Best non-L RF lenses

convergent

POTN Refugee
Joined
20 Nov 2023
Posts
19
Likes
21
Location
North Carolina by the Atlantic Ocean
Name
Mike
Image Editing
No
For many years prior to mirrorless I've had primarily EF L lenses. I did this for a business for a while and then just kept my L taste when it went to hobby. I've been reading a lot about how the RF non-L lenses produce quite good results. I'm curious what experience everyone has had with the non-L RFs. If you have any images to share, that would be great.
 
I used to use the EF 28-300L and loved it. Many people griped about it, like all gear that hits the market. I suspect most of those people had no experience with longer focal lengths and got soft results. They probably didn't do MFA either. When MFA is done right that lens worked like a champ.

When the RF 24-240 came out I had to get it. As far as I can tell it is as good or maybe better than the EF 28-300L. Half the weight and much smaller and much less expensive. It is my most used lens.

I will probably get the RF 200-800 when it is readily available, but I will probably keep the EF 100-400L II.
 
I really like the RF 28/2.8 when it comes to the need of a small setup.
The lens works fine on my R5 and also as a 45/2.8 in my wife's R10
 
50/1.8 works fine as well, if you don't search for great bokeh or sharper corners on wide open. from 2.8 it's sharp across frame.
When I tested it for first time, I was pretty surprised about "softness" on f1.8 - I need just few seconds in Lightroom for fixing it and if I don't crop much - for $150 it is very sharp lens! Want to say, cheap lens can produce same quality pictures in most situations as L lenses (except very fast lenses), but I like to use zooms without optical distortions, that is L-zooms, but non-L fixes can be very good!

And I read about 85/2 - good lens! and 35/1.8 maybe best from non L lens... Depend what you looking for.

eos R + 50/1.8
DPR_8896e1mini by Paul Drevnytskyy, on Flickr

230416-DPR_8596-mini by Paul Drevnytskyy, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I really like the RF 28/2.8 when it comes to the need of a small setup.
The lens works fine on my R5 and also as a 45/2.8 in my wife's R10
I am considering eventually adding this lens, mostly to use with my R10 when I take it as my "light weight travel kit". I used to own a M50, along with EF-M 11-22mm, 18-150mm and 22mm f/2 lenses, for that purpose. I have (or will soon have) RF-S replacements for the first two EF-M lenses, but am still searching for a 22mm f/2 pancake replacement. I own a RF 16mm f/2.8, but that's mostly used as a wide angle solution for my R6 m2. It's a little wide for my intended purpose on the R10, though.

During my dSLR days, I had mostly "L" lenses paired with 5D3 and 7D2 bodies -- EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS, 24-105mm f/4 L IS, 70-200mm f/4 L IS, 100-400mm L IS II, 50mm f/1.2 L. In my switchover to mirrorless, I only have a single L -- the RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. The rest of my lenses are non-L's -- RF 16mm f/2.8, RF 35mm f/1.8 IS, RF 50mm f/1.8, RF 100-400mm, RF 800mm f/11 IS, and RF-S 18-150mm. I plan to add the RF-S 10-18mm later this month, too. I have been very satisfied with each of these lenses.
 
Last edited:
Since the RF-L lenses are too expensive to upgrade to, I got a couple of non-L RF zooms to fit slots that EF didn't cover. I started with the RF 24-105 STM. It's so small and light that I can throw it in the bag just in case or it can be an all-day walkaround lens when I want to keep the weight down. It's sharp enough where it matters. Most of the time, the corners of my frame are out of focus anyway, so I'm not concerned if they're not pin sharp. I also bought an RF 24-240. This has become one of my most-used lenses and lets me get past 105 mm without lugging around the big EF 70-200 2.8. As with the 24-105, it's sharp enough where it matters and also makes a great video lens. The only EF lens I replaced with an EF lens is the EF50/1.4 in favor of the RF 50/1.8. The adapter was as big as the lens so I like getting back to more compact form factor.
 
I am considering eventually adding this lens, mostly to use with my R10 when I take it as my "light weight travel kit". I used to own a M50, along with EF-M 11-22mm, 18-150mm and 22mm f/2 lenses, for that purpose. I have (or will soon have) RF-S replacements for the first two EF-M lenses, but am still searching for a 22mm f/2 pancake replacement. I own a RF 16mm f/2.8, but that's mostly used as a wide angle solution for my R6 m2. It's a little wide for my intended purpose on the R10, though.

During my dSLR days, I had mostly "L" lenses paired with 5D3 and 7D2 bodies -- EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS, 24-105mm f/4 L IS, 70-200mm f/4 L IS, 100-400mm L IS II, 50mm f/1.2 L. In my switchover to mirrorless, I only have a single L -- the RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. The rest of my lenses are non-L's -- RF 16mm f/2.8, RF 35mm f/2 IS, RF 50mm f/1.8, RF 100-400mm, RF 800mm f/11 IS, and RF-S 18-150mm. I plan to add the RF-S 10-18mm later this month, too. I have been very satisfied with each of these lenses.
Hi Scott,
you won't be disappointed by the RF 28/2.8. Quality wise it will fit to 35/2 and 50/1.8!
I compare it with the EF 40/2.8 I used to love on my EOS 5D IV!
 
