My wife wants to know what I want for my birthday since it's a big one. I thought about a RF lens or two for my R5, but I don't take as many pictures as I used to. Used to walk around the city but haven't done that in years. I have a few cheaper RF lenses and some excellent EF lenses but I'm tired of the adapter. I will list what I have and maybe you could suggest what EF lenses to sell and what RF you would recommend to buy. I just do general photography and my grandkids. My granddaughter who is 9 is into gymnastics and my grandson who is 6 is into any sport that makes him keep moving. I think baseball is his sport because of his hand eye coordination, smallish size and speed but I think he finds it too slow. Size and weight is becoming more and more important as I get older. Any way here's what I have and maybe suggest a 3 or 4 lens kit that would travel well since I recently retired.
EF 24-70 L II
EF 70-300 L
EF 135L
EF 16-35 f2.8 v1
EF 100L
EF 50 f1.2 L
RF 24-105 STM
RF 35 f1.8
I also have an R5 and grandchildren that age. I like the RF 70-200/2.8 for outdoor and sports. It is a little heavier than the /4 but very nice indoor since it tends to be quit dark in many sports halls.
First of all, happy birthday. Wishing you many, many more years of happiness and new lenses.
Second, I can enthusiastically recommend the RF 70-200 f/4, and think it sounds like the perfect lens for the kit and use case you describe. I use mine frequently for concerts and portraits, many of which are made in lower light, and find it to be a genuine pleasure to travel with, in no small part because of the size/weight/footprint. I would (and did!) gladly trade the stop of light for being able to stick a Coke can-sized, fully featured L-series 70-200 in my small camera backpack and hit the road. I think you'll love it if you try it.
Well, ole Campy, you're still a youngster at 75. The secret is in your 6 year old, keep moving. I'm 81, use an R6 and an RF24-105 F4L and RF200-800. Yes, notice the weight of that 200-800. If those kids are going to become your sporting heroes you will need something longer, 100-400? I still have a few EF lenses that I use but having my most used as RF I can keep the adapters permanently attached to the EF lenses. I find this much better than having to constantly swap out the adapter. I would think the 9 yr old will do most of her gym indoors so go for something fast and versatile for her. Happy birthday and remember you are only as old as you allow yourself to be.
Ferrophot wrote:
Well, ole Campy, you're still a youngster at 75. The secret is in your 6 year old, keep moving. I'm 81, use an R6 and an RF24-105 F4L and RF200-800. Yes, notice the weight of that 200-800. If those kids are going to become your sporting heroes you will need something longer, 100-400? I still have a few EF lenses that I use but having my most used as RF I can keep the adapters permanently attached to the EF lenses. I find this much better than having to constantly swap out the adapter. I would think the 9 yr old will do most of her gym indoors so go for something fast and versatile for her. Happy birthday and remember you are only as old as you allow yourself to be....Show more →
I'm not allowing myself to get old. I play senior softball in the summer and pickleball in the winter. I'm 5' 7" and 150 lbs and still fast as guys 10-15 years younger than me.
I'd drop the 70-300 and swap to RF 100-400... Really light, sharp and fast with great image quality. Nice to use and very easy on the back to carry. I know the traditional path would be the RF70-200 and they are stellar but the 100-400 is a sleeper when you just want less weight and a lot more reach. Fits in well with the 24-105 you have also.
Do you really use the EF 24-70? I know it's a great lens but you have the 24-105 and it's also holding it's value well compared to some of the other EF glass, so it's not likely to get better from a flipping point of view.
I'd probably also drop the EF 50. You have the RF 35 and the EF135. If you care a lot about that gap, you could look at the RF85 f/2. If you like that "character" - seems like the new RF45 is very similar. Not sure of prices but you can probably swap to it for a minor financial hit.
