Canon EOS R Series Cameras

harpistic said:
Argh, should I not get the EF 24-70mm II 2.8, then?

I’m planning on replacing my Nikon DSLRs with either a R6ii and a R5ii or two R6iis, and I was assuming I’d get the EF 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 II 2.8. Do I have to get both of the lenses as RFs, or just the shorter one?
Click to expand...
No sold it, crazy field curvature, crappy corners. Terrible lens for anything but event work actually.

While 70-200mm II is passable on low megapickles camera, it will look dreadful on something like R5 or 5Ds. Even on R6 you can clearly see difference between Sigma 135mm ART; while it is not dealbreaker it is there already.

Why not just buy a Nikon or even Sony then you can have Tamron which are already better than Canons, or for another step up Sigma DN ART, all for no more than these crappy old L zooms
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
No sold it, crazy field curvature, crappy corners. Terrible lens for anything but event work actually.

While 70-200mm II is passable on low megapickles camera, it will look dreadful on something like R5 or 5Ds.
Click to expand...

Thank you so so very much - I had absolutely no idea at all about the EF quality; I’ve spent ages now going through threads in the Canon sub on Reddit, and looked for secondhand and grey prices.

And drat - RF lenses means no budget for a R5ii, but at least this means shopping with only Panamoz.

And many thanks again!

(Edit: I’m mostly a dance photographer, so I need the low light autofocus performance of those bodies, I’m so going to miss my D6.)
 
Last edited:
Question is, I need some help and advice.

Thinking of an R5 mk2 to replace the 1 Dx mk2, now should I replace the 100-400 4.5-5.6 with a 100-500.......and my 28-70 2.8 EF with the R equivalent?

Photography is largely wildlife , sorry if this has been largely covered elsewhere folks, appreciate comments.

Thanks for the answers to my question above and apologies for the length of time taken to reply, blame Calmac and the dreadful ferry situation in the Scottish isles!

Reading the replies it seems to me..

1. There is some feeling that the EF 24-70 mk2 isn't a good lens?...must say I'm a bit surprised at that, it seemed ok to me

2. I might not gain much in IQ going to an RF 100-500 from my existing EF 100-400 mk2 ....what about autofocus speed, would the old lens be as good as the new RF one?....and presumably an EF 1.4 TC would be slower still?

Also is there a substantial improvement in tracking eg wildlife with the R5 mk2 over the Mk1?

I don't want to get another 1 series body as I find in my advancing years it's just too heavy to lug around, gave up the big whites some years ago!!

Thanks again!
 
I use the EF24-70 with the adapter on my R3 and it works perfectly. Great image quality. I've had my R3 for about 18 months now, and I'm still only using EF lenses with the Canon adapter. I've not felt the need to replace any lenses for the RF equivalent

I did book a free hire of a RF100-500 through Canon for the BTCC at Knockhill. The focussing speed was certainly quicker than the 100-400 Mk2 I used birefly many years ago, but that was on a different body so likely not comparable. The 500m reach was handy, but I didn't get as many "sharp" keepers with it, mostly because it was hand held instead of using a monopod as I do with my 500mm f4. It was however a pleasure to walk around with it all day being so light, instead of the 500mm f4, monopod and monopod head.
 
George said:
1. There is some feeling that the EF 24-70 mk2 isn't a good lens?...must say I'm a bit surprised at that, it seemed ok to me
Click to expand...
no it is not. I strongly regret taking it to some of the nicest places on my 22MP 5D3 and dealing with crippled edges is now next to impossible. It is back and forth trip to sharpen AI and it is still not that great. On 50MP as you guessed it proved to be a complete disaster; I only regret not selling it on years ago.

The big problem is that once your centre is focused on something reasonable some distance away, your edges will be focus only a few short meters in. Great if you are shooting a street scene into a distance - your focus will be perfect at much lower aperture than you expect. All flat views have no chance even at f/11. Likewise, forget group shots in a line. Lens confirmed to be a good copy by Canon btw.

35-50mm is in fact particularly tragic.

Not a major problem if you only shoot isolated subjects with shallow DOF, however it is still lacking microcontrast compared to most other lenses. The good part is flare resistance and nice colours. On 12MP cameras that probably would have been enough.

Any Sigma ART prime will eat it for breakfast at any aperture, and likewise would do even a cheapo Tamron 28-75mm III G2 (not available for Canon ONLY). Yes, if you go for a different brand you can have a better brand new lens than this outdated thing used, and probably heavily abused.

Again I feel strongly about this abomination of lens, because it left me to pick up the pieces of images that could have been much sharper and easier to print.

When it comes to RF equivalent, yes it will be better by a little, cost a fortune more and will still fall short of the expectations. Both MTF graphs and comparisons on the digital picture seem to confirm this. All of this when you can buy like 3-4 primes, spend just around £1k and resolve 50MP easily.
 
George said:
Question is, I need some help and advice.

Thinking of an R5 mk2 to replace the 1 Dx mk2, now should I replace the 100-400 4.5-5.6 with a 100-500.......and my 28-70 2.8 EF with the R equivalent?

Photography is largely wildlife , sorry if this has been largely covered elsewhere folks, appreciate comments.

