#1 is my #1 as well. I have owned 3 copies of the EF 135L and they all were spectacular. My #2 is the humble EF 40 2.8. The gateway drug into pancakes which started my Voigtlander craze. Fun stuff.

For me, the things that I love the most about the EF lenses I have kept are:

• The mechanical linking of the focus ring that works even without power.
• The large glass and relatively pleasant images even without digital aids turned on (older photos in my library especially).
• The general design language.
• Compatibility across EOS cameras.
• Robustness.

The EF lenses I didn't keep:

• Lack of compatibility with various EOS systems over time (Tamron, Signam, Irix — gah)
• Lack of compatibility with FF cameras — I wish early on someone would have told me to avoid EF-S and stick with EF only for the future.
• Redundancy as I moved into L equivalents. Nothing wrong, passed on to family.

I'm a tactile person, and I respond to the subtle feedback that goes along with the viewfinder effect. I do like not fighting digital systems — I didn't even like drive-by-wire vehicles until (some) manufacturers (smartly) started to build tactile feedback into the electronic chain, such that even tiny slips on icy or wet roads were represented in the steering column feedback. I like digital systems that supplement my human capability and then get the heck out of my way when I know better in the moment. The move to decouple mechanics from humans certainly allows for much improved digital operations (speed of AF tracking, obviously) but I think only select genres truly benefit. Some genres even suffer. Obviously a subjective point.

My current EF stable in order of appreciation and why at this time (but all are appreciated or they'd be gone):

1. 50 L 1.2 - beautiful rendition of people or other subjects
2. 24 L 1.4 II - beautiful rendition of people in a context, evening landscapes
3. 100 L 2.8 IS macro - so, so many uses
4. 24-70 L 4 IS macro - excellent general travel and life, emphasis on subjects
5. 16-35 L 4 IS - excellent general travel and life, emphasis on environments and contexts
6. 300 L 4 IS - excellent large animal, landscapes with specific elements as the subject
7. 70-200 L 4 - animals past an arms reach running about, sometimes people
8. 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS - if the weather's good, the mood is casual, and I can only bring one that still gets it done
9. 20 2.8 - landscapes, timeless interiors with mood
10. 40 2.8 - a wide 50, kept in the pocket when travelling. The focus by wire sucks, noticeable during use; but it's sharp and convenient.

EF Aids applied as needed and to taste: 1.4x ii extender, 2x ii extender, 25 ii extension tube

Others on EF: 500mm and 900mm mirror lenses adapted to EF. Once I figured out the exact temperature / environment needs of these lenses they became good performers for specific situations and clean up fine in post.

I'll probably keep those until they die, and then they'll hit an honorary art shelf like my Mac 512k.

My other gear is non-EF. They certainly achieve the goals I have in mind, but I don't think they have the same panache. I'm seldom inspired to talk about them, regardless of their price. They make images, but they lack a certain soul that the good EF lenses have. Of course, I'll keep adding as the need and other life priorities align.

But I'd really love to see Canon bring back qualities of the EF line or grant a vendor like IRIX or Sigma permission to do quality FF inspired by the best of the EF releases, beginning with mechanical linking and large optics. Something like a "Legacy Art Line."

The 135 2L was probably my favorite EF lens though not the most used. However, I do like the RF version better. Granted, images have a different look. I find the RF version has better color rendition and works better on close up images such as wildflowers where it produces stunning results. The EF version seemed to struggle at this. Nevertheless, I can't bring myself to sell the EF version.

I'm surprised no one mentioned the EF 100 2.8L IS macro. It produces subjectively beautiful images even in general use. The RF version has an issue with focus shift that makes it a no go for me.

My favorite EF oldies but goldies:

• 200mm f/2L IS - had it and adored it... sold it with regret to fund my first medium format foray
• TS-E 17mm and 24mm II - loved the quality and versatility
• 135mm f/2L - the little lens that could: amazing IQ for the size, weight and cost
• 400mm f/2.8L IS - rented for a safari in SA. Loved the IQ, didn't love the weight and the attention it attracted
• 85mm f/1.2L II - loved it until I bought the RF version... now utterly forgotten in favor of the new kid on the block

Special mention: MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1x-5x - the only EF(ish) lens I still own, unique gizmo

JKT said:

I was struggling with R7 and I still struggle with R5II ... although somewhat less. And that is after having no problems with 7DII. The delay in viewfinder is really playing havoc with hand-held macro focusing. Or maybe it is just aging eyes and hands. AF with EF 100L is reasonably fast, but tends to focus on odd places. My stacking is exclusively in studio with rail.

