Anyone else delaying lens purchases until we know more about mirrorless plans?

[slclick]

One important question I'd like to poll this group on: if it's a thin mount + adaptor for FF mirrorless, will the new adaptor accept EF-S lenses for full-frame?

I'd assume output would have to be in crop mode (unless you like that 'ship porthole' sort of view).

I'm assuming your answers are likely:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Duh, yes. It has to accept crop b/c I am convinced FF mirrorless mount is indeed just EOS-M, and that adaptor already exists and we know it takes EF-S.
[*]Yes. Regardless of whether the new mount is EF-M or something different, the adaptor will work with EF-S lenses.
[*]No. Canon enjoys the upcharge of folks migrating from crop to FF with SLRs and wants to continue that here. They want to sell EF (or new FF mirrorless) lenses and will block EF-S from working with the adaptor somehow.
[/list]

...but I could be wrong. Thoughts? My money's on (2) above.

- A

I'm curious just what (more than 2) EF-S lenses Canon (and users) thinks it would be worth it to make a mount consideration to accept EF-S. I can count on one hand Canon crop lenses I think are worthy....I could even lose a couple fingers in a table saw accident and feel the same way. Now, if this idea suggests including 3rd party crop glass, sure, I'm game for the mount to be all inclusive. imho, I think Sigma DC has the leg up on Canon for great crop glass.

 

[fullstop]

i don't expect it. Messing around with lenses that are too small for the image circle does not make a lot of sense when there are so many fine Canon FF-capable lenses available.

I think the EF/EF-X adapter for FF mirrorless will only accept EF lenses. Otherwise there would be a lot of internet rants by n00bs claiming "i am using Canon camera with Canon lenses but all images look so weird with very dark corners ... wtf ... waaaah". ;D

 

[ahsanford]

I'm curious just what (more than 2) EF-S lenses Canon (and users) thinks it would be worth it to make a mount consideration to accept EF-S. I can count on one hand Canon crop lenses I think are worthy....I could even lose a couple fingers in a table saw accident and feel the same way.

It's not about worthiness, it's about acknowledging the pain point of having to offload your crop lenses. There was mechanical non-fit condition that obviated this with the Crop to FF move in SLRs that (in theory) should no longer be a problem for FF mirrorless -- there is no mirror for a protruding rear element to bump into.

I think allowing EF-S on the adaptor is a (slightly) gentler cost of entry for those pondering the jump to FF. You can use your 2-4 EF-S lenses on day one without added investment. Would Canon offer this functionality, or would they block it (either mechanically with the adaptor design or in the FF mirrorless body firmware) to force folks to buy new EF lenses?

- A

 

[fullstop]

Most people moving from crop to FF know and accept they need FF lenses for decent FF images.

to me "crop mode" is not even a stop-gap emergency solution. It's just a frivolous waste of valuable sensor real estate.


Switching from crop to FF is not so hard with Canon as they also offer very affordable, decent IQ FF lenses - primes and zooms. As opposed to Sony (FE).

 

[slclick]

I'm curious just what (more than 2) EF-S lenses Canon (and users) thinks it would be worth it to make a mount consideration to accept EF-S. I can count on one hand Canon crop lenses I think are worthy....I could even lose a couple fingers in a table saw accident and feel the same way.

It's not about worthiness, it's about acknowledging the pain point of having to offload your crop lenses. There was mechanical non-fit condition that obviated this with the Crop to FF move in SLRs that (in theory) should no longer be a problem for FF mirrorless -- there is no mirror for a protruding rear element to bump into.

I think allowing EF-S on the adaptor is a (slightly) gentler cost of entry for those pondering the jump to FF. You can use your 2-4 EF-S lenses on day one without added investment. Would Canon offer this functionality, or would they block it (either mechanically with the adaptor design or in the FF mirrorless body firmware) to force folks to buy new EF lenses?

- A

There is no pain point, the fact that Canon glass has high resale and is very easy to move has been well documented. With all the factors being debated over with FF mirrorless, lens quality is suddenly not on the table? pish posh.

 

[fullstop]

well i did lose a fair amount of money switching from ef-s to ef. eg 17-55, 10-22 - got maybe half of purchase price - in very good condition. that was years ago. today Ef- s lenses are hard to sell at any price at least where i live (europe ). people serious about photography and with sufficient budget have mostly gone FF already. entry level newcomers buying rebels are mostly happy with the kit zoom or possobly the dual kit zoom. if they buy a third lens, many go for an inexpensive new lens like ef-s 24/2.8, 60 macro, ef 50/1.8 stm. second hand market for ef-s glass is very saturated now.

tough luck.

 

[ahsanford]

Switching from crop to FF is not so hard with Canon as they also offer very affordable, decent IQ FF lenses - primes and zooms. As opposed to Sony (FE).

