Which Canon EF lenses will you keep after RF mount becomes the norm? (Page 2): I have the EOS R for well over a year and a half. I kept my 70-300 L, 100-400v2 L, 16-35 f4 L and 100...

VietVet Loc: Brooklyn, NY

I have the EOS R for well over a year and a half. I kept my 70-300 L, 100-400v2 L, 16-35 f4 L and 100 f2.8 L. The only RF Mount I purchased was the 24-105 f4. All L lenses work perfectly. I do still have my 7D II which requires the L Mount.

MountainDave

CHG_CANON wrote:

The RF 50 f/1.2L is the second coming. As sharp at f/1.2 as any stepped-down aperture of the older EF 50 f/1.2L, sharper actually. But still, is that a feature you need, especially at the size and cost and weight of the monstrously large RF 50 version?

If Canon returns to the Eye of Sauron design with a 200mm prime at f/1.8 (or wider), would that interest you? Or, a 135mm at f/1.8 and IS-enabled?

Yep. The 50 1.2 is one example of the RF versions being much heavier and costlier than the EF. If it's as good as they say, I'd likely find more uses for it than I can imagine now. That's what happened when I bought a 135 2L. I don't think I'd have any interest in a 200mm prime. I'm waiting to see what the new 135 looks like. I'm fearful it will weigh 3 lbs and cost 3K. I paid a little over 600. for my EF used. BTW, my 135 is one lens I have found to work much better on a R5, particularly the AF but also color rendition. Rudy @ Canon specifically mentioned this lens would benefit with the R5 & 6 when they were introduced. Anyway, it's a very high bar for me to give up my EF 135.

User ID

Gabyto wrote:

I am wondering which EF lenses will be worth keeping before the RF mount becomes the norm. I hope to get the Canon experts feedback.

Altho the only R body I *may* consider would be an RP mkII (expecting IBIS) I can still answer this with "All of them".

Some of them go back to the EOS 620 (late 1980s). I already use them all on m4/3, NikonZ, and Sony bodies, so a Canon-R body, if I ever acquired one, would not provoke an EF lens purge.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

To anyone obliged to inform miscreants like myself using my bagfull of adapters that we are missing the great seamless performance of "proper" lenses: "Yes I am aware." Therefor I have a compact 24-70 for each of my three lines for the few odd times when that would matter.
.

EF mount is my common denominator for Sony, Nikon, and m4/3. "One size fits all".

(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Gabyto wrote:

I am wondering which EF lenses will be worth keeping before the RF mount becomes the norm. I hope to get the Canon experts feedback.

The 70-300 IS II nano - the best light weight "cheap" lens Canon has ever made......

The Canon 400 f4 DO II - unique specs that appears Canon will never update/replace .......
.

JhnMhn

Use needs, budget, physical ability to carry weight, etc. determine what is best answer for any given person…new gear lust should also probably be included.

I have switched over to R/RF with a few exceptions. The reasons have been for improved focus accuracy, and eye AF with R bodies and reduced size and weight with the R bodies and RF lenses I chose. When comparing weight and size, the need for the EF/RF adapter has to be considered. With all that in mind, and my use needs, I now use the following; RF 14-35, RF 35 f1.8 macro, RF 24-105 f4 L, RF 100-500 as my workhorse go everywhere lenses, with the 14-35 and 100-500 being most used. Have kept a 24 TSE and 90 TSE as well as 65 MPE in EF mounts. While some RF lenses are larger and heavier than EF lenses, the RF kit I am using now is, collectively, usefully lighter and smaller than the the EF based kit I was using. Had $ been harder to come by, I would have kept the EF glass and done fine, but am much happier with my current RF kit.

Ratelliott

For me it’s less an issue of the lens and more an issue of usage. The lenses I use often, 24-105, 15-35, and 100-400 are being replaced simply to avoid the hassle of constantly moving the adapter from lens to lens. I don’t do studio work, so the ease of changing lenses is important to me. I’ll keep the Macro, EF 100. I don’t use it as often and when I do, I’m not swapping between it and other lenses.

mikenolan Loc: Lincoln Nebraska

I'll keep my current DSLR camera until it stop functioning, then I'll decide if I really need a camera with interchangeable lenses or if the cell phone I have by then is adequate. I already use my iPhone camera more than I use my Canon these days, and part of the reason for that is it is so much faster to email myself a photo for posting it on my blog.

MountainDave

Ratelliott wrote:

For me it’s less an issue of the lens and more an issue of usage. The lenses I use often, 24-105, 15-35, and 100-400 are being replaced simply to avoid the hassle of constantly moving the adapter from lens to lens. I don’t do studio work, so the ease of changing lenses is important to me. I’ll keep the Macro, EF 100. I don’t use it as often and when I do, I’m not swapping between it and other lenses.

I just leave the adapter on the camera and switch lenses without any issues. I suspect Canon advises putting the adapter on the lens first to prevent people from accidentally trying to attach an EF lens directly after removing a RF lens. Or, more cynically, they want to make changing a pain so that people will be more likely to buy RF lenses.

Ratelliott

MountainDave wrote:

I just leave the adapter on the camera and switch lenses without any issues. I suspect Canon advises putting the adapter on the lens first to prevent people from accidentally trying to attach an EF lens directly after removing a RF lens. Or, more cynically, they want to make changing a pain so that people will be more likely to buy RF lenses.

I’ve wondered about that myself

MtManMD Loc: Beaverton, Oregon

I've had the R5 for a little over a year. I've switched to RF lenses already for what I use the most of, that being telephoto. I have the 100-500mm (fantastic lens, expensive) but is one of my primary work horse lenses. Great telephoto flexibility especially with the RF 1.4x. I also went for the 800mm f/11 which was very affordable and works great when conditions are right. And I have the 24-240mm lens which is also extremely versatile and is used a lot. That mainly leaves the EF 100mm macro, and EF 24mm f/1.8 (for night shooting). I still have a 90D crop sensor body and other EF lenses like the 100-400mm, but will sell those if/when Canon comes out with an R7. After getting experience with the R5 it is difficult to force myself to shoot with the 90D.

Prof M Loc: Corvallis. OR

CHG_CANON wrote:

If you have lots of EF primes, these get 'better' from the IBIS support of the EOS R capable bodies.

The EOS R has IBIS!?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Prof M wrote:

The EOS R has IBIS!?

As stated earlier: EOS R capable bodies. There's thinking the next versions of all EOS R bodies will have IBIS. Personally, I think maybe Canon will have 2-tiers of full-frame mirrorless bodies, with and without IBIS. We'll have to see.

Zooman 1

I didn't keep it, but wish now I had the EF 100-400L. I traded it in as I built up my RF gear. I would use it on my M's if I still had it.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Prof M wrote:

The EOS R has IBIS!?

Some of the R Series do. My R5 does. I don't recall my R having it though. I think the R5 was the first to have it.

Prof M Loc: Corvallis. OR

CHG_CANON wrote:

As stated earlier: EOS R capable bodies. There's thinking the next versions of all EOS R bodies will have IBIS. Personally, I think maybe Canon will have 2-tiers of full-frame mirrorless bodies, with and without IBIS. We'll have to see.

OK, got it!