I'd keep the 16-35 as still solid. I'm getting buried with my EF135 f/2 but do you use it a lot? It's a bit of a speciality lens for most people. If you tell me to drop dead for suggesting sacrilege at that level, I completely get it
Edit: Left field suggestion... Drop both the EF24-70 and RF24-105 and look at the RF28-70 f/2.8.... Brilliant IQ, very light and small. I sometimes travel with a 14-35, 28-70 and 100-400 and it's very capable setup with a really wide range.
I bought the 24-105 f4 L with my R5. Later tried the STM version since its lighter and focuses closer, but quickly sent it back. If you really want to see what the R5 can do stick with the L zooms. I like my 35 RF macro and the 16 f2.8 is nice and light. My R5 kit is 16 f2.8, 35 Macro, 24-105 and 100-500 Ls. The 14-35 f4 L is very nice when weight is not an issue and the RF 100-400 is good when weight is an issue.
I'm gonna go a little off script here if you don't mind. Something that doesn't involve the purchase of equipment but would most definitely involve using your existing equipment. Throw in the fact that it would probably be a "once in a lifetime" situation.
I've seen a train ride advertised that I believe starts and ends somewhere in the New England area. It goes west along the northern tier of the country and loops around to head back east along the southern tier of the country. If I recall, the cost is less than that of any L lens. Looked pretty cool.
Along those same lines, I think there is a train ride that travels across Canada. I've heard it quite special as well.
The first two are relatively small, light, decently priced and optically really good even though they're not L series. They'd pair well with the EF 70-300L.
The RF 70-200/2.8 Z is not the best travel/walk-around option, as the aforementioned external zoom 70-200/4 or f/2.8 versions are more portable (when packed in the bag), with the f/4 being very compact. It would pair really nicely with the first two RF zooms. But, considering you would like to photograph your grandkids' sports, some of which will be indoors, you'd benefit from f/2.8 plus the following additional capabilities of the 'Z' version: internal zoom means its zoom ring motion is quite light and can be adjusted easily and quickly with a finger or two. Canon's external zoom lenses in this range tend to have much higher zoom ring resistance that can become tiring during a longer event and simply not as fast to adjust when timing is critical. On that note, the Z's AF is lightning quick and it is a very sharp lens. This means it pairs really well with the teleconverters. I have just briefly compared it with the 1.4x at 280mm against the 100-300/2.8 at 300mm, and sharpness-wise, I couldn't see noticeable differences. Combined with the R5 and 17MP APS-C crop, you can get a lot out of this lens and the TCs. 112-320 equivalent without a TC. 157-448 with the 1.4x. 224-640 with the 2x. In full frame with the TCs: 98-280/4 and 140-400/5.6.
Alternatively, or additionally, any of the f/1.4 VCM primes look great: 20, 24, 35, 50 and 85. Just pick your poison.
Don’t assume every RF lens is better than its EF predecessor. I think the last thing you will want to happen is for your wife to buy you a new lens and then you wanting to keep using the old one instead because it’s better!
For most people (who don’t need to go to 1.4× magnification), the EF 100mm f/2.8 L macro will be a better lens than the RF one because it has mechanical focus, provision for a tripod ring, and doesn’t suffer from focus shift.
On the other hand, from your list
EF 16-35 f2.8 v1
EF 50 f1.2 L
have very definitely been left behind in performance by their RF successors (for the zoom, I mean the 15–35).
Since you mention sports, be aware that EF lenses from before around 2014 can’t keep up with the framerates of many recent RF mount cameras. Your R5 is not such a body (the R5 II is) but it’s something to keep in mind when planning ahead. There’s a list of the lenses which can keep up here (choose “lenses supporting maximum high speed continuous shooting speed” from the menu at left).
Regarding the VCM lenses, I recently bought the 85mm f/1.4 and am fairly happy with it, but it’s an exception among them in not having optical compromises to get to a 67mm filter thread.
The adapters are a lot less annoying if you fit one to every EF lens you will be carrying.
