Canon Mount Adapter EF - EOS R, Compatible with EOS RP, EOS R, EOS R6, EOS R5
Manufacturer:
Canon Cameras US
Model Number:
2972C002
Product SKU:
B07H4LRRRQ
UPC:
13803304893
ASIN:
B07H4LRRRQ
Brand:
Canon
Item Dimensions LxWxH:
2.9 x 2.9 x 0.9 Inches
Item Weight:
0.2875 Pounds
Item model number:
2972C002
Manufacturer:
Canon Cameras US
Don't have Amazon Prime? Students can get a free 6-Month Amazon Prime trial with free 2-day shipping, unlimited video streaming & more.
If you're not a student, there's also a free 1-Month Amazon Prime trial available.
You can also earn cash back rewards on Amazon and Whole Foods purchases with the Amazon Prime Visa credit card. Read our review to see if it’s the right card for you.
So we have a baseline, I have the EOS R5 and the RP.
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.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Highly recommend changing the title, as this is not the plain mount adapter.
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.
Highly recommend changing the title, as this is not the plain mount adapter.
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.
Great deal on an adapter that wasn't in stock even at full price just a couple months ago.
(It's a different story that this is how much is should cost.)
The refurbished version of this was $99 — 5 months ago but it went pretty quickly and I missed it. This is brand new so seems like a good deal. I'm also looking for a speed booster but it seems to always be out of stock.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank dirtyvu
02-04-2023 at 03:24 PM.
the adapter with the control ring is so worth it. It makes me wish all the lenses had the control ring near the base (near the camera) rather than at the far end of the RF lens. With it near the base, your hand has a more predictable spot to go to (because the lenses are all different lengths) and because the base is right near the camera.
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.
the adapter with the control ring is so worth it. It makes me wish all the lenses had the control ring near the base (near the camera) rather than at the far end of the RF lens. With it near the base, your hand has a more predictable spot to go to (because the lenses are all different lengths) and because the base is right near the camera.
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.
Why are you replacing with RF glasses? Just for convenience or is there any feature/image quality benefit?
Had 2 of these and sometimes control of aperture and focus goes "down", on multiple different lenses with Canon R6 mk2. Oddly enough, a simpler Meike without a control ring never fails. Cleaning body contacts didn't help, spring loading works too.
Why are you replacing with RF glasses? Just for convenience or is there any feature/image quality benefit?
So we have a baseline, I have the EOS R5 and the RP.
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.
So we have a baseline, I have the EOS R5 and the RP.
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.
RF is general is way better at tracking AF and catching the Eye when taking pictures of people. It's even more noticeable when you've got a subject that moves like kids or sports.
So we have a baseline, I have the EOS R5 and the RP.
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.
Got it. Thank you for the info. I have a good collection of L lenses that I hate to waste. Maybe I'll start with walkaround lenses. I'm at the juncture trying to decide whether to switch out of Canon altogether (Sony comes to mind) or to replace my lens collection with the RF lenses.
Got it. Thank you for the info. I have a good collection of L lenses that I hate to waste. Maybe I'll start with walkaround lenses. I'm at the juncture trying to decide whether to switch out of Canon altogether (Sony comes to mind) or to replace my lens collection with the RF lenses.
To be clear, the EF lenses perform the same or better on the RF cameras. It's just that the RF lenses are that much better.
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.
[quote="dirtyvu;161517547" 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./quote]
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.
29 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Featured 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.
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.