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

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,012
220
#41
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."
Did you miss the word 'If'?
All Canon are saying is the obvious one - that they will adapt to the market. You could equally say that Sony have a 'glide path' to pull out of the camera market if Canon and Nikon make a big enough dent in their sales.
 
Dec 26, 2011
346
5
#42
I still have old FD lenses and two bodies that use them in case I have the urge to shoot some film. I have a couple old EF lenses that have long been discontinued. They may look a little ugly, but basically they work just as well as the day they were purchased. I expect my most recent EF purchases to have similar life expectancy. The OP seems to hope to induce unfounded concern for whatever reason.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,903
19
Southeastern USA
#43
Did you miss the word 'If'?
All Canon are saying is the obvious one - that they will adapt to the market. You could equally say that Sony have a 'glide path' to pull out of the camera market if Canon and Nikon make a big enough dent in their sales.
I don't own Sony lenses.

Again, you seem to believe we should not speak of "IF" on Canon RUMORS. I'm sorry if speculation gives you a headache.
 

BillB

EOS Rebel T7i
May 11, 2017
788
53
#45
Please link to reassurances from Canon. That would be helpful.
What more do you need beyond the continuing redesign of EF lenses? Have you read Roger Cicala's tear down of Canon's new 70-200 F4? That lens is a significant redesign, rather than a minor cosmetic update, as many have believed. As far as I know, the is no real indication that Canon even plans to introduce a new lens mount, despite Fullstop's fervent hope that they will do so. Do you really think you are going to get different answers if you keep asking the same questions over and over?
 

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,408
62
#46
If Canon stopped making the EF mounts on the next lens release it wouldn't matter to me at all.
I would continue using the system I have now until the time comes that I see a need for an upgrade.
It is the flawed thinking that your system is an investment that holds value and does not depreciate.
Granted in the past Canon lenses have held value very well, but there is no guarantee of this.

If the EF mount is gone tomorrow, and Canon releases a whole new line of cameras and lenses I will see this as a positive.
There will be a reason that they do this, and the reason will be advancement and innovation.
Why shouldn't we be happy to see these new advancements.
 
Likes: YuengLinger

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,313
360
#47
Neuro, what happened to FD lenses when EF was phased in?
Canon stated they were discontinuing FD in favor of EF. Ripping off the bandaid, so to speak. The difference between manual and automatic focus is paradigm-shifting.

What happened to EF-S lenses when EF-M was phased in? Nothing. Canon has kept on releasing new EF-S lenses. A different flange focal distance isn't a paradigm shift, and DSLRs comprise the majority of the ILC market. Canon has already acknowledged the EF lens prevalence, and stated that such prevalence cannot be ignored.

You can preach the doom of EF until you're blue in the face, there's no indication that your belief has merit. You should get yourself a sandwich board.



Maybe people will fall for that schtick in NYC. It's not working here.
 

dak723

EOS Rebel T7i
Oct 26, 2013
938
78
#48
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.
Since Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses, this is not the biggest industry shakeup since digital sensors. It is arguably not a shakeup at all unless you personally 1) will switch completely to mirrorless, and 2) will refuse to use an adapter.

If both 1 and 2 aren't true, then what the heck are you so worried about? Plus, we have no idea what Canon will do with the mount. As many have suggested, a mirrorless EF mount is certainly a possibility - even if they wait a few years to come out with one.

Ten years or so in the future you MIGHT begin to think about the demise of EF lenses if Canon does not come out with an EF mount mirrorless, although there will probably still be DSLRs made. It will take at least 10 years (and probably more) for Canon to replace the EF lens lineup with something new.

So - worst case scenario (in my opinion) you can buy your last DSLR in 2028 - and it should last at least 10 years, so you are good until 2038.
 
Oct 1, 2013
62
10
51
Germany
www.fotoflucke.de
#52
Oh boy, still dont get why i should trash my DSLRs and lenses because there will be more mirrorless offers on the market. Millions of EF lenses are out there - i'm sure there will be a way to use them on a mirrorless FF camera from canon. (for those that buy into mirrorless just to use an adapter to get their great lenses to work on them or for those that think only mirrorless will survive in the foreseeable future) I might purchase another mirrorless from canon ( i own a m50) but for sure i will not dump my 1DX and lenses ... - i'm not convinced that mirrorless is the (only) future.
 
Likes: stevelee

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,012
220
#53
Again, you seem to believe we should not speak of "IF" on Canon RUMORS.
Where did I say that?
I will repeat again - if someone had said 'rumours predicted an announcement now, but Canon is still saying nothing' I would agree. But instead a clear statement was made was that because Canon was not announcing their products according to rumours that it was Canon who had delayed their announcement for the Xth time.
The first is a fact. The second is a fatuous conclusion. How can Canon delay something they have not said will happen?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
216
38
#55
But you are operating under the assumption that with the introduction of a Canon mirrorless FF camera, that ALL EF lenses will suddenly become obsolete. That assumption is flawed.

Now, before someone brings up the FD to EF transition, EF gave the users AF capabilities. Even if Canon came up with some magic way to AF FD mount lenses, the users were going to have to buy a new body and new AF-FD lenses anyway. They chose to make a clean break and introduced digital communications, which added a lot more than just AF to lenses.... Going from EF to a new mount brings absolutely ZERO new capacities to the new camera system. Huge risk for no gain? I don't think so!

