If the EF Mount Is Phased Out, What to Do With Quiver?
- Thread starter YuengLinger
- Start date
sorry, I have to object to that statement. Slower aperture lenses do NOT "run counter to high IQ". All they do, is limit the envelope of possible use cases, but not IQ.
For example, Canon EF 70-200/4 or EF 24-70/4 in real life use deliver IQ on par with the respective f/2.8 version lenses, difference really is just "1 stop slower". This is primarily relevant when 1) capturing MOVING SUBJECTS IN LIMITED LIGHT(ING) CONDITIONS or 2) when MAXIMUM SUBJECT ISOLATION/creamy bokeh is desired. Yes, these use cases may be very important or even crucial to some users [small minority] and totally irrelevant to most others. It is always nice to have faster glass, no doubt, but many times "moderately fast" glass will more than suffice and get you images with top-notch IQ. Not to mention, that a large percentage of images captured is taken with lenses stopped down from max aperture.
Most users would and hopefully will
be very well served by compact, light, affordable FF lenses with IQ comparable to "moderately fast" Canon lenses like EF-M 22/2.0 or EF-M 28/3.5 or EF 35/2.0 IS or even the incredible bargain EF 40/2.8 pancake.
Upvote
0
as a matter of fact I have moved to renting any expensive gear that I do not regularly use. And I intend to cut down the number and value of gear I purchase and own even further. Along with bulk&weight reduction it is the main reason why I would like a compact, decent, affordable mirrorfree FF camera plus a few lenses with the same properties in my most frequently used focal length range. I want to consolidate to only one system with FF sensor and only a small lens park of a few "moderately fast" primes and f/4 zooms. Anything else I will rent - longer tele lens/es, T/S, Macro, fast glass. Only in the rare occasions I really need it or want to use it for a certain type of image and/or situation.
Cameras and lenses are no investment fund.
Upvote
0
That's not what I said.sorry, I have to object to that statement. Slower aperture lenses do NOT "run counter to high IQ". All they do, is limit the envelope of possible use cases, but not IQ.
For example, Canon EF 70-200/4 or EF 24-70/4 in real life use deliver IQ on par with the respective f/2.8 version lenses, difference really is just "1 stop slower". This is primarily relevant when 1) capturing MOVING SUBJECTS IN LIMITED LIGHT(ING) CONDITIONS or 2) when MAXIMUM SUBJECT ISOLATION/creamy bokeh is desired. Yes, these use cases may be very important or even crucial to some users [small minority] and totally irrelevant to most others. It is always nice to have faster glass, no doubt, but many times "moderately fast" glass will more than suffice and get you images with top-notch IQ. Not to mention, that a large percentage of images captured is taken with lenses stopped down from max aperture.
Most users would and hopefully will
I said that they TEND to gravitate towards faster lenses, absolutely nothing about the image quality of F2.8 VS F4 lenses. In fact, I have and use the 70-200F4 and 24-70F4 lenses and I prefer them to the F2.8 versions because they are a lot lighter to carry around. ( I just posted some 24-70F4 images in the lens section). Also note, that at the end of my previous post I suggest that if Canon is serious about a small FF mirrorless body, then they should make some slow L-glass to go with it.
Personally, I have interest in a tiny mirrorless with big glass on it..... but mount a 24/70F5.6 L on it, and now you are getting interesting......
Upvote
0
If Mirrorless does well. and each year for the next 25 years, Canon adds a Mirrorless lens or two, then EF lenses would still adapt to a mirrorless if you wanted. The fact that Canon is updating their big EF whites should be a hint, EF is not going anywhere.
People will be adapting FD lenses to mirrorless for another 50 years, they will likely become more valuable.
People will be adapting FD lenses to mirrorless for another 50 years, they will likely become more valuable.
Upvote
0
Firstly, why do you have to keep asking the same question in different ways. Do you assume people did not understand it the first time? If you did not get the domesday scenario you wanted, first and second time round do you think that by asking it in different ways you will get a different answer?
Canon has made it clear that that in developing a new system they need to take into consideration the 100million sales of EF products. That means they are NOT (repeat NOT) about to abandon EF any time soon. Does that answer your question and do you think that by opening yet another thread after this one you will get a different answer?
