The company listened to its customers complaining about RF lenses being too expensive and decided to give us a 99.92% price reduction. Canon is truly the People's brand!
2k for a lens that is f7.1at 500mm though. Maybe if it were at least f5.6, I can see the price justified. Sure it’s only 2/3 a stop slower than I’d like, but it’s still 2/3 a stop. That being said, 100-500 might have to be the way I go when I do switch to canon. That or adapt the sigma 150-600.
The RF100-400 is phenomenal for the money. From close focus to long end zoom, its weight and size too. Really versatile lens. Its pretty much lived on my camera for a past year
I run the 14-35mm F4 L, the 24-105mm F4 L and the 70-200mm F4 L om an R5 body, it makes for a small lite kit, great for travel and stunning sharpness, thanks Canon 😀
Are you a PRO? I'm looking for a full-frame camera, and Canon EOS 45 looks like a great choice, less expensive than the Sony a1. Video 8K (who needs this amount of resolution? A maniac?) will force me to buy a new computer, but it looks like Mac mini with M2 processors will help 😆
Tell'em Chris!!! Thanks for the Video and your assessment of the Canon RF lineup. We really need more media putting pressure on Canon for their (in parts) lacking lens-system.
I'm running the R7 with Canon speed booster, EF 16-35 F4, 24-105 F4 ii, and 100-400 F4.5-5.6 ii and 35mm F2 IS. That gives me fast glass and dual-IS across the board, and I can opt for the 1.6x crop when I want it. It's nice - my GAS is quite happy with this arrangement. Oh, and a 60mm EF-S handles macro.
35mm F2 IS- great lens, really good build quality compared to recent RF midrange cheap stuff. I also have the EF 16-35 F4, 24-105 F4. Ill say this, you may want to look at a r8- the 16-35 for crop is a huge chop to your view. Your set will be so much better on ff. 35mm ff is simply amazing, i used to adapt mine to my canon crops but the filed of view is just weirdly different.
@@simonmaduxx6777 I have the Canon branded speed booster, making the 16-35 on my R7 into an 18-40mm F2.8 😁 Same thing for the other. It yields an extra stop of light and 0.71x crop, so the math is 1.6 x FL x 0.71.
@@jw48335 I've never heard of a Canon branded speed booster...? Do you have the model of this product and I'll research it Edit - found it. So this is made for video but it works on photos also? That's very interesting. 500 asking price no thank you but definitely interesting
I have had my EOS-R for the past almost four years and have not bought an RF lens yet. The EF-RF control ring adapter puts the control ring where I prefer it closer to the camera which I use for EVC or ISO, a joy when getting the exposure just right. I have bought the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6IIL IS which is fantastic on my R or on my 90D, just shot an evening graduation from the bleachers with this on my R. I use the EF 24-70/4L IS on my R most of the time, while using an older very sharp Tamron 17-50/2.8 XrDi on my 90D for similar results. And then there is the now discontinued Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 VC which I use for outdoor portraits which is very good on my 90D or on my R. The 35-150 was bought for my 70D and was great on it, tack sharp like the 70-200s but with a more useful focal range. I will probably add the EF 16-35/4 L IS to my collection. These lenses work even better on my R due to their EVF on sensor focusing giving me sharper results more of the time. I will probably upgrade my 90D to the EOS-R7 later.
Im a R7 user and have been taking pics of birds on my property. I have tried the 100-400 and there wasn't enough reach. I then bought the 800mm and have taken some awesome pics with it and I can fill the frame without having to be so close and scaring the birds away. I splurged and bought the 100-500 and while it is nice it is heavy and I'm back to having to be extra stealthy to get my shots. It was handy for getting some hummingbird pics as I could crank up the shutter speed and still have enough light. I have the 100 macro and its amazing. The latest is my 24mm 1.8 macro and it worked well for astro and shooting flowers with bugs but not sure if I would like it on a FF body for flowers as you would have to be even closer to fill the frame. Its pretty good with video since it has IS.
As someone who owns an R5, R6 II, and R7...I have yet to own a single piece of RF glass. Adapting EF is still perfect for my professional needs. Though Canon would tempt me if they ever release a compact & good performing 50 f/1.4
This man speaks truth! The canon RF lineup isnt what people think it is unless your spending thousands and thousands just to have the core L set. I have a complete primary set of Ef glass, and the only thing i want from RF is a 50 1.4. Hell, i just bought a 16-35 f4 two years ago and have used it once...still smells new. RFS is also a joke, worst set of lenses for a mount in the industry.
@@xxichikokoxx Yeah adapting is no big deal to me. I used to adapt plenty of lenses to my 3 M bodies. Budget notwithstanding, eventually I'll probably have the 24 to 70 RF. I just don't have that equivalent on EF. This other compromises I don't want to make, like going from my bulletproof but heavy 70 to 200 to a push pull design. As a product I just don't want that. And of course there's no options. So ultimately for me, the bigger frustrating issue is that Canon is simply not making mid-range lenses, so there is literally no replacement for my 50 1.4. That is my most critical lens and the only nearest replacement is like $2,500. Thats insanity. Anyway enjoy your gear. I'm going to take this R62 out on its maiden voyage to Tokyo pretty soon along with a sigma 31.4 on my m62. There will be pictures lol. PS - If I had a bigger budget I wouldn't even buy into RF I'd go and get one of the Panasonic bodies.
@@xxichikokoxx Oh trust me I believe you. I wish it was sharper at f2, as Overall the 24 to 70 is a bit better. But it's f2 so... One day I'll do a loaner from CPS. Maybe if I can get that from CPS abroad.
@@marcusnartatez I was actually doing some research on it recently. Not that I plan to purchase it but just researching for future needs. If I had a 24 to 70 it would help greatly with my own location work I've bought all of my Canon gear over last decade by referencing the digital picture. Seeing those simple image quality tests is a lot easier to use than DP reviews for example. It's simply black and white, which makes it easier to spot chroma sharpness etc. Not sure if you've used it but it's a great reference for all Cannon stuff. You can do a direct comparison between lenses, you can see The f2 is very good wide open but not as sharp as if you were shooting 2.8 for example. But hey at least you own it I don't I'm happy for you. One day I'll get to play with it, I'm going to check if Cannon does CPS loans when abroad. Cheers
The 28-70mm is such a beast. It's a go to if I'm shooting portraits and I want to make sure it's done right. But the weight does eventually cause my arms to fall off. The 15-35 f2.8 and the 100-500 are almost always present in my camera bag. I genuinely love those lenses and despite the costs, I have gotten so much use out of both. Beyond that, the nifty 50 has been very nice. I did have the 800mm lens but after a year, I realized it was just not something I was using enough to justify keeping.
I find it really impressive that Nikon went from being lambasted for not having a huge lens lineup to winning a whole category against Canon in its own lens list in just a few years. It really is incredible how far they've come; though I would like to see them match Canon with an ultrawide prime under 20mm; and that 28-70 f/2 really is something special.
The only good thing about Nikon is they allow third parties to fill holes in the DX/APS-C lineup. Then again, I'm still cross with Nikon after they stole my trade-in gear worth over 1,000 and then ghosted my emails and ignored my questions in calls after signing they received it. Never got an adjusted value, never got any credit, and they even admitted they received it after I told them the name, address, and processing number proving they did.
I've used a wide variety of RF lenses and the 28 to 70mm is king but the downside is that it is extremely heavy so that made me choose the Canon 50mm RF lens instead. The way I see it is if its killing my back at a wedding how is it even worth it?
Certainly not the best for close ups of people, but it gets busy for sure. I originally bought mine for shallow backstage images, but when i started using it for street portraits...wow. brand new world.
The 100mm macro is quite nice. I need a large prime but I’m waiting hoping, as you said, Canon comes out with a new RF prime. Gossip said that Canon will start to allow 3rd party lenses. I’d buy the new Sigma 14mm f/1.4 art lens in a heart beat if it would fit. The 800mm f/11 I really like and I’m using it more than I expected. It is limited as you said but in Texas sunshine, it really gets up close to small finch size birds and it is super light so an R5 body and that lens is very comfortable to casually stroll around with. Right now, the 100-500mm is a must have.
I have the 16mm f/2.8 - 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8. They get the job done, but man they feel lackluster in the hands. My 35mm’s focus ring has become so loose you can go from minimum to infinity in the smallest nudge. We also have a Nikon Z set of 35-50-85mm and those lenses (even though they’re also f/1.8) just feel so much better to use. I am thinking of getting the 28-70mm f/2 next.
When it comes to canon, focus on the highest quality you can get. their older mid range lenses had some real gems (85 1.4, which i forgot existed)..my 35mm f2 I Sis a banger to this day (feels better on my 5d3 tho). Try to find a default EF lens to adapt while you build the funds for the 28-70. Unfortunately non of your RF lenses are particularly good, and the 16 is just pretty bad overall. I just wont buy those. I have a relatively new r62, and only old glass adapted.