Thanks for the answers to my question above and apologies for the length of time taken to reply, blame Calmac and the dreadful ferry situation in the Scottish isles!

Reading the replies it seems to me..

1. There is some feeling that the EF 24-70 mk2 isn't a good lens?...must say I'm a bit surprised at that, it seemed ok to me

2. I might not gain much in IQ going to an RF 100-500 from my existing EF 100-400 mk2 ....what about autofocus speed, would the old lens be as good as the new RF one?....and presumably an EF 1.4 TC would be slower still?

Also is there a substantial improvement in tracking eg wildlife with the R5 mk2 over the Mk1?

I don't want to get another 1 series body as I find in my advancing years it's just too heavy to lug around, gave up the big whites some years ago!!

Thanks again!
Click to expand...
No personal experience of the RF 100-500 but my understanding is it's a touch sharper than the EF100-400 and focuses quicker as well as the extra reach. However as the 100-400 is a great lens I'd suggest keeping it initially and seeing if you do need an upgrade with the R5ii
 
JohnStewart said:
I use the EF24-70 with the adapter on my R3 and it works perfectly. Great image quality. I've had my R3 for about 18 months now, and I'm still only using EF lenses with the Canon adapter. I've not felt the need to replace any lenses for the RF equivalent

I did book a free hire of a RF100-500 through Canon for the BTCC at Knockhill. The focussing speed was certainly quicker than the 100-400 Mk2 I used birefly many years ago, but that was on a different body so likely not comparable. The 500m reach was handy, but I didn't get as many "sharp" keepers with it, mostly because it was hand held instead of using a monopod as I do with my 500mm f4. It was however a pleasure to walk around with it all day being so light, instead of the 500mm f4, monopod and monopod head.
Click to expand...

Hi John, nice to hear from you again, we met at Knockhill a few years ago when you tried my 400 DO mk2......

I suppose now my route is to go for either an R5 mk1 (cheaper?) and mk2 and try my existing lenses with an adaptor....as I said, I don't now want the weight of a 1 series type body and I'd hope the R5 would give me better tracking than the 1 Dx mk2 which does require quite a lot of hard work but has done me well over the years.

So the question is...R5 mk1, R5 mk2 ........

Cheers, George.
 
I use the RF 100-500 and the RF 200-800 on an R7, I sold my EF 100-400 when I got the RF 100-500, the RF lens is an all around better than the EF, faster focus, a bit more length and crazy good IS. But my go to lens for birds is the RF 200-800, perhaps a tad slower than the 100-500 but still very fast, perhaps a tad less sharp but still very good and that reach....
 
George said:
Hi John, nice to hear from you again, we met at Knockhill a few years ago when you tried my 400 DO mk2......

I suppose now my route is to go for either an R5 mk1 (cheaper?) and mk2 and try my existing lenses with an adaptor....as I said, I don't now want the weight of a 1 series type body and I'd hope the R5 would give me better tracking than the 1 Dx mk2 which does require quite a lot of hard work but has done me well over the years.

So the question is...R5 mk1, R5 mk2 ........

Cheers, George.
Click to expand...
Yes I remember - hope you are keeping well ?

I'm still using my old 1DX2 alongside the R3. When using a single fixed focus point, there's not much difference in tracking speed and accuracy compared to the R3. However, where the R3 and I assume the R5 wins is when you have subjects that are moving about randomly in the frame. For me I mostly use subject tracking for people/eyes, but I have tried it with birds in the back garden and the tracking is amazing and far better than you could do manually. The R5 mk2 is supposed to be even better in this regard.

If it was me that was buying, this would be my thought process: Given that the R5 mk 1 has been out a few years, you could buy a good one for a sensible price and not have to wait weeks or even months for delivery and get some use out of it before the weather/light gets too poor. If you get on well with it, put in an order for the R5 mk2 and when it arrives, you can sell the R5 mk 1 for not much loss, and maybe by then a grey import discount or winter cashback offer will offset this to almost zero.
 
Last edited:
Just to add to the above. I recently bought an R5 mk 2 from E-finity for £1000 cheaper than UK sprice, and they have them in stock. I then sold my R5 mk1 to MP, who assessed it as like new and paid me around £60 less than E-finity were selling new ones for.
 
Thanks John and Gordon, yes fine thanks John!

Given the above, I might just jump straight in to an R5 mk2, and John's comments about the BIF in his garden could swing it as nowadays birds do interest me as we have white tailed Eagles close to us on the islands and I'm always looking for shots for postcards etc.

Not sure what I'd get for the 1 Dx2, might see what WEX or MPB are offering.
 
Fordsabroad said:
Just to add to the above. I recently bought an R5 mk 2 from E-finity for £1000 cheaper than UK sprice, and they have them in stock.
Click to expand...

Ooh, good to know! They’re a lot cheaper than Panamoz, but after reading through threads on here, I’d thought it’d be better to ask Pana for a price match. How quick was delivery?
 
Thank you - after @LongLensPhotography advised me against EF lenses a few days ago, I’m trying to find any savings or discounts I can get so that I can (somehow) afford the R5ii. The longer warranty and their reputation is why I’d rather go with Panamoz, although e-In has just dropped the R5ii by another £100…

(As opposed to the D5 which MPB simply dropped before posting it to me.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top