Fourth, Canon has just introduced a whole slew of new Big Whites.... there is the 100-400, the pair OF 70-200'S, and now a 400F2.8 (and another unspecified lens) are on the way. These lenses are expensive to design and it takes many years to recoup the development and production change costs. These are not the actions of a company getting ready to drop a product line!

My bet is that the EF mirrored lines will continue for many years into the future, and that eventually there will some mirrorless EF models introduced (both crop and FF). Parallel to this, there will be a more compact FF mirrorless camera with a few lenses, similar to the M series, but with a few L quality SLOW (F5.6 or 6.3) lenses.
An increase in throat diameter could give new capabilities. Whether the gain would be worth the change is debatable.

The 100-400 and 70-200 series are not considered 'Big Whites'. That is reserved for the Super Telephoto Primes (along with the 200-400/4 1.4TC).
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
216
38
#56
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

“... Putting a great lens on your camera via an adapter might still be better than an average native-mount lens. On the other hand, that great lens certainly wouldn’t be as good as it would be on its native-mount camera...”
There is no free lunch.... full stop.
we've discussed that article repeatedly. Fact is: Roger does not name out tested adapters. But all of them were "cross-plattform mount adapters", a much more challenging scenario than OEM Canon-to-Canon extension tube adapter. The adapters tested also where third party stuff only, presumably the likes of Metabones etc.

Original Canon adapter are a different story. I have not personally experienced any detrimental effect on EF lens IQ using original the Canon EF-/EF-M adapter. Nor have I seen any reviews/tests or reliable data showing any performance hit on IQ with that Canon adapter. Only possible concerns are with regards to AF performance and anything related to lens-body communication. But even if, then it will not be "adapter-induced", but solely due to limitations of AF drive and protocol implementation in [many, most] EF lenses.
Roger was speaking in the context of an adapter that included a focal reducer. That is, additional optics in the adapter. It is highly unlikely that any new mount Canon might introduce with a FF mirrorless camera will need optical elements. The EF to EF-M adapter has no optics.

Yes, there is a slightly greater risk of slight misalignment with two interfaces (camera to adapter, adapter to lens) than with one (camera to lens). But most of what Roger was talking about were adapters with optical elements.

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.
That depends on which type of misalignment you're talking about. Those that involve the alignment of the elements in a lens to one another would almost certainly be mitigated by cropping. But any misalignment brought about by the additional interface (camera to TC, TC to lens) compared to the bare lens (camera to lens) must also be considered. Roger has also addressed that issue a few times. But the lenses most affected by such flange interface misalignment are wide angle, wide aperture lenses, not telephoto lenses. TCs, on the other hand, are designed for use with longer focal length lenses.
 
Mar 20, 2015
43
1
#57
So - worst case scenario (in my opinion) you can buy your last DSLR in 2028 - and it should last at least 10 years, so you are good until 2038.
Well unless something goes wrong with it or you drop it, since you'll probably only be covered for five or seven years after discontinuance before parts and experience dry-up.

Anyway regarding EF it is notable that Canon's energy in that field is really in the L series ( last non-L update was the 24-105 STM in 2014 ) which I think might be an omen of their mirrorless strategy. Perhaps non-L EF will be allowed to lapse. I wouldn't be surprised if EF-S went away, too, on a longer timescale. That would give them EF-M for crop / EF L for pro slappy and mirrorless bodies / EF-X for consumer FF mirrorless which is still quite a lot of duplication.
 

BillB

EOS Rebel T7i
May 11, 2017
788
53
#59
Well unless something goes wrong with it or you drop it, since you'll probably only be covered for five or seven years after discontinuance before parts and experience dry-up.

Anyway regarding EF it is notable that Canon's energy in that field is really in the L series ( last non-L update was the 24-105 STM in 2014 ) which I think might be an omen of their mirrorless strategy. Perhaps non-L EF will be allowed to lapse. I wouldn't be surprised if EF-S went away, too, on a longer timescale. That would give them EF-M for crop / EF L for pro slappy and mirrorless bodies / EF-X for consumer FF mirrorless which is still quite a lot of duplication.
As a practical matter, the F4L zooms may be more higher end consumer than pro, along with the variable aperture L zooms. Assuming an EF-X mount does happen, I think it is an open question how many native lenses would be made for that mount.
 
Likes: Michael Clark

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,313
360
#60
Roger was speaking in the context of an adapter that included a focal reducer. That is, additional optics in the adapter. ... But most of what Roger was talking about were adapters with optical elements.
I'm not sure which of Roger's articles you're referring to, but if it was the one linked above you need to read it again, hopefully you'll comprehend it this time.

No where does he mention focal reducers or speedboosters. In the opening he mentions, "One thing that has always bothered me, though, is the idea of doubling the number of lens-mount interfaces." He's not talking about adapters with optics, he's talking about tube adapters like the Nikon to NEX (he has Novoflex), Canon EF to NEX (he has Sony), etc. No glass in those, just air. He's talking about the effects of misalignment of the mount interfaces.

Agreed that the problems are evident with wide lenses, not telephoto. But that just further supports my point that the argument that adapters are not a problem because no one complains about teleconverters is a fallacious one.