To me personally, it just makes so much more sense to use my current EF glass on the R5, especially since you're not having to use any glass in between the adapter and the EF lens. Of course I do own a couple of RF lenses (14-35, 28-70 and the RF100), but for my telephoto lenses (70-200 and 100-400), I don't see the need to replace those, especially since I can use the 1.4 III teleconverter on then when needed.
I've got the 50mm art and love it, a bit bulky bur really great AF and it has fast FPS. I tried the EF 50mm L 1.2 and the Sigma was twice as fast with the FPS. Important for me with my work. But might ditch that and my RF 24-105 F4 L, for the RF 24-70 2.8 or drumroll, the 28-70 F2.
@@LukeChristo I have a bunch of them. Big fan of the 135/1.8 (almost perfect) but I also use the 28, 40, 50, 70 Macro (got from work), 14-24, great stuff. The 100-400 contemporary has also done me well.
@@856pm5 Hi Luke, which is your camera? I'm looking for the full frame EOS R5 (to make a food/product/headshots portfolio, also some photo/video art projects( 8k is too much, and I will need a new computer(Mac mini with M2 maybe helps) I live very close to Manhattan, where still have demand for these photos despite the pandemic dilemma) BH has a discount if I buy the kit camera + 24-105mm f/4L ... should be a good idea? or/and maybe start with 50mm and 85mm (that this video highlight as great and versatile)? I will sell my Fuji XT4 and a few lenses... I didn't fail in love with this Fuji, my bad (I enjoyed an old Nikon, better interface for me, but I'm looking for a Canon now)
For anyone thinking about getting the 35mm 1.8, it's fantastic even wide open and stopped down just a bit performs just as well as the L series stuff. It's wildly underrated for its price and size.
I'm absolutely loving the R7 with RF100-400. Great value. Obviously limited outside of sunlight but the reach is great, it's cheap, and it's compact and light if you are hiking or on long walks like me. Easy to hand hold. I carry a 3 stop ND with it in case I see larger animals and want to get video in 24p, but for birds I shoot in 120p and lose the ND (also for photos). While I would love the 100-500 I think the portability of the 100-400 might make it more useable on hikes. It's probably the best value of any RF lens.
I do not own a Canon RF camera but I once considered it. Here are the lenses that tempted me before (and the newer ones that tempt me still). 16 f2.8 24-240mm 24mm F2 macro 28-70mm F2 35mm f1.8 macro 85mm f2 macro
Hi Chris! I would like to see Canon produce a RF 200-600, 180-600, or 150-600 for wildlife photography. Something affordable in the high $1000 or $2000 range. This in order to compete with Sony and Nikon. If Canon does not move on this in the foreseeable future, I am going to switch to Sony or Nikon. Thanks for allowing my input!
RF lenses may have advantages over their adapted EF counterparts, but part of me also wishes that EF will continue to live on because adapters with drop-in filters make it so much easier to use the same filters for multiple lenses.
I run the 14-35mm F4 L, the 24-105mm F4 L and the 70-200mm F4 L on an R5 body, it makes for a small lite kit, great for travel and stunning sharpness, thanks Canon 😀
I use the DS version of the 85 f1.2. Fantastic lens. Image quality is superb. The bokeh is one of a kind. Focus speed is sufficient for portraits. I even use it to take pictures of my kids play.
When I look at my catalogue this lens consistently produces the best images I have. This is a very special lens. I doubt I will ever let it go in favor of the other options mentioned. It is too good.
The "no 3rd party policy" is keeping me from buying into the Canon RF system. I shot Canon FD for many years, then EF film and DSLR. It was great! There were so many choices in Canon lenses alone, and the third-party lenses gave so many options. Now, at the point of going mirrorless I'm looking seriously at Sony (Nikon has its own issues), or Fuji.
I recently switched to Sony, after using Fuji for some time. As a primes shooter, I found Sony’s GM line surprisingly excellent and Sigma’s i-series a good alternative for a compact setup. I also picked up Tamron’s f2.8 zooms which are fantastic for their price and size! I feel like the 3rd party lenses not only provide cheaper alternatives to Sony’s lenses but also complement them for different scenarios. Plus, their existence probably pushes Sony to keep their lenses prices somewhat cheaper than Canonikon - at least in Europe.
@@recklesscodingtotally, i have sigma primes 35,50 and 85 and i have a tamron 35-150, 135gm and 200-600 its amazing having so many options to choose from
They dropped that policy recently, there are 3rd party AF lenses coming up for the RF mount. And if you don't mind manual lenses, there's been such 3rd party RF lenses all along.
@@lsamoa That's fine but they've taken so long that people have entered competing ecosystems. Canon thought they were in the 80s but now everyone else is just as good. Shame.
I have such a love/hate relationship with the 28-70 f2. It's massive, heavy, not stabilized (which on the R5C means double not stabilized), but if you can afford it, carry it, and keep your shutter speed high enough...dang it's pretty.
Was between the 28-70 F2 or the 24-70 F2.8... Bought the F2.8. More versatile than the F2 beast. Love to have 4mm in the wider range and less to carry around.
@@bluecollar8525 Yes - but before this lens was on the market the 2.8 also did the job. F2 is heavy and bulkier (some people do not like the 95mm lens in front of them, especially kids), and the price is also a thing. I could buy the 2.8 for a really good, REALLY GOOD, price - it was a no-brainer for 2k € - new. The regular price is between 2.5-2.7k Euro. Compared to the F2 with a price of 3.5k Euro. Hurts. 😀
The F2 defies logic. The images are magical wide open. This is a great example of Canon leveraging the advantages of the RF mount to deliver a special lens. I shoot a lot on Sony, but when I am willing to deal with the added weight to get a stand-out photograph, I turn to the R or R5 with the 28-70.
@@mariopassalacqua6674 Yes, agree. It's a great lens. But not at the moment for me personally. Maybe I'll go with it one day when I see a great offer and I'm ready to carry the more weight 😅
Thee must be some sample variations. I have the 24-105 F4 L and my copy is very sharp, and resolves scenes quite well. I would suggest anyone wanting something in this range would be well served by trying it out and seeing if it works as well for you as for me.
There's definitely significant sample variation with the 24-105. Even down to the angle of view, I remember one review saying one copy went wider than the other
I would definitely appreciate a Sigma 150-600mm native. 500mm and a 7.1 aperture on the long end doesn’t really feel like a good deal when there are less expensive, faster 600mm zooms out there, even from first parties like Sony and Nikon.
Hey, Chris. One thing we agree on is the paucity of RF lenses. For me, especially in the 200-600mm range and wide angle Ld. Canon owned the 300-400 range: 300mm f/4, 400mm f/5.6, 300mm f/2.8 (smashing lens), and the 400mm f/4 DO II (my favorite telephoto ever). Oh, and the 200-400 f/4-f/5.6. I recently bought the EF 70-200 f/2.8 for use on an R5 for the TCs and I wanted that big honker white monster. Anyway. Thanks for the good presentation. [ ADDED ] I searched for RF L wide angle lenses, finding only the 5.2mm f/2.8 L Dual Fisheye 3D VR. There were several STM RF wide angle lenses, including the ones you picked, of course. It helped explain to me why you picked STM lenses, as it seems counterintuitive for a photographer at your level. I thought your admonition against EF glass on the EOS R cameras odd, as it's the best solution for the missing Canon RF L glass. One of the major success in the introduction of the EOS R series cameras was the ability to use EF glass, and keep the image quality for those lenses. I was amazed. For those lucky enough to already have one or more of the best EF lenses, keep them, and hold onto them until the comparable RF L glass is on the market.
I wish they'd revive the 40mm pancake lens for the RF mount. I have the EF one and it's my absolute favorite lens, but I keep worrying about it breaking because it's now discontinued.
@@xandfis what do you mean by restoring color? I use both together. I make my edits in LR. Then I export as TIFF. Then I do my sharpness and noise reduction on the entire batch letting it adjust settings (I tend to like the third one). Then I export the batch. There are so many different workflows depending on how you like to edit.
Some of our personal choices are driven by the type of photography we do. For example, the standard zooms have never been a big part of my life. Because of this - I favor the 24-105. But, I do have the 50 1.2 and the 85 1.2 - so that makes up for it. :) For my wide lens, if I had it to do over, I would probably buy the 14-35 f4 over the 15-35 f2.8 that I own now. I honestly don't need 2.8 when shooting wide, at least not enough to justify the expense, especially with the high iso performance of the new bodies. Truth be known, whatever I buy, I always want all the others too!
