A really informed and intelligent ‘Must Watch Before Buying’ video of Canon’s mirrorless cameras and RF lens, with some great images to demonstrate his points. Five Stars !!
Given that Canon have announced that they are releasing 32 new RF lenses over the next 4 years, I hope we will get a few updates from time to time. Personally, I am waiting for the 10-24 f/4 lens that is apparently on the Canon RF road map. If that was available, it would give me, in three lenses, a 'holy trinity' of ranges from 10-500mm - given I have the 24-105 f/4 and the 100-500.
I own the 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 50mm 1.2, and various other RF glass. My favourite is the 35mm 1.8. Just great ergonomics, stabilization and focal length and the image quality is good. 85mm f2 is also great. Would love to see a nice 24mm 1.8
Thank you, this is a really good summary of the RF system. The bipolar nature of the lens lineup is a big barrier to me making the jump. I have an EF (5D IV) kit that I'm pretty happy with, and other than the 70-200mm f/4 there isn't a lens that I would replace any of my EF lenses with, and the higher prices of the L lenses are a bit hard to swallow.
I have an RP (primarily for photography). I agree with everything you said. I will say that it has forced me to become a better technical photographer. I can't rely on the dynamic range to save me in post, so I have to expose properly. It's a no frills camera that doesn't handhold you much so you need to make sure you time your shots properly and can't spray n pray. Overall, I love using it. It's not super forgiving but when you get that perfect picture, the dopamine rush is real
Dustin your comment on the 50mm 1.2 vs 85mm 1.2 is exactly what I like to hear in a review. Lately reviews have become about edge to edge sharpeness and contrast. That's great but there are lenses that are sterile and without character. Hearing head to head this lens gives better rendering (especially with examples), while subjective is more valuable that alot of tests. I think there is a difference in what makes a great lens for photos vs. landscapes in the way it might render a scene.
Hello there - to start I’ll say your videos are awesome! One request, have I…. Could you do a review of good third party EF lens that still work awesome on the Canon RF cameras! Thank you. Take care and be safe out there….
I do have limited perspective there, as I moved a lot of my third party lenses for Sony E-mount alternatives. My experience has been that most third party EF mount lenses work well on Canon RF cameras. I've anecdotally heard of a few hiccups from my audience, but typically firmware updates fix those.
The great things about the Canon RF lens line up are those new compact options: - 70-200 f4 as mentioned in the video within the dimensions of the 24-105 f4 (!) - the tiny 16 f2.8 offers very new options shooting in tight spots, extreme perspectives, a great but challenging fun lens (it does not replace my 16-35 zoom for classical landscape) - similar the 35 Macro, great in nature photography. When I shot more "classical": I did not sell the great EF35 f1.4 A nature photographers must have are the 100-500 or the very affordable RF 100-400. I do miss most a RF 135 prime, either f2 or f1.8
@@DustinAbbottTWI Dustin Shouldn't you do a review of Canon RF options "under 1000" in some future? I am not so much impressed by the last year of RF lenses in general as you expressed. But I do think the lineup 800, 600, the STM primes 85, 50, 35, 16 and some zooms like 100-400, the small 24-105, ... are a quite reasonable stretch for all those focussing to the affordable part of the full frame market.
Great video Dustin. One other thing to consider with canon, although it will impact not that many people, is the advantage of long first or second generation prime lenses in the used market for much much cheaper than the new versions. For example I own Sony and older canons and am thinking of getting into one of the newer canon bodies for, among other reasons, the opportunity to get a 300 2.8, 4.0, or 500 f4 used for much cheaper than the two prime long Sony lenses. I shoot college football in the USA and these are very useful. Again, not a huge consideration for probably 95-99% of photographers but thought I’d mention it as it does matter to me.
I’ve owned all of the cameras in this video, and with exception to the R, I still do. For me, each has its use case for hybrid photo and video (RP-compact/light/expendable;R6-sports/low-light/4k60 video; R5-hi-res, 8k;R3-sports and pro-hybrid video). I sold my R since for its price, single slot, and horrendous 4k crop it wasn’t worth the space in my bag. I completely agree with the pricing and positioning being a mediocre value and counterproductive to growing adoption and conversion of shooters. I would be generally okay with Canon’s pricing IF they gave dual CFExp B slots on my R3 and got rid of all recording limits.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yup - I’m tired of having to mount a Ninja V on every camera in my video setup. Thinking about moving to Sony just to not have to deal with this nonsense
A good round up as usual Dustin, have to say i'm using the R5 right now and it's just superb, however i've been in a quandary about which cheaper backup camera to buy, i'll be selling my trusty 5Dmk4 and just need a backup just incase I had an issue with the R5 on a Commercial job at some point. I also had the Samyang 85mm f1.4 on a try-and-buy basis, but had to let it go as it wasn't fulfilling all of the commercial needs so bit the bullet and purchased the RF85mm f1.2L which is superb!
I agree that we miss some good third party lenses like the compact Samyang 75 1.8, Sigma 90 2.8, Tamron 70-180 2.8... I have RF 16 2.8, 35 1.8 and 85 2.0, but I also use a lot of EF lenses, especially for telephoto.
