High Megapixel Camera Lenses

I have seen someone, on another site, comparing the EF 50/1.2 L versus the RF 50/1.2 L lens on an R. Now I know it is "only" 30 MP but the differences are negligible. There is a lot of hype about the R mount, but the primary advantage appears to be in the ability to design faster lenses more easily, but so far they have not taken advantage of this. Yes, they do have the 28-70mm f2 but it is 28 instead of 24, so perhaps an EF could have done the same. Comparing the three main RF/EF xx-70mm lenses on the comparison site the EF still stands up well. Now again they are "only" using the R for comparisons, so the difference may show up more on the R5.

I doubt Canon will ever stop gouging with the RF lenses, so one also has to accept/justify the, general, 1/3 price increase too.

One can take comfort that their top of the line EF lenses will work virtually as well on RF mount bodies as on their EF bodies.

Like John, I’ve found that my EF lenses work at least as well on my R mount cameras as they ever did on EF mount. However, I think that the real difference is that the RF lenses are more recent designs, often with better coatings and better focus systems (I’d exclude the new RF 50 1.8 from this - that seems pretty much the EF STM version in a new dress).

My RF 24-105 L is clearly better than my old, but excellent, EF equivalent for example. Pity that it cost twice the price

Like John, I’ve found that my EF lenses work at least as well on my R mount cameras as they ever did on EF mount. However, I think that the real difference is that the RF lenses are more recent designs, often with better coatings and better focus systems (I’d exclude the new RF 50 1.8 from this - that seems pretty much the EF STM version in a new dress).

 

My RF 24-105 L is clearly better than my old, but excellent, EF equivalent for example. Pity that it cost twice the price

Hi Peter,

I have the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM as well. I take your point about better lens coating and better focus systems as quality issues and believe that they may very well make a some slight difference. The issue I have centers on my desire to buy the R5s - 90 mp? - when it comes out and some question whether the older lenses will be able to "take advantage" of the increased pixel count. That is the crux of my question. I have some pretty good EF glass, albeit I still have a couple of lenses on my list to purchase. Assuming that I get the R5s when it debuts, or the R5, I would likely buy RF lenses going forward. I'm just not seeing the disadvantage of continuing to use my current EF glass at this point. I don't believe that I will end up will grainy, noisy pictures using the EF glass on the R5 or R5s.

Am I wrong?

My 2¢ is that there is variation from lens to lens. I had the opportunity to compare 2 Canon EF 24-105 and 2 EF 70-200 F/4 lenses. There was no clear cut winner; one lens might have been better at one focal length but the other lens was better at a different focal length. So, if you buy the R5, keep your EF 24-70. If you do get the R5, yippee! Show us pictures!

Hi ajkocu!

First, I love your work. I too see that there are differences between lenses and have seen the stories of someone that got a lemon and had to get a replacement lens. Finally, I hope to get my R5 or R5s in the spring of this year and would love to share my pictures.

I have seen someone, on another site, comparing the EF 50/1.2 L versus the RF 50/1.2 L lens on an R. Now I know it is "only" 30 MP but the differences are negligible. There is a lot of hype about the R mount, but the primary advantage appears to be in the ability to design faster lenses more easily, but so far they have not taken advantage of this. Yes, they do have the 28-70mm f2 but it is 28 instead of 24, so perhaps an EF could have done the same. Comparing the three main RF/EF xx-70mm lenses on the comparison site the EF still stands up well. Now again they are "only" using the R for comparisons, so the difference may show up more on the R5.

 

I doubt Canon will ever stop gouging with the RF lenses, so one also has to accept/justify the, general, 1/3 price increase too.

 

One can take comfort that their top of the line EF lenses will work virtually as well on RF mount bodies as on their EF bodies.

John, I certainly hope that you are right.