Good balanced outline of the Canon RF mount. RF stands for Rigorously Financed!!. I hoped on mirrorless with the R6 3 years ago. I have been making it with the 24-70 2.8 zoom and the kit 24-105 f4 zoom. I sprinkled in 100mm 2.8 35mm 85mm 16mm. The choices are limited. Canon choice to close the mount to 3rd parties betray us all. Then only offer $2500-$3100 options is barbaric . Sony is a freaking humanitarian!!!!😢
Chris, get out of my head!! I picked up my first mirrorless (the Canon R6) last year, and my lens lineup is VERY on point with your list. I have exactly three RF "L" lenses, and they're all "Chris's Picks": the RF 50mm f/1.2, the RF 28-70 f/2, and the RF 70-200 f/2.8. Also, I'm CONSTANTLY singing the praises of the humble RF 85mm f/2 as a budget BEAST! Of course, I've got an RF Nifty Fifty in my bag for travel or quick shoots in dicey terrain or areas of town. Oh, and the 100mm macro is next on my list! :D
I’m disappointed with the lack of lens choice for my R6. Look at Nikon, Sony and Panasonic and the range is huge because they have 3rd party options. I have a decent amount of EF glass to adapt but don’t see this as a long term answer. I want to replace my EF glass with RF but it seems Canon only offer entry level or full on pro priced options. As I haven’t bought any RF lenses (apart from the pretty ordinary 50mm f1.8) I’m thinking of changing brands as Canon seem uninterested in providing realistic options.
The RF 35mm f1.8 is a great lens, selling normally for $399 on sale, with a slight distortion. True, a macro should not have any distortion, but it is corrected in camera, at least on JPG. It is sharp, and low cost.
Thanks for the great review on the Canon RF line up. If Canon willing, lens like the Tamron or Samyang 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 zoom lens is the very reason why I decided to go with Sony after switching from Canon APS-C/Full Frame DSLR to Fuji APS-C and now to Sony Full Frame Alpha due to the competitive pricing and excellent image quality. Once I heard Canon was not allowing 3rd party to build AF lenses anymore last year, I cross it right off my list IMMIDIATALY regardless how good the Dual Pixel focus is finally in its maturity stage (that took a loooooong time!)
I still sometimes poke around with my EOS film cameras, and own a 6D. So I'm not above adapting the few EF lenses I own. I'm not turned off by the lack of 3rd party support, for a few reasons: 1) Canon's are usually better anyway 2) Canon's have better resale value 3) for everything else, mirrorless lets you try weird vintage lenses. That RF 85 looks interesting, especially if it's better optically than the EF 85 ... which lacked IS, macro, and cost more! Be thankful for small favors?
For me the 100-500 will probably the long range zoom I am going to take if I ever get the RF mount. I got a 100-400 now and at first I just bought this lens because I seriously wanted a white lens to give me the feeling I am a professional. But then I started using it and now 4 years later it's the only lens I bought back then I still use as it's just the best EF lens I've ever had. It helped me ou in so many situations. So I would probably want that white one for the RF mount to. That 100mm extra would be perfect. And even if in normal ranges, I do care about as much light as possible. I see with the EF lens, even in the darkest situations, I get excellent shots. So I not going to watch the 2.8 prime and/or zoom lenses that still need to be made. It will however make me also get a RF-S camera, just for that extra range feeling I also get now with my EF-S camera xD
The thing that makes me disappointed with my canon lenses is each one has some weird limitation that other brands don’t have and shouldn’t be issues for expensive lenses. 70-200, sorry no TC. 100-500, sorry tc use is limited above 300mm and take a 7.1 for the heck of it. 50 1.2 sorry loud clunky af with no internal focus barrel. 15-35 2.8 don’t look at the vignette that’s too much for software to correct. Tele primes, sorry here’s some ef versions with adapter built in.
The 14-35 had awful vignetting around the corners for me, making 14mm unusable, so I traded it at a slight loss and I found none of that with the 15-35 F2.8L. A lot more money but truly worth it especially if you shoot a lot of architectural shots.
I sold the Sigma EF 105mm F/2.8 macro for the Canon RF 100mm F/2.8L and I don't regret it. Yes, the Sigma is much less expensive. Its AF is also slower and louder, with a tendency to hunt. The Canon is lighter, focuses quicker, focuses closer, and is a little sharper. I had to laugh when Chris kept saying "there's not a lot to choose from" for every category, because he's right. Canon have some great lenses, some not matched by anyone else; but there's still a lot of gaps. Where's a fast 20mm prime? A tilt/shift? A fast 14mm? And more affordable non-L lenses, especially RF-S for those R7/10/50 owners?
My favorite lenses are the 50 1.2 and the 100-500 - both phenomenal. But you sure need big pockets for the RF lenses and it still baffles me that there are no 24mm or 35mm L-series primes. Getting really tired of waiting..
I am waiting for L-series primes in the price range of $600-$1200 before pulling the trigger on entering the Canon system. These would target the enthusiast / semi-pro market. Thus, 50 mm 1.4, 35 mm 1.4, 20 mm 1.4 or 1.8 would be a good start. Failure for Canon to execute in this regard will open the door for another brand. For example, all Nikon needs to do is come out with a $2500 full frame mirrorless camera with much improved autofocus compared to their current cameras in that price range for me to buy into their mirrorless system. I do have a D7100 so I am familiar with Nikon.
I'm using some RF lenses on my R8. But, even tho it's not the most versatile one, my fav is the 85mm F2. Got it on sale with a Eba* discount code for almost 500 bucks and I love the look it delivers and the sharpness.
The lens that normally lives on my R6 Mk II is my favorite: the 24-105 EF, using the EF > RF adapter. I just keep waiting, and waiting, and waiting some more, for Canon to produce more of the 200-800. Would it really be that much of a hardship for Canon to let us know when we'll actually be able to get one?
Hey Chris I just came across your your channel, I own a canon eos 70D as my intro to dslr I was wondering if you have any recommendations for crops lens for this type of camera as I’m looking to upgrade. I currently own the 75-300mm and 24-105mm. My interest are the following: landscape, street photography and architecture, night photography and photography and my woodworking projects. If there’s nothing worth upgrading to to progress my my learning with the things I want to shoot would upgrading to a more modern canon camera help my choices? Or should look at another brand like Sony A70 line up so I can have more choices in lenses be the way to go. curious to know your thoughts on which way to go. 😊
I would love to see Sigma RF lenses. Also agree that in telephoto category winer is Nikon. Adapting EF lenses is ok when you already have them, but buying EF to adapt it on RF is not good idea in my opinion. I bought RF 100-400 and it's fun little lens to have in a park or to take for a hike, also good for landscapes if you need extra reach, but as a wildlife is rather mediocre, not enough light to freeze motion, typically I need high ISO anyway and with this lens it is going to the roof.
Great video. I agree with your picks….. my RF50mm 1.2 does shoot a little darker than my other lenses - but I love it all the same. My biggest gripe is the RF85mm. I have tried both and at the time Samyang was still selling it’s RF version of the 85mm (at 1.4); this by far is my ALL TIME FAVORITE RF mount lens…..sharp with buttery smooth bokeh and BEAUTIFUL color rendition that none of my native Canon RF lenses can achieve. Shame Canon cut them off at the knees. Shortly after Canon did that - I stopped investing in any more Canon products….. I own enough to keep my kit relevant (RF35mm which I find a focal length that I cannot stand, RF50mm, RF28-70 and RF70-200) but I doubt I will buy another RF lens from Canon…..I found their decision to block other third-party companies to be nothing more than a money grab to its already loyal consumer base and often think of jumping ship entirely out of principle but don’t want to cut off my nose to spite my face as the saying goes. Well done presentation. So glad you guys didn’t disappear when DPReview did.
Great to refind you Chris- so many of the people I trust on this stuff seem to have gone away. Anyway- I have the Canon RP, the 50 f1.8 and the 24-105 f4- looking to expand my inventory of lenses (not sure why but thats another story) - getting very frustrated. I would switch to Nikon but among other shortcomings in the Nikon line I really like the fully articulating screen on the Canon. I have had Tamron before and really like their product. Question: what Nikon camera would I go to to match or BETTER the RP??--- (Ugg- changing systems) Thank you-
If you like a fully articulating screen, the Zf is a great choice. I'd try one out to make sure you like the retro-style dials, but it's a big step up over the RP in every way. - Jordan
Hello, what a great video. Thank you so much.. For wildlife, taking photos close to sunset or sunrise, if I have an R5 would you still get f2 or would f4 be overall enough...?
I like canon mirrorless bodies but I don't understand the lenses. You're either have a cheap options with no wether sealing and plastic exterior and plastic optical elements (plastic-molded aspherics, the 28mm f2.8 has 3 them out of 8) or you have vanity lenses like 28-70mm f2. You have few practical lenses like L-series f4 zooms or 100mm macro but for the rest there is nothing in between. I was drawn to Fuji only because it has compact primes which doesn't compromise build quality and look/feel great. Out of all FF mirrorless systems I'd rather pick Sony because of this. It has small walkaround prime lenses with good build quality (e.g. 24/40/50mm f2.5 trio or Zeiss 35mm f2.8 or Sigma contemporary series primes).
