Migrating from EF to RF - my musings

[West Coast Birder]

Like everyone else, I have been pondering whether (and if so, when) to migrate from my stable of EF lenses to RF lenses. I know that the answer on whether one does it will differ from person to person and certainly from lens to lens. In some cases, it may make sense and in other cases, it won't. So, I thought I would go through my list of lenses and make a rational case for or against a move. Comments are welcome and I hope that this thread sparks some debate and triggers similar thought processes among others.

So, here goes: The EF lenses I currently own are:

EF 11-24mm F/4L USM
EF 16-35mm F/4L IS USM
EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM
EF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II USM
EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM
EF 100mm F/2.8L IS USM
EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II USM (with my son at college)
EF 600mm F/4 L IS III USM
Rokinon 14mm F/2.8
Samyang 12mm F/2.8 Fisheye

For each lens, I have evaluated the pros and cons of migrating or staying put. The key factors I emphasized in my analysis are a) is the RF lens objectively better technically (optics, IS, etc.) than the EF equivalent and b) is the RF lens physically better than the EF equivalent for form factor, weight, weight distribution, etc. Cost is always a factor - moving from an EF lens to an RF lens is going to cost money, so the only question is whether any benefits from a) or b) justify the cost increase.

Category A: Good candidates for moving from EF to RF

EF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II USM

This is one of my favorite lenses. I have an excellent copy and it always produces dreamy results and I have said before that one would have to pry it from my cold dead hands, so it seems odd that I put this on top of the list.

The key factor that is causing me to consider converting to the RF 70-200 F/2.8 Z lens is weight. The EF II weighs 1490g (3.28 lbs) while the RF Z version weighs in at 1070g (2.35 lbs) or 25% lighter than the EF that I own. This does not even include the RF adapter that the EF lens would need. That to me is a huge difference. Yes, I would have to spend substantially more to get the RF lens but I often leave my EF lens at home because of the weight and this is one case where I feel that the money is worth spending to get a lens that is optically as good or better and substantially easier to handle.

EF 11-24mm F/4L USM

I have had this lens for a while, completing the holy zoom trinity along with my 24-70 II and the 70-200 II. However, I don't use it as much as I thought I would, mainly because of its bulk. The RF version is not only wider (10-20mm) but is substantially smaller and lighter, coming in at 570g (1.3 lbs) and physical dimensions of 83.7x112mm compared to the EF's 108x132mm at a weight of 180g (2.6 lbs) or double the RF version. I am in two minds of just selling my EF 11-24 or replacing it with the RF version - I simply don't shoot enough at these ultrawide FLs but maybe it is just because the EF is so unwieldy.

Category B: No need to move from EF to RF

EF 600mm F/4 L IS III USM

From everything I have seen, the RF version is simply the EF version with the RF mount and associated electronics modified. There is no reason to change, except to save the weight of the adapter which is a very small percentage of this hefty lens. The RF lens is also very expensive.

EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM

EF version weight: 760g (1.7 lbs) + 110g for the adapter = 870g versus 695g (1.5 lbs) for the RF version. However, I carry around the EF version on hikes all the time and I never felt it to be heavy. Moreover, the RF version, at least the one right now, has an external zoom that I don't like. Yes, it makes the lens compact but I would prefer an internal zoom wherever possible. So, I think I'll stay with the EF version for this one. My copy is stellar.

My specialty lenses - the Rok 14/2.8 (probably will sell this one) and the Samyang fisheye.

Category C: Probably change but no hurry to do so

EF 16-35mm F/4L IS USM

The RF 14-35 F/4 is lighter (540g vs. 615g) and the adapter adds to it. But I love my 16-35 F/4 and while the weight gains are obvious, both lenses are relatively light and so the net benefit is less. But I'll put this on the roadmap for switching, no hurry.

EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM

This is my workhorse lens. It is almost always with me and I love it. The RF 24-70 F/2.8 weighs about the same as the EF version with the adapter included, so weight and bulk are a wash. The RF version does have IS but it is so expensive and I have never felt the need for IS in this FL range, I think I can do without the RF version. But again, something to keep in mind for down the road.

EF 100mm F/2.8L IS USM

I love this lens for portraits. I don't shoot too much macro. However, the RF version is better in every way - newer tech, higher magnification, SA control, etc. etc. Technically, the move is a no-brainer. But I don't use this lens as much as I probably should. Again, something for down the road but no urgency.

------------------

I hope this analysis is useful to spark some thoughts in others as it did for me. Let me know what you guys think.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Excellent write-up, Sam, and well thought out.
Definitely no right or wrong answers - everyone's situation is unique.

Cost, direct replacement, weight, amount of use, still using dSLRs... all factors to consider for sure.
Even for those starting with ZERO equipment, I think that there would be some justification to consider some EF-mount lenses.

