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



## YuengLinger (Aug 18, 2018)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2018)




----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2018)

It will probably be the same thing that happened to EF-S lenses after the introduction of the M series of cameras...... Nothing!

You seem to be obsessed that a mirrorless FF camera will be a sudden cataclysmic change..... relax!


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 18, 2018)

If the sun stopped rising, would you hold on to your sun glasses?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 18, 2018)

"performance threshold for adapter"? ... it will be as simple and work just as perfectly well as the Canon EF-/EF-M adapter. Where's your problem? 

No need whatsoever to sell EF glass any time soon. We will have a long transition period and can buy EF-X lenses if and when we please anytime in the future.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 18, 2018)

Short answer: This depends upon the alternatives available at that time.


Until then I don't care about "if" and "when" but have fun using my actual gear.


----------



## denstore (Aug 18, 2018)

I would probably be happy as a clam. In a couple of years I could probably see a drop in prices of perfectly fine white Canon lenses and high end gear as 1DX bodies. Great! And if canon sees it necessary to change the mount, so be it. If they do, there’s probably a good reason for it.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 18, 2018)

fullstop said:


> "performance threshold for adapter"? ... it will be as simple and work just as perfectly well as the Canon EF-/EF-M adapter. Where's your problem?
> 
> No need whatsoever to sell EF glass any time soon. We will have a long transition period and can buy EF-X lenses if and when we please anytime in the future.



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.


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 18, 2018)

Its kind of pointless to get into a twizel on this until there are some solid facts/hardware on the table.
We have no idea if there is a new mount, or what it will look like. 
*IF* its only a small change, its possible that Canon might offer to convert some lenses over


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 18, 2018)

Looks like some members are taking their wishes for realities, and keep on insisting about EF being "*******".
Do they maybe want to distill a feeling of panic and-or obsolescence?
Sony will certainly appreciate...


----------



## unfocused (Aug 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> ...So, call me chicken little...



I'd be happy to.

I'm not sure if there is a limit to how many threads a person can start on the same topic, but here is my advice: QUIT HESITATING. SELL all your EF Lenses today. Put them all on eBay and sell them now, before the market collapses. That way you can quit obsessing over this and you will have a nice warm smug feeling when the rest of us find out in October that all of our EF lenses have become obsolete overnight.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 18, 2018)

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.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 18, 2018)

SecureGSM said:


> 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.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 18, 2018)

These threads _almost_ make me miss Harry...


----------



## fullstop (Aug 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> ... And this one could involve thousands of dollars lenses becoming obsolete within a few years.



purchase of any consumer electronics item - including big, fat, devilish expensive Canon L-lenses - is always CONSUMER SPENDING, NOT an investment, unless you intend to *and are able* to earn more money with that equipment than what you paid for it. In that case you should be able to cover cost of gear within a reasonyble write-off period, typically 4-5 years. THEN and only THEN is it an INVESTMENT. Otherwise it will always be CONSUMPTION. Money spent. 

If I was as concerned as you are about *potential residual second-hand resale value* of gear, I would definitely not BUY any of it but only rent it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 18, 2018)

fullstop said:


> purchase of any consumer electronics item - including big, fat, devilish expensive Canon L-lenses - is always CONSUMER SPENDING, NOT an investment, unless you intend to *and are able* to earn more money with that equipment than what you paid for it. In that case you should be able to cover cost of gear within a reasonyble write-off period, typically 4-5 years. THEN and only THEN is it an INVESTMENT. Otherwise it will always be CONSUMPTION. Money spent.
> 
> If I was as concerned as you are about *potential residual second-hand resale value* of gear, I would definitely not BUY any of it but only rent it.


These are good insights. Seriously. Thank you!


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 18, 2018)

So. to answer the question.

If a new mount body is introduced then I'll keep my EF lenses for as long as my 5DSR keeps running, which I'd hope will be a few years yet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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.


Just like EF-M resulted in EF-S lenses becoming obsolete within a few years? I suppose Chicken Littles are so paralyzed with abject fear they aren't taking too many photos anyway (instead they're here, starting irrelevant thread after irrelevant thread).


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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.


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.


First, If Canon did suddenly announce that all new mirrorless FF cameras would be using a new and completely incompatible mount to the existing EF mount, there are still 95 MILLION cameras out in the field that use the EF mount. All of these people are still in the market for lenses, EF lenses....

Second, It is not a given that there will be a new mount. There may be, there may not be..... there may even be a FF mirrorless mount for lower end cameras and high end cameras may continue with the existing EF mount.... kind of like rebels and M cameras. Remember, there is a market for tiny cameras, and there is a market for large cameras with better ergonomics and more controls. Canon does not have to choose one or the other, they can ( and almost undoubtedly will) choose both....

Third, a lot of people are heavily invested in the EF system. To suddenly end it is to set those people free to start from scratch. A great deal of them would be royally pissed off, pissed off to the point of buying Nikon or Sony. There is no freaking way that Canon is going to deliberately drive their customers away.

