor, size and weight of the focusing group, etc. I generally feel other factors should prioritize choosing an RF lens over EF, such as size, weight and whether the option even exists in EF. The latter is the reason I chose the 28-70/2 and size/weight is the reason I selected one of the RF 70-200s to replace my EF model.
If you work a lot with ND and/or polarizing filters, then the EF-RF adapter with the drop-in filter option is a really compelling reason to use EF lenses on R because you just need one filter set for all of your lenses, including any lenses that would be difficult or expensive to filter conventionally (like the 11-24/4, TS-E 17, 8-15 FE, etc.). There are also 3rd party filters available for this adapter from the likes of Breakthrough and Kolari Vision (and possibly others, too) that expand on the limited options offered by Canon, including for some specialized applications.
|