I got to play with the 28-70 some over the weekend and I have a few thoughts... The images are spectacular so I don't blame anyone who drools over it, BUT... it's uncomfortably big and heavy IMHO. It makes me wish for something like a 2-lens f/2 kit where each is more appropriately sized, maybe at the expense of range... something like 20 or 24-50 f/2, and maybe another lens not unlike the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8. The other thing going against the 28-70 is the lack of IS (not that it's needed for stills). I've owned the RF 24-70 for years now and it just makes for a nicer viewfinder experience and works great for video too. I shot one clip on my R5 with the 28-70 hand held, doing my best to brace the lens against my face (something I do all the time with the 24-70) and it was pretty shaky. Not a deal breaker-to me the size is the real deal breaker. Can absolutely see why wedding/event/ and portrait shooters love it so much though.
I have a really nice Viltrox AF 85/1.8 RF that you still can buy in Europe! Together with the Canon 16mm and 35/1.8 I have a small cheap but capable set 😃
Hello Chris, thank you for this great video. For a market leader the lens portfolio is way too small. Canon was and is very expensive but has good lenses. I love the 50mm f/1.8 it‘s a small lens with a a very good picture quality. This lens is perfect for street photography and I’ll test it this year in New York. My opinion as a Canon shooter: Canon has to invest more in the lens portfolio and should develop faster new lenses. Best regards from Germany
there are like over 100 lenses that work on an RF camera. EF glass didn't suddenly become awful. Red cameras use them. Blackmagic uses them. And that EF glass works better on the RF cameras than they do on EF cameras.
Canon needs some high-end APC-C RF-S lenses or open it up to Sigma and other 3rd parties to do it. Right now, an R7 with the option to use regular adapter or speed-boosted EF lenses seems like a good place to be... Give access to 3rd party EF glass too.
r7 is not the place to be unless youre shooting long lenses a/ birding, etc Otherwise there's basically nothing but crap lenses available. the worst lens lineup of any mount. I tried to get a r50, but it doesn't even have the lenses from the M series. It's just embarrassing.
I have been using Canon for a good while now and im about to go mirrorless. Sad to say that due to a lack of lenses and abscence of 3rd party lenses, im opting for Sony.
Bought the rf 15-35 2.8 when I was going to get the 14-35 f4 but it was on sale and only 200 more so got the 2.8 version, the 24-105 2.8 i tried and like that extra reach and loving the 200-800 its 6.3 at 600 so better than my 100-500 7.1.
I actually ended up getting the 24 to 72.8 and I love it but I have regretted it so many times. Now I got the 100 mm macro and I'm trying to return it to get a 15 to 35 or 70 to 200 or maybe even a 28 to 70
My sigma EF art lenses work with my R62 without a problem so only RF glass I have is the 24 70 2.8 all other lenses are sigma lenses. never needed a reason for to replace it with RF variants and Art series lenses are sharp and built well so. I shoot video too sometimes on other cameras and that EF lenses always comes handy. Sigma signaling some possible RF lenses in the future is promising,
Easy answer. Sony uses a 46mm mount that will vignette & 10 & 11mm, Canon and Nikon use a 52mm mount. One of my favourite lenses is my Samyang XP 10mm f/3.5 Lens for Canon EF rectilinear, adapted to my R5. 10mm is really wide, and, is often the only choice in tight gorges, slots, etc. Or, realestate to make that tiny room or yard look really big. But, only MF If adapted for Sonys 46mm mount, it will vignette. If you accept that the big three all have good glass available, then the final differentiator, infact a show stopper for some, is Sonys tiny 46mm mount. As a Canon R5 shooter, I cannot wait to try Canons new RF 10-20mm F4 rectilinear. If it is sharp as (it should be) I will buy it. This will also be a killer vlog lens. Btw, I read that even the Sony 12mm rectilinear will vignette if the ibis is on.
Can't help but feel Canon is missing out on sales due to the lack of affordable Primes with some form of weather resistance. As a hobbyist, who enjoys shooting in rain, there isn't anything that fits my needs with Canon's lineup without moving up to the 1.2's. Nikon and Panasonic both offer a great line up of 1.8 Prime's that are great options. Ended up going with Panasonic myself and have been quite happy with the performance of the lenses. Unable to say the same with my Gen 1 S5, but it gets the job done well enough. With the recent prices of the R6, it's been hard not to swap over to Canon, but the lens lineup just isn't there for my needs, yet.
Our picks are pretty similar. 14-35, 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8, 100-500, EF 100 macro IS. And others EF 11-24, TS-E 17mm and 24mm Mark II. Might rent the 28 pancake when it comes out. Could be a fun walk around.
I really like my RF 24-105/4! As an amateur I cannot justify those higher prized glass (24-70 or 28-70)! When I own the RF 100/2.8 Macro why do I need the 85/2 Macro? Then one of the two 85/1.2 would be the better choice in the whole line-up, IMHO! 🤔
Dude, so glad you didn't just got all-L in this video! The 85mm f2 macro is a lens I cannot get enough of!
100-500 for just $2? I know they say Canon glass is expensive, but this seems like a great deal!
the most expensive lenses for the canon RF mount SHOULD be the title of the video. The lack of 3rd party lenses made me switch to sony
@@pal54321good for you
The company listened to its customers complaining about RF lenses being too expensive and decided to give us a 99.92% price reduction. Canon is truly the People's brand!
@@theodorelenoir This is completely true. Oh, and I just saw a pig flying :)
2k for a lens that is f7.1at 500mm though. Maybe if it were at least f5.6, I can see the price justified. Sure it’s only 2/3 a stop slower than I’d like, but it’s still 2/3 a stop.
That being said, 100-500 might have to be the way I go when I do switch to canon. That or adapt the sigma 150-600.
The RF100-400 is phenomenal for the money. From close focus to long end zoom, its weight and size too. Really versatile lens. Its pretty much lived on my camera for a past year
Yep, amazing value for money. I was blown away by how sharp it is even on an R5
Great lens. Definitely worth it at < $400 on canons refurbished shop
@@rimtiggins6078 good to know it still holds up on R5. I'm using R6 with it. Probably end up on an R5 one day :)
Fantastic lens indeed, love mine!
Did You make money with it?
I love the playful nature of your informative and positive videos that support our community. Very entertaining and watchable.
I run the 14-35mm F4 L, the 24-105mm F4 L and the 70-200mm F4 L om an R5 body, it makes for a small lite kit, great for travel and stunning sharpness, thanks Canon 😀
I have the 35mm and the 70-200 and was looking for a 3rd one to add some kind of middle ground..? Would you recommend the 24-105?
Using RF50mm F1.2 and RF 135mm F1.8 as my main combos. Amazing lenses!!
Are you a PRO? I'm looking for a full-frame camera, and Canon EOS 45 looks like a great choice, less expensive than the Sony a1. Video 8K (who needs this amount of resolution? A maniac?) will force me to buy a new computer, but it looks like Mac mini with M2 processors will help 😆
@@Ancorarte well, same EF lenses have always been amazing lenses, so, you might get good options from those too, and for more affordable price
The RF 35 is a fantastic little lens! Sharp wide open, beautiful bokeh & rendering and on top of that it has IS and focuses extremely close.
Tell'em Chris!!! Thanks for the Video and your assessment of the Canon RF lineup. We really need more media putting pressure on Canon for their (in parts) lacking lens-system.
I'm running the R7 with Canon speed booster, EF 16-35 F4, 24-105 F4 ii, and 100-400 F4.5-5.6 ii and 35mm F2 IS. That gives me fast glass and dual-IS across the board, and I can opt for the 1.6x crop when I want it. It's nice - my GAS is quite happy with this arrangement. Oh, and a 60mm EF-S handles macro.
35mm F2 IS- great lens, really good build quality compared to recent RF midrange cheap stuff. I also have the EF 16-35 F4, 24-105 F4.
Ill say this, you may want to look at a r8- the 16-35 for crop is a huge chop to your view. Your set will be so much better on ff. 35mm ff is simply amazing, i used to adapt mine to my canon crops but the filed of view is just weirdly different.
@@simonmaduxx6777 I have the Canon branded speed booster, making the 16-35 on my R7 into an 18-40mm F2.8 😁 Same thing for the other. It yields an extra stop of light and 0.71x crop, so the math is 1.6 x FL x 0.71.