Love your channel, Dustin. I shot the Nikon D850 with the 200-500 and switched to the R5 and 100-400 ii with and without the 1.4x iii depending on the conditions. I love the setup but am disappointed in the RF 100-500mm. It offers marginally better quality than the EF version and poor teleconverter support with the 300mm zoom restriction, not to mention a plasticky build for the price. I am happy with my setup for several years but am hopeful that 1. Canon releases the R7, and 2. Canon releases either a 150-600 zoom or a 500 f5.6 do type lens. Otherwise, as a wildlife photographer it would be difficult fully committing to the RF system.
Dustin. We need a Nikon Z buying guide with these sober, level-headed takes. If you haven’t used enough of that system, GET TO IT!! Haha. (Thanks for your work.)
Dustin Enjoyed your vid on Canon I'm from an old schooled black n white photography and darkroom work. My Canon d300 needs replacing. Almost purchased the R5. I'm waiting to see the new cameras Canon is working on. Thanks on your in-depth review was wonderful.
Canon needs to bring out some F5.6 500 mm prime for wildlife like the one from nikon.may be a 600 mm f5.6 to better it.I dont mind if it is EOS lens.It could be used with an adapter.May be Wiltrox can do it.
Your reviews are always the best. Totally honest. My thoughts regarding Canon RF lenses are exactly what my impressions have been. I have older Canon gear, a 6D and 5 lenses. They still serve me well. I've been watching the mirrorless market for a long time, thinking one day I may go that route. But, retired and on a fixed income, so that may never happen. I do landscape and nature. The EF 16-35 is a really good wide angle, and disappointed with what I see with the RF replacement, just like you mentioned. The Sony R4 would be a good camera for that. Until seeing this, I never payed much attention to Sony. Becoming a bit more openminded. However, when I compare a Canon R6 to a Nikon Z6II, the Nikon is a much better value for my purpose. I don't need the very best autofocus and do not do video. As crippled as the 6D is with focusing, I do well with it even using it for running events. The ideal kit I would purchase buying from scratch would be the Z6II and the 24-120. Nikon is slower to put out lenses, but what the do, is much more to my liking than Canon. I may in time by a Z6II and just keep the 6D and 300 f4. Wishing you would do reviews on N?ikon mirrorless, but, holly cow, I am sure you are way, way too busy now to consider another system. At any rate, keep up your excellent reviews.
@Kerry Grim Wouldn't a Canon RP with the EF-R adapter and your EF 16-35mm do the job for your needs? You don't need the speed of the R6 and the R might be out because of its bar. A Canon R6 is IMHO even better than the more pricy Z7 II when it comes to wildlife (despite the R6's 20 MP)! The RF 24-105 f4 is really great (here I agree with Dustin Abbott). I really don't know about the Z-mount 24-120 f4. 🤔
Hi Kerry, I would say that MusikPirat is right - rather than a wholesale switch to Nikon (which could get expensive), wouldn't it be better to get an R body and use the adapter with your existing lenses?
@@MusikPiratCH I agree with what you said. The R6 would be really, really good and I like what I see and read about the RF 24-105. The RP would probably do what I would want for the most part. I don’t like using an adapter mostly due to the additional length, but almost certainly lees trouble than having two systems. I also love the results of my 300 f4, even though an old lens. Thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated.
I want to add something to this video. Yes the R is not the best for fast paste action, but boy I've shot good moving objects on the R and the old 5D classic. It takes more patients, but its certainly possible to shoot fast moving objects on there bodys.
Nicely done! Canon really needs to put out some great mid range lenses at realistically mid range prices. I have the RP but I'm hesitant to go further up the line. The R doesn't seem to be a good choice right now (looks like it's about to be replaced) and the R6 seems to be missing "something" 20mp is basically enough but 30 would be better. Anything more advanced is way beyond my budget. But the real problem for me is that the 2 lenses I would purchase (14-35 f4.0 and 70-200 f4.0) are dramatically expensive and I don't need the extra width and would gladly go to 15/16-35 range for less distortion. I currently have the 17-40 f4 L and the 70-300 f4-5.6 L lenses as well as the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2. I don't need the RF 70-200 f4 but I want the compact format. Or even better how about a 70-300 f4.0 L lens. That would be the dream lens. I would love to see a 24mm, 28mm and a 100mm at f2.8 in the $300-500 range with IS. Maybe Sigma and Tamron need to enter the RF space. Canon is being lazy and expensive to maximize profits, not trying too hard to grow the system. So I think I'm going to buy another EF to RF adapter and wait. My EF lenses work as well or even better adapted on my RP. The battery sucks but I have 4 now. I can live with it being slow, it's still faster than my old film cameras!
It would seem that with the passage of time, Canon has realistically made it even more difficult for EF mount body users who were considering going mirrorless, even more difficult. The earlier R mount L series lens, limited in number, for many potential buyers are just so, so expensive unless you are a pro. Then, when the prospect of using the now excellent Sigma , Tamron ( and other third party lens) appeared to provide a more affordable packaged entry for EF and other owners, Canon has in September 2022, seemingly shut that door. This action seems commercially curious at best. Canon may see the error of its ways and open the R system, maybe not. Even should it fail to do so, the fact remains that it seriously needs to revise the pricing of the initial lens released and as mentioned by you in this overview. They are simply too expensive to sell in any significant numbers.
