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

[tron]

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....

 

[BillB]

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 mentioned over and over?) seems stupid to me....

You are not alone. If you ask for examples of lenses that could be made smaller with a new mount, people don't come up with much.

 

[Don Haines]

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 mentioned over and over?) seems stupid to me....

Here's the problem......

If you want long lenses, there is no significant length saving....

If you want fast lenses, you need the whole mount width to avoid vignetting, and that means no protrusions into the camera body.....

The only way that new lenses with a protrusion will work, is for slow lenses of medium length and for wide angle. You could stick those onto an EF mirrorless mount with a protrusion inside the body to save space, and that would give you a more compact form factor to carry around.... Some of those lenses MIGHT work on a crop EF-S camera (mirrored), but not a FF EF camera (mirrored).

The big question is, is the market for such a device big enough to make it a reality? Just how big is the market for compact FF cameras, particularly since they will never attain the size savings of M cameras, nor the ergonomics of XD cameras? None of us have the answer.

 

[Kit.]

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.

I wonder, if Canon announces its next MILC with EF mount, will you buy a bunch of Minolta lenses to feel abandoned by Sony?

 

[jolyonralph]

This is not like the change from FD to EF. It's like the change from EF-S to EF-M - ie it's not a change, it's an addition. The only point at which EF-M will replace EF-S is when EF-S lenses and bodies stop being profitable for Canon. So as long as photographers want EF lenses and bodies Canon will continue to make them. And if demand falls, then it's because the alternative is so much more popular. So in either case, nothing to worry about.

 

[jolyonralph]

Also, the whole idea of "performance threshold" for an adaptor is silly. The adaptor from EF to EF-M is in essence a mechanical device to adjust the flange distance and to pass through the electronic signals from the lens to the body. An EF-M camera with an adaptor on it is no different to a camera with an EF mount - with the exception that current adaptors and EOS M bodies are not weather sealed. But I'd imagine any full-frame camera with a shorter flange distance would come with/have available a new generation adaptor with weather sealing.

 

[fullstop]

You are not alone. If you ask for examples of lenses that could be made smaller with a new mount, people don't come up with much.

I do. Depending on specific lens mount parameters [FFD and throat width] basically any lens - primes and zooms - across the entire, most frequently used focal length range [for vast majority of users, not for all] from about 20mm to about 100mm focal ölength could be made more compact than corresponding EF glass.

For very large aperture, "high end IQ" lenses size/weight savings might be rather small, but those lenses are tiny niches anyways. But all decent "bread and butter" lenses - e.g. 24/35/50/85/100mm primes and 16-35, 24-70, 24-105 f/4 zooms could be made significantly more compact with a new "slim" mount ... with short(er) FFD and as wide-as-feasible throat width. Will be interesting to really see, which way Nikon goes with lenses for their new mirrorfree Z-mount.

 

[Maximilian]

... most frequently used focal length range [for vast majority of users, not for all] from about 20mm to about 100mm focal ölength could be made more compact than corresponding EF glass. ...

Then please tell me why Sony didn't do so?

 

[fullstop]

Then please tell me why Sony didn't do so?

In general: because of Sony's decision to use APS-C optimized E-mount also for FF sensor image circle (FE lenses). And because they want to cream off all those willing to pay any price for "fast glass".

This said, there are a few decently compact lenses (with AF) even for Sony FF ...

Sony A7 III with
* Sony FE 35/2.8
* Samyang AF 35/2.8
* Samyang AF 24/2.8 (with lens hood!)

* Canon 5D IV + EF 35/2.0 IS for size comparison

 

[3kramd5]

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?

Uh, until they no longer function or I want to upgrade them.

This is little different form asking “how long will you hold onto your series I/II lenses after series II/III lenses are introduced?”

If I buy a canon mirrorless ILC and canon offers new mount lenses overlapping my existing EF glass with compelling advantages, I’ll get new ones. Chances are I’d keep the old ones too, I rarely sell anything.

 

[Maximilian]

In general: because of Sony's decision to use APS-C optimized E-mount also for FF sensor image circle (FE lenses). And because they want to cream off all those willing to pay any price for "fast glass".

This said, there are a few decently compact lenses (with AF) even for Sony FF ...

Sony A7 III with
* Sony FE 35/2.8
* Samyang AF 35/2.8
* Samyang AF 24/2.8 (with lens hood!)

