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.

[Tronhard]

"I would love to hear your opinion on the EF 11-24mm F/4 L".  Given this is not aligned with the original question from the OP, would this be better in another thread, or a PM interchange?

[Waddizzle]

“  I 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 good sensor., what is wrong with EF L lenses? ““

Budget.  That and image quality is why I would recommend RF glass.

Very few users with an “entry level” R100, which is almost equivalent to a Rebel T7, will be looking to shoot with L glass.  They will be looking for lenses that sell for under $500 USD, if not well under.

The difference in image quality in consumer between the EF and RF lens lineups is pretty significant at that price point.  Some of the consumer RF lenses have image quality that almost rivals some of EF L glass.  

And the RF L glass has image quality that is even better than that!

[Tronhard]

I am thinking that while the camera model is one element in this consideration, it's not the only and not necessarily the most important one.   As I always say, budget, what one has, is photographing, under what conditions, and what will be produced are all factors that will impact the lens choice.
Budget: obviously, if one cannot afford the RF glass that's a critical limiting factor. 
Current Optics: If I had good EF glass, I would consider experimenting with it on an R-series body before making a decision.  If it fulfils the requirements of the other factors, then keep it.
Subjects: For some subjects, (e.g. landscape) resolution will be critical, other factors will seek speed (low f/stop) think portraits indoor sports, while low f/stop for shallow DoF again portrait, then we have focus speed (sports, wildlife).   So my point here is there are multiple, and often competitive elements here.  There are some compelling lenses with new, or significantly improved capabilities here - such as the new RF 24-104 f/2.8 lens.
Conditions:  outside work such as wildlife, sport and even landscape might require weather sealing.  Low light vs outside, distance - such as table tennis vs court tennis or rugby. Then we have situation - travel photography would influence size and weight as opposed to pure performance.  For example, the R 24-240 lens is a super zoom lens that has not been available as a non-L lens before (previous superzooms were the expensive EF 24-300L and 28-300L IS, both in the early part of the century).
Output: In the end, this is the most critical element because it represents the culmination of all of the other elements to end up with something one actually wants and is fit for purpose.  This impacts all other decisions - the requirements for social media, digital display and modest prints for personal purposes - where the demands can be satisfied through lower investments in gear, are going to be different from someone wanting large, detailed, and high-res Professional-quality Fine Art prints, where we are looking at an R5 or (possibly) and R1. 
Alternatively, being able to track and photograph moving and complex subjects at high frame rates, then record those as speed, and transmit them in close to real time to a publisher that will produce images on line or for magazine size publications, is what a pro sports photographer will consider and why a R3 is designed for just that kind of thing.

So, that is why I am asking for more information from the OP.

[ebiggs1]

Gary,

I see your point and I, too, tend to agree with you to a degree. But buying an R3 and then not get the top notch performance out of Canon's top notch mirrorless camera doesn't make a lot of sense. I doubt any of your "professional" friends are going out to buy an R3 just so they can use EF lenses on it. They may need to use some older glass until they can afford RF but the goal should be RF lenses.

[justadude]

You are correct on the R3 and RF lenses.  I should have been a little more specific, simply because a fair amount of members here say that you should avoid the EF lenses even for the entry line R series cameras.  As for my pro friends that I was referring to, they shoot with R5s, so there is a huge difference compared to the R3.  

[Tronhard]

I am cognizant of your statement that your main purposes are: " product photos, music/event photography and boudoir" in the context of choosing an R3 to begin with. What specifically made you decide to get this body, as opposed to, say, the R5? 
What I am also curious about is what you will create and produce: are you creating both stills and video (especially for the events) or just still images.  Of those still images, what will be the product - social media, digital display or prints; and if the latter, how big?   

[ebiggs1]

"... because a fair amount of members here say that you should avoid the EF lenses even for the entry line R series cameras."

A person's situation and circumstance should also factor in this too.