Excellent Review / breakdown; very useful. I’m excited by the new(ish) Canon mirrorless cameras, but as you say, the lens excite me rather less. I haven’t used (!) any if them, but them seem very expensive, not overly brilliant, (by reviews), and pretty large & heavy. That’s my perception, and that’s what’s holding up my purchase of the R / R6 or (even) the R5 …. Of cos I could use the RF lens, plus an adaptor, but seems a bit ‘naff’, a bit annoying, to be almost obliged to do that.
Consider resolution of the sensor again. Plot the sensor resolution as squares with a common center. I think you will find that the difference in resolution is a LOT less than you and most people thought. Remember that the larger resolution is spread on all sides. So instead of a 50% difference it becomes 2 times 25%. It does not look that impressive any more. Yes, it is more, but not as much as you thought. I prefer 20Mpx to 45Mpx, because I'm the one who pays for storage.
I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but I can say as a person who owns a number of cameras of differing resolution that resolution does matter. At the same time, I think the R6 gets a lot out of its sensor.
Dustin, thank you for your great reviews and videos. I am following you for quite a while now and I like your kind of ‚objective‘ judgements I could always rely on. I own an R5 body and use it still with my EF lenses through an adapter (Tamron 15-30 G2, EF 35/1.4 II, EF 50/1.4, EF 24-70/2.8 II, EF 85/1.2 II, Tamron SP 90/2.8 Macro, Tamron 70-200/2.8 G1, EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 II). For an amateur like me the gear is far over the top, I know, but I enjoy using it. If I wanted to add one first RF lens to my kit (perhaps to replace an existing EF one) what would you recommend to achieve an exceptional look in my fotos for that specific focal length? Interpreting your reviews I am thinking about the RF 50/1.2 but I am curious to receive your advise. My main foto subjects are travel (incl. landscape), family and events. Thank you for your feedback!
Personally I think it's time for Canon to wake up and smell the coffee when it comes to 3rd party lens support; its not the late 80s or early 90's where Canon steamed over Nikon and had no other competitor basicly in the ILC market. They have to deal with Sony as well now and with the (mostly) open E-Mount Sony has a big advantage in the enthusiast/hobbyist range of the market with the wide range of quality but obtainable glass (that all come with lens hoods too lol) and those enthusiast/hobbyist's will be Sony's GM buyers of tomorrow. Also some of their L glass has some disappointments given the price, like the 70-200 f2.8 not having any teleconverter support and the 100-500 darking to F7.1 @ 500mm.
Well, as a hobbyist/enthusiast I don't see any reason to buy a Sony FF camera (for wildlife). Well, Sony has this amazing 200-600 for an affordable price. The question remains what camera to buy? Are 10 fps enough for wildlife? My answer was no! The R6 on the camera side was the logical choice and far cheaper than most Sony cameras for wildlife. When Pro bird photographers can live with the 100-500mm enthusiasts/hobbyists can too! That's no argument against this excellent RF lens. I'll ask you whether you need the 70-200 2.8 or not? (My plan was to cover 24-500mm with the 24-105 f4 and the 100-500mm with just 2 lenses.) I will wait (to buy the expensive 100-500) because I stongly think its price will fall because of the new lens (either 200-400 4 or 200-500 4). Then the 100-500 will be *the lens* for enthusiasts/hobbyists while pros will switch to the 200-400/500 (whatever it will be). What Canon lacks in native RF lenses they have with the EF-R adapter in the EF line up. Even pros take advantage of this. Switching from DSLR to mirrorless is made easy by Canon. 🤔 3rd parties have to develop lenses for Canon. I don't know why Sigma or Tamron don't step in this RF mount? (I agree however on the 70-200 not having any teleconverter support was a mistake.) By the way even the 100-500 cannot be fully used by teleconverters (because those converters need some space in the lens).
@Rollergold4 - I think that is a fair argument that Canon needs to consider right now. The MILC market is a different space than where Canon was with DSLRs. Sony has aggressively gone after reportage and even the sports crowd, and that has typically been Canon's domain in the past.
Hi Musik - I would say the camera of choice in the situation you describe is the original a9. I bought a used a9 a few years ago for right over 2K, and it is an amazing enthusiast camera.
Thanks for the - as always - great video! I think the one lens that´s most missing is a fast (f/2.8) standard zoom (24/28-70/75 mm) that´s affordable. There are only 3 non-L zooms and all of them are extremely slow. For Sony there are at least three f/2.8 standard zooms for less than 1000 $/€ and another one for little over 1000 $/€. I shoot canon for 15 years now, but that there´s not a single usable zoom for enthusiasts that don´t want to spend 2500 $/€ really makes me angry. Sorry, I just had to write that of my soul. Thanks that you are critizising the lack of third party lenses for the RF-Mount.
I’m just waiting to hand my money to someone for a quality RF 24mm or 35mm 1.4/1.2 prime (and I’ll take a 1.8 or 2.8 24mm too). Come on Canon! It’s the one glaring hole in my photo/video lens lineup.
