RF-S Lenses on Full Frame EOS R Bodies

[Bbarn]

Has anyone used one of the new RF-S lenses on an EOS R series full frame body?  I'm wondering how the IS and Focus/Control ring functions are controlled with no switches on the lenses. Doesn't seem clear in the full frame body manual since it's a new scenario (since all the FF lenses have lens switches).

[ebiggs1]

"Has anyone used one of the new RF-S lenses on an EOS R series full frame body?"

My question is why? Why do that at all?

"Looks like Canon needs to step up their game in this community."

This isn't a forum for Canon employees to answer questions. It is a User based forum with replies from Canon product owners and users. Canon USA just maintains it.

[ebiggs1]

"We are answering your question but the answer is not as simple as you might want."

A lot of the time, people get an answer but it is not the answer they want or like. But it is the answer nevertheless.

[Bbarn]

In this thread, almost all the answers and comments were to questions I didn't ask. So, asking the original three questions in this community was a waste of time. None of the answers addressed the three specific questions in the OP.

I had to contact Canon directly to get answers to the lens ring (control/focus) and IS function questions.  I posted their answers to those two questions in this thread several days ago.

As far as the foolishness of using of RF-S lenses on FF bodies, Canon themselves suggest just that crop mode possibility in their RF-S lens marketing.

[Tronhard]

I think the issue for us is that you were asking the wrong question and you weren't listening to the advice from multiple sources that you were given in good faith. Still, it's your money...

[Bbarn]

Perhaps you are right. I came here asking specific questions regarding camera functionality in hopes of getting concrete answers. In the future I'll limit any questions I submit here to those asking for opinions or advice.

[Tronhard]

That was not actually my point.   If you had asked the question about a result  you wanted to achieve, such as "I want to vlog with my Canon R5, and I looking at the RF-18-45 lens", and not made the leap to a very specific technical question, - which BTW is answered in the manual.   The assumption that this lens was the right choice was what we questioned for you own good, but you took umbridge at that as if we were insulting you - we weren't we were trying to get you to consider points that you may not have.

The point we have all been trying to make to you is that while the RF-S 18-45 might be a great lens paired with the crop-sensor R7 or R10 body, it will massively reduce the performance of your sensor's output.   If that is something you already had taken into account, all you had to do was say so, but instead your seemed to ignore the good and sincere advice, and hurl abuse at us. 

The people who have been trying to help you are excellent and experienced photographers and deserve a bit more respect than that - at least consider the information we have given you.

Have you considered the RF 15-30mm IS STM lens, which is going to cover much the same range - and more at the wide end, and has switches for both IS and Focus?   It is not insignificant that the lens was released around the same time as the 18-45, unit because it is the more suitable for your camera body - given both the focal range and the inclusion of switches that are not necessary on the 18-45 because the R7 has an AF/MF switch on the body.

[Bbarn]

If you believe my questions are answered in a full frame R series body manual, please indicate in which manual, and where.

I submit the issues prompting my questions are not addressed in the full frame R-Series manuals, and that if you believe they are, you still don't truly understand my original questions.

It's too bad that my questions led many to believe I was ignorant regarding the downsides of using APS-C lenses on a full frame body. That is not true. For some of my uses, the reduced pixel density is more than adequate for my needs, and I would welcome the greatly reduced size and weight these APS-C zooms offer compared to several of the larger full frame RF lenses I already own.

I have considered the RF 15-30 but will probably pass since I already have the RF14-35. If it were significantly smaller than the RF24-105 IS STM, I might consider it. But it's almost exactly the same size.

Had I known so many would presume I was ignorant, I would have offered my reasons for considering those new lenses. But since my reasons for considering the lenses had no bearing on my questions, I didn't consider it necessary to provide them.

[Tronhard]

When we are not aware of your background or intent, context is critical.  We often get people here who are not technically inclined or experienced asking questions that are very specific, but not necessarily what they want, or more importantly need to know.    Given the detail of the question you were asking and because of its extremely unusual and unlikely nature (let's face it the vast majority of people would not willingly crop down their sensor capacity to such an extent ), it was suggestive of someone who had been directed to this lens for whatever purpose (although most would use this for vlogging), via Canon marketing or third-party advice.  

We try to respect people who seek information of us, but I think it is fair to say that we were all aghast at the idea you were proposing and without the context you suggest we were doing our best to provide information as to why this choice was a bad one, and to suggest viable alternatives.  Our desire to help pointed us to wonder why you would have come to the conclusion upon which the very specific question you asked was based.  With no further clarification, we were left to conclude that you had no answer to that.

Right now, I am still not sure what your intent as regards to purpose or use, but to me it makes most sense that you are considering video applications, where both IS and AF may not be desirable.  However, for most purposes I would have thought that given the RF 15-30 would be a better match: it is light, has a good spread at the wide end that the 18-45 does not have, and of course is fully compatible with the sensor, add to that it has switches for AF and IS - which directly relates to your original question, as long as one is willing to look at the result rather than the specific lens questions itself.   

As to your comment about references.  I would have suggested that two things would answer this: one is the spec of the 18-45 lens, that shows it has no switches, which logically means that any such controls must remain in the camera.  That takes us to the advanced user camera manual, where on P451, there is a section that refers to using full-time manual focus and there are further references on P924.  Frankly, it seems a bit of a hack to me and not an elegant solution.

To me, the design of the R5 is precluded on the premise of users utilizing lenses not designed for the APS-C cameras.   This perception is enhanced further by the fact that the R7 and R10 units have a manual focus switch built into the body, thus relieving the lens of the need to have such a switch. The DoF preview button, in the centre of this switch may be customized to allow one to turn off IS - I don't have this body and the manual is hard to read in that respect.

For whatever reason you are using this lens, I hope it works out for you.

[Bbarn]

Nevermind.