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

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,010
220
#82
look at the Samyang 24/2.8 also included in the comparison i posted. Now show me a Canon (or Nikon) 24mm/2.8 for FF that is smaller or shorter.
ØxL 61.8 x 37mm, 120 grams, Filter thread: 49mm

And again, despite sub-optimal Sony mount choice, a lens like this is possible and real and available at a very affordable price [ starting around € 290 in Germany]. :)


PS: in case you want to dispute optical quality of the Samyang next ... it seems to be at least as good as the Canon EF 24/2.8 :)


https://www.ephotozine.com/article/samyang-af-24mm-f-2-8-fe-review-32367#Verdict
What has the Samyang got to do with mirrorless vs DSLR?
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,051
143
#85
"Strong vignetting wide open" - actually, in the samples it shows vignetting to at least f/5.6. Are you sure you want to buy it?
If it will become available in Canon EF-X mount I might buy it,yes. A bit of vignetting does not disturb me. It is the easiest of all potential lens problems to correct in post.
 
Likes: 3kramd5
Apr 23, 2018
1,051
143
#87
I did read it and I don't understand. All that lens means is that someone can make lenses smaller than Canon does. That is nothing to do with being mirrorless.
Of course it does. I am not aware of any 24mm/2.8 prime FF lens with AF for any DSLR system - Canon, Nikon, Pentax, SOny A-mount - that is as compact than the new Samyang AF 24/2.8 for mirrorless.

If you would care to read all posts, not only mine (in order to feverishly try to somehow challenge/criticize/refute/obfuscate), you would understand what this is all about.


I continue to be convinced that it is possible to build more compact lenses for mirrofrfree FF throughout the most frequent focal length range. Especially, but not only moderately fast glass. The new Samyang AF primes 24, 35 are the first proof of this. Even more so, since they are for Sony E-mount which is not especially conducive to short, compact FF lens designs.
 
Last edited:

3kramd5

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,552
111
#88
If it will become available in Canon EF-X mount I might buy it,yes. A bit of vignetting does not disturb me. It is the easiest of all potential lens problems to correct in post.
Agreed. Unless it’s dropping so much it looks like an APS-C image circle on a 135-format, it’s pretty trivial to correct, especially with modern sensors and software.
 
Oct 30, 2014
61
6
#89
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.
Kind of the opposite. Too busy taking photos to care.
 

BillB

EOS Rebel T7i
May 11, 2017
788
53
#90
I do not understand why Canon would make a different mount for 2 or 3 small lenses that combined with a smaller body would make a portable combination. All other lenses with new mount would be bigger (=longer) than their EF counterparts. The mentioning of this over and over (and over and did I mention over and over?) seems stupid to me....
So, how does it seem now, after another page of posts on this topic?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
216
38
#93
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.
Sorry, I thought the reference was to this blog entry. It's been a while since I read both of them, seeing as how they were published about the same time in 2013.

Metabones Magic?

As to supporting your point (whatever it was - I didn't see anything in your comment to which I was responding that said anything about the validity of an argument that adapters are not a problem because no one complains about TCs - all I saw is that you seemed to only consider the reference to alignment by brad-man was to the internal alignment of lens elements and not to lens/TC/camera mount alignments): I was acknowledging that there are more concerns at wider fields of view than what is typically yielded when using TCs or extenders. If you'd reread the comment hopefully you'd understand that this time.
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,051
143
#94
The Roger Cicala article was just referenced in the context of our threads on possible new Canon mirrorfree mount to create FUD/obfuscate the non-issue of a possible Canon EF to Canon "EF-X" mount adapter. I do not consider the article really relevant here, since the problems Roger found in optical bench tests were with 3rd party [Metabones et al.] cross-company mount adapters with very different mount geometries - both factors present much more risk for mis-alignment than a original Canon-to-Canon adapter.

Unless I see clear evidence on the existing original Canon EF-/EF-M adapter I do not believe there will be "misalignment problems" with original Canon-to-Canon mount adapters that have real-life relevance. IF there were significant detrimental effects in practice, there would undoubtedly be numerous complaints and possibly subsequent tests regarding Canon EF-/EF-M adapter.

As Roger himself concludes at the end of his article
What Does It Mean in the Real World?
Like a lot of laboratory testing, probably not a lot. Adapters couldn’t all stink or people wouldn’t use them. Like a lot of tests, you can detect a very real difference in the lab that doesn’t make much difference at all in the real world.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

But maybe Roger and other reviewers will re-visit the topic once the Nikon F-to-Z-Mount adapter is out. I am sure there will be "various problems with many Nikon F lenses", but don't expect simple mechanical, geometrical mis-alignment issues to be amongst them. :)
 
Last edited:

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,184
160
Canada
#95
All adaptors will add error into a system. Period!

The real question is, will it be significant enough to be noticeable?

These errors will be in two broad categories, the first being flatness and the second being distance. For flatness, as long as you have a clean and tightly fitting mount, there should be no more misalignment than mounting a lens. On a mirrorless camera, focusing is done on the sensor instead of an AF unit, so distance errors will be compensated for by the AF system and not detectable....

So, in the real world, unless you have a garbage or damaged adaptor, no problem!
 
Likes: YuengLinger

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,313
360
#97
These are not good analogies for those who believe that FF mirrorless will result, over time, in a paradigm shift.
Standing on an ocean cliff and seeing the sails of a ship appear before the ship's deck is visible is not a good analogy for those who believe the Earth is flat.
 
Likes: stevelee

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,313
360
#98
Sorry, I thought the reference was to this blog entry. It's been a while since I read both of them, seeing as how they were published about the same time in 2013.

Metabones Magic?

As to supporting your point (whatever it was - I didn't see anything in your comment to which I was responding that said anything about the validity of an argument that adapters are not a problem because no one complains about TCs - all I saw is that you seemed to only consider the reference to alignment by brad-man was to the internal alignment of lens elements and not to lens/TC/camera mount alignments): I was acknowledging that there are more concerns at wider fields of view than what is typically yielded when using TCs or extenders. If you'd reread the comment hopefully you'd understand that this time.
My bad. I assumed you would have actually clicked the link in the post you quoted, and also that you'd have read the thread to understand the context of your reply. Silly me. :rolleyes:

But in my defense, my assumption preceded your response in the other thread where you claimed that the USA comprises half of the global ILC market. After reading that utterly ridiculous assertion, your total miscomprehension of your own response and the context in this thread is unsurprising.