Eos R series mirrorless Cameras use the RF style mount. The Eos R is a full frame camera so it needs a full frame lens. RF-S lenses are for cropped sensor cameras like the Eos R7 and R10. Although you can mount a lens meant for a crop sensor camera on a full frame camera, you shouldn't because you wouldn't be using the whole sensor. Canon's lenses for it's DSLR and film SLR Cameras use the EF and EF-S mount. The EF being for Full frame DSLRs and 35mm film SLRs and the EF-S for cropped sensor DSLRs. You can mount a canon DSLR lens to a mirrorless EOS R series camera with the use of a simple adapter. The EF-M mount is for Canon's M series of mirrorless Cameras. They are not compatible with R series mirrorless Cameras or any DSLRs. On a side note a DSLR EF or EF-S lens can be mounted to a M series mirrorless camera with a simple adapter in much the same way as adapting to the R series. So to answer your question directly, you should be looking for a lens that says RF at the start of the model name.
Thanks so much for the comprehensive breakdown and sharing your wisdom. This is what makes me love Slickdeals
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Makes one wonder where all the used lenses are coming from - returns from buyers who don't like the lenses (ie a good buy), or actual lenses sent in because they broke (ie a bad buy because they'll likely break again)?
After all, the old school, manual focus Canon lenses from many decades ago that I've used never break or need repairs after decades of use.
I was able to snag the 70-200 F4 IS ii before it went out of stock. Just thought I'd mention that the EF 85mm 1.8 for $179 and the EF-M 22mm F2 are absolute steals. If I were looking for something cheap and just getting into it, I'd grab the EF-S 24mm 2.8, the EF 50mm 1.8, and the EF-S 55-250.
I just got a M50 mk2 last week and need a telephoto for video work. I'm not opposed to adapting the EF-S lens if it'll perform just as well as the native version.
Anybody have experience with the EF-S 18-200? Seems like an excellent (too good to be true?), maybe even excessive walking around range.
More than one EF-S 18-200mm passed through my hands back in the day. I remember when it first came out people were excited about the range. But this was generally regarded as a pretty weak lens with the wide focal range being it's only attraction. However, most day-to-day photography simply doesn't need that much range and people generally gravitate towards something with about a 4-6x zoom range, such as the 18-135mm USM is a far better choice.
44 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Featured Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
After all, the old school, manual focus Canon lenses from many decades ago that I've used never break or need repairs after decades of use.
I bought a refurbished unit recently that came with the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3. Is the 22mm a worthwhile if I already have the other?
22mm is good for winder angle and very pocketable. At this pice, why not.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
or
EF-M 55-250
I just got a M50 mk2 last week and need a telephoto for video work. I'm not opposed to adapting the EF-S lens if it'll perform just as well as the native version.
I got lucky and snagged 24-105f4 and a 85f2 before they went oos.
https://www.usa.canon.c
Personally, if the 24-105mm f4L didn't exist, the 18-135mm would have been my lens of choice for walking around.
That said, a EF 24-105mm f4L can be bought used for about $450-$500... an apples/oranges situation, but that's what I'd gravitate towards.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I missed to get the loyalty discount. Placed the order and it's in processing. Any idea how I can get it now?