Totally agree with this assessment. Had the R, now the R5-awesome camera, but might be jealous if they introduce something higher resolution. The M-fn bar on the R was really bad. I tried using it in several different ways and ended up disabling it completely. With 3 control dials on the R5, I'm starting to feel the same about the lens control rings. I currently have mine set to adjust white balance, but it's not a killer feature. I thought I would love setting them to aperture as I loved having an aperture ring on my fuji lenses, but it's not the same. It's also frustrating they fall in different places on each lens. I find the end of the lens to be a frustrating location for the control ring (much better on the base, such as on the control ring adapter I use). But you are absolutely right-the lens lineup is either staggeringly expensive or very mediocre. I appreciate them pushing the limits with lenses like the 28-70 f/2, but I really wish they'd swallow their pride and open their lens mount up to manufactures like sigma the way that Sony has. I don't mind paying a premium for Canon glass when its a lens I'll use for work, but I would love to have some good 'play' lenses that I can afford, such as a mid-grade 35mm prime. I recently rented the 35mm f/1.4 from Sigma-loved the images but I did not love having to adapt a lens like that. Finally, maybe I'm in the minority on this, but I don't think they should be releasing lenses as compromised as the 14-35 in the L lineup. Ok, finally finally, I'm anxiously awaiting to see how they can innovate when it comes to RF tilt-shifts!
Well even the RF 70-200 f4 lacks the possibility of using converters unlike the EF equivalents. Here I think Canon made a mistake. In your video you forgot 2 specialiced RF cameras: the Ra and the R5c. But otherwise it's a very good overview of Canon's RF line up. It also answered my question about the RF 16mm 2.8 or the Samyang AF 14mm 2.8 in favor of the Samyang. However there is still the uncertainty about Samyang's future with the RF-system!
It's definitely true that Canon made a difficult decision about teleconverter compatibility with the new 70-200mm designs. It's also true that Samyang's future on RF is unsure. I suspect that if other third parties start producing RF lenses, that may change.
Hello Dustin, my daugther loves to make several kinds of shoots, the most happinness she gets from wedding fotography. And she loves 50mm. I want to buy her a nice mirrorless camera but My budget is limited. She have now a 5D mkii and a mkiii. What is your opinion for the next options? 1 or 2? 1) EOS r €1649 RF 50 1.2 €2741 €4390 2) EOS r5 €4549 with rf to ef converter, because she have great ef lenses Thanks in advance. Harry from the Netherlands
Hi Harry, I think the better starting place is with the upgraded camera. EF lenses adapt very well, and I think that purchasing the R5 will give her the greatest upgrade.
IMO Canon has a major gap in wide primes. Yes, the 16mm F/2.8 is decent, if not great. But, no 20mm F/1.8 or F/2. No 24mm F/1.4 to F/2. I do love the 100mm F/2.8L macro, the 24-105 F/4L, and the RF 100-500. But we need more "affordable" lenses and more primes. And, why cheap out on things like lens hoods for non-L lenses? That's just petty.
Hi John - completely agree. The big hole to me is the mid-priced lenses. Take 50mm. We've got a $200 lens and a $2300 lens. Seems like there is a LOT of room in between there!
Wouldn't buy the 7r2 today. The AF in that generation was imho pretty slow and not that accurate. Had it for a shooting a few weeks ago with me and mainly used the A7iv, because of the eye AF. I'd rather use the A7iii instead
@Real Thore - agreed on the RII. It was my first Sony mirrorless review, and I didn't love it at all. It was not until the RIII that Sony reeled me in.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I barely use the R2 for landscape and other more static shots because of the 42MP but I more often keep it in my bag (or leave it home) because of the different batteries, no USB C (so another unused cable) etc
Another great video. I have an R6, but I agree the lenses options is Canon's weak point. The L lenses are too expensive. Also, I am waiting for a 24 mm Prime, which I hope Canon will release soon.
A really informed and intelligent ‘Must Watch Before Buying’ video of Canon’s mirrorless cameras and RF lens, with some great images to demonstrate his points. Five Stars !!
Thank you very much.
Given that Canon have announced that they are releasing 32 new RF lenses over the next 4 years, I hope we will get a few updates from time to time. Personally, I am waiting for the 10-24 f/4 lens that is apparently on the Canon RF road map. If that was available, it would give me, in three lenses, a 'holy trinity' of ranges from 10-500mm - given I have the 24-105 f/4 and the 100-500.
That's a lot of lenses! I'm hoping we get a more diverse catalog of lenses with more mid-range options.
I own the 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 50mm 1.2, and various other RF glass. My favourite is the 35mm 1.8. Just great ergonomics, stabilization and focal length and the image quality is good. 85mm f2 is also great. Would love to see a nice 24mm 1.8
That's interesting. I didn't love the 35mm F1.8. I do love the 85mm F2's IQ, but did not like the autofocus experience at all.
Thank you, this is a really good summary of the RF system.
The bipolar nature of the lens lineup is a big barrier to me making the jump. I have an EF (5D IV) kit that I'm pretty happy with, and other than the 70-200mm f/4 there isn't a lens that I would replace any of my EF lenses with, and the higher prices of the L lenses are a bit hard to swallow.
I think a lot of EF owners who have made the switch have hung onto a number of their EF lenses for just that reason.
Shoutout to the RF 100-400mm. I just got it and it's a really fantastic lens, especially for how much cheaper it is than the 100-500mm.
