loss of sharpness 100-400 using R5 and adapter

[bobbieturner1]

I have been noticing my bird shots are not as sharp as they use to be using the Control ring mount adapter EF_EOS R for the 100-400L vii lens. I decided to do a test comparison between the R5 and the 5Dm4. I kept all settings the same on both cameras. When I manual focused I used the LCD magnifier to be exact. At first I thought it may be the lens. But comparing between both cameras, I definitely see I get sharper photos with my 5D! Are we losing something when we put the adapter on? see the photos below. Is it the adapter? communication? 

[Canoncan59]

Quick update I went out again today and this time my buddy and I switched lenses, with our R5s. I took his RF 100-500, and he took my 100-400 with my adaptor. ( he’s had no R5 issues) As predicted all hand held , his were softer than he’s used to, and mine were the best I’ve taken with my R5. Note we were shooting outside and in freezing temps of 12 degrees. So our camera shake may even have been exaggerated. Bye bye 100 to 400 , just ordered the RF 100 to 500. I understand not everyone has that luxury. 

[johninbigd]

Man. This sucks for me. I have several very expensive third-party lenses that just look like crap with the R5 but look amazing on the EOS R. So now I'm faced with selling thousands of dollars worth of Tamron and Sigma lenses to buy RF lenses that are double the cost, or sell the R5 and just go back to the EOS R. Not a great position to be in.

[Waddizzle]

---

@johninbigd wrote:
Man. This sucks for me. I have several very expensive third-party lenses that just look like crap with the R5 but look amazing on the EOS R. So now I'm faced with selling thousands of dollars worth of Tamron and Sigma lenses to buy RF lenses that are double the cost, or sell the R5 and just go back to the EOS R. Not a great position to be in.

---

Are you using any lens filters on that gear?  My EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM was never sharp until I got rid of the UV filter, and started using no filter.  I have since switched to using B+W Nano Clear filters with no ill effects.  I shoot with DSLRs.

BTW, I have owned a Sigma 150-500 and a 150-600 "C", and have not been overly impressed with th IQ compared to the Canon lens.  The Sigmas were not at all impressive shooting small subjects, something which the Canon excelle at.

[johninbigd]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@johninbigd wrote:
Man. This sucks for me. I have several very expensive third-party lenses that just look like crap with the R5 but look amazing on the EOS R. So now I'm faced with selling thousands of dollars worth of Tamron and Sigma lenses to buy RF lenses that are double the cost, or sell the R5 and just go back to the EOS R. Not a great position to be in.

---

Are you using any lens filters on that gear?  My EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM was never sharp until I got rid of the UV filter, and started using no filter.  I have since switched to using B+W Nano Clear filters with no ill effects.  I shoot with DSLRs.

BTW, I have owned a Sigma 150-500 and a 150-600 "C", and have not been overly impressed with th IQ compared to the Canon lens.  The Sigmas were not at all impressive shooting small subjects, something which the Canon excelle at.

---

I don't have this particular lens. I mostly use Tamron and Sigma primes and I do not use an y filters. Here's what I have:

* Tamron 35mm f/1.4
* Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art
* Tamron 85mm f/1.8
* Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art
* Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2

I get fantastic results with these lenses on my EOS R. They're crystal clear and sharp. I've yet to get even one single shot on the R5 with any of my lenses that comes close to the shots I get on the EOS R. It's very troubling and I'm not sure what to do at this point.

[jrhoffman75]

---

@johninbigd wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@johninbigd wrote:
Man. This sucks for me. I have several very expensive third-party lenses that just look like crap with the R5 but look amazing on the EOS R. So now I'm faced with selling thousands of dollars worth of Tamron and Sigma lenses to buy RF lenses that are double the cost, or sell the R5 and just go back to the EOS R. Not a great position to be in.

---

Are you using any lens filters on that gear?  My EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM was never sharp until I got rid of the UV filter, and started using no filter.  I have since switched to using B+W Nano Clear filters with no ill effects.  I shoot with DSLRs.

BTW, I have owned a Sigma 150-500 and a 150-600 "C", and have not been overly impressed with th IQ compared to the Canon lens.  The Sigmas were not at all impressive shooting small subjects, something which the Canon excelle at.

---

I don't have this particular lens. I mostly use Tamron and Sigma primes and I do not use an y filters. Here's what I have:

* Tamron 35mm f/1.4
* Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art
* Tamron 85mm f/1.8
* Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art
* Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2

I get fantastic results with these lenses on my EOS R. They're crystal clear and sharp. I've yet to get even one single shot on the R5 with any of my lenses that comes close to the shots I get on the EOS R. It's very troubling and I'm not sure what to do at this point.

---

https://edit.photography/canon-r5-sensor-misalignment-issue-confirmed-no-sharp-images-with-any-lens/

Maybe give Canon a call. 1-800-OK-CANON

[Canoncan59]

Jury is in for me. Tested my RF 100-500 , today without the 1.4 RF tc. That’s next. No comparison to my 100-400 II. For me the R5, 100-400 II PLUS 1.4 III, and the adaptor. Was not a winning combination. 100-500rf was. 

[clo6958]

Hey, I noticed this same issue. At my work, we have a Canon R5. When I shot on it with the RF mount lenses (the 24-105mm f4 and the 70-200mm f2.8), my photos were flawless, and when I shot with control ring adapter and that EOS mount lenses, my photos are a little soft...