07-26-2019, 11:20 PM
Based on the tests I have read so far, the images taken with it, and since you have an RP, I'd suggest you go for the RF version 
. There actually is a cashback on it at the moment, so the difference should be less than $150. It also seems smaller than the EF with adapter, but I could be mistaken.
The RF has STM as well, and IS, and is an F/1.8 rather than an F/2.
BTW, from experience I know I personally do not "see" 35 mm FF, otherwise I would have gotten one already. 24 mm or 28 mm is fine, as is 40 mm, but somehow 35 mm just does not work for me.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
. There actually is a cashback on it at the moment, so the difference should be less than $150. It also seems smaller than the EF with adapter, but I could be mistaken.The RF has STM as well, and IS, and is an F/1.8 rather than an F/2.
BTW, from experience I know I personally do not "see" 35 mm FF, otherwise I would have gotten one already. 24 mm or 28 mm is fine, as is 40 mm, but somehow 35 mm just does not work for me.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....