Bacalhau wrote:
Not sure if quite understand the issue with the EF teleconverter ....
The RF ones (at least the 1.4×) can’t be fitted behind the adapter. So you need to use an EF teleconverter and fiddle around splitting the stack in the middle instead of at the body mount when swapping the teleconverter on and off.
Maybe just read that again. Personally, I prefer it.
I'd rather swap the EF TC when it is between the adapter and lens ( the only place it can be) rather than when using an EF body, the TC connects directly to camera body.
I find it much easier aligning and connecting the TC to the adapter.
I got my first mirrorless camera, last fall, a used R5. I have a lot of EF glass, acquired over decades, and am happy using an adapter. I did buy a used rf 800 f/11, because I wanted a light telephoto, but it’s my only rf lens.
Choderboy wrote: The RF ones (at least the 1.4×) can’t be fitted behind the adapter. So you need to use an EF teleconverter and fiddle around splitting the stack in the middle instead of at the body mount when swapping the teleconverter on and off.
Maybe just read that again. Personally, I prefer it.
I'd rather swap the EF TC when it is between the adapter and lens ( the only place it can be) rather than when using an EF body, the TC connects directly to camera body.
I find it much easier aligning and connecting the TC to the adapter.
ok, I see - I don't have a RF TC or an EF body, so it's not an issue for me.
Thanks
Regarding EF-EOS R Mount Adapter, we really could do with a specific term to differentiate between other adapters.
ie, Sigma MC-11 adapts EF lenses to Sony Bodies.
Megadap Etz21 adapts Sony lenses to Nikon bodies.
So these adapters not only adapt mounts (ie, physical adapters) but are also Protocol adapters.
In comparison, EF-EOS R Mount Adapter is a physical adapter only and therefore has none of the potential performance issues that can arise with Protocol adapters.
Since I’m not using R and don’t own adapters for the R system, I’m not up to speed on this, but… I think I understood that Canon doesn’t allow R adapters to work with third party lenses. Is that correct?
Though I suppose you could create some kind of Frankenstein Monster adapter system where you put the RF to EF adapter on the camera, then put a EF to something else adapter on that, and then attach the third party lens? (I think that’s sort of parallel to the TC explanation offered earlier.)
I was having fun thinking about using my Pentax MF 80-160 with my Mirex TS adapter on the R system. I suppose I could attach the cano RF/EF adapter to an R camera, attach the Mirex TS adapter to the Canon adapter, then mount the Pentax lens on the Mirex? Of course, the only way to avoid that is to keep using the old body designed for the EF lenses.
My personal situation is more complicated that 45MP versus 50MP versus 60MP, and in a way that relates fairly directly to the point of this thread: the idea of using EF lenses on newer R cameras.
Since I've had my 5DsR since pretty much when it was released (almost exactly a decade ago), I'm getting to the point where I can anticipate replacing it. If Canon had not moved from the EF mount to the RF mount (and I understand why this did change) the issue would be simple: I would just get the highest MP Canon camera and continue to use my existing EF lenses. In fact, the difference between 45MP and 50MP is virtually meaningless in terms of image resolution.
But it isn't quite that simple.
Normally I don't think switching brands makes a lot of sense, and I too often see people doing that because they got tired of what they are using, like buying new stuff, and/or imagine that a different brand will change their photography. All of those are generally pretty weak reasons. I feel that it is best to buy into a brand and stick with it.
However...
... to stick with Canon now means moving to the (reportedly excellent) R bodies. While I might use an adapter for one of my current lenses (and perhaps for my Mirex t/s MF lens adapter), if I were to move to R I would also move to RF lenses. That means that when I leave my 5DsR behind eventually, I'm looking at replacing my entire system — either with Canon or with something else. And the usual hesitation about considering other brands is gone, given that the costs of staying with Canon would be very close to the costs of moving to a different brand.
So one thing that I look at when considering brands is where they are in terms of their technology relative to other brand options. At the moment, for my particular needs, I don't see that Canon is providing as much value as a couple of alternatives. I do make use of high resolution sensor cameras, so when I see that Canon has gone from being the leader (by a good margin) in that regard to bringing up the rear, that lowers the prospects that my move would be to the R system. It increases the odds of a moe to the Sony system. (I have a number of photography friends and colleagues who are doing absolutely first class work with Sony, so I don't buy the claims that Sony is no good.)