Click to expand...

For me it has been a bit different. I had a lot of success with the 7D/7D2 as my dedicated macro setups. The 80D I struggled with as the viewfinder at not as bright as that of the 7Ds. So when I swapped my R7 as my dedicated macro body and the 5D2 for wildlife I found d I could setup the R7 with a brighter EVF helping manual focusing. You can also engage the focusing aids in the R7/R5II to help with manual lenses in.macro.

I do enjoy the MPE but it is a heavy lens to use handheld for long periods. So I hope any future iteration will be lighter.

My favourite EF lenses are the EF180mm f/3.5L Macro USM and the EF600mm f/4L IS II USM lenses.

RF L primes I do not have EF L lenses of:

- 1200mm
- 600mm
- 135mm
- 35mm
- 20mm

Will likely try to get the RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM. Wish it was a f/1.4 though lie the Sigma.

JKT said:

I was struggling with R7 and I still struggle with R5II ... although somewhat less. And that is after having no problems with 7DII. The delay in viewfinder is really playing havoc with hand-held macro focusing. Or maybe it is just aging eyes and hands. AF with EF 100L is reasonably fast, but tends to focus on odd places. My stacking is exclusively in studio with rail.

Click to expand...

I had useful results in the past by shooting bursts - then the slight movement of focal plane (due to erratic AF or camera movement) could actually yield multiple frames to stack. Nowadays cameras shoot at much higher fps so this could be even more fruitful.

eero said:

My guess is that in two years, no one - especially the consumers - will spot the difference between a real photo and AI, if the latter is intentionally made to look real.

Click to expand...

I'd say vast amount of people already can't tell the difference even in AI videos, let alone photos...

jim said:

I agree with your comments. I chose the 35mm because it offered IS when none of Canon's DSLRs or M series bodies had any form of stabilization. I struggled too with the MP-E, until the R7 or R5 came along. Just having a stable image gave me a better chance of getting the right areas in focus. I've tried stacking but it hasn't been too successful.

Click to expand...

I was struggling with R7 and I still struggle with R5II ... although somewhat less. And that is after having no problems with 7DII. The delay in viewfinder is really playing havoc with hand-held macro focusing. Or maybe it is just aging eyes and hands. AF with EF 100L is reasonably fast, but tends to focus on odd places. My stacking is exclusively in studio with rail.

For me personally, the favorite EF lens was the 300 f2.8 L IS II. It was compact, hand-holdable and had great performance. I did immensely enjoy the wonderful rendering of EF 200 f1.8, but always felt like it demanded much more careful operation.

While a more niche segment, all of Canons EF tilt shift lenses were beasts and I still own and use all of them (17, 24, 50, 90 and 135). That set of lenses remains unmatched by any other major camera mount - including Canon's own RF, which still doesn't have a single TS lens in the lineup.

illadvisedhammer said:

Well, since you mentioned it.. but this was with an OM-1 and 60 macro, not macro magnification, and cropped from full body..and it was a baby at black rock forest (NY, USA) while looking for ants.View attachment 228312View attachment 228320

Click to expand...

Impressed!

neuroanatomist said:

Personally, I don't get the appeal of using a retro camera. I prefer function over form, and such a camera is likely to be boxy and less comfortable to hold. But for those hoping for an RE-1 or whatever Canon ends up calling it, I hope Canon delivers.

Click to expand...

Function over form is one of the big reasons I like retro cameras. Especially true retro, that have dedicated ISO, shutter speed, and exposure compensation dials, just like classic film cameras had. Being able to quickly change those (and aperture, as I only use lenses with an aperture ring), is function to me. Instead of having to fiddle with a dial, then rotate a wheel while looking at an LED window!

So you see, there is more than one way to see this whole "retro" thing.

EF 100-400mm L mkii hands down! Loved the lens and I wouldn't have sold but then the RF version had 100mm extra reach and less weight. Also on my list:
- EF 16-35mm F4 L
- Sigma EF 20mm F1.4

So, basically my favorite EF lenses now have even better successors. Glad I went all in on having only "native mount" lenses

I´d love to try the following EF lenses:
- 135mm F2 L (considering purchasing one)
- 180mm F3.5 macro
- 200mm F2 (or F1.8)

Edit: Just found a place where I can rent the EF 135mm F2 for reasonable money (40 € for 3 1/2 days). I will shoot my wifes younger cousins church confirmation with it looking forward to it!