This IS+IBIS is really good on these RF lenses. The first image is handheld at 1/4 sec @ 52mm from the RF 24-105 STM.

i-f8pfVc2-X3.jpg



Second image is from the RF 24-240.

i-RMT2Hmb-X3.jpg
 
With my 6D, I had a few L lenses (24-105, 70-200 f/4, 100 macro). Now I’ve got 6 non L Rf lenses and I like all of them. Right now my most used is the 24-105 STM as it’s my first choice when I’m doing family activities. It’s probably sharper than my now sold EF 24-105 L and as I bought it used, it was much cheaper.
I use the 85 f/2 a lot too, mostly for portraits of my family. Image quality is excellent and the very short MFD makes it quite versatile too.
The RF 100-400 is right behind. Fantastic lens for the price. I would never carry a 100-500 around as I’m never alone when taking pictures and I have to take care of my children between shots, but the 100-400 gives me a sharp and light telephoto that I can use for portraits, landscape and occasional visits to the zoo. I love it.
The 3 others are the 35 f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.8, and the 15-30. Image quality for all of them is more than enough for me.
L lenses would probably get me some more sharpness and a snappier autofocus, but as an amateur, I don’t think it’s enough to justify their price and weight.
 
In order to get my R7 when it was first offered I had to get it with the kit lens, the 18-150. It is a very good lens.

the interesting thing about the 18-150 is that on an APS-C camera it is almost the same as the 24-240 being the equivalent of 28-240.
 
I've got the RF 200-800 on pre-order. I hope it can be a consideration for this thread once we start to see some real world examples and use cases. I'll still keep my 100-400II as it'll be a compliment, but not a replacement.

But for now I'll go other end of the spectrum with the RF 16mm 2.8. I've had this for a while, and finally put it to use. The more I look at my images, the more I'm pleasantly surprised with it. I don't do UWA enough to justify moving from my adapted EF 16-35 f/4 to the RF 14-35, but this little lens is a bit of a gem. Perfect to throw in the bag for a hike as a partner to my RF 24-105. If you set aside the fact I have nothing to give a sense of scale to the nearly 500ft high walls here, the detail is there enough and I even managed to get a decent sunstar from it.

Grand Wash Narrows sunstar (Capital Reef NP).jpg
 
I really like the RF 28/2.8 when it comes to the need of a small setup.
The lens works fine on my R5 and also as a 45/2.8 in my wife's R10
Hi. Can you please show some photos from rf 28 ? Interesting... Maybe I shout get one.
Maybe create separated thread for this lens... Many people looking for so much small FF lens, i guess.
 
RF 800mm f11
RF 24-105 STM
RF 16mm f2.8

are my three non L lenses. Very good lenses within their operating parameters (for example. the 800 isn't great for BIF or in low light but for good light non fast moving subjects IQ is very good)
There is a thread for the 24-105 STM here where I have some photos and have a flickr album for it.
I had the 24-240 and although some forum members get good results with it, I didn't like it and ended up selling it.
For the 16mm here is one (I have an album on flickr for this lens) this is a great lens that is economical and very tiny. Perfect to add to the travel kit.

St-Chapelle, Paris by Ed Spenser, on Flickr

For the RF 800 here is one

Pied billed grebe, Canon RF 800 f11 by Ed Spenser, on Flickr
 
This IS+IBIS is really good on these RF lenses. The first image is handheld at 1/4 sec @ 52mm from the RF 24-105 STM.

i-f8pfVc2-X3.jpg



Second image is from the RF 24-240.

i-RMT2Hmb-X3.jpg
I like this lens also and recently took it on a trip through Europe where it performed admirably along with the RF 16mm f2.8, both very compact and reasonably priced. BTW That first one is really great!!!
 
I've got the RF 200-800 on pre-order. I hope it can be a consideration for this thread once we start to see some real world examples and use cases. I'll still keep my 100-400II as it'll be a compliment, but not a replacement.

But for now I'll go other end of the spectrum with the RF 16mm 2.8. I've had this for a while, and finally put it to use. The more I look at my images, the more I'm pleasantly surprised with it. I don't do UWA enough to justify moving from my adapted EF 16-35 f/4 to the RF 14-35, but this little lens is a bit of a gem. Perfect to throw in the bag for a hike as a partner to my RF 24-105. If you set aside the fact I have nothing to give a sense of scale to the nearly 500ft high walls here, the detail is there enough and I even managed to get a decent sunstar from it.

View attachment 5255
Agree on both lenses. Great photo!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom