topic Re: EF-RF Lens Mount Adapter versus Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter in Camera Accessories

EF-RF Lens Mount Adapter versus Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter

LoveWeims — Tue, 03 Sep 2024 13:24:51 GMT

I purchased a Canon EOS R7 mirrorless camera but still own and love the Canon EOS 20D, The 20D has a nice 18-55mm EF-S f3.5-5.6 lens on it that I want to use on the R7 also. I always liked that lens, and I don’t see an equivalent RF lens and even if I did, I would prefer to use the lens I own anyway.

So a mount adapter seems to be the right solution, but now I am confronted with a choice. The product called simply a “lens mount adapter” is $129.99 at Best Buy and then there is the product called “Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter” for $199.99 at Best Buy. Currently, I only have the ONE EF-S lens. I am a life-long photographer but only recently (since retirement) have I had the time to delve into this kind of photography. My goal is not to go the cheap route just because I don’t know what I don’t know at this point in my journey, but I also don’t want to buy something that won’t grow with my increasing knowledge and hopefully, expertise,

Not to mention I’m disappointed with the pricing of RF lenses…

So, is the more expensive option the better purchase for someone who wants equipment that is ready for someone who might still have to learn how much she really needs it?

Re: EF-RF Lens Mount Adapter versus Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter

Tronhard — Tue, 03 Sep 2024 19:06:42 GMT

Hi again:
As an aside, Weims are cool dogs!

First of all, while the EF-S 18-55 from the 20D might be a favourite focal range and it is a great moderate all-purpose range on a crop-sensor body, it will show its age on the new and far more demanding sensor of the R7. There have been multiple iterations of this lens over the years, with on-going improvements in focus accuracy and speed, IQ, coatings etc. The final version of this was the STM version that has fly-by-wire control, offering instant focus and silent operation: both of which are great for working with animals, events or video.

The more MP a sensor captures, the more flaws in optics, focusing or technique it will show. To give you a relative idea of the pixel density issue: the 20D has an 8.2MP sensor, while the R7 has a 32.5MP unit - that is a massive difference and the R7 is a challenging sensor density to begin with.

If you really want to adapt your existing lens to a R-series body, my first advice is buy ONLY a Canon adapter: otherwise the results are unpredictable (we get lots of issues with them), and you can violate the terms of your warranty if their use results in damage to the camera.

For the majority of people, the basic EF-RF adapter works fine. Still, any adapter comes at a cost, which is fine if you are going to adapt other EF lenses to your R7 body but, if not, then the money you would invest could go towards a native RF-S lens that will play better with the R7 and later bodies.

As a life-long photographer, I am sure you are cognizant that the optic has a greater impact on image quality than the camera body, and an investment in glass usually well outlasts that of the body itself. My point is that investing in a decent lens for your camera is not a waste, and putting an older optic will not return the same benefits as putting a lens designed for the platform and sensors you are actually using.

Right now, Sigma have released a licensed RF-S 18-50mm f/2.8 lens that has gained a solid reputation when used on other MILCs such as Sony. It's not cheap, but it's the best general-purpose lens out there at the moment and covers a similar range to your beloved 18-55. First, it has superior optics and a fast, constant aperture of f/2.8 which is superior to both your existing EF-S and the RF-S equivalents.
See: 18-50mm F2.8 DC DN | Contemporary | Lenses | SIGMA Corporation (sigma-global.com). There are videos at:
Sigma RF 18-50mm F2.8 DN RF Review: The Best APS-C Option on Canon? (youtube.com)
FIRST Sigma lens for Canon RF! 18-50mm f2.8 vs RF-S 18-45mm review (youtube.com)

If you want the best start towards great photos, then get a decent optic - it will greatly reward your investment.

While the Sigma does not have image stabilization in the lens, the body does have IBIS and this should provide the level of stabilization you are used to.

Re: EF-RF Lens Mount Adapter versus Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter

p4pictures — Tue, 03 Sep 2024 18:31:38 GMT

Following on from Trevor's helpful input, I would add that the RF-S 18-150mm "kit lens" is a great match on the EOS R7. It is more than suited to the demands of mirrorless and would be shorter than your old EF-S 18-55mm on a mount adapter, and possibly no heavier either.

Re: EF-RF Lens Mount Adapter versus Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter

LoveWeims — Tue, 03 Sep 2024 19:31:36 GMT

Thanks Trevor - you have convinced me to save my $$ for the best Canon lenses i can get when I finally settle on what i am really going to need. I read the entire review of the Sigma and had two thoughts:

1. Is Canon going to let sigma make the “budget” versions of its RF lenses? If so, it would be better for me to use the 3 RF lenses i have now (only the macro is an L/pro lens - but i know i love bugs, flowers, random patterns Mother Nature creates…etc). And save my $$ for when I am better educated.

2. As Brian (below) suggests, i am headed outside NOW to take the exact same photos i took with the Canon 20D with my kit lens (RF 18-150mm)and compare results. I bought that lens because i thought it to be the best for my known shooting preferences.

and YES! Weims are amazing and because they are so active and versatile, I wanted a camera to capture dog sport events (e.g. ability, which we do together as a team). Shooting wildlife and dog sports are challenges I have a strong desire to do well!

Appreciate all your help! My profile photo is Forrest, my 4 yo male). He is my 5th Weim, 2nd male, and a sweet and very active boy!

Best regards - Gail

Re: EF-RF Lens Mount Adapter versus Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter

LoveWeims — Tue, 03 Sep 2024 19:33:52 GMT

You have hit the nail on the head! See my reply to Trevor. Not going to buy a adapter mount at all. Likely won’t need an 18-55mm lens!

Re: EF-RF Lens Mount Adapter versus Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter

Tronhard — Tue, 03 Sep 2024 21:23:14 GMT

Hi Gail:

Thanks for your response. I couched my response based on your expressed preference for the 18-55-ish lens range, otherwise I would have suggested the RF-S18-150 too. I didn't see a listing of your current RF lenses, but absolutely, if you have the RF 18-150, I would stick with that for the time being and get used to using the R-series bodies. There is a lot to them, especially in terms of focus and tracking.

Actually, as far as the RF lenses go... Canon are concentrating on the FF glass right now, and given the number of brilliant Full-Frame bodies they have released that is where their concentration lies. Canon have let Sigma make the premier lenses for APS-C bodies and seem to have stuck (for the time being at least) to their cheaper kit lenses. They have been under a lot of pressure to release more and more lenses across the board, so this may well be their way of resolving the situation and it is a win for APS-C body users. Without doubt, the Sigma is a premier lens and the constant aperture of 2.8 is seriously impressive in such a compact optic. If I had an APS-C R body, I would definitely look at them - I have had quite a few legacy Sigma lenses and they, along with Tamron (who have not released any RF glass yet), are top-end lens makers.

As regards close-up and macro photography... If you are prepared to save up for the RF 100 L version, it will work well with your APS-C body, but the Field of View will be that of a 160mm focal length lens. For all lenses (RF and RF-S), when comparing the impact of sensor sizes on what is captured between Canon FF and Canon APS-C you multiply the physical focal length (what's on the lens) by 1.6 to get the field of view the same lens would have on a Full-frame body.

One advantage of using RF lenses is that should you decide to go to a FF body, your RF glass will be fully compatible, whereas any RF-S lenses will not fill the sensor area and thus crop the recorded area back to APS-C size, significantly reducing your image resolution.

I grew up with dogs in the UK, but now where I live it would be cruel to a dog to have them in such a congested area, so I enjoy the dog my niece has when I visit her family.

