Amazon has
Canon Control Ring Mount EF & EF-S to EOS R Lens Adapter (2972C002) on sale from
$149.
Shipping is free.
Adorama has
Canon Control Ring Mount EF & EF-S to EOS R Lens Adapter (2972C002) on sale from
$149.
Shipping is free.
Thanks to community member
phoinix for finding this deal.
Product Details:
- Mount Adapter Allows EF/EF-S Lens Compatibility with the EOS R Camera.
- Built-in Control Ring Provides Quick Access to Camera Functions.
- Exterior Design Matched to EF Lenses.
- Dust- and Water-resistant.
- Metal Mount on Both Lens and Camera Sides Provide Rugged Flexibility.
- Includes:
- Canon Control Ring Mount Adapter EF-EOS R
- Camera Cover R-F-3
- Lens Dust Cap RF
- Soft Case
- Canon 1-Year Warranty
Leave a Comment
Top Comments
The biggest benefit is the sharpness. I have the EF 85 mm 1.4 and I bought that over the EF 85 mm 1.2 because the 1.2 was just so hard to use. The 1.2 was very slow to focus and was so hard to get consistent sharp results. The 1.4 was cheaper, faster to focus, and had IS. But the RF 85 1.2 is better in every way than the EF 85 1.4. In a high speed burst with the EF 85 1.4, I could miss focus for maybe 1 out of 4 shots such as a person walking down a runway. Sometimes as bad as 1 out of 3 or even 1 out of 2 if the lighting conditions were particularly bad. Even with the RF 85 1.2 at 1.2, I would have tack sharp images under the same conditions. It's pretty amazing. And the bokeh is just gorgeous. the 1.4 was no slouch but it's not comparable.
I could say the same with the 35 mm 1.8. corner to corner, it's sharper.
You can say that about the amazing 15-35 mm 2.8.
The RF 100 2.8 I would say it's not worth upgrading to. It's a good lens but not a noticeable upgrade.
The RF 70-200 is a practical upgrade. For one thing, it's super compact and can pack into a bag easily. Plus, you can get it into a sports stadium. For example, Dodgers Stadium has a 6" lens limit. the RF 70-200 is only 5.7 inches long. Once you pass the security, you can extend it to your heart's content.
28 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
This is the Control Ring mount adapter, which is more expensive (and arguably a better buy) than the standard mount adapter. Hence its higher price.
This is the Control Ring mount adapter, which is more expensive (and arguably a better buy) than the standard mount adapter. Hence its higher price.
(It's a different story that this is how much is should cost.)
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank dirtyvu
I had one back in the EOS R days but my camera bag was stolen. Then the supply chain and pandemic was in effect, and it was impossible to buy the adapter anymore from anywhere. So I bought a Viltrox one which was terrible. Then I got the Canon one again.
Slowly, all my EF glass has been replaced with RF glass so I have less of a need for it. But at least I have peace of mind that if I was to use EF glass again, I can.
I had one back in the EOS R days but my camera bag was stolen. Then the supply chain and pandemic was in effect, and it was impossible to buy the adapter anymore from anywhere. So I bought a Viltrox one which was terrible. Then I got the Canon one again.
Slowly, all my EF glass has been replaced with RF glass so I have less of a need for it. But at least I have peace of mind that if I was to use EF glass again, I can.
https://www.bhphotovide
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
The biggest benefit is the sharpness. I have the EF 85 mm 1.4 and I bought that over the EF 85 mm 1.2 because the 1.2 was just so hard to use. The 1.2 was very slow to focus and was so hard to get consistent sharp results. The 1.4 was cheaper, faster to focus, and had IS. But the RF 85 1.2 is better in every way than the EF 85 1.4. In a high speed burst with the EF 85 1.4, I could miss focus for maybe 1 out of 4 shots such as a person walking down a runway. Sometimes as bad as 1 out of 3 or even 1 out of 2 if the lighting conditions were particularly bad. Even with the RF 85 1.2 at 1.2, I would have tack sharp images under the same conditions. It's pretty amazing. And the bokeh is just gorgeous. the 1.4 was no slouch but it's not comparable.
I could say the same with the 35 mm 1.8. corner to corner, it's sharper.
You can say that about the amazing 15-35 mm 2.8.
The RF 100 2.8 I would say it's not worth upgrading to. It's a good lens but not a noticeable upgrade.
The RF 70-200 is a practical upgrade. For one thing, it's super compact and can pack into a bag easily. Plus, you can get it into a sports stadium. For example, Dodgers Stadium has a 6" lens limit. the RF 70-200 is only 5.7 inches long. Once you pass the security, you can extend it to your heart's content.
The biggest benefit is the sharpness. I have the EF 85 mm 1.4 and I bought that over the EF 85 mm 1.2 because the 1.2 was just so hard to use. The 1.2 was very slow to focus and was so hard to get consistent sharp results. The 1.4 was cheaper, faster to focus, and had IS. But the RF 85 1.2 is better in every way than the EF 85 1.4. In a high speed burst with the EF 85 1.4, I could miss focus for maybe 1 out of 4 shots such as a person walking down a runway. Sometimes as bad as 1 out of 3 or even 1 out of 2 if the lighting conditions were particularly bad. Even with the RF 85 1.2 at 1.2, I would have tack sharp images under the same conditions. It's pretty amazing. And the bokeh is just gorgeous. the 1.4 was no slouch but it's not comparable.
I could say the same with the 35 mm 1.8. corner to corner, it's sharper.
You can say that about the amazing 15-35 mm 2.8.
The RF 100 2.8 I would say it's not worth upgrading to. It's a good lens but not a noticeable upgrade.
The RF 70-200 is a practical upgrade. For one thing, it's super compact and can pack into a bag easily. Plus, you can get it into a sports stadium. For example, Dodgers Stadium has a 6" lens limit. the RF 70-200 is only 5.7 inches long. Once you pass the security, you can extend it to your heart's content.
The biggest benefit is the sharpness. I have the EF 85 mm 1.4 and I bought that over the EF 85 mm 1.2 because the 1.2 was just so hard to use. The 1.2 was very slow to focus and was so hard to get consistent sharp results. The 1.4 was cheaper, faster to focus, and had IS. But the RF 85 1.2 is better in every way than the EF 85 1.4. In a high speed burst with the EF 85 1.4, I could miss focus for maybe 1 out of 4 shots such as a person walking down a runway. Sometimes as bad as 1 out of 3 or even 1 out of 2 if the lighting conditions were particularly bad. Even with the RF 85 1.2 at 1.2, I would have tack sharp images under the same conditions. It's pretty amazing. And the bokeh is just gorgeous. the 1.4 was no slouch but it's not comparable.
I could say the same with the 35 mm 1.8. corner to corner, it's sharper.
You can say that about the amazing 15-35 mm 2.8.
The RF 100 2.8 I would say it's not worth upgrading to. It's a good lens but not a noticeable upgrade.
The RF 70-200 is a practical upgrade. For one thing, it's super compact and can pack into a bag easily. Plus, you can get it into a sports stadium. For example, Dodgers Stadium has a 6" lens limit. the RF 70-200 is only 5.7 inches long. Once you pass the security, you can extend it to your heart's content.
My last EF camera was the 6D2. And using the same 85 mm 1.4 on the 6D2 produced sharper results and better focusing on my RP or R5 than on my 6D2. It actually surprised me as I thought they should produce equivalent sharpness.
One negative thing about the RF 70-200 is that it cannot be used with a teleconverter. All EF 70-200 lenses worked great with both the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Leave a Comment