People got all freaked out when the 5DSR, which I have, came out, because they would have to follow Canon's list of approved lenses and throw all their other lenses in the garbage. I use the best lenses of their era on the 5DSR with no issues. Some of the lenses I use started out on my 6 MP 10D 15 years ago, and are now on my 50 MP 5DSR, and the images just keep getting better and better! I recently tested my 40 year old Nikon 8mm f2.8 against the Canon EF 8-15 L and although the Canon had better micro contrast, the Nikon still resolved the same detail, and the Nikon had less distortion. I am keeping the Nikon. I thought my Canon EF 300mm f2.8 L with an EF 2x might come close to my 35 year old Canon FD 800mm f5.6 L...no. My most recent purchase, a 45 year old Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical is stunning on the 5DSR and I know it will only get better on a 100 MP body, if I ever get one. My point being is that the differences between the best glass across many era is very little.

To be honest I have printed 24x36 inch prints from my 21 MP 5D II and shifted/stitched Canon EF 17mm f4 L, and I really doubt I am going to toss any of them in the garbage when I start printing from the 5DSR. That is sort of my personal limit for print size and I doubt I will really see a difference from the 5DSR at that size, although I can clearly see the difference on my laptop. The colours may get richer in the prints.

While doubling the pixels, from 25 MP to 50 MP and from 50 MP to 100 MP, one is only able to print at 1.414 times the print size and maintain the same look. So yes for a similar look I could go from printing 5D II photos at 24x36" to printing 100 MP photos at 48x72" but even though I could find wall space for a few of these in my house, it would look odd! I already know as well that I could in fact be printing even larger from my 5D II, therefore even bigger from the 5DSR, and yet even bigger from the next 100 MP body, but then I could no longer mount and frame them myself and I would run into serious wall space problems. I firmly believe that my 50 MP body has achieved the look of my 6x6 and 4x5 Velvia transparencies. While I spent the past 15 years seeking more and more pixels, I am much less excited to gain the next additional 50 MP.

If I was a true pro and selling many more images than I am, and had contract work for filling office wall space, then yes having a 100 MP camera and absolutely the best possible lenses would be at the top of my list.

If you purchase an RF body within the next year or so, then absolutely purchase RF lenses going forward, and I would go so far to say to put off any lens purchases until you do. The only lens that could push me to an RF body is the rumoured 14 TS-E, but it would be years before I could afford to buy both even used! You will enjoy your high quality EF glass on an RF body. Over the years, if your requirements grow, and your print sizes grow, then you can think about updating your EF glass then, and by then there will be many more RF lenses available too.

People got all freaked out when the 5DSR, which I have, came out, because they would have to follow Canon's list of approved lenses and throw all their other lenses in the garbage. I use the best lenses of their era on the 5DSR with no issues. Some of the lenses I use started out on my 6 MP 10D 15 years ago, and are now on my 50 MP 5DSR, and the images just keep getting better and better! I recently tested my 40 year old Nikon 8mm f2.8 against the Canon EF 8-15 L and although the Canon had better micro contrast, the Nikon still resolved the same detail, and the Nikon had less distortion. I am keeping the Nikon. I thought my Canon EF 300mm f2.8 L with an EF 2x might come close to my 35 year old Canon FD 800mm f5.6 L...no. My most recent purchase, a 45 year old Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical is stunning on the 5DSR and I know it will only get better on a 100 MP body, if I ever get one. My point being is that the differences between the best glass across many era is very little.

 

To be honest I have printed 24x36 inch prints from my 21 MP 5D II and shifted/stitched Canon EF 17mm f4 L, and I really doubt I am going to toss any of them in the garbage when I start printing from the 5DSR. That is sort of my personal limit for print size and I doubt I will really see a difference from the 5DSR at that size, although I can clearly see the difference on my laptop. The colours may get richer in the prints.

