Canon EOS R Series Cameras

harpistic said:
Argh, should I not get the EF 24-70mm II 2.8, then?

I’m planning on replacing my Nikon DSLRs with either a R6ii and a R5ii or two R6iis, and I was assuming I’d get the EF 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 II 2.8. Do I have to get both of the lenses as RFs, or just the shorter one?
Click to expand...
No sold it, crazy field curvature, crappy corners. Terrible lens for anything but event work actually.

While 70-200mm II is passable on low megapickles camera, it will look dreadful on something like R5 or 5Ds. Even on R6 you can clearly see difference between Sigma 135mm ART; while it is not dealbreaker it is there already.

Why not just buy a Nikon or even Sony then you can have Tamron which are already better than Canons, or for another step up Sigma DN ART, all for no more than these crappy old L zooms
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
No sold it, crazy field curvature, crappy corners. Terrible lens for anything but event work actually.

While 70-200mm II is passable on low megapickles camera, it will look dreadful on something like R5 or 5Ds.
Click to expand...

Thank you so so very much - I had absolutely no idea at all about the EF quality; I’ve spent ages now going through threads in the Canon sub on Reddit, and looked for secondhand and grey prices.

And drat - RF lenses means no budget for a R5ii, but at least this means shopping with only Panamoz.

And many thanks again!

(Edit: I’m mostly a dance photographer, so I need the low light autofocus performance of those bodies, I’m so going to miss my D6.)
 
Last edited:
I had a 24-70ii that was a joy to use. I have upgraded but it was a walkabout lens for me.
 
Question is, I need some help and advice.

Thinking of an R5 mk2 to replace the 1 Dx mk2, now should I replace the 100-400 4.5-5.6 with a 100-500.......and my 28-70 2.8 EF with the R equivalent?

Photography is largely wildlife , sorry if this has been largely covered elsewhere folks, appreciate comments.

Thanks for the answers to my question above and apologies for the length of time taken to reply, blame Calmac and the dreadful ferry situation in the Scottish isles!

Reading the replies it seems to me..

1. There is some feeling that the EF 24-70 mk2 isn't a good lens?...must say I'm a bit surprised at that, it seemed ok to me

2. I might not gain much in IQ going to an RF 100-500 from my existing EF 100-400 mk2 ....what about autofocus speed, would the old lens be as good as the new RF one?....and presumably an EF 1.4 TC would be slower still?

Also is there a substantial improvement in tracking eg wildlife with the R5 mk2 over the Mk1?

I don't want to get another 1 series body as I find in my advancing years it's just too heavy to lug around, gave up the big whites some years ago!!

Thanks again!
 
I use the EF24-70 with the adapter on my R3 and it works perfectly. Great image quality. I've had my R3 for about 18 months now, and I'm still only using EF lenses with the Canon adapter. I've not felt the need to replace any lenses for the RF equivalent

I did book a free hire of a RF100-500 through Canon for the BTCC at Knockhill. The focussing speed was certainly quicker than the 100-400 Mk2 I used birefly many years ago, but that was on a different body so likely not comparable. The 500m reach was handy, but I didn't get as many "sharp" keepers with it, mostly because it was hand held instead of using a monopod as I do with my 500mm f4. It was however a pleasure to walk around with it all day being so light, instead of the 500mm f4, monopod and monopod head.
 
George said:
1. There is some feeling that the EF 24-70 mk2 isn't a good lens?...must say I'm a bit surprised at that, it seemed ok to me
Click to expand...
no it is not. I strongly regret taking it to some of the nicest places on my 22MP 5D3 and dealing with crippled edges is now next to impossible. It is back and forth trip to sharpen AI and it is still not that great. On 50MP as you guessed it proved to be a complete disaster; I only regret not selling it on years ago.

The big problem is that once your centre is focused on something reasonable some distance away, your edges will be focus only a few short meters in. Great if you are shooting a street scene into a distance - your focus will be perfect at much lower aperture than you expect. All flat views have no chance even at f/11. Likewise, forget group shots in a line. Lens confirmed to be a good copy by Canon btw.