I had favourite EFs when I was using DSLRs: telephotos like the EF 400mm f/4 DO ii; 100-400mm ii; 300mm f/2.8 ii; and even the Sigma 150-600mm C. But, I don't miss them at all now I've gone over to mirrorless. The RF 100-500mm beats out the two zooms, and the RF 200-800mm is so useful for longer range, and at 800mm is at least as sharp as the 400mm DO ii with the 2xTC, which I used a lot with my 5Div. The two primes were considered light at the time, but newer versions would be much lighter, and I would buy one of them were they to become available.

Ozarker said:

I'm also ok with only the near eye being focused. I just get tickled when I see posts bemoaning ultra bright apertures not being useful for portraits.

Click to expand...

Yeah, portraits are arguably the main use case for a lens like the 85/1.2 (particularly the EF version, since the AF was ponderous). The ultra bright part of it was sometimes a problem, though a solvable one...too much light. I typically used a 3-stop ND for outdoor portraits at wide apertures. That's one benefit of my current cameras – the max shutter speed of 1/64000 s vs the 1/8000 s of a DSLR gives me that 3 stops without the filter (well, I only need about 1.5 stops with the 85L DS, since the coating results in a ~1.5 stop loss at f/1.2).

Exploreshootshare said:

I have never really understood the desire for "retro" products aside the emotional part of it. Most vintage cameras had totally different ergonomics back then. Not saying they were all awful, but they catered to different needs and had different restrictions such as the non negotiable film compartment. To me, I´d rather take a current camera over a retro one every day of the year.

The only interesting line for me was that it will be a photocentric camera. Probably not enough to lure me into buying one, but a good thing to see.

Maybe this camera will have WiFi 6 and it is the camera which was recently registered.

Click to expand...

Maybe you would understand it if you had used and liked the ergonomics "back then". Or appreciated the build quality of the (cameras and) lenses back then. I used classic film cameras for 47 years before finally switching to digital. For me it is not just the ergonomics, but having all the basic functions (ISO, shutter speed, aperture, exposure compensation) directly available on dedicated dials. Yes, I love my "retro" cameras.

neuroanatomist said:

If the subject is not directly facing the camera, using a very wide aperture can certainly mean only one eye is in focus. It's not necessarily a problem, more of a choice...but IMO it is one that should be intentionally made. Personally, I am ok with only the nearer eye in focus, depending on the shot. This is with the EF 85/1.2L II at f/1.8.

View attachment 228327

Click to expand...

I'm also ok with only the near eye being focused. I just get tickled when I see posts bemoaning ultra bright apertures not being useful for portraits. Photographer problem.
When the f/1.2 lenses came out I saw lots of posts on the net about the eye problem and how these fast lenses aren't good for portraits, probably from people who never used them, as is usually the case.

I was quite lucky to have them when I had them. To be fair, most people will never have or use one of these so it's understandable they would assume such things.

I really like the shape of the right wing. That's a very nice shot, Speedfinder.

Ozarker said:

No. Not at f/1.2, either. One eye out of focus is a photographer problem, not an aperture problem. Portraits ain't just close up head shots. Below = f/1.2 @85mm.

Click to expand...

If the subject is not directly facing the camera, using a very wide aperture can certainly mean only one eye is in focus. It's not necessarily a problem, more of a choice...but IMO it is one that should be intentionally made. Personally, I am ok with only the nearer eye in focus, depending on the shot. This is with the EF 85/1.2L II at f/1.8.

Bearded Vulture, near Tremp Catalonia .

EF 85 f/1,4, EF 135 f/2, TS-E 24mm, EF 70-200 f/4 L II, Ext III 1,4X, EF 16-35 f/4

EF 500mm f/4L IS II and EF 600mm f/4L IS II

An interesting design feature of the EF 24-70 mm f/2.8 L Mk I extending-type zoom lens is that it extends out at minimum focal length, 24 mm. This allows a ‘proper’ lens shade at the wide end which would otherwise be pretty short (think 24-105 mm.)