 

[West Coast Birder]

Agreed - definitely a very personal decision based on many factors.

 

[Kandor]

Having just made the transition to an R body this is a helpful summary for me especially since it is an uncanny list of lenses I either already own, have seriously considered or will be purchasing in the future. It's an exciting time with all the great choices available.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Personally, I sold off all but 5 EF lenses (4 of which are on your list).
All L-zooms:
1) high performing
2) interchangeable with 5Dmk4
3) ability to use drop-in filters with adapter

Rest were upgraded or simply sold off:
1) better performance versions (RF100 macro)
2) smaller, lighter versions (RF100-400, RF24-105STM)
3) only going to be used with R-series cameras anyway (EF300 and EF500 f/4s for the RF600STM and RF200-800)
4) seldom used (Sigma Arts, Samyangs, all EF-S)

 

[SonomaTim]

Like everyone else, I have been pondering whether (and if so, when) to migrate from my stable of EF lenses to RF lenses. I know that the answer on whether one does it will differ from person to person and certainly from lens to lens. In some cases, it may make sense and in other cases, it won't. So, I thought I would go through my list of lenses and make a rational case for or against a move. Comments are welcome and I hope that this thread sparks some debate and triggers similar thought processes among others.

So, here goes: The EF lenses I currently own are:

EF 11-24mm F/4L USM
EF 16-35mm F/4L IS USM
EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM
EF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II USM
EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM
EF 100mm F/2.8L IS USM
EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS II USM (with my son at college)
EF 600mm F/4 L IS III USM
Rokinon 14mm F/2.8
Samyang 12mm F/2.8 Fisheye

For each lens, I have evaluated the pros and cons of migrating or staying put. The key factors I emphasized in my analysis are a) is the RF lens objectively better technically (optics, IS, etc.) than the EF equivalent and b) is the RF lens physically better than the EF equivalent for form factor, weight, weight distribution, etc. Cost is always a factor - moving from an EF lens to an RF lens is going to cost money, so the only question is whether any benefits from a) or b) justify the cost increase.

Category A: Good candidates for moving from EF to RF

EF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II USM

This is one of my favorite lenses. I have an excellent copy and it always produces dreamy results and I have said before that one would have to pry it from my cold dead hands, so it seems odd that I put this on top of the list.

The key factor that is causing me to consider converting to the RF 70-200 F/2.8 Z lens is weight. The EF II weighs 1490g (3.28 lbs) while the RF Z version weighs in at 1070g (2.35 lbs) or 25% lighter than the EF that I own. This does not even include the RF adapter that the EF lens would need. That to me is a huge difference. Yes, I would have to spend substantially more to get the RF lens but I often leave my EF lens at home because of the weight and this is one case where I feel that the money is worth spending to get a lens that is optically as good or better and substantially easier to handle.

EF 11-24mm F/4L USM

I have had this lens for a while, completing the holy zoom trinity along with my 24-70 II and the 70-200 II. However, I don't use it as much as I thought I would, mainly because of its bulk. The RF version is not only wider (10-20mm) but is substantially smaller and lighter, coming in at 570g (1.3 lbs) and physical dimensions of 83.7x112mm compared to the EF's 108x132mm at a weight of 180g (2.6 lbs) or double the RF version. I am in two minds of just selling my EF 11-24 or replacing it with the RF version - I simply don't shoot enough at these ultrawide FLs but maybe it is just because the EF is so unwieldy.

Category B: No need to move from EF to RF

EF 600mm F/4 L IS III USM

From everything I have seen, the RF version is simply the EF version with the RF mount and associated electronics modified. There is no reason to change, except to save the weight of the adapter which is a very small percentage of this hefty lens. The RF lens is also very expensive.

EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM

EF version weight: 760g (1.7 lbs) + 110g for the adapter = 870g versus 695g (1.5 lbs) for the RF version. However, I carry around the EF version on hikes all the time and I never felt it to be heavy. Moreover, the RF version, at least the one right now, has an external zoom that I don't like. Yes, it makes the lens compact but I would prefer an internal zoom wherever possible. So, I think I'll stay with the EF version for this one. My copy is stellar.

My specialty lenses - the Rok 14/2.8 (probably will sell this one) and the Samyang fisheye.

Category C: Probably change but no hurry to do so

EF 16-35mm F/4L IS USM

The RF 14-35 F/4 is lighter (540g vs. 615g) and the adapter adds to it. But I love my 16-35 F/4 and while the weight gains are obvious, both lenses are relatively light and so the net benefit is less. But I'll put this on the roadmap for switching, no hurry.

EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM

This is my workhorse lens. It is almost always with me and I love it. The RF 24-70 F/2.8 weighs about the same as the EF version with the adapter included, so weight and bulk are a wash. The RF version does have IS but it is so expensive and I have never felt the need for IS in this FL range, I think I can do without the RF version. But again, something to keep in mind for down the road.