@@jw48335 I've never heard of a Canon branded speed booster...? Do you have the model of this product and I'll research it
Edit - found it. So this is made for video but it works on photos also? That's very interesting. 500 asking price no thank you but definitely interesting
I have had my EOS-R for the past almost four years and have not bought an RF lens yet. The EF-RF control ring adapter puts the control ring where I prefer it closer to the camera which I use for EVC or ISO, a joy when getting the exposure just right. I have bought the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6IIL IS which is fantastic on my R or on my 90D, just shot an evening graduation from the bleachers with this on my R. I use the EF 24-70/4L IS on my R most of the time, while using an older very sharp Tamron 17-50/2.8 XrDi on my 90D for similar results. And then there is the now discontinued Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 VC which I use for outdoor portraits which is very good on my 90D or on my R. The 35-150 was bought for my 70D and was great on it, tack sharp like the 70-200s but with a more useful focal range.
I will probably add the EF 16-35/4 L IS to my collection.
These lenses work even better on my R due to their EVF on sensor focusing giving me sharper results more of the time. I will probably upgrade my 90D to the EOS-R7 later.
I can’t wait for the rest of this series with all the other brands. I love you guys.
Sony, Nikon & L-mount
Chris did Sony's best lenses on DPReview 10 months ago if that counts.
Im a R7 user and have been taking pics of birds on my property. I have tried the 100-400 and there wasn't enough reach. I then bought the 800mm and have taken some awesome pics with it and I can fill the frame without having to be so close and scaring the birds away. I splurged and bought the 100-500 and while it is nice it is heavy and I'm back to having to be extra stealthy to get my shots. It was handy for getting some hummingbird pics as I could crank up the shutter speed and still have enough light. I have the 100 macro and its amazing. The latest is my 24mm 1.8 macro and it worked well for astro and shooting flowers with bugs but not sure if I would like it on a FF body for flowers as you would have to be even closer to fill the frame. Its pretty good with video since it has IS.
As someone who owns an R5, R6 II, and R7...I have yet to own a single piece of RF glass. Adapting EF is still perfect for my professional needs. Though Canon would tempt me if they ever release a compact & good performing 50 f/1.4
This man speaks truth! The canon RF lineup isnt what people think it is unless your spending thousands and thousands just to have the core L set.
I have a complete primary set of Ef glass, and the only thing i want from RF is a 50 1.4. Hell, i just bought a 16-35 f4 two years ago and have used it once...still smells new.
RFS is also a joke, worst set of lenses for a mount in the industry.
@@xxichikokoxx Yeah adapting is no big deal to me. I used to adapt plenty of lenses to my 3 M bodies. Budget notwithstanding, eventually I'll probably have the 24 to 70 RF. I just don't have that equivalent on EF.
This other compromises I don't want to make, like going from my bulletproof but heavy 70 to 200 to a push pull design. As a product I just don't want that. And of course there's no options.
So ultimately for me, the bigger frustrating issue is that Canon is simply not making mid-range lenses, so there is literally no replacement for my 50 1.4. That is my most critical lens and the only nearest replacement is like $2,500.
Thats insanity. Anyway enjoy your gear. I'm going to take this R62 out on its maiden voyage to Tokyo pretty soon along with a sigma 31.4 on my m62. There will be pictures lol.
PS - If I had a bigger budget I wouldn't even buy into RF I'd go and get one of the Panasonic bodies.
@@xxichikokoxx Oh trust me I believe you. I wish it was sharper at f2, as Overall the 24 to 70 is a bit better. But it's f2 so... One day I'll do a loaner from CPS. Maybe if I can get that from CPS abroad.
@@simonmaduxx6777I'm not sure what you've seen but at f2 the lens is still tack sharp.
@@marcusnartatez I was actually doing some research on it recently. Not that I plan to purchase it but just researching for future needs. If I had a 24 to 70 it would help greatly with my own location work
I've bought all of my Canon gear over last decade by referencing the digital picture. Seeing those simple image quality tests is a lot easier to use than DP reviews for example. It's simply black and white, which makes it easier to spot chroma sharpness etc.
Not sure if you've used it but it's a great reference for all Cannon stuff. You can do a direct comparison between lenses, you can see The f2 is very good wide open but not as sharp as if you were shooting 2.8 for example.
But hey at least you own it I don't I'm happy for you. One day I'll get to play with it, I'm going to check if Cannon does CPS loans when abroad. Cheers
The 28-70mm is such a beast. It's a go to if I'm shooting portraits and I want to make sure it's done right. But the weight does eventually cause my arms to fall off.
The 15-35 f2.8 and the 100-500 are almost always present in my camera bag. I genuinely love those lenses and despite the costs, I have gotten so much use out of both. Beyond that, the nifty 50 has been very nice. I did have the 800mm lens but after a year, I realized it was just not something I was using enough to justify keeping.
I find it really impressive that Nikon went from being lambasted for not having a huge lens lineup to winning a whole category against Canon in its own lens list in just a few years. It really is incredible how far they've come; though I would like to see them match Canon with an ultrawide prime under 20mm; and that 28-70 f/2 really is something special.
The only good thing about Nikon is they allow third parties to fill holes in the DX/APS-C lineup. Then again, I'm still cross with Nikon after they stole my trade-in gear worth over 1,000 and then ghosted my emails and ignored my questions in calls after signing they received it. Never got an adjusted value, never got any credit, and they even admitted they received it after I told them the name, address, and processing number proving they did.
@@StrangelyIronic So what you're saying is no one should listen to your opinion on Nikon gear because you have a vendetta against them.
@@StrangelyIronic and is there's anyone who never use first party lenses?
Also the Z DX 12-28mm just sealed their victory
I've used a wide variety of RF lenses and the 28 to 70mm is king but the downside is that it is extremely heavy so that made me choose the Canon 50mm RF lens instead. The way I see it is if its killing my back at a wedding how is it even worth it?
Viltrox will soon announce 16mm 1.8AF lens for Z mount
Jordan should film the next video entirely on a 35mm just to show Chris it's the best focal length
I do that all the time. The most recent episode was the Sigma 14mm F1.4 review, all shot on the Panasonic 35mm F1.8.
Certainly not the best for close ups of people, but it gets busy for sure. I originally bought mine for shallow backstage images, but when i started using it for street portraits...wow. brand new world.
The 100mm macro is quite nice. I need a large prime but I’m waiting hoping, as you said, Canon comes out with a new RF prime. Gossip said that Canon will start to allow 3rd party lenses. I’d buy the new Sigma 14mm f/1.4 art lens in a heart beat if it would fit. The 800mm f/11 I really like and I’m using it more than I expected. It is limited as you said but in Texas sunshine, it really gets up close to small finch size birds and it is super light so an R5 body and that lens is very comfortable to casually stroll around with. Right now, the 100-500mm is a must have.
I have the 16mm f/2.8 - 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8. They get the job done, but man they feel lackluster in the hands. My 35mm’s focus ring has become so loose you can go from minimum to infinity in the smallest nudge. We also have a Nikon Z set of 35-50-85mm and those lenses (even though they’re also f/1.8) just feel so much better to use.
I am thinking of getting the 28-70mm f/2 next.
When it comes to canon, focus on the highest quality you can get. their older mid range lenses had some real gems (85 1.4, which i forgot existed)..my 35mm f2 I Sis a banger to this day (feels better on my 5d3 tho). Try to find a default EF lens to adapt while you build the funds for the 28-70.
Unfortunately non of your RF lenses are particularly good, and the 16 is just pretty bad overall. I just wont buy those. I have a relatively new r62, and only old glass adapted.
To me personally, it just makes so much more sense to use my current EF glass on the R5, especially since you're not having to use any glass in between the adapter and the EF lens. Of course I do own a couple of RF lenses (14-35, 28-70 and the RF100), but for my telephoto lenses (70-200 and 100-400), I don't see the need to replace those, especially since I can use the 1.4 III teleconverter on then when needed.
As a Canon R5/R7 user, most of lenses are EF Sigma Arts... and I like them. It helps that I can use them on my 5D3 as well.
I've got the 50mm art and love it, a bit bulky bur really great AF and it has fast FPS. I tried the EF 50mm L 1.2 and the Sigma was twice as fast with the FPS. Important for me with my work. But might ditch that and my RF 24-105 F4 L, for the RF 24-70 2.8 or drumroll, the 28-70 F2.
@@LukeChristo I have a bunch of them. Big fan of the 135/1.8 (almost perfect) but I also use the 28, 40, 50, 70 Macro (got from work), 14-24, great stuff. The 100-400 contemporary has also done me well.
