Upgrading from EOS 5D Mark IV to EOS R3 - Should I still get EF lenses?

[shokabeln]

Hi All,

Currently I’m using my 5d mark 4 and love it, I’m looking at taking the plunge and will be aiming to purchase a r3 in the upcoming months.

I’m also in a little bit of a lens situation. The are some lenses I’m looking at upgrading in my kit, for example my nifty fifty a 50mm 1.2.

My main photography work is product photos, music/event photography and boudoir.

My consideration is purchasing lenses for my current Ef mount, and then use an adapter to use them on the r3. This would also allow me to use the lenses interchangeably on both cameras, and use the mk4 as a second camera and not need to change lenses when shooting gigs.

I just wanted to see what people think about using the lens adapter. Or if the is a huge advantage in purchasing the rf glass.

Just trying to plan out my purchases for the upcoming year.

[rs-eos]

The “nifty fifty” is the nickname of the 50mm f/1.8 lens. Do you have that or the EF 50mm f/1.2 L?

Your plan though to stick with your current EF lenses sounds like a good plan for the short term. Are they all Canon branded lenses? Note that there may be compatibility issues with third party lenses. Also, do stick with the Canon branded adapters.

One thing to consider is going with the adapter with the control ring if you plan to keep using your EF lenses for a while.

if you do own the EF 50mm f/1.2L, note that the RF version will give you quite the boost in image quality. So may be something to move to sooner than later.

[shadowsports]

Greetings ,

Ricky's reply is spot on.  I'd like to mirror his recommendations, stick with Canon glass, stick with a Canon adapter.  Now that I have made this switch to RF glass, it is my preference.  No doubt the 5D Mark IV is a wonderful camera and takes beautiful photos.  

I would be conservative about any EF lens purchases.  I might keep a lens or two to use with the 5D. Mark IV, but I would put the bulk of any new investment towards RF.  Mirrorless bodies are their best with RF glass.  I also believe the R5 Mark II and R1 might be worthy of your consideration.  Some lens and body announcements should be coming soon.

[Waddizzle]

Investing in EF glass is generally not recommended.  If there is an RF equivalent, then I recommend the RF glass over EF glass. I regard using EF glass on an R series body the same as using third party lenses on your 5D4. 

[ebiggs1]

If I were going to buy a new R3, I would buy RF lenses. I would not mess with EF any longer. You can always use your current lenses on your 5D4 and that's where they need to stay.

[justadude]

My colleagues and I tend to differ on this.  I still have used a lot of EF lenses on three different R series cameras over the past four years, and I love them.  However... I need to point out that I couldn't care less about still having old technology when it comes to speed (the RF series of lenses are faster - some have image stabilization), and a few other electronic things of that nature.  With me, I am 100% concerned with optic quality, and the EF lenses are just as good in this regard.  Then again, I even use 50 year old film lenses on my RF cameras because of their characteristics.  I'm certain some of my colleagues think I'm a heathen for doing that (haha - kidding).  I do event photography with the older EF lenses as well, and my clients are always very happy with the results... happy enough that they hire me again and again.

Bottom line, it depends on YOUR needs, not anyone else's.  If it's strictly the optics, save some money and buy the older lenses.  If you need the best, newest and fastest, then go with the newer RF lenses.

[Waddizzle]

No one is saying do not use EF lenses with RF bodies.  Most of them work perfectly fine for stills.  The recommendation is not to invest more money in EF lenses in the future..

[justadude]

"The recommendation is not to invest more money in EF lenses in the future.."

And that's where you and I will have to agree to disagree, along with a few of the pro photographers I know locally who still are in the market for good EF glass for their R series cameras.  I'll still buy used EF lenses from a reputable local camera shop that tests them out before resale, and does a full disclosure on anything wrong (I'll avoid lenses with anything wrong other than cosmetic).  The EF lenses have a lot of good life left in them, and the prices can't be beat... a lot of them at half the price of their RF equivalent.  I simply don't need to have the most expensive lenses, plus I'd rather save money (I'm weird that way - haha).  I just need lenses that work very well optically, and my old EF lenses do a fantastic job, even on my sports photography jobs... not just stills.

I'm not knocking anyone who does switch over to RF 100%.  I simply do not think it's necessary unless you really need 40fps, or shoot 4K video.

[Waddizzle]

“ Investing in EF glass is generally not recommended.  If there is an RF equivalent, then I recommend the RF glass over EF glass. I regard using EF glass on an R series body the same as using third party lenses on your 5D4. “

Yes, I guess I will have to agree to disagree with you.  Your opinion is too absolute wtih no room for a middle ground.  

For the record, I am only talking about L series lenses, which I believe is the same perspective as the others.

As I pointed out above,  If you have a choice between RF or EF, then it is best to go with RF.  I would only go EF if there were something that is only available in an EF mount that is not yet available in an RF mount.

In fact, I recently bought the EF 11-24mm f/4L USM, instead of the RF 10-20mm f/4L USM.  It was a lens that I’ve always wanted for my DSLRs.  The EF lens was about half the price of the RF version, plus it has a slightly wider zoom range.

But, like you, I am shooting with an R6 mark II, not an R3.  The question is about an R3, which is currently the top-of-the-line R Series body.  If I were shooting with an R3, then I would only buy RF glass for it.

Lastly, the best reason not to buy EF glass for an R3 are the expected new RF lens announcements from Canon.  The rumor mills and grapevines have been busy lately.  

The word on the street says Canon is about to announce more RF lenses.  The wide angle end of the lens spectrum is where Canon still has some holes to fill, and the rumored lenses are reportedly going to fill in some of the gaps.

BTW, just because a lens is great for shooting stills does not mean it would also be great for shooting video.

[justadude]

My apologies if I came off as being absolute in my opinion.  In reality, I respect everyone's opinion, and am always willing to see the other side of things, and am willing to change my mind if I agree.

I was also talking mainly about L series lenses.  Examples (with me) would be the 70-200 f/2.8 ii, which I find with my sports photography just as good as the RF version I borrowed for a period of time during the triathlon I shot last summer.  Speaking optics only.  My EF version was fast enough, although I know the RF would offer more fps... but I simply do not need it since my EF captures more than enough fps for me.

 For the R3, yes, I do tend to agree that maybe the best option would be RF glass.  The photographers I was referring to shoot R5 models.  

 should have worded this a little different originally.  I see on this forum even if someone is buying the R100 that a few members suggest only using RF lenses.  To me, at that point, even though the R100 has a great sensor, what is wrong with EF L lenses?  If they are good enough on a R6m2, I would think that would apply to the low end R series as well.  Not saying they shouldn't invest in RF glass (not saying that anyone should not).  I'm simply saying that the EF L series lenses are fantastic on R series cameras, especially if you are on a budget.  

 do agree with your last comment about video.  I believe I said the same thing in my previous reply.  

I would love to hear your opinion on the EF 11-24mm F/4 L.  I've been eyeing this lens, but never had the chance to give it a real world test.  I like my EF 17-40 F/4L, but for night skies, it's simply not wide enough... and my Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 is kind of a one trick pony.