35-50mm is in fact particularly tragic.

Not a major problem if you only shoot isolated subjects with shallow DOF, however it is still lacking microcontrast compared to most other lenses. The good part is flare resistance and nice colours. On 12MP cameras that probably would have been enough.

Any Sigma ART prime will eat it for breakfast at any aperture, and likewise would do even a cheapo Tamron 28-75mm III G2 (not available for Canon ONLY). Yes, if you go for a different brand you can have a better brand new lens than this outdated thing used, and probably heavily abused.

Again I feel strongly about this abomination of lens, because it left me to pick up the pieces of images that could have been much sharper and easier to print.

When it comes to RF equivalent, yes it will be better by a little, cost a fortune more and will still fall short of the expectations. Both MTF graphs and comparisons on the digital picture seem to confirm this. All of this when you can buy like 3-4 primes, spend just around £1k and resolve 50MP easily.
 
George said:
Question is, I need some help and advice.

Thinking of an R5 mk2 to replace the 1 Dx mk2, now should I replace the 100-400 4.5-5.6 with a 100-500.......and my 28-70 2.8 EF with the R equivalent?

Photography is largely wildlife , sorry if this has been largely covered elsewhere folks, appreciate comments.

Thanks for the answers to my question above and apologies for the length of time taken to reply, blame Calmac and the dreadful ferry situation in the Scottish isles!

Reading the replies it seems to me..

1. There is some feeling that the EF 24-70 mk2 isn't a good lens?...must say I'm a bit surprised at that, it seemed ok to me

2. I might not gain much in IQ going to an RF 100-500 from my existing EF 100-400 mk2 ....what about autofocus speed, would the old lens be as good as the new RF one?....and presumably an EF 1.4 TC would be slower still?

Also is there a substantial improvement in tracking eg wildlife with the R5 mk2 over the Mk1?

I don't want to get another 1 series body as I find in my advancing years it's just too heavy to lug around, gave up the big whites some years ago!!

Thanks again!
Click to expand...
No personal experience of the RF 100-500 but my understanding is it's a touch sharper than the EF100-400 and focuses quicker as well as the extra reach. However as the 100-400 is a great lens I'd suggest keeping it initially and seeing if you do need an upgrade with the R5ii
 
JohnStewart said:
I use the EF24-70 with the adapter on my R3 and it works perfectly. Great image quality. I've had my R3 for about 18 months now, and I'm still only using EF lenses with the Canon adapter. I've not felt the need to replace any lenses for the RF equivalent

I did book a free hire of a RF100-500 through Canon for the BTCC at Knockhill. The focussing speed was certainly quicker than the 100-400 Mk2 I used birefly many years ago, but that was on a different body so likely not comparable. The 500m reach was handy, but I didn't get as many "sharp" keepers with it, mostly because it was hand held instead of using a monopod as I do with my 500mm f4. It was however a pleasure to walk around with it all day being so light, instead of the 500mm f4, monopod and monopod head.
Click to expand...

Hi John, nice to hear from you again, we met at Knockhill a few years ago when you tried my 400 DO mk2......

I suppose now my route is to go for either an R5 mk1 (cheaper?) and mk2 and try my existing lenses with an adaptor....as I said, I don't now want the weight of a 1 series type body and I'd hope the R5 would give me better tracking than the 1 Dx mk2 which does require quite a lot of hard work but has done me well over the years.

So the question is...R5 mk1, R5 mk2 ........

Cheers, George.
 
I use the RF 100-500 and the RF 200-800 on an R7, I sold my EF 100-400 when I got the RF 100-500, the RF lens is an all around better than the EF, faster focus, a bit more length and crazy good IS. But my go to lens for birds is the RF 200-800, perhaps a tad slower than the 100-500 but still very fast, perhaps a tad less sharp but still very good and that reach....
 
George said:
Hi John, nice to hear from you again, we met at Knockhill a few years ago when you tried my 400 DO mk2......