As opposed to Nikon (SLRs) and Sony (mirrorless)... which allow you to use crop lenses on FF today? :

I'm not saying I personally want to do this -- I'm saying our competition allows it today, and that makes the cost of using a FF body less than if you had to get FF lenses alongside that shiny new FF body. Sure, they may not be availing themselves of the full sensor when they do this, but you can shoot on day one for $body with Nikon/Sony or shoot with $body + $lens (or kit) with Canon.

I'm just asking if the EF-S-bumping-into-the-FF-mirror going away with mirrorless might make Canon give this position a rethink.

- A

 

[fullstop]

yes, i agree, technically it would be no prob on mirrorless. however, i don't see using crop lenses on ff sensors as a worthwhile "solution". anyone upgrading from APS-C and EF-S lenses does so "for better IQ and extended photographic possibilities (eg more subject isolation, selective DOF. it is a conscious decision. people dont throw away gheir tebel and puck up a 5D4 in a supermarket as an "impulse purchase". they understand and accept the need to use lenses that cover FF image circle. uf budget constrained they get a 6d2 plus 24-105 (non l) as kit lens and are "all set for ff." they can add a 50/1.8 stm for 99€, and/or the excellent 40/2.8 for little money. and or ef 70-300 ii to get an FF tele zoom. for sony such lenses are either not available or cost an arm and a leg. canon non-l lenses and ef-m glass are really whete canon shines in the "maximum bang for your buck" contest.

ps: none of the nikon shooters i know - including many upgraders from DX to FX - has used their previous DX lenses on their new FX bodies. it just makes very little sense in real life. its a marketing gimmick.

 

[bergstrom]

was thinking of saving up for a a7iii until I heard that when the camera is in portrait model or vertical position, face recognition focusing does go hunting. This would be a serious problem at a fashion show when you're trying to get full body shots of the models as they pose at the end of the catwalk.

 

[ahsanford]

yes, i agree, technically it would be no prob on mirrorless. however, i don't see using crop lenses on ff sensors as a worthwhile "solution". anyone upgrading from APS-C and EF-S lenses does so "for better IQ and extended photographic possibilities (eg more subject isolation, selective DOF. it is a conscious decision.

Or: not that. That's only a piece of why people upgrade.

Some people move to FF for more comprehensive AF systems, better control sets, more comfortable ergonomics, better weather sealing, more options for accessories/tethering/networking, etc. Most (if not all) of that can still be enjoyed with a crop lens.

Some people move to FF for low light performance, which absolutely still works with a crop lens.

You are asserting why someone is buying something with your own logic informed by your own worldview. That's just not how it works. As others have said, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is without value -- it's just without value to you.

ps: none of the nikon shooters i know - including many upgraders from DX to FX - has used their previous DX lenses on their new FX bodies. it just makes very little sense in real life. its a marketing gimmick.

Anecdotes aren't the market, but I'll share mine. Just last week we had company over and both shot Nikon -- she was on an old D90 I think, and he was on a D610. What did shoot on his FX camera? A DX zoom. Why? They owned the DX rig before they went FX and didn't want to get rid of the old lenses when they did. Turns out he likes the output of the DX lens on the FX body and he still uses that lens. He keeps his one good landscape FX lens at home for the days he goes off on his own with the tripod.

- A

 

[KevinP]

Mirrorless won’t stop me buying lenses for new to me -used- 80D. Uncertainty on mount and long term plan is steering me to more affordable lenses. That and I have a crop body for reduced cost. A $1900 100-400 isn’t going to happen.

I figure my next camera will be a mirrorless. Not sure if that’ll be Canon or Sony. Lots can happen before it matters to me in 3 years. I do want IBIS, and I suspect 90D may not get it. 7D3 maybe? 5D5 and 6D3 are a long way out. 5D is too much for me anyway. A73 is already one I admire, but 2x cost for full frame kit is too much for my hobby income this cycle.

 

[takesome1]

I'm curious just what (more than 2) EF-S lenses Canon (and users) thinks it would be worth it to make a mount consideration to accept EF-S. I can count on one hand Canon crop lenses I think are worthy....I could even lose a couple fingers in a table saw accident and feel the same way.

It's not about worthiness, it's about acknowledging the pain point of having to offload your crop lenses. There was mechanical non-fit condition that obviated this with the Crop to FF move in SLRs that (in theory) should no longer be a problem for FF mirrorless -- there is no mirror for a protruding rear element to bump into.

I think allowing EF-S on the adaptor is a (slightly) gentler cost of entry for those pondering the jump to FF. You can use your 2-4 EF-S lenses on day one without added investment. Would Canon offer this functionality, or would they block it (either mechanically with the adaptor design or in the FF mirrorless body firmware) to force folks to buy new EF lenses?