I recently complemented the RF 24-105 STM with the RF 100-400. With those two highly portable lenses I am set for almost everything. I also have the 24-105L and the 70-300L, but when I leave the house it is mostly with the lighter kit and my R8.
In my opinion, the new RF 28-70 f/2.8 IS and RF 16-28 f/2.8 IS zooms are kind of game changers if you are at a stage where you want to lighten things up or simplify your kit.
They are as sharp as the L-series f/2.8 zooms, focus quickly, have weather sealing, and are very lightweight and compact given their speed. They also have OIS, which makes them excellent choices to pair with the R8 (which I love).
This video is ostensibly about the R8, but the main rationale for the author's premise is the availability of these two lenses:
garyvot wrote:
... the new RF 28-70 f/2.8 IS and RF 16-28 f/2.8 IS zooms ... have weather sealing
Where do you get that from? Canon’s site in my country makes no such claim.
For years, reviewers and infuencers repeated the untruth that all L lenses were weather sealed. In the EF era, they weren’t all. Some required a filter to be fitted to complete the weather sealing, and some just weren’t. You can’t trust third parties to get this information correct.
I forgot to mention one thing about the VCM lenses that might be relevant to the OP. The instructions carry a warning that if you have a pacemaker and “feel abnormalities” you should keep away from the product. This is for all the VCMs (it’s the one PDF).
There’s no such warning for my ring or nano USM lenses, and it’s said to be the VCM motors that are the problem.
Unlike USM and other focus motor technology that Canon has used, VCMs use magnets and create a magnetic field. The warning is probably a 'cover your butt' type of legalese statement that Canon's lawyers required, to be able to point to, in case someone tried to sue the company because of apparent electromagnetic interference with a pacemaker.
In June 2024 Canon introduced a new autofocus motor for its lens range. The RF 35mm f1.4L VCM is the first Canon lens to use a linear Voice Coil Motor.
A Voice Coil Motor is a simple type of electric motor which utilises magnets surrounding a coil of wire. Canon has developed a VCM for its lenses as these types of motors are more efficient at moving heavier objects. Canon also says that it’s super-responsive and offers virtually silent autofocus.
------
I'll just point out that a lot of Sony's lenses are linear motor driven, and often by two or four such motors... So if there is a pacemaker interference issue, it won't be one unique to some of Canon's lenses.
rscheffler wrote:
Unlike USM and other focus motor technology that Canon has used, VCMs use magnets and create a magnetic field.
Apparently they use permanent magnets, so whatever risk there might be is still present with the lens unpowered. These new magnetic materials like neodymium are much stronger than the ones children played with in the 1960s.
Google’s AI search unhelpfully says the risk is only closer than 3cm, but clicking on and reading the original paper from Zürich that gives the 3cm figure qualifies that by saying they only used the small magnets they had on hand and were safe to handle, and that larger magnets would have an effect at longer distance. Another paper from the NIH measured an effect at 30cm.
We simply don’t know. Canon knows, but isn’t saying. It could be measured.
Get the RF 70-200/2.8 for your R5 to take photos of your kids.
And I think you could sell the EF 70-300 L, EF 135L, and EF 100L.
Happy birthday and happy holidays!
melcat wrote:
Where do you get that from? Canon’s site in my country makes no such claim.
For years, reviewers and infuencers repeated the untruth that all L lenses were weather sealed. In the EF era, they weren’t all. Some required a filter to be fitted to complete the weather sealing, and some just weren’t. You can’t trust third parties to get this information correct.
The B&H page says the 28-70/2.8 is weathersealed. It’s one reason I bought it. I’ve used it without a problem in pouring rain all day long.
johnvanr wrote:
The B&H page says the 28-70/2.8 is weathersealed. It’s one reason I bought it. I’ve used it without a problem in pouring rain all day long.
You’re right. There’s a visible grommet on the mount and I found a video from Canon USA saying it is.