 

While doubling the pixels, from 25 MP to 50 MP and from 50 MP to 100 MP, one is only able to print at 1.414 times the print size and maintain the same look. So yes for a similar look I could go from printing 5D II photos at 24x36" to printing 100 MP photos at 48x72" but even though I could find wall space for a few of these in my house, it would look odd! I already know as well that I could in fact be printing even larger from my 5D II, therefore even bigger from the 5DSR, and yet even bigger from the next 100 MP body, but then I could no longer mount and frame them myself and I would run into serious wall space problems. I firmly believe that my 50 MP body has achieved the look of my 6x6 and 4x5 Velvia transparencies. While I spent the past 15 years seeking more and more pixels, I am much less excited to gain the next additional 50 MP.

 

If I was a true pro and selling many more images than I am, and had contract work for filling office wall space, then yes having a 100 MP camera and absolutely the best possible lenses would be at the top of my list.

 

If you purchase an RF body within the next year or so, then absolutely purchase RF lenses going forward, and I would go so far to say to put off any lens purchases until you do. The only lens that could push me to an RF body is the rumoured 14 TS-E, but it would be years before I could afford to buy both even used! You will enjoy your high quality EF glass on an RF body. Over the years, if your requirements grow, and your print sizes grow, then you can think about updating your EF glass then, and by then there will be many more RF lenses available too.

Hi John.

I’ve been using the 5DIII for several years and have been seriously looking at the 5DSR since it was released; I never pulled the trigger. When the R5 came out I began to plan for buying it after some real-world reviews came in. I am not interested in video, so the R5 video heating issues were not much of an issue for me. Now I see a high resolution R body – R5s ? – is on the way I think that’s where I will go provided I see some good user feedback.

That said, I found your lens performance comparisons very interesting. Your experience leads me to believe that I have a decent path forward with EF lenses on my 5DIII as well as my R5s. I also have some nice older FD lenses and am pleased to see that there are adapters supporting EF and FD lens use on the R series bodies. I do agree that future lens purchases will be RF series, but I may still entertain the purchase of an old FD lens or two.

I usually print 11X14s and 16X20s. I have 70 pictures on my walls and rotate new pictures because I am out of wall space. I have printed two canvases, 20X30 and 30X40, as well as one 20X30 print; they are all from my 5DMIII and look great. Given my wall space, the 30X40 will likely remain my upper limit. I am squeezing one new 24X36 canvas on my wall. I’ve never tried stitching, but may give it a go to see how it works. Obviously, the higher megapixel bodies’ larger file sizes will support more extreme cropping such that you can create a good size print from them.

Thank you for sharing your experience with us!

Best Regards,

Mick

As said, lenses do not "rot", although they may get old and stiff like the rest of us.

Barring mold, damage, etc., an old lens is just as good as it ever was.

It's cameras that have changed, with resolution that can now far exceed what was possible with film. The old lens may not use all that resolution, but it still does as well as it used to do.

I wish I could say the same for myself.

If I was a true pro and selling many more images than I am, and had contract work for filling office wall space, then yes having a 100 MP camera and absolutely the best possible lenses would be at the top of my list.

In my experience, most professionals do not upgrade routinely, only if they really need it on a day to day basis. That way they do not spend themselves out of business. A professional job probably would not care if you used a 20MP or a 100MP camera, as long as the pictures were good..

As said, lenses do not "rot", although they may get old and stiff like the rest of us.

Barring mold, damage, etc., an old lens is just as good as it ever was.

It's cameras that have changed, with resolution that can now far exceed what was possible with film. The old lens may not use all that resolution, but it still does as well as it used to do.

 

I wish I could say the same for myself.

Lol! As a man in my 70s I can arrest to my stiff and rusty joints. Your point on lenses makes sense.

Best wishes!

If I was a true pro and selling many more images than I am, and had contract work for filling office wall space, then yes having a 100 MP camera and absolutely the best possible lenses would be at the top of my list.

 

In my experience, most professionals do not upgrade routinely, only if they really need it on a day to day basis. That way they do not spend themselves out of business. A professional job probably would not care if you used a 20MP or a 100MP camera, as long as the pictures were good..

Well said Robin. You and others give me the confidence that I'll be able to use my old lenses. In all honesty I am looking forward to using my old FD lenses.

Best wishes to you Robin