- A

There is no pain point, the fact that Canon glass has high resale and is very easy to move has been well documented. With all the factors being debated over with FF mirrorless, lens quality is suddenly not on the table? pish posh.

20 years of chat rooms, thousand upon thousands of posts. I finally see someone use the term "pish posh".

Well done.

 

[Ozarker]

I'm holding off my lens purchases until Canon makes a 50mm 1.2L II.

Unfortunately, I don't think there will be any new f/1.2 lenses. I think f/1.4 is it. Hope I am wrong. I only say this because of the new 85mm f/1.4L.

 

[Talys]

Mirrorless won't stop me from buying a 200-400, which is currently the only lens that I don't own that I really, really, really want 8)

I suppose, the other lens I would love is at the opposite end of the spectrum, the 11-24, but what's stopping me from buying it is that I won't get enough use to justify the price, not some potential future (possibly mirrorless) version. I know that I will buy it, spend a week taking weird, wacky photos and marvel at how awesome it is, and then pack it up and treasure it like a lens-hoarding leprechaun.

 

[Maximilian]

...does anyone ... delaying lens purchases until we know more about Canon's prosumer mirrorless plans and timeframes? ...

Short answer:
No! Because I'll stay with OVF for at least 5 more years, maybe even 10.

Long answer:
I shoot (fast) moving subjects (sport, children, animals), and the delay an EVF delivers here is still too big for me.
I already have several good EF lenses. And a mirrorless system needs to have these lenses as well.
I prefer OVFs.
This surely will change, but I don't see any advantage in mirrorless, except for less moving parts and maybe a higher AF accuracy w/o the need of AFMA.
Time will come, that the EVFs are good enough, but not yet.

 

[bokehmon22]

Not lens but delaying buying any camera until I see Canon FF mirrorless announcement. I'm looking to upgrade my 5D IV and 6D to mirrorless. 5D IV will be my second camera for wedding and upgrade the 6D.

 

[jolyonralph]

I didn't buy the 5D IV because I was waiting for some mirrorless (or even hybrid OVF/EVF) FF camera from Canon - ended up getting the A7RII instead which I have no regrets with.

But I'm putting off buying lenses for EITHER system right now until I see what the plans are. If Canon can pull something out that can seriously compete with the A7RIII and is as compact I'd be very tempted to sell up the Sony gear and move back entirely to Canon. But the lazy option of a 5D IV sized body with the mirror removed doesn't interest me in the slightest. If Canon go that route I'll stick with Sony.

 

[scyrene]

But the lazy option of a 5D IV sized body with the mirror removed doesn't interest me in the slightest. If Canon go that route I'll stick with Sony.

It wouldn't be lazy so much as a conscious design choice to capture a certain market. The endless discussions about mirrorless on these forums should have demonstrated by now that some people want a DSLR-style body, mirrorless or not. There is of course room for both, and you're allowed your preferences, but let's not be so dismissive of people with different needs.

 

[Talys]

But the lazy option of a 5D IV sized body with the mirror removed doesn't interest me in the slightest. If Canon go that route I'll stick with Sony.

It wouldn't be lazy so much as a conscious design choice to capture a certain market. The endless discussions about mirrorless on these forums should have demonstrated by now that some people want a DSLR-style body, mirrorless or not. There is of course room for both, and you're allowed your preferences, but let's not be so dismissive of people with different needs.

+1

 

[ahsanford]

But the lazy option of a 5D IV sized body with the mirror removed doesn't interest me in the slightest. If Canon go that route I'll stick with Sony.

It wouldn't be lazy so much as a conscious design choice to capture a certain market. The endless discussions about mirrorless on these forums should have demonstrated by now that some people want a DSLR-style body, mirrorless or not. There is of course room for both, and you're allowed your preferences, but let's not be so dismissive of people with different needs.

Yeah. I just don't understand why FF mirrorless necessitates one single decision for everyone.

Of the three outcomes:

1) Canon announces a thin mount FF mirrorless body and from that point on that's the only mirrorless mount we ever get.
2) Canon announces an EF mirrorless body and from from that point on that's the only mirrorless mount we ever get.
3) Canon announces mirrorless bodies in both mounts, though not necessarily at the same time.

My chips are pretty firmly on (3). The rationale:

If (say) half the mirrorless market insists on the possibility of the lens + body being smaller (despite all the lenses/speeds that won't benefit from that, yes), Canon simply has to offer a thin body and a small spread of tiny lenses. That's that. Throw practicality of a single mount EF system out the window for now -- if the market wants small, give them small.

But that can't possibly be an end-game professional instrument (long-term rig of choice) if an adaptor + tiny gripped body is constantly being used with the bigger/faster/niche-ier/older glass. So Canon has to either remake a ton of EF lenses, or they just bite the bullet and offer an EF body for folks packing the heavy glass all day. My money is on the latter.

I think they offer both mounts.

- A