I suppose now my route is to go for either an R5 mk1 (cheaper?) and mk2 and try my existing lenses with an adaptor....as I said, I don't now want the weight of a 1 series type body and I'd hope the R5 would give me better tracking than the 1 Dx mk2 which does require quite a lot of hard work but has done me well over the years.

So the question is...R5 mk1, R5 mk2 ........

Cheers, George.
Click to expand...
Yes I remember - hope you are keeping well ?

I'm still using my old 1DX2 alongside the R3. When using a single fixed focus point, there's not much difference in tracking speed and accuracy compared to the R3. However, where the R3 and I assume the R5 wins is when you have subjects that are moving about randomly in the frame. For me I mostly use subject tracking for people/eyes, but I have tried it with birds in the back garden and the tracking is amazing and far better than you could do manually. The R5 mk2 is supposed to be even better in this regard.

If it was me that was buying, this would be my thought process: Given that the R5 mk 1 has been out a few years, you could buy a good one for a sensible price and not have to wait weeks or even months for delivery and get some use out of it before the weather/light gets too poor. If you get on well with it, put in an order for the R5 mk2 and when it arrives, you can sell the R5 mk 1 for not much loss, and maybe by then a grey import discount or winter cashback offer will offset this to almost zero.
 
Last edited:
Just to add to the above. I recently bought an R5 mk 2 from E-finity for £1000 cheaper than UK sprice, and they have them in stock. I then sold my R5 mk1 to MP, who assessed it as like new and paid me around £60 less than E-finity were selling new ones for.
 
Thanks John and Gordon, yes fine thanks John!

Given the above, I might just jump straight in to an R5 mk2, and John's comments about the BIF in his garden could swing it as nowadays birds do interest me as we have white tailed Eagles close to us on the islands and I'm always looking for shots for postcards etc.

Not sure what I'd get for the 1 Dx2, might see what WEX or MPB are offering.
 
Fordsabroad said:
Just to add to the above. I recently bought an R5 mk 2 from E-finity for £1000 cheaper than UK sprice, and they have them in stock.
Click to expand...

Ooh, good to know! They’re a lot cheaper than Panamoz, but after reading through threads on here, I’d thought it’d be better to ask Pana for a price match. How quick was delivery?
 
Delivery was about 7 days. Panamoz may be more expensive but they do give a 3 year guarantee. E-finity give 1 year
 
Thank you - after @LongLensPhotography advised me against EF lenses a few days ago, I’m trying to find any savings or discounts I can get so that I can (somehow) afford the R5ii. The longer warranty and their reputation is why I’d rather go with Panamoz, although e-In has just dropped the R5ii by another £100…

(As opposed to the D5 which MPB simply dropped before posting it to me.)
 
I have bought from both of them over the years and never had a problem with either.
 
Az_GTi said:
Looking through my shots from the weekend with my R5ii - captured this beauty?! WTF LOL. Any idea what caused this?

View attachment 436848
Click to expand...
looks like the file was corrupted while it was saving. what's the cause? could be a failing card or the camera. did you get the same problem on the second card?

I had this in the past occasionally with my 5DM4, and I was never sure whether it was the card or camera. In the case the issue happened a few times on the CF card, but the SD card copy was fine.
 
Az_GTi said:
Looking through my shots from the weekend with my R5ii - captured this beauty?! WTF LOL. Any idea what caused this?

View attachment 436848
Click to expand...
I had this many years ago with a failing memory card, so I binned it. I’ve also heard of it being caused by corruption when copying from the card onto your computer, so possibly the card reader or cable.
 
George said:
Question is, I need some help and advice.

Thinking of an R5 mk2 to replace the 1 Dx mk2, now should I replace the 100-400 4.5-5.6 with a 100-500.......and my 28-70 2.8 EF with the R equivalent?

Photography is largely wildlife , sorry if this has been largely covered elsewhere folks, appreciate comments.

Thanks for the answers to my question above and apologies for the length of time taken to reply, blame Calmac and the dreadful ferry situation in the Scottish isles!