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!

Fifth, XD sized camera bodies sell well. This is a very lucrative market. There is no way that Canon will abandon it!!!!!!!

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.

Give the choice between A) alienating their customer base and driving them to the competition, abandoning a lucrative market, throwing out lots of new research and tooling, and making all their production stock worthless in order to chase after Sony in about 1 percent of the camera market, or B) adding a new model like they did with the M, what do you think is going to happen?

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.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 18, 2018)

SecureGSM said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 18, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> 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.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 18, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 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.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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 (Aug 18, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 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 (Aug 18, 2018)

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 (Aug 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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?


----------



## Talys (Aug 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 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.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 18, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 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.


----------



## BillB (Aug 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



Doing the same thing over and over... .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2018)

brad-man said:


> 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 (Aug 18, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 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 (Aug 18, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 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....


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Firstly, why do you have to keep asking the same question in different ways?


It's just what trolls do, isn't it?


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 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.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Please link to reassurances from Canon. That would be helpful.



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. "


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> It's just what trolls do, isn't it?


+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 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. "


Not to mention that DSLRs comprise the majority of the ILC market. But then he'll probably need reassurance that Canon isn't stupid.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Sounds like a new mount with an adapter to me.


And in your mind, that's the end of EF? You need a reality check.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 18, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 *******. 

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?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Aug 18, 2018)

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 (Aug 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 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.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 18, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> If the sun stopped rising, would you hold on to your sun glasses?



It really depends where it stoped in the sky. 
I would speculate that at least 1/2 of the earth would still need sunglasses.


----------



## BillB (Aug 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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 (Aug 18, 2018)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 19, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> What happened to EF-S lenses when EF-M was phased in? *Nothing. *.



"Nothing" Yet.

It is still to early to see the impact.
Maybe 10 or 20 years to early?

When the EF-S does disappear from the lineup, most likely few will care.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2018)

Congrats YuengLinger you've done the impossible: you've got Neuro and Fullstop on the same side of a debate.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 19, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Congrats YuengLinger you've done the impossible: you've got Neuro and Fullstop on the same side of a debate.


WE ARE *******!!!!!!!


----------



## ykn123 (Aug 19, 2018)

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.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 19, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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?


----------



## scyrene (Aug 19, 2018)

brad-man said:


> These threads _almost_ make me miss Harry...



Has he gone??


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 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!
> 
> ...



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 (Aug 19, 2018)

SecureGSM said:


> 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.





fullstop said:


> 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._



neuroanatomist said:


> 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.


----------



## degos (Aug 19, 2018)

dak723 said:


> 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.


----------



## zim (Aug 19, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Has he gone??



His mum isn't letting him out for now. He's on the naughty step for fibbing


----------



## BillB (Aug 19, 2018)

degos said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> 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.


----------



## tron (Aug 20, 2018)

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 (Aug 20, 2018)

tron said:


> 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 (Aug 20, 2018)

tron said:


> 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. (Aug 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


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 (Aug 20, 2018)

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 (Aug 20, 2018)

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 (Aug 20, 2018)

BillB said:


> 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 (Aug 20, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ... 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 (Aug 20, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> 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 (Aug 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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 (Aug 20, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 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 ...
> 
> ...


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


fullstop said:


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


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 20, 2018)

And by the way, 
if you want to compare the 



fullstop said:


> ...
> * 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 (Aug 20, 2018)

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 (Aug 20, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 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.






fullstop said:


> 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 (Aug 20, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ...
> 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:

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)
It is possible, but it will not improve IQ or even make it worse.
Maybe it even isn't possible.
Your choice.



fullstop said:


> 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?



fullstop said:


> 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.



fullstop said:


> 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?



fullstop said:


> 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 (Aug 20, 2018)

@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 (Aug 20, 2018)

fullstop said:


> @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


Maximilian said:


> Possible answers could be:
> 
> 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)
> ...





fullstop said:


> ...
> 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 (Aug 20, 2018)

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 (Aug 20, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> * 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 (Aug 20, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> 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".


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 20, 2018)

fullstop said:


> look at the Samyang 24/2.8 ...


Hurray, you win - although I only heard bad things about its IQ (vignetting, etc.).
Now back on topic, please.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 20, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 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].
> ...



What has the Samyang got to do with mirrorless vs DSLR?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 20, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 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


"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?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 20, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> What has the Samyang got to do with mirrorless vs DSLR?



try to read and you may understand ...


----------



## fullstop (Aug 20, 2018)

Kit. said:


> "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.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 20, 2018)

fullstop said:


> try to read and you may understand ...



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.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 20, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 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.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 20, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 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.


----------



## Quirkz (Aug 21, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2018)

tron said:


> 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?


----------



## tron (Aug 21, 2018)

BillB said:


> So, how does it seem now, after another page of posts on this topic?


