From what I understand, rolling shutter shouldn’t be that much of a problem for most sports, except when things are moving real fast, a pitch ball and a swinging baseball bat, tennis racket, golf club. For basketball, football, soccer, you might just have the rolling shutter affect in an occasional shot. I generally shoot a stacked sensor to get around that, but I have used the R6ii in mechanical and not worried so much about the fps.
elusive2591 wrote:
Very reassuring information. I was also wondering about the rolling shutter issue with the electronic shutter and the fps with the mechanical shutter. My XT5 gives me 15 fps with the mech shutter and I understand the R6 mkll is 12. Great info about the EF 100-400! I almost bought that lens back in the day but never got around to it. I used my 300 2.8 with the 1.4 most of the time or the 70-200 2.8 with the 1.4. So many questions before I jump back into Canon! Thanks
Thanks Hoagie058 - Great info! Fuji has been fun but I need to get back to my pro gear. A friend has an R6 he shoots sports and low light ISO stuff with the high ISO stuff is way better than my XT5. Well it's a journey I guess.
elusive2591 wrote:
Very reassuring information. I was also wondering about the rolling shutter issue with the electronic shutter and the fps with the mechanical shutter. My XT5 gives me 15 fps with the mech shutter and I understand the R6 mkll is 12. Great info about the EF 100-400! I almost bought that lens back in the day but never got around to it. I used my 300 2.8 with the 1.4 most of the time or the 70-200 2.8 with the 1.4. So many questions before I jump back into Canon! Thanks
With regard to your question about the original 300/2.8 and 100/2.0, I still have and use both. While I currently use them with an R5II, I did adapt them to the R6II previously and remember them working quite well. Both lenses are still very useful for me across multiple systems (including Fuji).
Regarding rolling shutter in ES, it really depends on what kind of sports you’re shooting and at what venue (potential banding issues also). The readout speed was not great coming in at almost 15ms. Still usable for certain things, but know that there is going to be a decent probability of rolling shutter when shooting things moving laterally at decent speeds. While the mk II was better than the original (around 20ms IIRC), it still wasn’t blazing fast.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
When I started digging in the closet to see just how many EF mount lenses I still have and use, it actually surprised me as I can't believe I'm still in the double digits.
Some shots from various EF lenses on various bodies/systems.
Seeing the lovely photo of the young girl on the last page reminds me how much I love the Canon 100mm f2. For me, this is one of the most underrated EF lenses out there. And the fact that you can buy a used one for $250 in incredible. I also use my EF lenses on a Sony (A7riii) with the MC-11 and the AF works really well. I see you use the Fringer Pro III with EF glass on your X-H2. Are you satisfied with the AF on the Fringer? And is there any special reason to get the III over the II? I appreciate the feedback as I'm considering one of the Fringers for my X-t30.
Coltrane wrote:
Seeing the lovely photo of the young girl on the last page reminds me how much I love the Canon 100mm f2. For me, this is one of the most underrated EF lenses out there. And the fact that you can buy a used one for $250 in incredible. I also use my EF lenses on a Sony (A7riii) with the MC-11 and the AF works really well. I see you use the Fringer Pro III with EF glass on your X-H2. Are you satisfied with the AF on the Fringer? And is there any special reason to get the III over the II? I appreciate the feedback as I'm considering one of the Fringers for my X-t30.
...Show more →
Still love that ancient 100mm as well, sans its diva-ish nature when it comes to super bright light anywhere near the frame. . I’ve used it on my Fuji bodies as well, and it’s performed admirably when I’ve wanted a compact fast-ish 150mm equivalent.
With regard to AF performance on the Fringer III, it’s really lens and body dependent. Oddly enough with my two big telephotos (200/2.0 and 300/2.8), they both seem to be less finicky on my X-T4 compared to the X-H2. Works well enough even on the X-H2, but it sporadically does that thing where it loses all sight of anything in the frame and reracks from MFD to infinity before it can come back to its senses. I’d say overall, it reminds me of how my EF lenses performed back in the A7RII/IIIdays, which is good enough for general shooting but definitely not ideal for action. Relative to my A7RV and A7CII (with MC-11 and MB IV) though, the Fringer III is definitely weaker with AF on both Fuji bodies.
From what I can tell, the only difference between the Fringer II and III is the weather resistance gasket. Otherwise, they appear to share the same firmware (at least from what I could see on the website when I went to update the III).
elusive2591 wrote:
I guess my question is how well will these two EF lenses work with the adapter.
Canon R bodies support EF autofocus protocols natively, and all adapted EF lenses focus as well or better with Canon mirrorless bodies as they ever did on DSLRs. You should not be disappointed.
The only caveat is that older EF lenses (introduced prior to 2010 or so) will be framerate limited to about 7 FPS in continuous shooting modes on R bodies.
elusive2591 wrote:
I'm also going to pick up a used EF 100-400 f4.5/5.6 for shooting field sports.
If you can swing it, I recommend the EF 100-400L II. It is a better lens optically and mechanically, and also does not have the frame rate limitation I mentioned above.
Welcome to the forum and good luck with your return to Canon!
Once I realised that RF glass can only ever be used with R bodies (unlike the versatile/plentiful EF/EF-s) I stopped lusting.
Recently added the EF 70-200 F4L is Mark II (mint, boxed and ludicrously cheap!! )
It sees use on my DSLR’s (crop & FF) on my Canon M system and also my R100/R50
Every so often I get a little tempted by the newer RF lenses, for example the 50 1.4 VCM with it’s crazy fast AF and state of the art sharpness, or the RF 70-200 2.8 with its more compact design. I usually mull things over for a bit, then dismiss the idea because I don’t think the outlay/reward balance is there for me. I mean the 50 VCM might be better than my Sigma 50 Art in certain ways, but I can’t fault the Art in use and it’s taken some of my most treasured shots. Similarly my EF 70-200 2.8L II is bulky and heavy, but its AF, optical performance and resilience don’t leave me wanting in the slightest.
Looking through this thread I realize that I need to add a new factor to any future mullings-over, which is the ability to use my EF lenses on a surprisingly wide range of mirrorless bodies - and not just the Canon ones.
. I’ve used it on my Fuji bodies as well, and it’s performed admirably when I’ve wanted a compact fast-ish 150mm equivalent. 