* Canon 5D IV + EF 35/2.0 IS for size comparison

You are comparing different lenses and/or lens+body combinations.
There was no comparing of bodies.
I was refering to your statement about smaller lenses.
If you compare lenses with the same technical data it looks different, e.g.(diameter x length in mm):

• 85mm/1.8
  Sony: 78 x 82
  Canon: 75 x 71,5
  ==> Canon wins
• 50mm/1.8
  Sony FE: 68.6 x 59.5
  Sony E: 62 x 62
  Canon: 69,2 x 39,3
  ==> Canon wins, even against the E lens
• 35mm/1.4
  Sony FE: 78,5 x 112,0
  Canon: 80,4 x 105,5
  ==> Canon wins

Shall I continue?

Of course there are also lenses where Sony is slightly ahead e.g. the 24-70/4.0 or the 24-105/4.0 zooms.
But I don't see any difference for

... most frequently used focal length range [for vast majority of users, not for all] ...

 

[Maximilian]

And by the way,
if you want to compare the

...
* Sony FE 35/2.8
* Samyang AF 35/2.8
* Samyang AF 24/2.8 (with lens hood!)

with a Canon lens why not take the EF40/2.8 STM???

The Ef 35/2.0 IS has a full stop more aperture and IS.
This is comparing apples with oranges.

 

[fullstop]

Yes, the Canon EF 35 IS is f/2.0 and 1 stop faster than the Sony and yes, the EF 40/2.8 pancake is tiny and brilliant (I have it). And since we use our lenses mounted on camera I think it is a good idea to show lenses mounted on functionally comparable cameras for size comparisons.

Also, as I repeatedly stated, Sony is a bad example in terms of "more compact lenses" due to their poor choice of FF lens mount. But even despite of this I presented a few noteworthy examples of very compact lenses. So pointing to size of Sony FE lenses has little relevance with regards to "will a new Canon EF-X mount allow for more compact lenses"? We don't know, until we at least know basic mount parameters and get an idea what design goals Canon is pursueing. However, with properly chosen lens mount parameters it will be possible to [also, but not only] design lenses in the most frequently used focal length range that are more compact than corresponding EF lenses. Exemptions possible, I don't think you can make an FF 40/2.8 much smaller than the EF.

 

[BillB]

I do. Depending on specific lens mount parameters [FFD and throat width] basically any lens - primes and zooms - across the entire, most frequently used focal length range [for vast majority of users, not for all] from about 20mm to about 100mm focal ölength could be made more compact than corresponding EF glass.

For very large aperture, "high end IQ" lenses size/weight savings might be rather small, but those lenses are tiny niches anyways. But all decent "bread and butter" lenses - e.g. 24/35/50/85/100mm primes and 16-35, 24-70, 24-105 f/4 zooms could be made significantly more compact with a new "slim" mount ... with short(er) FFD and as wide-as-feasible throat width. Will be interesting to really see, which way Nikon goes with lenses for their new mirrorfree Z-mount.

Yes, the Canon EF 35 IS is f/2.0 and 1 stop faster than the Sony and yes, the EF 40/2.8 pancake is tiny and brilliant (I have it). And since we use our lenses mounted on camera I think it is a good idea to show lenses mounted on functionally comparable cameras for size comparisons.

Also, as I repeatedly stated, Sony is a bad example in terms of "more compact lenses" due to their poor choice of FF lens mount. But even despite of this I presented a few noteworthy examples of very compact lenses. So pointing to size of Sony FE lenses has little relevance with regards to "will a new Canon EF-X mount allow for more compact lenses"? We don't know, until we at least know basic mount parameters and get an idea what design goals Canon is pursueing. However, with properly chosen lens mount parameters it will be possible to [also, but not only] design lenses in the most frequently used focal length range that are more compact than corresponding EF lenses. Exemptions possible, I don't think you can make an FF 40/2.8 much smaller than the EF.

And once again, the devil seems to be in the details and personal preference. How much of a difference is there and is it worth it? One piece of the puzzle is how small Canon can go using the EF mount, both for lenses and for a camera.

 

[Maximilian]

...
And since we use our lenses mounted on camera I think it is a good idea to show lenses mounted on functionally comparable cameras for size comparisons.

Sorry but this wasn't the task.
You said that a shorter FFD makes lens design shorter.
I said that Sony doesn't show this with their lens lineup.