I'm looking forward to testing it. I'm just wrapping up my review of the 100-500L
I have an RP (primarily for photography). I agree with everything you said. I will say that it has forced me to become a better technical photographer. I can't rely on the dynamic range to save me in post, so I have to expose properly. It's a no frills camera that doesn't handhold you much so you need to make sure you time your shots properly and can't spray n pray. Overall, I love using it. It's not super forgiving but when you get that perfect picture, the dopamine rush is real
There's some merit to this approach, though that's more about the photographer and their skill and less about what I do as a reviewer.
Awesome stuff! I just jumped on to the mirrorless wagon with the Canon R5 so I found this extremely helpful - Thank you!
Glad to help out!
Dustin your comment on the 50mm 1.2 vs 85mm 1.2 is exactly what I like to hear in a review. Lately reviews have become about edge to edge sharpeness and contrast. That's great but there are lenses that are sterile and without character. Hearing head to head this lens gives better rendering (especially with examples), while subjective is more valuable that alot of tests. I think there is a difference in what makes a great lens for photos vs. landscapes in the way it might render a scene.
My pleasure. The 50mm is a little less corrected...but maybe better for it.
Agreed, sharpness is not everything
A really useful and informative video, thanks Dustin
Glad it was helpful!
Hello there - to start I’ll say your videos are awesome! One request, have I…. Could you do a review of good third party EF lens that still work awesome on the Canon RF cameras! Thank you. Take care and be safe out there….
I do have limited perspective there, as I moved a lot of my third party lenses for Sony E-mount alternatives. My experience has been that most third party EF mount lenses work well on Canon RF cameras. I've anecdotally heard of a few hiccups from my audience, but typically firmware updates fix those.
The great things about the Canon RF lens line up are those new compact options:
- 70-200 f4 as mentioned in the video within the dimensions of the 24-105 f4 (!)
- the tiny 16 f2.8 offers very new options shooting in tight spots, extreme perspectives, a great but challenging fun lens (it does not replace my 16-35 zoom for classical landscape)
- similar the 35 Macro, great in nature photography. When I shot more "classical": I did not sell the great EF35 f1.4
A nature photographers must have are the 100-500 or the very affordable RF 100-400.
I do miss most a RF 135 prime, either f2 or f1.8
I suspect we'll see that 135mm lens at some point. The 135L was pretty beloved by portrait photographers.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Dustin
Shouldn't you do a review of Canon RF options "under 1000" in some future?
I am not so much impressed by the last year of RF lenses in general as you expressed.
But I do think the lineup 800, 600, the STM primes 85, 50, 35, 16 and some zooms like 100-400, the small 24-105, ... are a quite reasonable stretch for all those focussing to the affordable part of the full frame market.
Great video Dustin. One other thing to consider with canon, although it will impact not that many people, is the advantage of long first or second generation prime lenses in the used market for much much cheaper than the new versions. For example I own Sony and older canons and am thinking of getting into one of the newer canon bodies for, among other reasons, the opportunity to get a 300 2.8, 4.0, or 500 f4 used for much cheaper than the two prime long Sony lenses. I shoot college football in the USA and these are very useful.
Again, not a huge consideration for probably 95-99% of photographers but thought I’d mention it as it does matter to me.
That's a fair point.
I’ve owned all of the cameras in this video, and with exception to the R, I still do. For me, each has its use case for hybrid photo and video (RP-compact/light/expendable;R6-sports/low-light/4k60 video; R5-hi-res, 8k;R3-sports and pro-hybrid video). I sold my R since for its price, single slot, and horrendous 4k crop it wasn’t worth the space in my bag. I completely agree with the pricing and positioning being a mediocre value and counterproductive to growing adoption and conversion of shooters. I would be generally okay with Canon’s pricing IF they gave dual CFExp B slots on my R3 and got rid of all recording limits.
The recording limits definitely need to go.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yup - I’m tired of having to mount a Ninja V on every camera in my video setup. Thinking about moving to Sony just to not have to deal with this nonsense
A good round up as usual Dustin, have to say i'm using the R5 right now and it's just superb, however i've been in a quandary about which cheaper backup camera to buy, i'll be selling my trusty 5Dmk4 and just need a backup just incase I had an issue with the R5 on a Commercial job at some point. I also had the Samyang 85mm f1.4 on a try-and-buy basis, but had to let it go as it wasn't fulfilling all of the commercial needs so bit the bullet and purchased the RF85mm f1.2L which is superb!
The R5 really is a blast.
I always love to watch your reviews and thoughts!
I appreciate that!
I agree that we miss some good third party lenses like the compact Samyang 75 1.8, Sigma 90 2.8, Tamron 70-180 2.8...
I have RF 16 2.8, 35 1.8 and 85 2.0, but I also use a lot of EF lenses, especially for telephoto.
It seems a lot of us have held onto some EF lenses.
Love your channel, Dustin. I shot the Nikon D850 with the 200-500 and switched to the R5 and 100-400 ii with and without the 1.4x iii depending on the conditions. I love the setup but am disappointed in the RF 100-500mm. It offers marginally better quality than the EF version and poor teleconverter support with the 300mm zoom restriction, not to mention a plasticky build for the price. I am happy with my setup for several years but am hopeful that 1. Canon releases the R7, and 2. Canon releases either a 150-600 zoom or a 500 f5.6 do type lens. Otherwise, as a wildlife photographer it would be difficult fully committing to the RF system.