Re: EF-RF Lens Mount Adapter versus Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter

LoveWeims — Tue, 03 Sep 2024 23:31:44 GMT

Researching FF v APS-C as i really was not at that level of detail when i bought the R7. Will be looking at costs and keeping that option in mind for future consideration but i do not see me turning pro.

i have three RF lenses : the 18-150mm, the budget 100-400mm, and the pro macro (100mm L - have to get used to a fixed focal length). I live next to one river, a pond, and another on the other side of my county, so we have raptors galore, geese, ducks a d other water birds. My next lens was supposed to be the 100-800 mm canon but not sure now. May upgrade the 100-400mm first to maybe the 100-500mm with a wider aperture but not unhappy with the budget yet

but no more glass buying for now. Looking at accessorizes but i have a monopod and tripods of ALL sizes. May get a sandbag support (can be used for rifles or cameras with long lenses) but have an adequate backpack bag.

I have an old Konica 35mm with a bunch of lenses i will try to sell thru KEH or B&H or whatever will offer me something. That equipment needs to be rehomed…sentimental about it - but Abandoned that format when i got the 20D. i miss getting prints. And oh i have tons of slides! And a projector etc…sigh

Again, thanks for always answering my questions so thoroughly and without judgment

best regards - Gail

Re: EF-RF Lens Mount Adapter versus Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter

Tronhard — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:47:49 GMT

Hi again:

Just trying to clarify a few things...
First a FF camera does not make it 'Pro" camera, although it is the format of choice for professionals and serious enthusiasts because of its flexibility , especially those mixing genres. For example, a FF sensor offers benefits for wide angle work such as landscape and for portraits where the FF uncropped sensor allows a shallower depth of field. I have shot with both over the years but ,TBH, was very unhappy with the R7 - much as I wanted it to be what I would buy, but I have stayed with FF and I am glad I did.

As to lenses you mention a 100-400 lens as a budget unit, but later talk of getting a 100-400 lens, which leaves me somewhat confused. There is an excellent EF 100-400L lens from Canon and a good RF 100-400, which is not an L series. The 100-500L is a fabulous optic but at a price. I also have the RF 200-800 and love that for wildlife. I always prefer to shoot with lenses sans extenders: I find they lose the moment when having to put them on and off and the loss of quality is not worth it to me. I have had good results with all of these lenses.

If you currently have the RF 100mm L and one of the 100-400 lenses (EF or RF) they will work on FF bodies, as will the RF 100-500 and 200-800 - the latter is a bargain if you can find one.

I would definitely consider a FF body for the future. Canon have apparently concentrated their effort into FF, and there are lots of complaints from APS-C users that they have been neglected. As far as optics go, I can see their point. The range of RF-S lenses is less than stellar, hence my reference to Sigma - which seems to have formed an alliance with Canon to take the pressure off them in the RF-S area.

Generally, FF cameras have better low light performance, give advantages at the short FL and wide field of view range. In the current Canon range, the R6 series (currently an R6 20MP FF and the R6II at 24MP) have a top-end focusing and tracking system (definitely superior to the R7), IBIS, face/eye tracking and can take a battery grip - which can be an asset if shooting portrait orientation with a big lens, not to mention the extra energy reserve to drive those big motors. I shoot a lot of wildlife and even some close-up shots (I stick with the pedantic definition of macro as being a ratio of 1:1 with the size of the image on the sensor). They make the most of the fabulous FF RF lenses coming out, but work well with legacy EF lenses too. I shoot with the Sigma 60-600s (awesome but heavy) and had excellent results with the Sigma 150-600c as well.

There is one gem of a lens: the RF 24-240 IS USM. This is the first super-zoom lens Canon has put out since the brilliant EF 28-300L lens in about 2004. It was a top-end optic but massive and built like a howitzer. This new lens is much, much more compact and lighter (being built of engineered plastic rather than metal - which is now normal), but does a brilliant job as a go anywhere lens. I have sample images posted under Gallery > Share your Photos section on this site, FWIW. I got it as a temporary measure while waiting for a backordered RF 24-105L f/4 but kept it and use it more than the L lens these days.

Imagine what you could do with a RF 24-240 IS USM and the 200-800 - that would give you, in two lenses, an unbroken optical range from 200-800 on a FF sensor.