So there are reasons why this is so, but I don't have the answer.
Possible answers could be:

1. It is possible, but Sony just recycled their old or just copied other optical formulae of standard FFD.
   (e.g. to save R+D money)
2. It is possible, but it will not improve IQ or even make it worse.
3. Maybe it even isn't possible.

Your choice.

Also, as I repeatedly stated, Sony is a bad example in terms of "more compact lenses" due to their poor choice of FF lens mount.

And why do you think that Canon or Nikon will act different?

But even despite of this I presented a few noteworthy examples of very compact lenses.

No, you didn't as I showed up in my posts above.

So pointing to size of Sony FE lenses has little relevance with regards to "will a new Canon EF-X mount allow for more compact lenses"? We don't know, until we at least know basic mount parameters and get an idea what design goals Canon is pursueing. However, with properly chosen lens mount parameters it will be possible to [also, but not only] design lenses in the most frequently used focal length range that are more compact than corresponding EF lenses.

Again:
Why do you think/believe/repeat this mantra-like although you have no proof/patent/optical formula/ real lens to demonstrate your pure presumptions?

Exemptions possible, I don't think you can make an FF 40/2.8 much smaller than the EF.

So then I was able to show you some 3 more exemptions in my post above?

 

[fullstop]

@Maximilian

you conclude from size of (most) existing Sony FE lenses, that FF lenses for mirrorfree cameras cannot be made more compact than lenses for DSLRs (with longer FFD). I am convinved this conclusion is not valid, due to Sony's choice of [narrow, marginally feasible] E-mount for FF image circle. But even with that very sub-optimal mount, we already have examples of mirrorfree FF lenses with AF that are more compact than typical mirrorslapper lenses. So "it definitely is possible".

I am sure there will be many more compact lenses following, not only from Samyang and other 3rd party but probably also from Sony themselves, once they turn to "more moderately fast, compact lenses" - once they have creamed off most of the folks willing to pay through the nose for big, f/1.4 Zeiss labeled glass.

 

[Maximilian]

@Maximilian

you conclude from size of (most) existing Sony FE lenses, that FF lenses for mirrorfree cameras cannot be made more compact than lenses for DSLRs (with longer FFD).

Sorry, you are wrong again.
I have no conclusion on this as I posted above

Possible answers could be:

1. It is possible, but Sony just recycled their old or just copied other optical formulae of standard FFD.
   (e.g. to save R+D money)
2. It is possible, but it will not improve IQ or even make it worse.
3. Maybe it even isn't possible.

...
I am sue there will be many more compact lenses following, not only from Samyang, but maybe also from Sony themselves, once they turn to "more moderately fast lenses"

To bring this thread back on topic in short:

• I really hope you will be proven right, that smaller lenses will come
• And NO, I haven't seen smaller lenses yet.
  Because I don't compare a Samyang 35/2.8 to a Canon 35/2.0 IS
• You couldn't show me a reasonably shorter lens yet.

Now back on topic, please.

 

[jolyonralph]

When you're comparing the Sony vs Canon lens sizes don't forget to factor in the flange distance difference. It doesn't really matter what the size of the lens is when it's in your bag. What matters is the combination of body depth + lens depth.

 

[fullstop]

* You couldn't show me a reasonably shorter lens yet.

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

Samyang AF 24mm f/2.8 FE Verdict
We seem to have gone full circle and classic prime lenses, once the only choice, are seemingly being rediscovered and once again becoming highly sought after. Compact, high quality and reasonable priced it is not difficult to see why. The optical designs have in some cases benefited from modern technologies and glasses and they can comfortably surpass the performance of their predecessors.

This is where we find the Samyang AF 24mm f/2.8 lens – superb performance, compact size, excellent price and a compelling focal length to use. There's nothing to dislike, everything to like and an obvious Editor's Choice.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/samyang-af-24mm-f-2-8-fe-review-32367#Verdict

 

[fullstop]

When you're comparing the Sony vs Canon lens sizes don't forget to factor in the flange distance difference. It doesn't really matter what the size of the lens is when it's in your bag. What matters is the combination of body depth + lens depth.

that's why was showing lenses mounted on respective cameras.

However, I also want my lenses as compact as possible when not mounted. What matters to me is "size of bag needed for a specific set of gear - 1 camera plus 1-3 lenses".