Lens question (Page 3): At least they all work. Not like Nikon that only a small fraction of F lenses work sort of on Z cameras. So 40 is a handful but 42 is a huge plethora of Z...

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Desert Gecko wrote:

I guarantee you not all EF lenses are amazing, fanboi. And yes, 40 lenses is only a handful.

At least they all work.
Not like Nikon that only a small fraction of F lenses work sort of on Z cameras. So 40 is a handful but 42 is a huge plethora of Z lenses?

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I notice that in professional photography forums some Canon only photographers prefer the sigma art series lenses.

Canisdirus

You don't plunk down a lot of coin for a nice Canon body...to use adapters.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Canisdirus wrote:

You don't plunk down a lot of coin for a nice Canon body...to use adapters.

Why, thousands did/do including myself and many others here.
All EF lenses are just fine on R cameras and why waste good money on duplicate lenses?
Perhaps a unique R lens could be added.
Canon is not like Nikon where about 70% of F lenses don't work with an adapter because there is no motor or lever to automatically operate the aperture. Yes the lenses mount and can be used but all functions are completely manual.
I feel NO compunction to rush out and replace my perfectly good and sharp 100-400mm, 24-105mm, 10-18mm, 100mm macro as they are all excellent lenses. Also the couple of other non-Canon lenses that I have.
You are so dead wrong.

Canisdirus

Architect1776 wrote:

Why, thousands did/do including myself and many ot... (show quote)

I'm sure folks so it all the time.

Many do not go the best route.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Canisdirus wrote:

I'm sure folks so it all the time.

Many do not go the best route.

What is best?
Are you making yourself the arbiter of best regarding other people and their choices, desires, money and needs?
That is so narcissistic.

Canisdirus

Architect1776 wrote:

What is best?
Are you making yourself the arbiter of best regarding other people and their choices, desires, money and needs?
That is so narcissistic.

It has nothing to do with me...

It's engineering....pure and simple.

Native glass will always work best on a matched body.

It's designed to.

Third party lenses have always existed...because they were cheaper.

There are always exceptions...but are few and far between.

In this world...you get what you pay for...usually.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Canisdirus wrote:

It has nothing to do with me...

It's engineering....pure and simple.

Native glass will always work best on a matched body.

It's designed to.

Third party lenses have always existed...because they were cheaper.

There are always exceptions...but are few and far between.

In this world...you get what you pay for...usually.

You seem confused about adapting.
EF lenses are NOT third party lenses.
Canon specifically made the RF mount fully compatible with EF lenses going back to the first one over 35 years ago.
That is why one doesn't have to worry about getting an RF lens unless they desire to do so.
As far as glass improvements I can easily say that the latest MII lens in Sony e mount is far better than the 10 year old same lens MI is in e mount.
So Sony forced you to dispose of your MI lens for the MII by your reasoning.
Canon adapted lenses are no different.
While Nikon did obsolete nearly all their Flenses with the Z mount forcing one to buy Z if they wanted to have lenses that would AF and have IS as well as even have the aperture blades even be controlled by the camera.
So the hundreds of EF lenses are just as usable as they ever were. And 3rd party RF are being introduced now.

Canisdirus

Architect1776 wrote:

You seem confused about adapting. br EF lenses ar... (show quote)

I did not bother to mention adapted lenses...just as bad or worse.
There will always be a performance drop when using adapted glass...results vary...but never as good.

Engineering matters...folks obviously do as their wallets allow...nothing wrong with that.
Just don't kid yourself.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Canisdirus wrote:

I did not bother to mention adapted lenses...just as bad or worse.
There will always be a performance drop when using adapted glass...results vary...but never as good.

Engineering matters...folks obviously do as their wallets allow...nothing wrong with that.
Just don't kid yourself.

I and thousands of others will disagree about adapted EF lenses.
They perform better on R cameras.
Perhaps Nikon F lenses have poor performance but have you EVER put a 100-400mm L MII on a R camera?
You absolutely have not.
I have and it works much better as well as ALL my other EF lenses, some of which are over 20 years old.
IQ included in that.

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

I have 4 Tampons from15-30 up to 150-600 all G2's. All great in my estimation, but that's me. They work great on my D850.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

starlifter wrote:

I have 4 Tampons from15-30 up to 150-600 all G2's. All great in my estimation, but that's me. They work great on my D850.

They are not adapted.
But being G2 should work fine on the much newer Z cameras.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

jrcarpe wrote:

If buying for Canon Cameras is it Canon, Tamron or other?

Look for reviews comparing lenses. There might be a fraction of a difference in performance for a large difference in price.

Canisdirus

Architect1776 wrote:

I and thousands of others will disagree about adapted EF lenses.
They perform better on R cameras.
Perhaps Nikon F lenses have poor performance but have you EVER put a 100-400mm L MII on a R camera?
You absolutely have not.
I have and it works much better as well as ALL my other EF lenses, some of which are over 20 years old.
IQ included in that.

That's just the 'sample' talking...nothing new there.

Like I said...lots of folks make the compromise...because of coin.
Not because it's just as good...it's not.

I have the Sony Lae-5 adapter...amazing adapter...stellar as far as they go.
I get AF...all the bells and whistles from my body with A mount glass.

Still nowhere near as good as my native setup...it just isn't.

No free lunches in engineering.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Canisdirus wrote:

That's just the 'sample' talking...nothing new there.

Like I said...lots of folks make the compromise...because of coin.
Not because it's just as good...it's not.

I have the Sony Lae-5 adapter...amazing adapter...stellar as far as they go.
I get AF...all the bells and whistles from my body with A mount glass.

Still nowhere near as good as my native setup...it just isn't.

No free lunches in engineering.

I am sure with Sony and Nikon.
EF to RF adapter has no compromises.
At worst lens performs as it always did.
But as thousands have stated and dozens of reviews EF to RF has enhanced the EF lens performance including enhanced features unavailable before.
Now that is brilliant engineering. take a 35 year old lens, adapt it and make it perform better with new features by simply adding an adapter on the latest RF mount cameras.