@@856pm5 Hi Luke, which is your camera? I'm looking for the full frame EOS R5 (to make a food/product/headshots portfolio, also some photo/video art projects( 8k is too much, and I will need a new computer(Mac mini with M2 maybe helps) I live very close to Manhattan, where still have demand for these photos despite the pandemic dilemma) BH has a discount if I buy the kit camera + 24-105mm f/4L ... should be a good idea? or/and maybe start with 50mm and 85mm (that this video highlight as great and versatile)? I will sell my Fuji XT4 and a few lenses... I didn't fail in love with this Fuji, my bad (I enjoyed an old Nikon, better interface for me, but I'm looking for a Canon now)
For anyone thinking about getting the 35mm 1.8, it's fantastic even wide open and stopped down just a bit performs just as well as the L series stuff. It's wildly underrated for its price and size.
I love my RF 85mm f/2 Macro. I subbed to the podcast just because you recommended this.
I'm absolutely loving the R7 with RF100-400. Great value. Obviously limited outside of sunlight but the reach is great, it's cheap, and it's compact and light if you are hiking or on long walks like me. Easy to hand hold. I carry a 3 stop ND with it in case I see larger animals and want to get video in 24p, but for birds I shoot in 120p and lose the ND (also for photos). While I would love the 100-500 I think the portability of the 100-400 might make it more useable on hikes. It's probably the best value of any RF lens.
It’s relatively cheap. I found the Nikon p1000 to be more affordable and have much better reach with solid image quality
As a macro, instead of Canon brand I'm using Laowa 90mm f2.8 2x Ultra Macro and I just love it.
I do not own a Canon RF camera but I once considered it. Here are the lenses that tempted me before (and the newer ones that tempt me still).
16 f2.8
24-240mm
24mm F2 macro
28-70mm F2
35mm f1.8 macro
85mm f2 macro
These are all very good
Hi Chris! I would like to see Canon produce a RF 200-600, 180-600, or 150-600 for wildlife photography. Something affordable in the high $1000 or $2000 range. This in order to compete with Sony and Nikon. If Canon does not move on this in the foreseeable future, I am going to switch to Sony or Nikon. Thanks for allowing my input!
Nikon just released their 180-600 💁♂️💁♂️
Same here.
Switch now. canon isnt learning anything.
The new Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM cost around 2200 euros. Looks like it's the best option for birdwatchers.
RF lenses may have advantages over their adapted EF counterparts, but part of me also wishes that EF will continue to live on because adapters with drop-in filters make it so much easier to use the same filters for multiple lenses.
It's such a great feature isn't it
buy them now!
@@JohnMacLeanPhotography If you mean to buy the EF L glass now, I heartily agree. If you can find the lenses. They're disappearing from the market.
This is especially due for video where it is much easier to control exposure with a EF-RF VND adapter than a VND on the end of a RF mount lens.
I run the 14-35mm F4 L, the 24-105mm F4 L and the 70-200mm F4 L on an R5 body, it makes for a small lite kit, great for travel and stunning sharpness, thanks Canon 😀
I use the DS version of the 85 f1.2. Fantastic lens. Image quality is superb. The bokeh is one of a kind. Focus speed is sufficient for portraits. I even use it to take pictures of my kids play.
When I look at my catalogue this lens consistently produces the best images I have. This is a very special lens. I doubt I will ever let it go in favor of the other options mentioned. It is too good.
Having tried aftermarket lenses I prefer OEM. Buy nice or buy twice. So happy that Gear Patrol is keeping DPReview alive.
That was another great video guys. I really love those affordable primes from Canon 16,35,50,85.
The "no 3rd party policy" is keeping me from buying into the Canon RF system. I shot Canon FD for many years, then EF film and DSLR. It was great! There were so many choices in Canon lenses alone, and the third-party lenses gave so many options. Now, at the point of going mirrorless I'm looking seriously at Sony (Nikon has its own issues), or Fuji.
Zero interest in any company limiting me to their lenses
I recently switched to Sony, after using Fuji for some time. As a primes shooter, I found Sony’s GM line surprisingly excellent and Sigma’s i-series a good alternative for a compact setup. I also picked up Tamron’s f2.8 zooms which are fantastic for their price and size!
I feel like the 3rd party lenses not only provide cheaper alternatives to Sony’s lenses but also complement them for different scenarios. Plus, their existence probably pushes Sony to keep their lenses prices somewhat cheaper than Canonikon - at least in Europe.
@@recklesscodingtotally, i have sigma primes 35,50 and 85 and i have a tamron 35-150, 135gm and 200-600 its amazing having so many options to choose from
They dropped that policy recently, there are 3rd party AF lenses coming up for the RF mount. And if you don't mind manual lenses, there's been such 3rd party RF lenses all along.
@@lsamoa That's fine but they've taken so long that people have entered competing ecosystems. Canon thought they were in the 80s but now everyone else is just as good. Shame.
I have such a love/hate relationship with the 28-70 f2. It's massive, heavy, not stabilized (which on the R5C means double not stabilized), but if you can afford it, carry it, and keep your shutter speed high enough...dang it's pretty.
Hiya and thanks for the choices. I am thinking of getting an RF soon. Waving from The Bahamas 🇧🇸
I feel that the EF Sigma Art primes are better choices than some of your recommendations.... waiting for their eventual RF versions.
Was between the 28-70 F2 or the 24-70 F2.8...
Bought the F2.8. More versatile than the F2 beast. Love to have 4mm in the wider range and less to carry around.
But that f2
@@bluecollar8525 Yes - but before this lens was on the market the 2.8 also did the job. F2 is heavy and bulkier (some people do not like the 95mm lens in front of them, especially kids), and the price is also a thing. I could buy the 2.8 for a really good, REALLY GOOD, price - it was a no-brainer for 2k € - new. The regular price is between 2.5-2.7k Euro. Compared to the F2 with a price of 3.5k Euro. Hurts. 😀
The F2 defies logic. The images are magical wide open. This is a great example of Canon leveraging the advantages of the RF mount to deliver a special lens. I shoot a lot on Sony, but when I am willing to deal with the added weight to get a stand-out photograph, I turn to the R or R5 with the 28-70.
@@mariopassalacqua6674 Yes, agree. It's a great lens. But not at the moment for me personally. Maybe I'll go with it one day when I see a great offer and I'm ready to carry the more weight 😅
Thee must be some sample variations. I have the 24-105 F4 L and my copy is very sharp, and resolves scenes quite well. I would suggest anyone wanting something in this range would be well served by trying it out and seeing if it works as well for you as for me.
There's definitely significant sample variation with the 24-105. Even down to the angle of view, I remember one review saying one copy went wider than the other
I would definitely appreciate a Sigma 150-600mm native. 500mm and a 7.1 aperture on the long end doesn’t really feel like a good deal when there are less expensive, faster 600mm zooms out there, even from first parties like Sony and Nikon.
Wrong. I had rf 100-400, switched it to sigma 150-600, then to rf 100-500 with extender. Its sharp as hell. Sigma is ok, but rf is on another level
Hey, Chris. One thing we agree on is the paucity of RF lenses. For me, especially in the 200-600mm range and wide angle Ld. Canon owned the 300-400 range: 300mm f/4, 400mm f/5.6, 300mm f/2.8 (smashing lens), and the 400mm f/4 DO II (my favorite telephoto ever). Oh, and the 200-400 f/4-f/5.6. I recently bought the EF 70-200 f/2.8 for use on an R5 for the TCs and I wanted that big honker white monster. Anyway. Thanks for the good presentation.
[ ADDED ]
I searched for RF L wide angle lenses, finding only the 5.2mm f/2.8 L Dual Fisheye 3D VR. There were several STM RF wide angle lenses, including the ones you picked, of course. It helped explain to me why you picked STM lenses, as it seems counterintuitive for a photographer at your level. I thought your admonition against EF glass on the EOS R cameras odd, as it's the best solution for the missing Canon RF L glass. One of the major success in the introduction of the EOS R series cameras was the ability to use EF glass, and keep the image quality for those lenses. I was amazed. For those lucky enough to already have one or more of the best EF lenses, keep them, and hold onto them until the comparable RF L glass is on the market.
Thank you for sharing such wealth of great information about different lenses you've had experience with over the years! Truly helpful
I wish they'd revive the 40mm pancake lens for the RF mount. I have the EF one and it's my absolute favorite lens, but I keep worrying about it breaking because it's now discontinued.
Need a 24mm 1.4 RF from canon, but for now I’ll run the sigma adapted
With Lightroom's AI noise removal, I really like the 100-400 even with the 1.4x teleconverter for walk-around birding. Super lightweight!
Lightroom's AI denoising has improved greatly. But it's still not at the same level as Topaz Labs's Denoise AI. :)
@@onlysublime oh, I'll have to try it out. Do you know if either of these software models consider the specific sensor that took the RAW?
@@xandfis not that i know of
@@onlysublime I tried both and found that Topaz does seem better in most cases, but for some reason Lightroom's works better at restoring color.