Re: EF-RF Lens Mount Adapter versus Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter

LoveWeims — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 01:28:29 GMT

Ok Trevor…what Canon FF do u think i should look at? Will do so tomorrow (it is 9:30 pm in Virginia). I meant to say i have a budget 100-400 mm now but want to upgrade perhaps to the 100-500L. Not sure i will do enough bird photography to warrant the 200-800mm at this time. I can get pretty close to a lot of water birds. With Fall coming, the geese will start flying directly over my house.

I have to find the Community photos - been preoccupied with asking questions to help with basic understanding what i have in my hands

Hasta manana!

Gail

Re: EF-RF Lens Mount Adapter versus Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter

Tronhard — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 01:45:02 GMT

Totally understand. It can all be a bit overwhelming!
If you are considering full-frame, then I would suggest the R6 or R6II. Both are outstanding cameras.

As far as lenses go for them, the Rf 24-240 and the 200-800 will give you massive coverage at a reasonable price. With wildlife, you can never get enough focal length! 🙂

The 100-500 is a fantastic lens but because it is an L series unit it is more expensive than the 200-800, which TBH is an amazing deal for the price of under $2,000US new and there may be refurb ones available.

To help you with the photos side here are some links to images taken with various lenses:

RF 24-240 photographing birds: Trying out the RF 24-240 on Wildlife with the R5 - Page 2 - Canon Community
RF 24-240 in dim light: Moody Morning the the R6 & RF 24-240 - Canon Community
RF 200-800: First Shots with the RF 200-800 and the R6II - Page 2 - Canon Community
Shooting with the Rf 200-800 and R6 - Page 2 - Canon Community

RF 100-500: A Day at the Zoo with the RF 100-500 - Canon Community
I LOVE the R5 with the RF 100-500 - Canon Community

Comparing the RF 100-500 on a 1.6 crop with the FF RF 200-800:
Is there Much Difference in Quality and FoV? - Page 3 - Canon Community

Re: EF-RF Lens Mount Adapter versus Control Ring Lens Mount Adapter

LoveWeims — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 14:29:49 GMT

Trevor

WOW! Looked at the gallery and your photos are wonderful! Thanks for helping me take the time to discover that forum. One day I'll post some photos...Forrest is helping me practice photoging dog sports - I am trying to capture him catching a frisbee (which includes the variable of the unpredicatability of the frisbee NOT present in photographing dog agility where the map tells you the dog route). For frisbeen play, using the viewfinder is hard - I am going to switch to trying to use the LCD on the camera. Might work better as I can use my peripheral vision. Likely will have to find a more accurate frisbee tosser however!

Interestingly, I DID look at the R6 and R6 Mark II but my friend (who publishes her photos) uses and recommended the R7. I believe it is also a less expensive body... So NOW I know what at least ONE difference is between that sort of mirrorless and what I currently own. The pricing on those bodies is equivalent to the RF200-800mm lens she also recommended IF I could fine one (and I have, but just today actually) so I may stray from my resolution to NOT buy another lens yet (haha, won't be the first time I changed my mind). Anyway, since I am still not proficient on the R7, better to put my $$ into a lens that is hard to find that I very likely will use down by the water especially. We have herds of deer on our property too, so they will appreciate the additional distance that lens will provide. Low light might still be a problem tho with those deer, but I will never be able to afford a pro version of this lens (even refurbished).

More clarification (as I also now understand there is a difference between RF and RF-S lenses)....my kit lens (18-150mm) is the only one of the 3 that is an RF-S. I do not mind having to stay farther away from my bugs and reptiles (found in the wild in abundance here) with my RF-100mm L. That lens purchase was thoroughly researched as I had been using my iPhone 14 pro and getting satisfactory photos (FB friends like them alot).

If I buy the RF 200-800mm, I do have questions but I'll start another discussion. And I agree - have had an extender with my 35mm Konica and didn't like using it or the results.

Later! Gail