EF 100mm F/2.8L IS USM

I love this lens for portraits. I don't shoot too much macro. However, the RF version is better in every way - newer tech, higher magnification, SA control, etc. etc. Technically, the move is a no-brainer. But I don't use this lens as much as I probably should. Again, something for down the road but no urgency.

------------------

I hope this analysis is useful to spark some thoughts in others as it did for me. Let me know what you guys think.

Interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing. In general, I've stopped upgrading lenses I rarely use.

 

[LCPete]

Interesting I also have the 70-200 F4 but mine is the non IS , mine is dead sharp too , had it a long time and also don’t find it heavy either
It’s normally on my second body along with a longer lens complication is that my second body is a DLSR a 6D2 so would have to replace that as well
My main lens is either the 300 2.8 with extender or a Sigma 150 macro non OS both of these are super sharp and not made on RF mount anyway
I have considered getting the 100-500 RF to replace the 300 with extenders (1.4 and 2.0) but on my last trip a lot of my best shots were in fairly low light and would have struggled with the 100-500 I think

 

[Anton Largiader]

I shot with a friend's RF70-200/2.8 and it was definitely sharper than my EFii. Lighter. Smaller. Very nice. But it does not take a TC, and I do find myself wanting that (at least until I get a 100-300). The Z model is much more similar to the EF versions and does take a TC but wow, $3100.

After getting my EF11-24 I read Bryan's reviews on it and the RF10-20 and concluded that I wasn't missing much, at least at the price I paid for that lens ($1300 on refurb). I believe he said the 10-20 takes a lot more lens correction. He really tries to find good things to say about most lenses but I couldn;t find anything in his review that would sway me to the RF. I'm sure it's lighter, and probably not by a small amount either, but for such a specialized lens I don't mind the weight at all. The 11-24 really is an optically fantastic lens.

And lastly, I bought my 24-70/2.8ii on refurb also ($1100 I think) and yes it is also pretty heavy. I don't use it enough to care about the weight; I think it and the 11-24 are short enough that the camera is still easy enough for me to hold. If I were to want to save some weight, I'd do it on the 70-200 and/or the 300.

 

[RhodyPhotos]

Hi Sam, I stopped reading when you I read that you might part ways with the Samyang 12mm. May I have first dibs on it, if you do plan to do so? Thanks.

Now back to reading your post.

 

[West Coast Birder]

Hi Sam, I stopped reading when you I read that you might part ways with the Samyang 12mm. May I have first dibs on it, if you do plan to do so? Thanks.

Now back to reading your post.

No, I will keep the Samyang 12mm fisheye. I think I meant to say that I will continue to use it with an adapter. It’s the 14mm F/2.8 that I might part with. I haven’t used it in years as I simply don’t shoot that wide. My 16-35 F/4 has been wide enough.

 

[West Coast Birder]

I shot with a friend's RF70-200/2.8 and it was definitely sharper than my EFii. Lighter. Smaller. Very nice. But it does not take a TC, and I do find myself wanting that (at least until I get a 100-300). The Z model is much more similar to the EF versions and does take a TC but wow, $3100.

After getting my EF11-24 I read Bryan's reviews on it and the RF10-20 and concluded that I wasn't missing much, at least at the price I paid for that lens ($1300 on refurb). I believe he said the 10-20 takes a lot more lens correction. He really tries to find good things to say about most lenses but I couldn;t find anything in his review that would sway me to the RF. I'm sure it's lighter, and probably not by a small amount either, but for such a specialized lens I don't mind the weight at all. The 11-24 really is an optically fantastic lens.

And lastly, I bought my 24-70/2.8ii on refurb also ($1100 I think) and yes it is also pretty heavy. I don't use it enough to care about the weight; I think it and the 11-24 are short enough that the camera is still easy enough for me to hold. If I were to want to save some weight, I'd do it on the 70-200 and/or the 300.

Yeah, it’s the cost of upgrading that gives me pause. The street price through Canon Pricewatch for the RF 70-200 Z is $2700 which means that even if I sell my EF 70-200 II, I’ll still have to put in well over $1000 to get the Z. That’s a lot of simoleons admittedly. It’s the weight savings that is even making me think along those lines. I do love my II.

 

[RhodyPhotos]

No, I will keep the Samyang 12mm fisheye. I think I meant to say that I will continue to use it with an adapter. It’s the 14mm F/2.8 that I might part with. I haven’t used it in years as I simply don’t shoot that wide. My 16-35 F/4 has been wide enough.

lol. ok, got excited and didn't read that part as carefully as I should have!

 

[RobAmy]

You will love the RF 70-200 f2.8 Z version. Outstanding lens. Takes both the 1.4 and 2x extenders very well. Here is an album with the 2x

Dominican Republic 2025

Explore this photo album by A & R Photography on Flickr!

www.flickr.com