Fair enough. The 200-500 appears to be one of Nikon's standouts.
Dustin. We need a Nikon Z buying guide with these sober, level-headed takes. If you haven’t used enough of that system, GET TO IT!! Haha. (Thanks for your work.)
Unfortunately I don't own or cover Nikon.
Dustin
Enjoyed your vid on Canon I'm from an old schooled black n white photography and darkroom work. My Canon d300 needs replacing. Almost purchased the R5. I'm waiting to see the new cameras Canon is working on. Thanks on your in-depth review was wonderful.
I definitely enjoy the R5 as a camera.
Canon needs to bring out some F5.6 500 mm prime for wildlife like the one from nikon.may be a 600 mm f5.6 to better it.I dont mind if it is EOS lens.It could be used with an adapter.May be Wiltrox can do it.
A lot of people would love to see a lens like that - particularly if it wasn't incredibly expensive.
Good summary! Love the 24-105 F4 L and 70-200 F4 L. Very interested in when they will FINALLY drop a 35 L
Definitely. The EF 35mm F1.4L II is one of my favorite Canon lenses.
Your reviews are always the best. Totally honest. My thoughts regarding Canon RF lenses are exactly what my impressions have been. I have older Canon gear, a 6D and 5 lenses. They still serve me well. I've been watching the mirrorless market for a long time, thinking one day I may go that route. But, retired and on a fixed income, so that may never happen. I do landscape and nature. The EF 16-35 is a really good wide angle, and disappointed with what I see with the RF replacement, just like you mentioned. The Sony R4 would be a good camera for that. Until seeing this, I never payed much attention to Sony. Becoming a bit more openminded. However, when I compare a Canon R6 to a Nikon Z6II, the Nikon is a much better value for my purpose. I don't need the very best autofocus and do not do video. As crippled as the 6D is with focusing, I do well with it even using it for running events. The ideal kit I would purchase buying from scratch would be the Z6II and the 24-120. Nikon is slower to put out lenses, but what the do, is much more to my liking than Canon. I may in time by a Z6II and just keep the 6D and 300 f4. Wishing you would do reviews on N?ikon mirrorless, but, holly cow, I am sure you are way, way too busy now to consider another system. At any rate, keep up your excellent reviews.
@Kerry Grim Wouldn't a Canon RP with the EF-R adapter and your EF 16-35mm do the job for your needs? You don't need the speed of the R6 and the R might be out because of its bar. A Canon R6 is IMHO even better than the more pricy Z7 II when it comes to wildlife (despite the R6's 20 MP)! The RF 24-105 f4 is really great (here I agree with Dustin Abbott). I really don't know about the Z-mount 24-120 f4. 🤔
Hi Kerry, I would say that MusikPirat is right - rather than a wholesale switch to Nikon (which could get expensive), wouldn't it be better to get an R body and use the adapter with your existing lenses?
@@MusikPiratCH I agree with what you said. The R6 would be really, really good and I like what I see and read about the RF 24-105. The RP would probably do what I would want for the most part. I don’t like using an adapter mostly due to the additional length, but almost certainly lees trouble than having two systems. I also love the results of my 300 f4, even though an old lens. Thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated.
I want to add something to this video. Yes the R is not the best for fast paste action, but boy I've shot good moving objects on the R and the old 5D classic. It takes more patients, but its certainly possible to shoot fast moving objects on there bodys.
It's always possible to do something, but shooting at 3 or 4 frames per second is less than ideal for action!
Nicely done! Canon really needs to put out some great mid range lenses at realistically mid range prices. I have the RP but I'm hesitant to go further up the line. The R doesn't seem to be a good choice right now (looks like it's about to be replaced) and the R6 seems to be missing "something" 20mp is basically enough but 30 would be better. Anything more advanced is way beyond my budget.
But the real problem for me is that the 2 lenses I would purchase (14-35 f4.0 and 70-200 f4.0) are dramatically expensive and I don't need the extra width and would gladly go to 15/16-35 range for less distortion. I currently have the 17-40 f4 L and the 70-300 f4-5.6 L lenses as well as the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2. I don't need the RF 70-200 f4 but I want the compact format. Or even better how about a 70-300 f4.0 L lens. That would be the dream lens. I would love to see a 24mm, 28mm and a 100mm at f2.8 in the $300-500 range with IS. Maybe Sigma and Tamron need to enter the RF space. Canon is being lazy and expensive to maximize profits, not trying too hard to grow the system. So I think I'm going to buy another EF to RF adapter and wait. My EF lenses work as well or even better adapted on my RP. The battery sucks but I have 4 now. I can live with it being slow, it's still faster than my old film cameras!
That's a fair take and conclusion.
It would seem that with the passage of time, Canon has realistically made it even more difficult for EF mount body users who were considering going mirrorless, even more difficult.
The earlier R mount L series lens, limited in number, for many potential buyers are just so, so expensive unless you are a pro.
Then, when the prospect of using the now excellent Sigma , Tamron ( and other third party lens) appeared to provide a more affordable packaged entry for EF and other owners, Canon has in September 2022, seemingly shut that door.
