Full Frame How many are still using EF lenses

[LCPete]

I bought my R5 4 years ago and still haven’t got an RF lens yet , just haven’t felt I needed to

My most used lenses at the moment are EF 300 2.8 mk2 and Sigma 150 macro non OS had both of these a long time
The Sigma is an amazing lens so sharp and gives an excellent out of focus background as is the 300 2.8
Even if I had the budget, for what I do at least, I can’t see any reason to upgrade lenses to RF and as far as I understand there isn’t an RF equivalent anyway for these lenses, could be wrong haven’t looked into it to be honest
I read that the Sigma 150 non OS macro is not compatible with the in camera focus stacking (or bracketing) on Canon R cameras but it works absolutely fine on my R5 focus is completely accurate

 

[StevenAunan]

I have the Canon EF 8-15mm fisheye, the EF 70-200 II 2.8, and the EF 16-35 2.8. I'm keeping the first two but sending the 16-35 to my niece who's getting a film camera for Christmas. I had a Sigma EF 105mm 2.8 macro when I first moved from the 7D Mark II to the R7, and I really liked it; but that lens never performed at 100% on the R bodies, so I sold it. I'm considering an RF zoom to replace the 70-200, but aside from weight there's no reason to swap one fantastic lens for a different fantastic lens.

 

[LCPete]

I still have a Sigma 105 non OS that I have had for a long time, its a very good lens takes sharp pictures, the autofocus doesn’t always work and doesn’t work too well on my R5 either but can’t complain its had a lot of use
Agree about the 70-200 I have the F4 non IS it’s excellent it’s always on my second body

 

[Archibald]

EF lenses work great on R bodies, but the adapter is inconvenient and adds weight. There are some RF lenses that are improvements over the EF versions.

So I am now shooting almost exclusively RF lenses, with the 100mmL macro, the very fine 100-500mmL, and the impressive RF 24-105. I still have a small number of EF-mount lenses for special purposes.

 

[LCPete]

EF lenses work great on R bodies, but the adapter is inconvenient and adds weight. There are some RF lenses that are improvements over the EF versions.

So I am now shooting almost exclusively RF lenses, with the 100mmL macro, the very fine 100-500mmL, and the impressive RF 24-105. I still have a small number of EF-mount lenses for special purposes.

Yes do agree the new RF lenses are an improvement over the EF versions, I did consider the RF 100 L macro when the aperture packed up on my EF 100L but I now actually use my Sigma 150 for macro and close up it just gives such nice results
I am seriously considering the RF 100-500 though, when budget allows will get it I think

 

[Wings and Things]

I sold most of my EF lenes mainly due to weight (age taking its toll!) and also to get e reaonable price while they weren't too old. Whilest the non-L RF replacements are obviously not up to the standard of the EF L lenses I had, I am quite happy with the reults.

I have kept my EF 50/1.8 and 16-35mm f4L IS USM. Neither get much use so not worth the expenditure to replace but they do fill the gap when needed.

 

[RazzleH]

I bought my R5 4 years ago and still haven’t got an RF lens yet , just haven’t felt I needed to

My most used lenses at the moment are EF 300 2.8 mk2 and Sigma 150 macro non OS had both of these a long time
The Sigma is an amazing lens so sharp and gives an excellent out of focus background as is the 300 2.8
Even if I had the budget, for what I do at least, I can’t see any reason to upgrade lenses to RF and as far as I understand there isn’t an RF equivalent anyway for these lenses, could be wrong haven’t looked into it to be honest
I read that the Sigma 150 non OS macro is not compatible with the in camera focus stacking (or bracketing) on Canon R cameras but it works absolutely fine on my R5 focus is completely accurate

 

[ShipleyNW]

I bought my R5 4 years ago and still haven’t got an RF lens yet

See, that's the key. Having zero RF lenses works fine, but once you buy one, it's game over.

I don't have anything exotic so the trinity lenses work fine for me. I updated my EF 24-105/4L and EF 70-200/4L to the RF versions. Other than the 70-200 is no longer internal zoom, so it folds up smaller, which I love, I just consider the RF lenses as the latest versions of those EF lenses; a MKiii and MKii respectively. A little sharper, quicker, smaller, quieter, etc. The old ones were great, the new ones are great+. I bought the 24-105 first, and when that happened, messing with the adapter just became a hassle. Along with those 2 lenses I also picked up an RF 100-500mm to replace an old EF 400/5.6. That 100-500 might be the sharpest lens I've ever owned.

I did keep a couple of EF lenses. First is an EF-S 15-85mm, for which there is no RF equivalent. I wish there was, but I'm not holding my breath. That focal length is ideal on crop body. That lens was short and stubby on a 90D, but it's long and front heavy on an R7 with an adapter. I recently bought an RF-S 18-150mm. It's not nearly as nice as the EF-S lens, but it's good enough, it's tiny, and it pairs well with an R10, which is now my walking-around crop body.

I also kept an EF 16-35mm/4L. I just don't use that lens all that often, so it hasn't made sense for me to upgrade. Still I'm keeping an eye out for a deal on a used RF 14-35/4, if one ever becomes available. It must be a good lens because no one is selling theirs. You just don't see them used.

 

[MrSparks999]

I have swapped over all my lenses but one, i still have the EF 17-40 F4, which i don't use often but produces great results when i do, so will hang on to it.