Upvote
0
It's because some people are convinced that new lenses for a new mirrorless system will be significantly smaller, lighter, faster autofocusing, and cheaper. You know, like Sony's full frame GM lenses.
Upvote
0
ok, fair enough, I did over-interpret your statement a bit.
I agree that many FF buyers are also going for faster glass. Some really need and use it and more are getting it simply because they want "da best" and can afford it. See my purchases of EF 70-200/2.8 II and 24-70/2.8 II ... should not have gotten them, although they are really nice lenses. Not enough use, because "too big, too heavy, too conspicuos, too valuable" to take along many times. ;-)
OTOH - f/5.6 zooms are "too moderate speed" even for my taste however. I prefer them "f/4 all the way". I use f/4 to f/5.6 probably for >50% of my captures.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
In fact, no. Mitigated, not amplified. The effects of a misalignment are primarily at the edges of the image circle, and a TC magnifies the center resulting in the edges being cropped away.
Upvote
0
Yes, for me F4 seems to be the sweet spot between speed and size most of the time, and particularly in good light.... in poor light, F1.4 is your friend, but not when you had to carry it up a mountain....ok, fair enough, I did over-interpret your statement a bit.
I agree that many FF buyers are also going for faster glass. Some really need and use it and more are getting it simply because they want "da best" and can afford it. See my purchases of EF 70-200/2.8 II and 24-70/2.8 II ... should not have gotten them, although they are really nice lenses. Not enough use, because "too big, too heavy, too conspicuos, too valuable" to take along many times. ;-)
OTOH - f/5.6 zooms are "too moderate speed" even for my taste however. I prefer them "f/4 all the way". I use f/4 to f/5.6 probably for >50% of my captures.
one of the things I like about the M is the small size of it’s lenses.... a lot of them are F6.3! If you are going to design a small camera, it makes sense to keep the lenses tiny as well. I hope that if CNon does a small FF mirrorless body, they do this again with a few quality slow/tiny lenses
Upvote
0
If Canon could get a FF mirrorless down to the size of an SL2 while keeping the EF mount, and roll out good small lenses, something along the lines of a 24-70 f4 or even a 24-70 f3.5-5.6....
Upvote
0
Here's one
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews...w-increased-competition-allows-us-to-level-up
"...we’ve sold more than 130 million EF lenses during that time, so we can’t simply ignore that many lenses in the market. "
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Not to mention that DSLRs comprise the majority of the ILC market. But then he'll probably need reassurance that Canon isn't stupid.
Upvote
0
And in the very next paragraph he says:
"In 1987, the shift was from a mechanical interface to an electronic interface. That [precluded cross-compatibility]. Despite that shift, the change provided significantly more value for our customers, which is why we went ahead. If it turns out that [the introduction of mirrorless] will create a similar situation, this might be a decision that we would take [again]. But we’re not sure yet."
Sounds like a new mount with an adapter to me.
Upvote
0
Neuro, what happened to FD lenses when EF was phased in?
No, I'm not saying that an adapter will be the instant end of EF. I've said in many posts I believe Canon has a glide path to phase out EF, but that within a decade EF will be nearly obsolete. But you seem confident that EF will be relevant for much longer. While an adapter might satisfy current EF/EOS owners who plan to largely remain tied to dSLR's, I doubt the EF lenses will be appealing to photographers who start with mirrorless EF-X and build from there--once Canon has a range of EF-X options. If the mirrorless FF cameras Canon develops are very attractive, EF will become a legacy lens that is supported for about seven more years.
For example, I suppose if somebody buys a Big White today, and the EF iteration sees end of production in three or four years, the lens can still be serviced for another seven years or so. Fine. That is plenty of time to get good use out of lenses.
But if Big Whites are developed for FF mirrorless, an adapter better be a very good option; otherwise, only a huge discount on a used, legacy EF version will prompt somebody to buy.
Even you, Neuro, have talked about how you sell lenses on ebay and get a good price. In fact many members talk about this. And I've done the same.
What I am saying in my plodding way is that this 30-year way of thinking about partially funding a new lens, or simply recovering some of the cash laid out on a lens that doesn't get used much, is coming to an end. I've never said the sky is falling, that photography as we know it is doomed.
So IF you see that Canon is developing a new mount as a replacement for EF, do you have any strategy for your current collection? What has Canon said that makes you think EF will remain their standard?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)