Is 45MP "good enough?" Sure. If nothing else were viable it would not even be an issue. But, as I think EB-1 was implying (and I agree), it seems "pathetic" (or something close to it) that Canon now offers us less resolution than they did a decade ago.
If you aren't a high res kind of photographer — and not everyone is — then this doesn't matter to you, and I understand. ...Show more →
I guess the question in the end boils down to this: since going RF means buying almost everything all over again (does that include flashes?) and EF lenses can be adapted to pretty much any system with full functionality, do you have to stay with Canon?
My answer would be "no" unless you have a ton of accessories that would still be useful on RF. But I think I've read that even the flash shoe has been changed so the old flashes (like the 430EX I have stashed in a drawer somewhere...) would end up obsolete. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I know my example is not a particularly representative one (going for a Nikon ML camera as a primary unit while adapting EF mount lenses almost exclusively, and using a Canon DSLR as backup, but today, if someone is sticking with Canon in the DSLR->ML transition, it has to be a conscious decision based on something other than "same brand" (because for all intents and purposes, including ergonomics, this is only partly true now), or "being locked into the system" (which you are not - see above).
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
I guess the question in the end boils down to this: since going RF means buying almost everything all over again (does that include flashes?) and EF lenses can be adapted to pretty much any system with full functionality, do you have to stay with Canon?
My answer would be "no" unless you have a ton of accessories that would still be useful on RF. But I think I've read that even the flash shoe has been changed so the old flashes (like the 430EX I have stashed in a drawer somewhere...) would end up obsolete. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I know my example is not a particularly representative one (going for a Nikon ML camera as a primary unit while adapting EF mount lenses almost exclusively, and using a Canon DSLR as backup, but today, if someone is sticking with Canon in the DSLR->ML transition, it has to be a conscious decision based on something other than "same brand" (because for all intents and purposes, including ergonomics, this is only partly true now), or "being locked into the system" (which you are not - see above)....Show more →
All of my EF lenses are extremely useful on RF bodies. They work better on RF bodies than they would via an adapter on another brand body. It is a seemless transition. My 580EX II works perfectly on my R6. Why wouldn't it?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Since I’m not using R and don’t own adapters for the R system, I’m not up to speed on this, but… I think I understood that Canon doesn’t allow R adapters to work with third party lenses. Is that correct?
My Canon R adapters work just fine with my Sigma lenses.
I guess the question in the end boils down to this: since going RF means buying almost everything all over again (does that include flashes?) and EF lenses can be adapted to pretty much any system with full functionality, do you have to stay with Canon?
My answer would be "no" unless you have a ton of accessories that would still be useful on RF. But I think I've read that even the flash shoe has been changed so the old flashes (like the 430EX I have stashed in a drawer somewhere...) would end up obsolete. Correct me if I'm wrong..
That’s the conclusion I have come to, for the reasons that you cite and understand. I _could_ stay with Canon, and if I end up feeling that Canon provides me with what I need as effectively as other manufacturers do, I would prefer to continue with Canon.
But I’m relatively brand-agnostic, and when I’m in a situation where virtually everything would get replaced it would be silly to not take a good look at alternatives.
This is the reasons that I did not jump on the R system bandwagon. (To be clear, I think that the R cameras offer a lot of value to many users.) Fortunately for me, I’m not rally held back by continuing to use the gear I have for now… as I watch the market evolve and learn more about alternatives.
- - -
It is possible that I’m mixing up two separate issues. It seems that while 3rd party lenses cannot use the RF mount on the new cameras, old third-party lenses that worked with the EF mount will work with the EF-RF adapters. Do I have that right?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Since I’m not using R and don’t own adapters for the R system, I’m not up to speed on this, but… I think I understood that Canon doesn’t allow R adapters to work with third party lenses. Is that correct?
Though I suppose you could create some kind of Frankenstein Monster adapter system where you put the RF to EF adapter on the camera, then put a EF to something else adapter on that, and then attach the third party lens? (I think that’s sort of parallel to the TC explanation offered earlier.)
I was having fun thinking about using my Pentax MF 80-160 with my Mirex TS adapter on the R system. I suppose I could attach the cano RF/EF adapter to an R camera, attach the Mirex TS adapter to the Canon adapter, then mount the Pentax lens on the Mirex? Of course, the only way to avoid that is to keep using the old body designed for the EF lenses.
