[Arthur Macmillan]

Are the EF lenses really going to take that big of a hit on the RF mount body? My only experience with mirrorless is adapting full frame lenses to MFT. I have to say, to me, almost every lens worked great! The thing is, since I have workable native MFT lenses, I don't go to the trouble much any more. But EF-RF adapter is going to retain most of the functionality of the original EF lens. And your non-IS lenses will now have IBIS!

This has really been a point I have wondered about. Is the weakness more apparent in wide angle, or Telephoto lenses?

Anyway, I bet the medium lengths are the least effected, and some really decent primes did not have IS. For example the EF 50, 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2L, and 200/2.8L decently fast primes did not have IS. Are any of those not going to perform beautifully on an R6? Certainly you can't complain about their size!

I mention the R6 because the specs of the camera on paper look a lot like the EOS 1 DX Mark III. So I guess that would make your professional photography set-up, on a shoe string budget!

-Mac

[wim]

Are the EF lenses really going to take that big of a hit on the RF mount body? My only experience with mirrorless is adapting full frame lenses to MFT. I have to say, to me, almost every lens worked great! The thing is, since I have workable native MFT lenses, I don't go to the trouble much any more. But EF-RF adapter is going to retain most of the functionality of the original EF lens. And your non-IS lenses will now have IBIS!

This has really been a point I have wondered about. Is the weakness more apparent in wide angle, or Telephoto lenses?

Anyway, I bet the medium lengths are the least effected, and some really decent primes did not have IS. For example the EF 50, 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2L, and 200/2.8L decently fast primes did not have IS. Are any of those not going to perform beautifully on an R6? Certainly you can't complain about their size!

I mention the R6 because the specs of the camera on paper look a lot like the EOS 1 DX Mark III. So I guess that would make your professional photography set-up, on a shoe string budget!

-Mac

No, not at all. If anything, AF is better, and often faster, but that depends on the lens. That is my experience.

I used the EOS R, when I had it for a couple of weeks only, at a wedding with all of my old EF lenses barring the RF 35 F/1.8 and RF 24-105L, using the EF 50 F/1.2L, EF 24L II, EF 135L and EF 100-400L II (large terrain, huge meadow, with little stream and very large pond) where the wedding party was held, during the day and at night with barely any lighting (some bulbs in trees, fire dances). I was truly impressed, at which light levels I coudl still get correct AF.

It is just that RF lenses, certainly the primes and L lenses, are a little to a lot better again than the EF equivalents, and generally faster in acquiring focus. The RF 50L nd Rf 85L are quite the experience compared to their redecessors, I can ssure you.

But hey, nothing wrong with a carefully planned upgrade path. Those EF lenses work admirably well with the EOS R series bodies, as well or better than on the Canon dslrs ...

HTH, kind regards, Wim