@@xandfis what do you mean by restoring color? I use both together. I make my edits in LR. Then I export as TIFF. Then I do my sharpness and noise reduction on the entire batch letting it adjust settings (I tend to like the third one). Then I export the batch. There are so many different workflows depending on how you like to edit.
Some of our personal choices are driven by the type of photography we do. For example, the standard zooms have never been a big part of my life. Because of this - I favor the 24-105. But, I do have the 50 1.2 and the 85 1.2 - so that makes up for it. :) For my wide lens, if I had it to do over, I would probably buy the 14-35 f4 over the 15-35 f2.8 that I own now. I honestly don't need 2.8 when shooting wide, at least not enough to justify the expense, especially with the high iso performance of the new bodies. Truth be known, whatever I buy, I always want all the others too!
Good balanced outline of the Canon RF mount. RF stands for Rigorously Financed!!. I hoped on mirrorless with the R6 3 years ago. I have been making it with the 24-70 2.8 zoom and the kit 24-105 f4 zoom. I sprinkled in 100mm 2.8 35mm 85mm 16mm. The choices are limited. Canon choice to close the mount to 3rd parties betray us all. Then only offer $2500-$3100 options is barbaric . Sony is a freaking humanitarian!!!!😢
Why are you pretending all the non L lenses don't exist?
Chris, get out of my head!! I picked up my first mirrorless (the Canon R6) last year, and my lens lineup is VERY on point with your list. I have exactly three RF "L" lenses, and they're all "Chris's Picks": the RF 50mm f/1.2, the RF 28-70 f/2, and the RF 70-200 f/2.8. Also, I'm CONSTANTLY singing the praises of the humble RF 85mm f/2 as a budget BEAST! Of course, I've got an RF Nifty Fifty in my bag for travel or quick shoots in dicey terrain or areas of town. Oh, and the 100mm macro is next on my list! :D
just your lenses alone is nearly 10k. That is crazytown. enjoy the gear, that said canon is really looking crazy out here.
I’m disappointed with the lack of lens choice for my R6. Look at Nikon, Sony and Panasonic and the range is huge because they have 3rd party options. I have a decent amount of EF glass to adapt but don’t see this as a long term answer.
I want to replace my EF glass with RF but it seems Canon only offer entry level or full on pro priced options.
As I haven’t bought any RF lenses (apart from the pretty ordinary 50mm f1.8) I’m thinking of changing brands as Canon seem uninterested in providing realistic options.
The RF 35mm f1.8 is a great lens, selling normally for $399 on sale, with a slight distortion. True, a macro should not have any distortion, but it is corrected in camera, at least on JPG. It is sharp, and low cost.
Thanks and very useful video. Glad to see you back on UA-cam post AMZ
Great video. Very nice overview of the gear that is available now for the RF mount and very well made picks. Keep on the good work.
Thanks! Just bought a Canon R8 body and a couple of your recommended lenses.
Thanks for the great review on the Canon RF line up. If Canon willing, lens like the Tamron or Samyang 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 zoom lens is the very reason why I decided to go with Sony after switching from Canon APS-C/Full Frame DSLR to Fuji APS-C and now to Sony Full Frame Alpha due to the competitive pricing and excellent image quality. Once I heard Canon was not allowing 3rd party to build AF lenses anymore last year, I cross it right off my list IMMIDIATALY regardless how good the Dual Pixel focus is finally in its maturity stage (that took a loooooong time!)
I still sometimes poke around with my EOS film cameras, and own a 6D. So I'm not above adapting the few EF lenses I own. I'm not turned off by the lack of 3rd party support, for a few reasons: 1) Canon's are usually better anyway 2) Canon's have better resale value 3) for everything else, mirrorless lets you try weird vintage lenses.
That RF 85 looks interesting, especially if it's better optically than the EF 85 ... which lacked IS, macro, and cost more! Be thankful for small favors?
Your videos are very educational. They're teaching me a lot!
Canon 50mm 1.8 STM was an immediate return for me. The focusing is a bit slow, and the motor noise is very annoying. It’s also not weather sealed.
For me the 100-500 will probably the long range zoom I am going to take if I ever get the RF mount. I got a 100-400 now and at first I just bought this lens because I seriously wanted a white lens to give me the feeling I am a professional. But then I started using it and now 4 years later it's the only lens I bought back then I still use as it's just the best EF lens I've ever had. It helped me ou in so many situations. So I would probably want that white one for the RF mount to. That 100mm extra would be perfect. And even if in normal ranges, I do care about as much light as possible. I see with the EF lens, even in the darkest situations, I get excellent shots. So I not going to watch the 2.8 prime and/or zoom lenses that still need to be made. It will however make me also get a RF-S camera, just for that extra range feeling I also get now with my EF-S camera xD
The thing that makes me disappointed with my canon lenses is each one has some weird limitation that other brands don’t have and shouldn’t be issues for expensive lenses. 70-200, sorry no TC. 100-500, sorry tc use is limited above 300mm and take a 7.1 for the heck of it. 50 1.2 sorry loud clunky af with no internal focus barrel. 15-35 2.8 don’t look at the vignette that’s too much for software to correct. Tele primes, sorry here’s some ef versions with adapter built in.
What camera did you guys film this video with? 😅
The 14-35 had awful vignetting around the corners for me, making 14mm unusable, so I traded it at a slight loss and I found none of that with the 15-35 F2.8L. A lot more money but truly worth it especially if you shoot a lot of architectural shots.
I sold the Sigma EF 105mm F/2.8 macro for the Canon RF 100mm F/2.8L and I don't regret it. Yes, the Sigma is much less expensive. Its AF is also slower and louder, with a tendency to hunt. The Canon is lighter, focuses quicker, focuses closer, and is a little sharper.
I had to laugh when Chris kept saying "there's not a lot to choose from" for every category, because he's right. Canon have some great lenses, some not matched by anyone else; but there's still a lot of gaps. Where's a fast 20mm prime? A tilt/shift? A fast 14mm? And more affordable non-L lenses, especially RF-S for those R7/10/50 owners?
My favorite lenses are the 50 1.2 and the 100-500 - both phenomenal. But you sure need big pockets for the RF lenses and it still baffles me that there are no 24mm or 35mm L-series primes. Getting really tired of waiting..
50 1.2 is special
Hi, what about RF 24-240 ? Did you try it as a one to do it all lens? Probably my pick to go lightweight on a hiking/bike/motorcycle adventure
Love the creative use of High Park, lol! 😆
NEED the same video for all other brands!
I am waiting for L-series primes in the price range of $600-$1200 before pulling the trigger on entering the Canon system. These would target the enthusiast / semi-pro market. Thus, 50 mm 1.4, 35 mm 1.4, 20 mm 1.4 or 1.8 would be a good start. Failure for Canon to execute in this regard will open the door for another brand. For example, all Nikon needs to do is come out with a $2500 full frame mirrorless camera with much improved autofocus compared to their current cameras in that price range for me to buy into their mirrorless system. I do have a D7100 so I am familiar with Nikon.
From what I’ve been told you wont need to wait to long for that Nikon camera.
"L-series primes in the price range of $600-$1200"
unless its the unchanged 24-105,this is not happening ever.
I'm using some RF lenses on my R8. But, even tho it's not the most versatile one, my fav is the 85mm F2. Got it on sale with a Eba* discount code for almost 500 bucks and I love the look it delivers and the sharpness.
The lens that normally lives on my R6 Mk II is my favorite: the 24-105 EF, using the EF > RF adapter. I just keep waiting, and waiting, and waiting some more, for Canon to produce more of the 200-800. Would it really be that much of a hardship for Canon to let us know when we'll actually be able to get one?
For Macro, there are even (manual) 3rd party options, that don't need to be adapted, like the wonderful laowa 90mm f2.8 2x macro
Thanks for the video. What do you think of the RF24-105 f/2.8?
Need a RF 300 F4 l and RF 400 F5.6 L like the classic EF lenses. Thanks for the video.
Hey Chris I just came across your your channel, I own a canon eos 70D as my intro to dslr I was wondering if you have any recommendations for crops lens for this type of camera as I’m looking to upgrade. I currently own the 75-300mm and 24-105mm. My interest are the following: landscape, street photography and architecture, night photography and photography and my woodworking projects. If there’s nothing worth upgrading to to progress my my learning with the things I want to shoot would upgrading to a more modern canon camera help my choices? Or should look at another brand like Sony A70 line up so I can have more choices in lenses be the way to go. curious to know your thoughts on which way to go. 😊
I would love to see Sigma RF lenses. Also agree that in telephoto category winer is Nikon. Adapting EF lenses is ok when you already have them, but buying EF to adapt it on RF is not good idea in my opinion. I bought RF 100-400 and it's fun little lens to have in a park or to take for a hike, also good for landscapes if you need extra reach, but as a wildlife is rather mediocre, not enough light to freeze motion, typically I need high ISO anyway and with this lens it is going to the roof.