Still stupid  Fortunately this thread is just 5 pages  And my 5DIV and 5DsR continue to serve me well. Strange if you think that they are not mirrorless


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> ... what happened to FD lenses when EF was phased in?



What happened to EF lenses when EF-S was phased in?
What happened to EF lenses when EF-M was phased in?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 21, 2018)

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.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 21, 2018)

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!


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 22, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> What happened to EF lenses when EF-S was phased in?
> What happened to EF lenses when EF-M was phased in?



These are not good analogies for those who believe that FF mirrorless will result, over time, in a paradigm shift.

And, yes, I accept that EF's longevity will be extended by good adapters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> 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. 

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.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> those who believe that FF mirrorless will result, over time, in a paradigm shift.


Is it a sort of religion or what?

If you want a paradigm shift, look at convolutional neural networks (and DCGANs in particular).


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 22, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Is it a sort of religion or what?


No, simply a phasing out of dSLR.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> No, simply a phasing out of dSLR.


I don't see how it's a "paradigm shift". DSLRs have never been a majority of image-capturing devices, and "full frame" format by itself is defined as being a hostage to legacy lenses.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> These are not good analogies for those who believe that FF mirrorless will result, over time, in a paradigm shift...



I don't see how substituting an electronic viewfinder for an optical viewfinder can possibly be viewed as a "paradigm shift." When, and if, the mirrorless shift happens it will be in Canon's best interests to make it as seamless as possible. You seem to be stuck on the idea that Canon would purposely disrupt their user base for no logical reason. I think Canon is smarter than that.


----------



## scipion (Aug 23, 2018)

nothing attract me less than an "electronic viewfinder"...
the joy of the reflex camera is to see reality as it is. sometimes I see spectacles quite entirely in my viewfinder, great binoculars!
as for an electronic viewfinder, we have already the digital "live view". I use it sometimes, while using manual lenses, or in the night.
to have only an electronic viewfinder would be a step back, not forward for me.
in addition, I really don't like it, I tried and hated it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 23, 2018)

fullstop said:


> [a] 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.



Why? Regardless of whether it’s cross company or not, and a different mount on each side, the parallelism is understood. Sure Canon may have a different requirement than Sony(parallel to within .0003 versus .0002, or something), but the company fabricating something like this isn’t going to struggle with parallelism due to the geometry of what’s on the parallel faces. 



Don Haines said:


> All adaptors will add error into a system. Period!



They add error components, but if you luck out they could actually make things better


----------



## fullstop (Aug 23, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Why? Regardless of whether it’s cross company or not, and a different mount on each side, the parallelism is understood. Sure Canon may have a different requirement than Sony(parallel to within .0003 versus .0002, or something), but the company fabricating something like this isn’t going to struggle with parallelism due to the geometry of what’s on the parallel faces.



yes. But Metabones & assorted 3rd party sh*itters: = cr*ap, poor QC
Canon = gold standard, no problems.
No?


Again: for Canon to Canon adapter: optical bench: = maybe. real life = not relevant.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 23, 2018)

fullstop said:


> yes. But Metabones & assorted 3rd party sh*itters: = cr*ap, poor QC
> Canon = gold standard, no problems.
> No?
> 
> ...


Yes I agree the OEM will likely have better QC if for no better reason than they have no one to point fingers at.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 23, 2018)

Again: it will be no "real life" issue for Canon-to-Canon adapters.


----------



## jrista (Aug 31, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



The EF mount won't be dethroned. It is one of, if not THE singular, most used lens mount in the world right now. If Canon tried to phase out the EF mount, they would have an army full of decades of EF mount users battering down their doors demanding it back. The EF mount isn't going anywhere, and it won't be going anywhere for a very, very long time. I'm a huge fan of the EF mount and the lenses that use it (and I use several brands of cameras compatible with EF lenses, as well a a variety of astro cameras that are also compatible with EF), and I expect it to be around for decades to come.

EOS-M didn't kill EOS. Mirrorless didn't kill DSLR. A new FF mirrorless mount from Canon won't kill EF.


----------



## jpcanon (Sep 6, 2018)

Really ... nobody posted here ... 

hard to eat that crow I guess ...


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 6, 2018)

jpcanon said:


> Really ... nobody posted here ...
> 
> hard to eat that crow I guess ...



Remember the M? Canon introduced it and it sold well, and they maintained the existing Rebel lineup and EF-S glass BECAUSE IT SELLS WELL!!!!!

Canon has now introduced the R, and (presumably) it will sell well. They will keep the existing XD bodies and EF lenses BECAUSE THEY SELL WELL!!!!!!

Canon does not have to choose between mirrorless FF cameras and mirrored FF cameras. There is a profitable market in both, so there is now way that they are going to leave either market unless it becomes unprofitable.

And keep in mind, that at the same time they have introduced the R camera, they introduced a pair of EF big whites..... these are lenses that take many years of sales to recoup design and production costs. They are obviously planning to be in it for the long haul....


----------

