Just in the past week, I have seen an increase in used Canon Speedboosters for sale here in Japan. Maybe someone has Canon insider information?
EF vs RF
- Thread starter scorsesefan
- Start date
Jim Feeley
Veteran
I'm not sure what's up, but Meike just introduced (I think) an EF-to-R 0.71x booster for US $229, so I guess they see at least some continued market.
Meike EFTR-0.71X，EFTR-0.71XL,EFTE-0.71X，EFTZ-0.71X Speedbooster Lens Mount Adapter
Meike EFTR-0.71X，EFTR-0.71XL,EFTE-0.71X，EFTZ-0.71X Speedbooster Lens M
EFTR-0.71X is available now. Parameter Model: MK-EFTR-071X-C MK-EFTE-071X-C MK-EFTZ-071X-C Material: Stainless Steel Stainless Steel Stainless Steel CameraMount : Canon RF mount camera(APS-C) Sony E mount camera (APS-C) Nikon Z mount camera(APS-C) Lens Mount: EF Series lens(FF)...
meikeglobal.com
scorsesefan
Veteran
What's your main workhorse camera, Norbro?
NorBro
Major Contributor
I haven't owned a new camera in almost a year but I've been renting the R6 Mark II here and there, it's really great and I think better than the R5.
But if I filmed more I'd likely own the upcoming R5 II.
Owned everything under the sun at one point in life but there is no other option but Canon for me these days based on what I like the most out of them (color, AF and extra body/IS combo stops from their top RF glass).
Their mirrorless' make a lot of sense to me when using them, an enjoyable experience.
But if I filmed more I'd likely own the upcoming R5 II.
Owned everything under the sun at one point in life but there is no other option but Canon for me these days based on what I like the most out of them (color, AF and extra body/IS combo stops from their top RF glass).
Their mirrorless' make a lot of sense to me when using them, an enjoyable experience.
scorsesefan
Veteran
Yeah, I went back to Canon for the color. I'm curious what they have up their sleeve on the 5th...
scorsesefan
Veteran
Ugh, I hope not...C70 II...
I guess we have to wait for the optical tests (and see what Canon has up its sleeve later this week), but the price tag is obviously attractive compared to Canon's own Speed Booster. Speaking of the many used Canon Speed Boosters on the market now, I don't see why you'd sell one to buy a new one unless the optical performance is outperforming Canon's by miles.I'm not sure what's up, but Meike just introduced (I think) an EF-to-R 0.71x booster for US $229, so I guess they see at least some continued market.
Meike EFTR-0.71X，EFTR-0.71XL,EFTE-0.71X，EFTZ-0.71X Speedbooster Lens Mount Adapter
Meike EFTR-0.71X，EFTR-0.71XL,EFTE-0.71X，EFTZ-0.71X Speedbooster Lens M
EFTR-0.71X is available now. Parameter Model: MK-EFTR-071X-C MK-EFTE-071X-C MK-EFTZ-071X-C Material: Stainless Steel Stainless Steel Stainless Steel CameraMount : Canon RF mount camera(APS-C) Sony E mount camera (APS-C) Nikon Z mount camera(APS-C) Lens Mount: EF Series lens(FF)...
Jim Feeley
Veteran
I was more thinking, "I don't really use my Canon speed booster much, so I better sell it quick before the Meike I heard rumors about is announced and available."
And I'd guess we (video/cine people) are just a small market for speed boosters. Maybe the stills people are moving away from EF glass faster than a bunch of us are.... Or there's just so many more stills (or mostly stills) people, it just seems that way....
And I'd guess we (video/cine people) are just a small market for speed boosters. Maybe the stills people are moving away from EF glass faster than a bunch of us are.... Or there's just so many more stills (or mostly stills) people, it just seems that way....
Now I see what you mean! The Canon Speed Booster is well built and everything, but I think it is way overpriced. The EF 2x extender was/is half the price. I guess Canon wants to make sure that we don't stick with our EF glass, but upgrade to RF instead.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The C70 is oddball as canon dont make any S35 RF lenses. Traditionally you might want an 18-80 or something to 'cover' a scene with that camera and no booster.
So a 24-105 with a speedbooster makes the one lens coverage you might want.