Reading the replies it seems to me..

1. There is some feeling that the EF 24-70 mk2 isn't a good lens?...must say I'm a bit surprised at that, it seemed ok to me

2. I might not gain much in IQ going to an RF 100-500 from my existing EF 100-400 mk2 ....what about autofocus speed, would the old lens be as good as the new RF one?....and presumably an EF 1.4 TC would be slower still?

Also is there a substantial improvement in tracking eg wildlife with the R5 mk2 over the Mk1?

I don't want to get another 1 series body as I find in my advancing years it's just too heavy to lug around, gave up the big whites some years ago!!

Thanks again!
Click to expand...
I used the 24-70 mk2 to shoot BBL basketball for many years. Many of those images appeared in my Fellowship submission, printed myself on a CANON PRO GRAF 1000. I also used it with an adapter on an R6 for some of that time as I moved across to the RF system. I haven’t looked back to see what you were going to use it for; it is, however not tragic in my experience. I have upgraded my lenses to the RF system, on the whole. If it vanished from the face of the earth, the RF system. I would get it again. Remind us what you were going to do with that please. I know the longer lenses were for wildlife.
 
Chipper said:
I used the 24-70 mk2 to shoot BBL basketball for many years. Many of those images appeared in my Fellowship submission, printed myself on a CANON PRO GRAF 1000. I also used it with an adapter on an R6 for some of that time as I moved across to the RF system. I haven’t looked back to see what you were going to use it for; it is, however not tragic in my experience. I have upgraded my lenses to the RF system, on the whole. If it vanished from the face of the earth, the RF system. I would get it again. Remind us what you were going to do with that please. I know the longer lenses were for wildlife.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input.

The 24-70 won't get a lot of use except for the occasional landscape shot or perhaps a scene with wildlife with a wide background.

100-500 would be my main lens and from a few chats with users I'm told it's a significant upgrade from the 100-400 mk2.......
 
George said:
Thanks for the input.

The 24-70 won't get a lot of use except for the occasional landscape shot or perhaps a scene with wildlife with a wide background.

100-500 would be my main lens and from a few chats with users I'm told it's a significant upgrade from the 100-400 mk2.......
Click to expand...
I suspect whether it's a "significant" upgrade is a personal thing , AF is a bit faster, IQ is +/= possibly depending on the copy of each lens, the extra 100mm is nice. I guess the one stand out for me is the IS though , that alone was worth the swap for me.
 
George said:
Thanks for the input.

The 24-70 won't get a lot of use except for the occasional landscape shot or perhaps a scene with wildlife with a wide background.

100-500 would be my main lens and from a few chats with users I'm told it's a significant upgrade from the 100-400 mk2.......
Click to expand...
Landscape is one particular genre where you want to run a million miles away from EF 24-70. If someone is getting printable pics of isolated subject near enough dead in the centre doesn't mean it will resolve in the periphery and in fact it doesn't.
 
I use the EF 24-70 f2.8 ii with the R5 and had no problems. But it's now my least used lens because I bought the RF 35mm f1.8 Macro some months back.
 
Bebop said:
I’ve gone to OM for my long lens shooting these days, but there’s still a little part of me that fancies one of these lenses. Are you happy with it? Impressive shutter speed!
Click to expand...
I am beyond impressed with it, to be honest. The only time I have problems is sometimes with the minimum focus distance which I think is about 20 ft. I had intended to buy a 100-500 as well, to use more often. But I didn't get around to it, and my only wildlife kit now is the R8 and this 800mm. I absolutely love it, there is nothing for me to worry with too much kit, and it's very lightweight, comparatively speaking. If the 200-800 was a bit more compact I'd go for that. 800 sounds very very long - which it it, but I've rarely felt like I'm too zoomed in. I'll share some more images soon. Sure, would be nice if it was a bit brighter than F11, but I'm pretty happy with the quality I am getting, even at high ISO! Genuinely, it never fails to impress me.

