Rainbow Chaser wrote:
How do the better L-series, EF-mount lenses compare to their RF-mount equivalents? For instance, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L EF IS II USM Lens was highly praised. Is the RF-mount version as good?
In most cases, RF lenses are a little better when you're looking at direct equivalents. In some cases, a LOT better. The 70-200mm lenses are generally on-par with the v. III EF version, with the Z model in RF perhaps being a bit better. The RF 24-105mm f/4L is better than the EF model.
In the ultra-wide space, the 16-35mm f/4L is fairly similar to the 14-35mm f/4L, with the 14-35mm maybe being a touch better in the overlapping range. The 16-35mm f/2.8L III and the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L are largely identical optically.
The primes are almost all significantly better in the optics department on the RF side when you're comparing like for like, if you consider 'better' as sharper, with lower CA and cleaner bokeh. But in any case, you can use both EF and RF glass on any R body with ease, and in most cases the EF glass performs better on RF than on an EF body. I have the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, and it's absolutely brilliant on RF, because it nails focus every time (plus stabilization)