A 24-105 without speedbooster is not a 'coverage' lens but more suited to an interfiew with some reframing.
EF lens ownership is not an expensive thing. Buy em cheap.. sell em not a lot cheaper.
WIth the C70 the lens you 'need' is the 24-105EF.
But if you are going in deeper, droppng $10k on glass.. thinking you might move to a rf C300iii or rfC500iii then the snappy performance of RF is where your money might be best spent. But only might.
EF offeres me some 'dreams' like the 200-400f4 at 'affordable' but RF lenses are good.
Id get the EF 24-105 and see how the cards shake out in the next few months befroe spending any 'real' money.
An ef 24-105 will cost you $100 for a year if you dont kick it down the stairs.
I am going to guess the RF24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z is the EF 24-105 F4 with a built-in Speed Booster and some improved optical elements.
Thankfully there are many careful and considerate EF lens owners who are getting rid of their lenses here in Japan. Lots of cheap EF glass to choose from.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The 2.8 24-105 covers 'full frame' while a speed booster adds speed by reducing the image circle.
I would suggest therefore that the designs of 24-105ef+booster is quite different from 24-105 2.8 fullframe.
Gaining the extra stop without losing image circle is quite a big deal as we see in the increased size and price.
Of course there is chat that the 'tstop' of the 24-105ef is very slow and calling it a solid F4 through the range is a big stretch of the truth.
This is a big factor if RF lenses are better than ef lenses. They may match on paper specs but my personal non scientific 'feeling' is that the RF lenses are a stop better in real life use than some of the EF like the 24-105
I would suggest therefore that the designs of 24-105ef+booster is quite different from 24-105 2.8 fullframe.
Gaining the extra stop without losing image circle is quite a big deal as we see in the increased size and price.
Of course there is chat that the 'tstop' of the 24-105ef is very slow and calling it a solid F4 through the range is a big stretch of the truth.
This is a big factor if RF lenses are better than ef lenses. They may match on paper specs but my personal non scientific 'feeling' is that the RF lenses are a stop better in real life use than some of the EF like the 24-105
You're right, of course. My bad.
cpreston
Veteran
The RF24-105 f/2.8 Z has a few benefits that make it far better for video than the ef 24-105mm. First, manual focus throw and feel is much better due to the increased focus throw. Second, no focus breathing. Third, it maintains transmission while zooming. You set it f/5.6 and it will be an f/5.6 at both the 24mm and 105mm. Fourth, IS that allows panning. Fifth, no extension while zooming. Sixth, manual iris control for iris ramps.
scorsesefan
Veteran
I picked up a 24-105 f4RF (got it slightly used at a good price). I may pick up a cheap EF version because as you mentioned the FOV of the RF isn't great for coverage outside of an interview situation. The RF glass just seems like a better investment if I'm going to stay in the Canon ecosystem...
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Im not sure there is a clear answer. EF will go on canon, sony, arri, is cheap. I though the answer was clear.. but since my R6 and rf 24-105 I found RF glass is better. I guess Ill swing to RF glass and maybe get stuff like the EF 200-400 or 400/2.8 in EF as the RF versions are used BMW money.
scorsesefan
Veteran
I've tested the AF on the RF vs EF and the RF is slightly better (vs sigma 18-35). The RF lens is a little sharper which I'm not crazy about because I bought the c70 and moved away from Sony because the Sony sensors always seem a little bit too sharp for my tastes. Having to wear a black pro mist on every lens was a PITA
Only with an adapter (just like with RF Mounts today).
Ya there's that. But didn't regular EF lenses fit on that mount?
It's only obvious with hindsight that EOS-M was going to be a dead mount (or obvious to those with a deeper understanding of the technical limits of EOS-M, I always thought EOS-M was going to be a dead end)
But I don't think that was at all obvious to the average Canon consumer at the time back then.
Were the Canon camera releases any that different than the early Sony camera releases such as the Sony NEX3? Yet today the E Mount system is used on everything from Sony, all the way up to their very high end cameras such as VENICE.
And clearly E Mount has a future at all levels of uses for decades more in to the future.
I don't think it was at all obvious to the average consumer that E Mount and EOS-M were going to have such drastically different futures!