RF L lens and R6 or EF L lens and R6 ii

[bhoot960]

I would love to get opinions as I return to photography. Plan to shoot mostly portraits and dog sports with a full frame camera and 24-70. My last setup years ago was 5d II and 24-70. Go anywhere and do anything setup for me.

Now I’m looking into a new kit and pretty sold on the r6. Needing to buy the 24-70 also I’m deciding if it’s worth it to put extra money in buying the r6 mark ii and the older ef 24-70 adapted or the r6 with the newer rf 24-70. The price comes out to be quite similar for both kits.

At this time I’m not very worried about a second lens or having money left over for that as I want to shoot more and make a better informed decision.

Thank you!

[jrhoffman75]

---

@bhoot960 wrote:

I would love to get opinions as I return to photography. Plan to shoot mostly portraits and dog sports with a full frame camera and 24-70. My last setup years ago was 5d II and 24-70. Go anywhere and do anything setup for me.

Now I’m looking into a new kit and pretty sold on the r6. Needing to buy the 24-70 also I’m deciding if it’s worth it to put extra money in buying the r6 mark ii and the older ef 24-70 adapted or the r6 with the newer rf 24-70. The price comes out to be quite similar for both kits.

At this time I’m not very worried about a second lens or having money left over for that as I want to shoot more and make a better informed decision.

Thank you!

---

There are numerous sites you can Google "R6 vs R6 Mark II" that can list differences.

If you are happy with the results you are getting with the EF24-70 it will be as good or better on either R6 variant.

The improved AF in the Mark II would probably serve you well in your action shooting.

[ebiggs1]

I agree with JRH but I also advise if you can afford it, if you plan to go R Series than go R Series. Yes the old EF will work but it is still old tech and all is moving to the new R Series gear. EF works for sure but not as well as the RF does.

[justadude]

They are both great cameras.  The advantages of the R6 Mk ll are that it is quite a bit better at low noise (which is the main reason I bought mine), has a better battery life (more shots per charge) and the crazy fast auto focus features (second reason I bought it - it's awesome for my sports photography).  

While there are advantages to the RF lenses, and I do own a few, I've found no reason to replace my favorite EF lenses.  One example is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L.  The image quality is better than it was on my DSLRs due to a bettor sensor and processor.  The AF is insanely better (although the RF would be even better yet).  However for this lens my main use is finish line photography for marathons and triathlons.  It does everything I need it to do, even when I have a group of runners heading directly towards me, all at varying distances.  It's simply a great combo with the R6 Mk ll.  The ONLY drawback is the extra weight... but to me the cost to upgrade to the RF does not justify changing, even on these paid events.  

But... that is with this EF lens, and yours might be different.  I'd say if you are happy with your EF lens, the R6 Mk ll might be the better decision if you plan on keeping the camera for a number of years.  If you are not a fan of your current lens, then the R6 and the RF lens might be the better choice.

[TomRamsey]

I have an R6 II that I bought last June, I absolutely love it. I bought it along with an RF200-800 specifically to shoot wildlife.  I had no Canon gear before I bought this and my extensive online research to me the best action camera I could get in my budget was the R6 II, for me it actually had a lot more features that are actually usable in wildlife shooting.  The eye focus and tracking is incredible.  I do not own any EF lenses, so I have no experience with that.  I would definitely compare the capabilities of each camera and see what is right for you.  One of my own steadfast rules in cameras, is buy the newest technology that you can afford.