This action seems commercially curious at best.
Canon may see the error of its ways and open the R system, maybe not.
Even should it fail to do so, the fact remains that it seriously needs to revise the pricing of the initial lens released and as mentioned by you in this overview.
They are simply too expensive to sell in any significant numbers.
Excellent Review / breakdown; very useful. I’m excited by the new(ish) Canon mirrorless cameras, but as you say, the lens excite me rather less.
I haven’t used (!) any if them, but them seem very expensive, not overly brilliant, (by reviews), and pretty large & heavy. That’s my perception, and that’s what’s holding up my purchase of the R / R6 or (even) the R5 …. Of cos I could use the RF lens, plus an adaptor, but seems a bit ‘naff’, a bit annoying, to be almost obliged to do that.
You're not wrong.
Consider resolution of the sensor again. Plot the sensor resolution as squares with a common center. I think you will find that the difference in resolution is a LOT less than you and most people thought.
Remember that the larger resolution is spread on all sides. So instead of a 50% difference it becomes 2 times 25%. It does not look that impressive any more. Yes, it is more, but not as much as you thought.
I prefer 20Mpx to 45Mpx, because I'm the one who pays for storage.
I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but I can say as a person who owns a number of cameras of differing resolution that resolution does matter. At the same time, I think the R6 gets a lot out of its sensor.
Dustin, thank you for your great reviews and videos. I am following you for quite a while now and I like your kind of ‚objective‘ judgements I could always rely on.
I own an R5 body and use it still with my EF lenses through an adapter (Tamron 15-30 G2, EF 35/1.4 II, EF 50/1.4, EF 24-70/2.8 II, EF 85/1.2 II, Tamron SP 90/2.8 Macro, Tamron 70-200/2.8 G1, EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 II). For an amateur like me the gear is far over the top, I know, but I enjoy using it. If I wanted to add one first RF lens to my kit (perhaps to replace an existing EF one) what would you recommend to achieve an exceptional look in my fotos for that specific focal length? Interpreting your reviews I am thinking about the RF 50/1.2 but I am curious to receive your advise. My main foto subjects are travel (incl. landscape), family and events.
Thank you for your feedback!
So far the Rf 50mm F1.2 might be my favorite RF lenses for pure rendering and look.
Forgot to mention the RF 28-70mm F/2L. I switched to mirrorless for this lens alone!
It's not that I forgot it, per se, but the price and size take it out of consideration for a lot of people.
Personally I think it's time for Canon to wake up and smell the coffee when it comes to 3rd party lens support; its not the late 80s or early 90's where Canon steamed over Nikon and had no other competitor basicly in the ILC market. They have to deal with Sony as well now and with the (mostly) open E-Mount Sony has a big advantage in the enthusiast/hobbyist range of the market with the wide range of quality but obtainable glass (that all come with lens hoods too lol) and those enthusiast/hobbyist's will be Sony's GM buyers of tomorrow.
Also some of their L glass has some disappointments given the price, like the 70-200 f2.8 not having any teleconverter support and the 100-500 darking to F7.1 @ 500mm.
Well, as a hobbyist/enthusiast I don't see any reason to buy a Sony FF camera (for wildlife). Well, Sony has this amazing 200-600 for an affordable price. The question remains what camera to buy? Are 10 fps enough for wildlife? My answer was no! The R6 on the camera side was the logical choice and far cheaper than most Sony cameras for wildlife.
When Pro bird photographers can live with the 100-500mm enthusiasts/hobbyists can too! That's no argument against this excellent RF lens. I'll ask you whether you need the 70-200 2.8 or not? (My plan was to cover 24-500mm with the 24-105 f4 and the 100-500mm with just 2 lenses.) I will wait (to buy the expensive 100-500) because I stongly think its price will fall because of the new lens (either 200-400 4 or 200-500 4). Then the 100-500 will be *the lens* for enthusiasts/hobbyists while pros will switch to the 200-400/500 (whatever it will be).
What Canon lacks in native RF lenses they have with the EF-R adapter in the EF line up. Even pros take advantage of this. Switching from DSLR to mirrorless is made easy by Canon. 🤔
3rd parties have to develop lenses for Canon. I don't know why Sigma or Tamron don't step in this RF mount? (I agree however on the 70-200 not having any teleconverter support was a mistake.) By the way even the 100-500 cannot be fully used by teleconverters (because those converters need some space in the lens).
@Rollergold4 - I think that is a fair argument that Canon needs to consider right now. The MILC market is a different space than where Canon was with DSLRs. Sony has aggressively gone after reportage and even the sports crowd, and that has typically been Canon's domain in the past.
Hi Musik - I would say the camera of choice in the situation you describe is the original a9. I bought a used a9 a few years ago for right over 2K, and it is an amazing enthusiast camera.
Thanks for the - as always - great video! I think the one lens that´s most missing is a fast (f/2.8) standard zoom (24/28-70/75 mm) that´s affordable. There are only 3 non-L zooms and all of them are extremely slow. For Sony there are at least three f/2.8 standard zooms for less than 1000 $/€ and another one for little over 1000 $/€. I shoot canon for 15 years now, but that there´s not a single usable zoom for enthusiasts that don´t want to spend 2500 $/€ really makes me angry. Sorry, I just had to write that of my soul. Thanks that you are critizising the lack of third party lenses for the RF-Mount.