 

[PKM-UK]

Hi Peter,

We've gradually migrated to RF lenses, so EF use is now 'very rare'. (The EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM is the most used, but it last featured 18 months ago).

(We also still have the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM, which should get more of a look in).

Phil and Karen

 

[LCPete]

I sold most of my EF lenes mainly due to weight (age taking its toll!) and also to get e reaonable price while they weren't too old. Whilest the non-L RF replacements are obviously not up to the standard of the EF L lenses I had, I am quite happy with the reults.

I have kept my EF 50/1.8 and 16-35mm f4L IS USM. Neither get much use so not worth the expenditure to replace but they do fill the gap when needed.

See, that's the key. Having zero RF lenses works fine, but once you buy one, it's game over.

I don't have anything exotic so the trinity lenses work fine for me. I updated my EF 24-105/4L and EF 70-200/4L to the RF versions. Other than the 70-200 is no longer internal zoom, so it folds up smaller, which I love, I just consider the RF lenses as the latest versions of those EF lenses; a MKiii and MKii respectively. A little sharper, quicker, smaller, quieter, etc. The old ones were great, the new ones are great+. I bought the 24-105 first, and when that happened, messing with the adapter just became a hassle. Along with those 2 lenses I also picked up an RF 100-500mm to replace an old EF 400/5.6. That 100-500 might be the sharpest lens I've ever owned.

I did keep a couple of EF lenses. First is an EF-S 15-85mm, for which there is no RF equivalent. I wish there was, but I'm not holding my breath. That focal length is ideal on crop body. That lens was short and stubby on a 90D, but it's long and front heavy on an R7 with an adapter. I recently bought an RF-S 18-150mm. It's not nearly as nice as the EF-S lens, but it's good enough, it's tiny, and it pairs well with an R10, which is now my walking-around crop body.

I also kept an EF 16-35mm/4L. I just don't use that lens all that often, so it hasn't made sense for me to upgrade. Still I'm keeping an eye out for a deal on a used RF 14-35/4, if one ever becomes available. It must be a good lens because no one is selling theirs. You just don't see them used.

I have swapped over all my lenses but one, i still have the EF 17-40 F4, which i don't use often but produces great results when i do, so will hang on to it.

Hi Peter,

We've gradually migrated to RF lenses, so EF use is now 'very rare'. (The EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM is the most used, but it last featured 18 months ago).

(We also still have the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM, which should get more of a look in).

Phil and Karen

Hi everyone, good point about wide angle I don’t use a wide angle lens very often and didn’t have one at all for full frame , about a year ago I bought second hand a Tamron 35mm f1.4 SP Di USD EF, mainly for family shots and occasional landscape
Couldn’t justify the cost of the RF equivalent for the amount of times that I would use it and the Tamron is really good sharp corner to corner

 

[BobU]

Sold my last EF 2 days ago - 100 f2.8 L Macro. Bought the RF. Weighs half the EF love the features, but not an EF build. And the hood is surprisingly thin material. But images and focus make up for it.

One more lens on my radar - a fast prime. Likely 50mm, maybe 35...

 

[BasilFawlty]

I have a mix of RF and EF lenses for my R5.
For the RF lenses I currently have the RF 24–105 f/4, the 70-200 f/4, and the RF 85 f/2.
In the EF mount, used with adapter:
- Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 (my go-to for Milkyway)
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 (it’s soft in the corners. Will probably sell and get the RF 50mm f/1.4 L VCM)
- Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 (I know the RF version is slightly better, but this one is so good and I paid so little for it that I’m just going to keep it forever.)
- Canon EF 300mm f/4 (AF could be better, but when it hits it’s amazing. 300mm at f/4, what’s not to love?)
- Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. (I love this lens and love having 600mm at f/6.3
Future RF lenses on my bucket list:
- RF 14-35 f/4 (I debated on this one for a long time, but decided to go with the F4 other than the heavier F2.8 15 to 35 because I do a lot of hiking and would prefer to save the weight rather than have the extra stop)
- RF 50mm f/1.4 (I will definitely sell my EF version first. The EF version is just OK but it’s always been a little too soft in the corners.)
- RF 100-500mm (this is definitely on my bucket list but the only question is whether I will sell my sigma 150 to 601st. I do love my sigma and it has a little more reach and it’s a little bit brighter but on the downside, it’s a heavy beast. )
- RF 20mm f/1.4 (This is probably further down the road, but I would love to have this lens, especially for Milky Way photography to supplement my Rokinon 14 mm.

 

[Bryan wilburn]

I have several EF lenses that I could pair to my R5 & R5 Mk II. I mostly use the 24-105, 600 f4 and on occasion 70-200. Replacing them with RF lenses are not in the budget. They work very well with the R5 series bodies and the adapter. I have a 100-400 that has been collecting dust since I got the 100-500.

 

[AntonLargiader]

I have no RF lenses yet. I really really really would like to justify a 100-300 but it's tough.

I did try a friend's RF70-200/2.8 and it absolutely is sharper than my 70-200 IS ii. Sure that would be a nice upgrade but I'm a bit put off by the fact that it can't take a TC.

I don't use the 24-70 or the 11-24 enough to update them any time soon. Those are beautifully made lenses and I don't mind the extra length or weight on the occasions that I use them. It's when shooting sports that I would like the size and weight reduction of the RF lenses and the improved optics.

A small RF-S kit lens for the R7 would make for a really small package for tourist shots. That might actually become my first RF.