If the EF Mount Is Phased Out, What to Do With Quiver?

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,237
29
South Florida
#21
If an adapter would be needed, it is likely to be an extension tube, and misalignments in the camera-lens mount could be a problem with those.

As people haven't been screaming about this problem with extenders to date, neither for macro nor the EF to EOS-M adapter, I'll take it with a grain of salt.
Let's not forget about Canon's tel-converters. If the alignment was off, the effects would be amplified. There seem to be a few folks around here who care about IQ who also have not found it to be a problem.
 
Likes: fullstop
Apr 23, 2018
1,059
143
#22
Sixth, People go FF for image quality. At the same time, they tend to gravitate towards large and fast lenses. The lenses make any size savings in the body moot.... If you want a small FF SYSTEM then you need small lenses, and that means slow lenses, and that runs counter to the desire for image quality.
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. :)
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,059
143
#23
These are good insights. Seriously. Thank you!
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. :)
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,188
164
Canada
#24
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. :)
That's not what I said.

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......
 

Mt Spokane Photography

Spends too much time on this forum
Mar 25, 2011
14,482
64
#25
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.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,016
221
#26
Some of you are asking why I keep writing about the biggest industry shake up since digital sensors. And this one could involve thousands of dollars lenses becoming obsolete within a few years.
I suppose ostriches with their heads in the sand aren't taking too many photos anyway.
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?
 
Likes: Antono Refa

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,821
83
Vancouver, BC
#27
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?
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.
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,059
143
#28
That's not what I said.

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......
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. :)
 
Likes: stevelee

BillB

EOS Rebel T7i
May 11, 2017
788
53
#29
If EF is dethroned by a new full-frame mirrorless mount, would you hold on to your collection of EF lenses? How long? Would you keep those "L" beauties for the rest of your life, leaving them as a legacy to posterity?

What type of performance threshold would you demand of an adapter?

Personally, as y'all know, I think Canon is delaying a FF announcement because it won't bring good news to EF owners. Canon might be waiting to see how Nikon's new mount affects Nikon customers...

But I also believe Canon will continue to service current EF lenses and any in the pipeline for another 7-10 years. So, call me chicken little, or just an EF owner interested in the question of what to do with lenses that will no longer have the great resale value we've enjoyed for many years.
Doing the same thing over and over... .
 

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,317
363
#30
Let's not forget about Canon's tel-converters. If the alignment was off, the effects would be amplified. There seem to be a few folks around here who care about IQ who also have not found it to be a problem.
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.
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,188
164
Canada
#31
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. :)
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....

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
 

BillB

EOS Rebel T7i
May 11, 2017
788
53
#32
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....

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
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....
 

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,907
20
Southeastern USA
#34
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?
Please link to reassurances from Canon. That would be helpful.
 

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,317
363
#37

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,907
20
Southeastern USA
#38
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. "
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.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,907
20
Southeastern USA
#40
And in your mind, that's the end of EF? You need a reality check.
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?