Exactly - that's the hole left in the lineup when you have no third party options.
I’m just waiting to hand my money to someone for a quality RF 24mm or 35mm 1.4/1.2 prime (and I’ll take a 1.8 or 2.8 24mm too). Come on Canon! It’s the one glaring hole in my photo/video lens lineup.
If you are not happy, why don't you use primes? Best quality for less money
Totally agree with this assessment. Had the R, now the R5-awesome camera, but might be jealous if they introduce something higher resolution. The M-fn bar on the R was really bad. I tried using it in several different ways and ended up disabling it completely. With 3 control dials on the R5, I'm starting to feel the same about the lens control rings. I currently have mine set to adjust white balance, but it's not a killer feature. I thought I would love setting them to aperture as I loved having an aperture ring on my fuji lenses, but it's not the same. It's also frustrating they fall in different places on each lens. I find the end of the lens to be a frustrating location for the control ring (much better on the base, such as on the control ring adapter I use).
But you are absolutely right-the lens lineup is either staggeringly expensive or very mediocre. I appreciate them pushing the limits with lenses like the 28-70 f/2, but I really wish they'd swallow their pride and open their lens mount up to manufactures like sigma the way that Sony has. I don't mind paying a premium for Canon glass when its a lens I'll use for work, but I would love to have some good 'play' lenses that I can afford, such as a mid-grade 35mm prime. I recently rented the 35mm f/1.4 from Sigma-loved the images but I did not love having to adapt a lens like that. Finally, maybe I'm in the minority on this, but I don't think they should be releasing lenses as compromised as the 14-35 in the L lineup. Ok, finally finally, I'm anxiously awaiting to see how they can innovate when it comes to RF tilt-shifts!
Some solid takes here.
Very well put summary.
Thank you very much, Steve.
Well even the RF 70-200 f4 lacks the possibility of using converters unlike the EF equivalents. Here I think Canon made a mistake. In your video you forgot 2 specialiced RF cameras: the Ra and the R5c. But otherwise it's a very good overview of Canon's RF line up.
It also answered my question about the RF 16mm 2.8 or the Samyang AF 14mm 2.8 in favor of the Samyang. However there is still the uncertainty about Samyang's future with the RF-system!
It's definitely true that Canon made a difficult decision about teleconverter compatibility with the new 70-200mm designs. It's also true that Samyang's future on RF is unsure. I suspect that if other third parties start producing RF lenses, that may change.
Your review is an impressive product itself.
well thank you!
I heard a lot good things about Canon RF 100mm f2.8 what is your take on that? Thanks
I've got a full review series on it if you check out my channel or website.
The RF 85mm F1.2 might just be the absolutely sharpest lens ever built on this planet!
It's definitely very sharp.
Hello Dustin, my daugther loves to make several kinds of shoots, the most happinness she gets from wedding fotography. And she loves 50mm.
I want to buy her a nice mirrorless camera but My budget is limited.
She have now a 5D mkii and a mkiii.
What is your opinion for the next options? 1 or 2?
1) EOS r €1649 RF 50 1.2 €2741 €4390
2) EOS r5 €4549 with rf to ef converter, because she have great ef lenses
Thanks in advance.
Harry from the Netherlands
Hi Harry, I think the better starting place is with the upgraded camera. EF lenses adapt very well, and I think that purchasing the R5 will give her the greatest upgrade.
@@DustinAbbottTWI that's what i hoped to hear. Thanks!
IMO Canon has a major gap in wide primes. Yes, the 16mm F/2.8 is decent, if not great. But, no 20mm F/1.8 or F/2. No 24mm F/1.4 to F/2. I do love the 100mm F/2.8L macro, the 24-105 F/4L, and the RF 100-500. But we need more "affordable" lenses and more primes. And, why cheap out on things like lens hoods for non-L lenses? That's just petty.
Hi John - completely agree. The big hole to me is the mid-priced lenses. Take 50mm. We've got a $200 lens and a $2300 lens. Seems like there is a LOT of room in between there!
@@DustinAbbottTWI very true!
Well done.
Thank you!
Shame that there’s no good canon mirrorless camera on the second hand market(at a good price), as appose to the a7r2
Wouldn't buy the 7r2 today. The AF in that generation was imho pretty slow and not that accurate. Had it for a shooting a few weeks ago with me and mainly used the A7iv, because of the eye AF. I'd rather use the A7iii instead
The good news is that this will soon change. The second hand market just needs time.
@Real Thore - agreed on the RII. It was my first Sony mirrorless review, and I didn't love it at all. It was not until the RIII that Sony reeled me in.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I barely use the R2 for landscape and other more static shots because of the 42MP but I more often keep it in my bag (or leave it home) because of the different batteries, no USB C (so another unused cable) etc
Another great video. I have an R6, but I agree the lenses options is Canon's weak point. The L lenses are too expensive. Also, I am waiting for a 24 mm Prime, which I hope Canon will release soon.
That's a pretty common perspective.
🇮🇳📸👍
Thanks!
The lenses are one reason not to invest in RF
It's unfortunate, as that was the biggest thing being touted about RF.