I'm totally new to photography, what's your opinion on the 24-240 f4-6.3 usm, my RP came with 24-105, which one will be the best fit for my camera?
Great video. I agree with your picks….. my RF50mm 1.2 does shoot a little darker than my other lenses - but I love it all the same. My biggest gripe is the RF85mm. I have tried both and at the time Samyang was still selling it’s RF version of the 85mm (at 1.4); this by far is my ALL TIME FAVORITE RF mount lens…..sharp with buttery smooth bokeh and BEAUTIFUL color rendition that none of my native Canon RF lenses can achieve. Shame Canon cut them off at the knees. Shortly after Canon did that - I stopped investing in any more Canon products….. I own enough to keep my kit relevant (RF35mm which I find a focal length that I cannot stand, RF50mm, RF28-70 and RF70-200) but I doubt I will buy another RF lens from Canon…..I found their decision to block other third-party companies to be nothing more than a money grab to its already loyal consumer base and often think of jumping ship entirely out of principle but don’t want to cut off my nose to spite my face as the saying goes. Well done presentation. So glad you guys didn’t disappear when DPReview did.
Great to refind you Chris- so many of the people I trust on this stuff seem to have gone away. Anyway- I have the Canon RP, the 50 f1.8 and the 24-105 f4- looking to expand my inventory of lenses (not sure why but thats another story) - getting very frustrated. I would switch to Nikon but among other shortcomings in the Nikon line I really like the fully articulating screen on the Canon. I have had Tamron before and really like their product. Question: what Nikon camera would I go to to match or BETTER the RP??--- (Ugg- changing systems) Thank you-
If you like a fully articulating screen, the Zf is a great choice. I'd try one out to make sure you like the retro-style dials, but it's a big step up over the RP in every way.
- Jordan
Hello, what a great video. Thank you so much.. For wildlife, taking photos close to sunset or sunrise, if I have an R5 would you still get f2 or would f4 be overall enough...?
Not holding my breath for some lenses, those that we don't use often then I believe EF + EF to RF is the cost effective way to go.
yes, I got the 85 mm f2 it stays full time on my RP, very good photos. Macro, the Laowa 100 mm is a very good macro lens, reasonably priced.
I like canon mirrorless bodies but I don't understand the lenses. You're either have a cheap options with no wether sealing and plastic exterior and plastic optical elements (plastic-molded aspherics, the 28mm f2.8 has 3 them out of 8) or you have vanity lenses like 28-70mm f2. You have few practical lenses like L-series f4 zooms or 100mm macro but for the rest there is nothing in between. I was drawn to Fuji only because it has compact primes which doesn't compromise build quality and look/feel great. Out of all FF mirrorless systems I'd rather pick Sony because of this. It has small walkaround prime lenses with good build quality (e.g. 24/40/50mm f2.5 trio or Zeiss 35mm f2.8 or Sigma contemporary series primes).
I got to play with the 28-70 some over the weekend and I have a few thoughts... The images are spectacular so I don't blame anyone who drools over it, BUT... it's uncomfortably big and heavy IMHO. It makes me wish for something like a 2-lens f/2 kit where each is more appropriately sized, maybe at the expense of range... something like 20 or 24-50 f/2, and maybe another lens not unlike the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8.
The other thing going against the 28-70 is the lack of IS (not that it's needed for stills). I've owned the RF 24-70 for years now and it just makes for a nicer viewfinder experience and works great for video too. I shot one clip on my R5 with the 28-70 hand held, doing my best to brace the lens against my face (something I do all the time with the 24-70) and it was pretty shaky. Not a deal breaker-to me the size is the real deal breaker. Can absolutely see why wedding/event/ and portrait shooters love it so much though.
I love my RF 50mm 1.2 🙏🏻 Great video!
RF 28-70mm F2 fabulous lens 📸
I have a really nice Viltrox AF 85/1.8 RF that you still can buy in Europe! Together with the Canon 16mm and 35/1.8 I have a small cheap but capable set 😃
That 28-70mm f2 is a weapon...essentially a bag of primes in one zoom lens. If you can afford it, it sounds like a great choice.
I saw a sign and it led me here. Always keep an eye out for signs; this is why we need a good lens.
Hello Chris, thank you for this great video. For a market leader the lens portfolio is way too small. Canon was and is very expensive but has good lenses. I love the 50mm f/1.8 it‘s a small lens with a a very good picture quality. This lens is perfect for street photography and I’ll test it this year in New York. My opinion as a Canon shooter: Canon has to invest more in the lens portfolio and should develop faster new lenses. Best regards from Germany
there are like over 100 lenses that work on an RF camera. EF glass didn't suddenly become awful. Red cameras use them. Blackmagic uses them. And that EF glass works better on the RF cameras than they do on EF cameras.
Canon needs some high-end APC-C RF-S lenses or open it up to Sigma and other 3rd parties to do it. Right now, an R7 with the option to use regular adapter or speed-boosted EF lenses seems like a good place to be... Give access to 3rd party EF glass too.
r7 is not the place to be unless youre shooting long lenses a/ birding, etc
Otherwise there's basically nothing but crap lenses available. the worst lens lineup of any mount. I tried to get a r50, but it doesn't even have the lenses from the M series. It's just embarrassing.
I have been using Canon for a good while now and im about to go mirrorless. Sad to say that due to a lack of lenses and abscence of 3rd party lenses, im opting for Sony.
Bought the rf 15-35 2.8 when I was going to get the 14-35 f4 but it was on sale and only 200 more so got the 2.8 version, the 24-105 2.8 i tried and like that extra reach and loving the 200-800 its 6.3 at 600 so better than my 100-500 7.1.
I actually ended up getting the 24 to 72.8 and I love it but I have regretted it so many times. Now I got the 100 mm macro and I'm trying to return it to get a 15 to 35 or 70 to 200 or maybe even a 28 to 70
Grateful for you Chris !
My sigma EF art lenses work with my R62 without a problem so only RF glass I have is the 24 70 2.8 all other lenses are sigma lenses. never needed a reason for to replace it with RF variants and Art series lenses are sharp and built well so. I shoot video too sometimes on other cameras and that EF lenses always comes handy. Sigma signaling some possible RF lenses in the future is promising,
Easy answer. Sony uses a 46mm mount that will vignette & 10 & 11mm, Canon and Nikon use a 52mm mount.
One of my favourite lenses is my Samyang XP 10mm f/3.5 Lens for Canon EF
rectilinear, adapted to my R5. 10mm is really wide, and, is often the only choice in tight gorges, slots, etc. Or, realestate to make that tiny room or yard look really big. But, only MF
If adapted for Sonys 46mm mount, it will vignette. If you accept that the big three all have good glass available, then the final differentiator, infact a show stopper for some, is Sonys tiny 46mm mount.
As a Canon R5 shooter, I cannot wait to try Canons new RF 10-20mm F4 rectilinear. If it is sharp as (it should be) I will buy it. This will also be a killer vlog lens.
Btw, I read that even the Sony 12mm rectilinear will vignette if the ibis is on.
My fav Lenses for my Canon is my RF 35mm f1.8 STM, my RF 14-35mm L f4 and my RF 70-200mm L f2.8. 🫶🫶🫶🫶🫶
I have only been using EF glass and it’s amazing 😊
Can't help but feel Canon is missing out on sales due to the lack of affordable Primes with some form of weather resistance. As a hobbyist, who enjoys shooting in rain, there isn't anything that fits my needs with Canon's lineup without moving up to the 1.2's. Nikon and Panasonic both offer a great line up of 1.8 Prime's that are great options. Ended up going with Panasonic myself and have been quite happy with the performance of the lenses. Unable to say the same with my Gen 1 S5, but it gets the job done well enough. With the recent prices of the R6, it's been hard not to swap over to Canon, but the lens lineup just isn't there for my needs, yet.
I thought Adorama was the worst place to sell camera equipment till I decided to give KEH a try and boy did I regret!!
please continue...Adorama sell prices was pretty trash, admittedly.
Our picks are pretty similar. 14-35, 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8, 100-500, EF 100 macro IS. And others EF 11-24, TS-E 17mm and 24mm Mark II. Might rent the 28 pancake when it comes out. Could be a fun walk around.
I bought the RF 28mm Pancake and love it. Weighs nothing and is sharp.
As someone that runs a real estate media company. I find the 14-35 has far more distortion and optical flaws compared to the 15-35.
I really like my RF 24-105/4! As an amateur I cannot justify those higher prized glass (24-70 or 28-70)! When I own the RF 100/2.8 Macro why do I need the 85/2 Macro? Then one of the two 85/1.2 would be the better choice in the whole line-up, IMHO! 🤔
Petamaniacs 🙌🙌👌
I like Petaphiles
Way better than dpmaniacs