GDan, it's not that hard. Use your existing Canon lenses on an R body already and save money, the cost isn't the same as other brands, unless you are interested in using a 3rd party adapter, not likely to be as seamless, on another brand. You accuse me of strawman arguments, not getting facts straight, look in the mirror, buddy
One thing that surprised me, A7r4 & A7r5 only 7fps vs 5fps on the 5DsR, not that much faster. People say I can't get facts straight, fine, you look it up, got that off sonyalphashooters.com (IIRC.) Uncompressed raw and lossless compressed apparently 7fps, you have to shoot jpeg or compressed raw to get 10fps, which to some degree defeats the purpose of the high resolution body.
You really can't compare the R5 and R5II directly to A7r4 and A7r5, either. The R5 and R5 II are so much faster
gdanmitchell wrote:
It is possible that I’m mixing up two separate issues. It seems that while 3rd party lenses cannot use the RF mount on the new cameras, old third-party lenses that worked with the EF mount will work with the EF-RF adapters. Do I have that right?
Yes you are correct with EF-RF adapters. I have been using my Voigtlander EF, Zeiss EF and Lensbaby Velvet lenses on my RF bodies(R5 MK 1, R5 MKII, Ra) the same way I did when I used them on the 5DsR.
burningheart wrote:
Yes you are correct with EF-RF adapters. I have been using my Voigtlander EF, Zeiss EF and Lensbaby Velvet lenses on my RF bodies(R5 MK 1, R5 MKII, Ra) the same way I did when I used them on the 5DsR.
OK, thanks. That makes sense. One more question — more just out of interest than personal relevance — am I correct to assume that if your third-party EF-compatible lens had AF that this still works correctly when you use the lens on a R camera via the adapter?
gdanmitchell wrote:
OK, thanks. That makes sense. One more question — more just out of interest than personal relevance — am I correct to assume that if your third-party EF-compatible lens had AF that this still works correctly when you use the lens on a R camera via the adapter?
Correct. Stan mentioned earlier his Sigma lenses have no issue using AF. I sold off the last of my non-Canon AF capable EF lenses awhile ago. Kept several Canon EF lenses that I continue to use.
gdanmitchell wrote:
OK, thanks. That makes sense. One more question — more just out of interest than personal relevance — am I correct to assume that if your third-party EF-compatible lens had AF that this still works correctly when you use the lens on a R camera via the adapter?
- - -
On an unrelated subject and about that other guy…
Not. Taking. The. Bait. ;-)
What bait?
The part where I told you to go get an adapter already as opposed to the nonsense you've been spewing? Or the factual post on the A7r series?
Mike_5D wrote:
All of my EF lenses are extremely useful on RF bodies. They work better on RF bodies than they would via an adapter on another brand body. It is a seemless transition. My 580EX II works perfectly on my R6. Why wouldn't it?
Ah, I found what was wrong with flashes: the newest Canon flashes use a multi-function connector that is only compatible with select bodies (R1, R3, R5 II, R6 II, R8, R7, R10 and R50, if we believe Ken Rockwell on that count - sorry for quoting him ). Not the other way around, I presume?
Re: the lenses, the EF-mount lenses work so well at least on Nikon Z bodies that I've never felt the need to consider a Canon RF body. The only issue I know is that it's not advisable to take the lens off the adapter while leaving the latter on the body as long as the metering is on - it's better to change lenses after turning the camera off.
I've had no first-hand experience adapting EF lenses to Sony, Fuji or Leica bodes though, so I can't say how well that works.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
I've had no first-hand experience adapting EF lenses to Sony, Fuji or Leica bodes though, so I can't say how well that works.
I don't have any experience with those either. I _hear_ that Sony is very accepting of third party lenses these days, but that's second-hand information.
I do know that back when Sony was first drawing FF shooters from Canon to their mirrorless full frame bodies that they relied a great deal on people bringing their Canon lenses along for the ride... since at that time Sony didn't make nearly enough lenses. (It looks like they do.)
I had a couple of friends who plunged into the Sony ecosystem back then, former Canon users who adapted their Canon lenses. They were all (mostly) landscape folks so they were often relying on manual focus, so they weren't bothered by some of the glitchy Sony AF performance way back then.
). Not the other way around, I presume?
The only issue I know is that it's not advisable to take the lens off the adapter while leaving the latter on the body as long as the metering is on - it's better to change lenses after turning the camera off.