Funnily enough, I have got an OM-5 and the 12-45 lens. I am keeping my eyes open for a bigger zoom for it. But then half of me thinks, I love the Canon 200 2.8 I have, and that with the EF-Micro 4/3 adapter is so good I almost don't need to!
 
stickytape said:
I am beyond impressed with it, to be honest. The only time I have problems is sometimes with the minimum focus distance which I think is about 20 ft. I had intended to buy a 100-500 as well, to use more often. But I didn't get around to it, and my only wildlife kit now is the R8 and this 800mm. I absolutely love it, there is nothing for me to worry with too much kit, and it's very lightweight, comparatively speaking. If the 200-800 was a bit more compact I'd go for that. 800 sounds very very long - which it it, but I've rarely felt like I'm too zoomed in. I'll share some more images soon. Sure, would be nice if it was a bit brighter than F11, but I'm pretty happy with the quality I am getting, even at high ISO! Genuinely, it never fails to impress me.

Funnily enough, I have got an OM-5 and the 12-45 lens. I am keeping my eyes open for a bigger zoom for it. But then half of me thinks, I love the Canon 200 2.8 I have, and that with the EF-Micro 4/3 adapter is so good I almost don't need to!
Click to expand...
Sounds good and I would be interested to see some shots… although I am not going to buy one… but one day I might :sneaky:. I had the 100-500mm and the 100-400 ii but sold them to get the OM big white - that gives me 1000mm at f/5.6 with the in built converter. I’m really happy with that lens but I do miss the ability to crop and I don’t like having such an expensive bit of kit,
 
Hello again - I went to Heathrow a month ago to meet my mother’s flight, and I only got back home a couple of days ago. Things I did not pack at the time: all of the kit I want to sell, and a camera battery charger.

I’m a dance photographer, so I need equipment which can autofocus brilliantly with low light movement. My current kit is a Nikon D6, Nikon D5, 24-70mm 2.8 and a 70-200mm 2.8.

I’m planning to switch to Canon - R6ii and R5ii - and please can anyone assure me that I have to get the R5ii instead of a second R6ii? Pretty please?
 
I can't tell you what an r5ii is like in this type of setting but I find the R6ii has been great in a low light/rapid movement live music situation.
 
Canon R5 is already a big improvement from from DSLR. R5 or R5ii has more pixels so allows more cropping if you need. R6 or R6ii has fewer but bigger pixels so should be better in low light.

But why do you feel the need to change?
 
I photograph my granddaughters gymnastics competitions with the R5. (first the R5 now the mk ii).Generally the lighting is poor and an ISO of 10,000 + is needed with the 70-200 at f2.8. I initially used the R6 but changed to thr R5 for the ability to crop. Gymnasts need space in the frame so cropping in post is useful.
Focus of both is excellent. You may find the face recognition and pre-shoot useful but I do not require it.
My photography is for personal/family use and not for publication although I believe the images are of good enough quality.
I think if you don't need the higher pixel count of the R5 the R6 mkii would do the job perfectly well.
 
Couple more weekends of use with R5II in the bag. Few more "issues" to report which like my post earlier I hope are all relating to the memory card - a Lexar 512GB Professional Silver SE CFexpress Type B, bought new from Amazon. Fully formatted and also done in-camera before use.

- Memory card reports as full when it isn't - solution open card door remove card, re-insert.
- Couple of freezes where I needed to remove and re-insert battery.
- Stuck in "saving images" loop. Left for 5+ mins to see if it sorted itself out. Turning on/off does nothing. Solution was remove and re-insert battery.

PXL_20241103_175303416.jpg

I don't think I've had any issues with my other CF Express card. So hoping this is the problem rather than the camera.
 
Just to say further to this the other card I use where I appear not to have had any problems is an "Integral 128GB CFexpress Memory Card Type B"

Oh and with my 1DX3 both cards work fine, including the Lexar. Only a problem in the 5DII it seems.

Does Canon have a recommended CF Express card list published? Maybe the Lexar Silver isn't fast enough or something (should be).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top