Which EF lenses are superior to their RF counterparts?

[gugino]

I’ll be moving from the M6ii to R8 or R6ii in the near-ish future and have recently decided to delay my upgrade until I’ve saved up enough to buy the body and RF 100-500 L at the same time.

I’m saving for this with side-work so that it doesn’t disrupt my household budget, and that means I have the opportunity to be very patient and also make some reaches for indulgent gear that will hopefully comprise a sort of “forever kit” for me.

But that doesn’t mean I’m against using an adapter if appropriate!

So at this point in time, are there any EF lenses that are still definitively superior to their closest-match RF counterpart?

[p4pictures]

I think this will depend on your own criteria of what makes a lens superior to another. 

If price is the defining factor of superiority then many EF lenses that have an RF equivalent could be said to be superior - assuming lower price is better than more expensive.

In general RF lenses have drawn from the optical expertise of the EF lenses, moved forward, adding additional capabilities and in some cases become smaller and lighter in weight.

However the RF lenses do in some cases make use of image processing to allow them to deliver the higher quality of images. If you discount those elements then you might find that an EF lens designed to operate regardless of the  image processing delivers better quality. 

For me I find the RF lenses do not have the same feel to the focus ring that I like on my older EF lenses. But very few of my lenses are used regularly for manual focus. 

[ebiggs1]

IMHO, there are no EF/EF-s lenses that are superior to any of the R series lenses. For one reason, most and perhaps all, EF series lens are not fully compatible so do not fully work on the new R series cameras. Some, or perhaps all, EF series may work satisfactorily, however.

[johnrmoyer]

To some extent, I agree with the other answers that were given to you. 

If comparing lenses with the same price, then sometimes there is a very good price for an EF lens refurbished and sold with warranty by Canon. One might find a refurbished L series EF lens for a fraction of the price of a RF L series lens with the same focal length.

RF lenses have more communication pins than do EF lenses and can transfer data faster.

All of my EF and EF-S lenses work better on my EOS R5 than on my EOS 80D.

[untensan]

I am “old school” both in age and in thinking. The rule of thumb used to be any time you put an adapter between the camera and lens you’re putting another piece of equipment that could malfunction. The other concern is switching between RF and EF lenses where taking the adapter on and off can be distracting from your creative juices depending on your subject matter. Obviously in action shooting situations extra time preparing for a shot could cause delays.m

After many years shooting professionally for extra income I “retired” and down sized and “assumed” I’d be happy with my M6 and M6ii. I had a few EF lenses that required the adapter. It was a hassle juggling the pieces. I recently purchased the R5ii and currently have the RF 24-105 f/4 and the RF 79-200 f/2.8. Of course I have the EF to RF adapter but realized I’m getting lazy and sometimes won’t go through the hassle of changing lenses and skip trying to shoot the shot. The other concern is shooting in low light conditions where trying to lineup the red dots on the lens and camera body are not easy.

I’ve got the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 on order. I’m expecting its arrival in a couple of days. My only concern is if I can handhold it in poor lighting conditions. I’m intending on using it for night time volcano shots where setting up a tripod may be impractical.

Considering lens quality I really haven’t seen a “bad” (soft)  Canon lens for decades.

My subject matter and concerns may not be the same as yours. YMMV

[JeffXB]

In addition to the excellent points made already, I noticed a big difference in auto focus. I had EF lenses, all L series and second or third generation, in 24-105mm f4, 70-200mm f4, 100mm f2.8 macro  and a 100-400mm. When I bought a R6 M2, I sold all my EF lenses and upgraded to the RF’s (mostly after buying the RF’s): For canon lenses my kit is currently: 15-35mm f2.8 L, 24-105mm f4 L,100mm f2.8 macro L, 70-200mm f2.8 Z and a 200-800mm.

As stated above I noticed a huge difference in AF speed and acquisition of subjects, especially on the 70-200mm. IQ was mostly negligible, but particularly better on the 100mm, 70-200mm and the 24-105mm (also less barrel / edge distortion on the 24-105).

I did briefly consider the RF 100-500mm, but I also occasionally use 1.4x and 2x extenders (which work on 70-200mm Z and the 200-800mm). I didn’t like the limitation imposed when using an extender on the 100-500. There a few horror stories floating around about damage occurring to the lens and / or the extenders; albeit most likely due to ignorance about the limitation (can only use from 300mm to 500mm), rough treatment of the equipment or dropping it even from a short distance. 

And something else to consider that I don’t was mentioned either. At some point Canon will no longer provide support for the EF lenses, except perhaps for the most popular ones and the newest generations of them. 

So to answer your question, IMHO, no there aren’t any EF lenses that are superior to the RF’s. 

[untensan]

I’ve only had my R5II for a few weeks. Previously, I had a Sigma 75-300 APO that I used on my M6 & M6II bodies with the EF-M adapter. I bought the R5II to shoot a Kupuna Hula Festival (seniors dancing hula) with the RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM & RF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM. Fast focusing was not a factor, however, sharpness was. By the end of the first night I resigned myself to buy another RF lens. I just received the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM this afternoon. As mentioned, the RF lenses are unbelievably fast even in limited light. The R5II combined with the L IS USM lenses are fast and sharp. This revelation is reawakening my interest in photography.

[ebiggs1]

"Fast focusing was not a factor, however, sharpness was."

Sharpness or IQ is not always a fault, and most of the time it isn't, of just the lens. IQ is a subjective matter, too. There are way too many variables to unequavitely say the EF equivalent of any RF lens is sharper than the counterpart.