Canon officially discontinues a lot more EF lenses

[koenkooi]

Adding to my earlier comment. Another reason to "rush" is rising prices on RF lenses. My 100-500 RF was delivered in August. As of today's latest price increases, it is now $200 more. It used to be that it paid to wait a few years after a lens release, because the price usually dropped. But in today's upside-down COVID world, it's cheaper to buy now than wait and unless you pre-order, you may not be able to get a lens when you want it.

For me it was the perceived wait, not the expected price increase that made me jump on the 100-500. Last month I received an email from one of the places where I pre-ordered saying they have an RF100-500 in stock. That's almost a year and a half after it was released!

 

[cayenne]

I can only speak for myself. I've sold off all but two of my EF lenses (100 macro and 8-15 fisheye). I sold several that I simply didn't use enough to justify keeping (70-300 mm L, for example). In other cases the RF lenses have advantages that I appreciate. 70-200 f2.8 RF for example is lighter and more compact. The 100-500 RF has an additional 100mm focal length and is lighter. I currently own five RF lenses. I used to own about a dozen EF lenses. Switching to RF was an incentive to pare things down to lenses I actually use. I didn't object to the adapters, but it's nice to have fewer lenses and not have to worry about switching out the adapters.

Don't you just usually leave the adapter on the camera and just swap out the EF lenses off/on the adapter that stays on the camera.

I'm assuming this as that I will likely get a RF body in the somewhat near future....but likely won't be buying any RF glass for quite awhile.

cayenne

 

[unfocused]

Don't you just usually leave the adapter on the camera and just swap out the EF lenses off/on the adapter that stays on the camera.

I'm assuming this as that I will likely get a RF body in the somewhat near future....but likely won't be buying any RF glass for quite awhile.

cayenne

That works fine as long as you don't have any RF lenses. But, once you start buying RF lenses then it's easier to leave the adapter mounted on an EF lens.

 

[Michael Clark]

In HK both resell price and 2nd hand price dropping, all of these 3 lenses are not on shelves of camera shops and major electronic shops

Get 'em while they're hot, then.

Used prices for grade 8 or grade 9 copies of the EF 135mm f/2 L here in the U.S. are only a few dollars less that what I paid for mine new. Ditto for the EF 35mm f/2 IS if you can find one for sale. The EF 85mm f/1.8 is still available new at a few online retailers the last time I looked, but used prices for that lens have also began to creep up, too.

 

[Michael Clark]

I can only speak for myself. I've sold off all but two of my EF lenses (100 macro and 8-15 fisheye). I sold several that I simply didn't use enough to justify keeping (70-300 mm L, for example). In other cases the RF lenses have advantages that I appreciate. 70-200 f2.8 RF for example is lighter and more compact. The 100-500 RF has an additional 100mm focal length and is lighter. I currently own five RF lenses. I used to own about a dozen EF lenses. Switching to RF was an incentive to pare things down to lenses I actually use. I didn't object to the adapters, but it's nice to have fewer lenses and not have to worry about switching out the adapters.

It certainly makes sense to sell a lens if you're not using it very often.

But how many posts have we seen here from people who sold most or even all of their EF stuff as soon as the RF line was announced, then complained months or even years later that they still can't get an equivalent RF lens to replace an EF lens that they were actually using regularly when they sold it?