p.2 #2 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
200/2
Sigma 105/1.4
(I'm into portraits )
May 14, 2024 at 06:33 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #3 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
55-250's are really great. No Rf equivalent. Lightweight 100-400 equivalent having excellent zoom macro.
150/180 macro, I have the Tamron, none currently made AFAIK unless youre ok using mf, not ideal. No Rf equivalent,
Those are pretty easily the most used on digital (well, actually 2 different55-250's,) for me. Probably has something to do with me having no plans to go mirrorless
p.2 #5 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
I'm keeping my Canon S rangefinder lenses; S 35/2 LTM, S 50/1.4 II LTM, and S 100/3.5 III LTM. They don't go obsolete, like newer AF and especially auto-aperture-only lenses. OTOH, my TS-E 7/4L and 24/3.5 L II are keepers, too. They span the divide between fully-manual and fully-automatic operation, with their manual-focus and auto-aperture-only operation.
p.2 #6 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
snegron7 wrote:
My trusty old Canon EF 17-40mm f4.0L. Hated and belittled by most, but mine has been a true gem. It's small and solid; it feels like a true "L" series lens.
There are no RF equivalent replacements for this lens.
I liked the 17-40. I even framed a photo or two I took with it on my walls.
p.2 #7 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
jcolwell wrote:
EF 200mm f/1.8L USM. It'll be buried with somebody else. Better yet, sold to somebody else.
I'm confused at the way you worded this. Do you hate it that badly? I mean, I hate it too. But I'll make the sacrifice and take it off your hands. I'll even pay for the shipping costs. You lose nothing. You understand this is a big sacrifice for me, to bring that terrible lens into my house. What will my children think? But for you, I'll make the sacrifice. Tell me where to send you the shipping money.
p.2 #8 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
AmbientMike wrote:
150/180 macro, I have the Tamron, none currently made AFAIK unless youre ok using mf, not ideal. No Rf equivalent,
I've also got the Tamron 180, the AF is very irritating in servo since it overshoots on most small adjustments, but pickings are very slim for 150-200mm AF macros, let alone cheap ones. Fantastic optics in it though!
p.2 #11 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
I don't buy lenses often, and usually after much thought about its suitability. So, the last lens I bought was 10 years ago, a Canon 24-105 F4 L. It is my standard go to that suits 80% of my shooting. A 24-70 might be a bit sharper but then I would need to change lenses more often which I really don't want to do. The other go to is an ancient Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX from 2001 that is visibly sharper than the Canon 24-105 so I will use it until it dies. Others in the bag are 100-400L mks 1 & 2. Both very good and I have to look up the EXIF to see which one I used. The Mk2 was a gift so that can't go. Finally, a Sigma 150-600 C. That is the most likely candidate for replacement, maybe a 200-800? but I still get a surprise just how good that Sigma is for the price. I don't intend to sell any lens; they're all destined to die on the camera.
p.2 #12 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
I hate to say it but I'd never sell my EF lenses because they're not worth anything and the cost to replace them is so astronomically high these days.
Case in point: My EF24-70mm f2.8L I've had since 2006. It's travelled all over the world with me. It recently broke, forcing me to look at the RF24-70mm f2.8L IS. Do I have any love for the original? It's soft at 24mm, and I'd replace it in a heartbeat with a new lens that has IS finally after 14 years. But given the price of $2800 Canadian, I was glad to find out the iris flex was only $220 total to be repaired.
Similarly with the EF70-200mm f2.8L IS. As much as I've loved this classic workhorse I was happy to replace it with the even better v2 when an opportunity to get one for cheap arose.
I'd say the only lens I really have affinity for, even when you take the price out of the equation, is the EF 400mm f5.6L. It's so light and easy to work with, there really isn't any comparable lens. You can go the 150-600 route but they're slower and less sharp (at least from my experience), or the 100-400mm but it's heavier.
FWIW I've ended up using my EF17-40mm quite a lot. It's an ideal focal length for the C100 Super35 sensor and it doesn't extend when zooming so you can slap a matte box on it easily. The lack of sharpness is immaterial at 1080 HD resolution.
p.2 #14 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
The more I use the RF system the less nostalgia I have for EF lenses. The only EF lenses I still regularly use have no RF equivalents or I use the focal length so infrequently that it hasn't yet been justifiable to switch to RF. My most regularly used EF lens is the 200-400. I've used the 100-300/2.8 and it's a better lens - sharper, better contrast/flare resistance, faster AF. I could probably use it with the 1.4x permanently attached as a direct 200-400 replacement, yet it doesn't quite have the flexibility and convenience of the 200-400 at the long end when I want quick TC swaps to reach 560mm. But at the moment it's difficult to justify the cost of this switch and I'd like to have a better idea whether there will be a 200-500/4 in the near future. Second-most used EF lens is the 85/1.4L IS. The RF 85/1.2 is better (sharper, better flare resistance, no LoCA) but also huge and no IS. Since getting the 28-70/2 (a huge lens I tolerate due to its versatility), I find I use 85mm a lot less often, usually jumping to 135 instead, or 70-200. Third-most used EF lens is the 16-35/4L IS. It has become a fairly niche lens for me but sometimes there are events where I need its UWA flexibility instead of the RF 16/2.8. At the moment I can't convince myself to get the RF 14-35/4 instead. I should try the 15-30 STM to see if it would be close enough of a replacement for the 16-35/4.
I think bottom line for me is that there aren't any EF lenses for which I have strong sentimental attachment in favor of an RF equivalent. Rather, I use some EF lenses because of current lack of RF equivalent, or I use them so infrequently that I haven't been able to justify the RF versions. Closest in respect to sentimentality might be the EF 85/1.2L in situations where its strong LoCA wouldn't emerge. I also agree with OP about the look of the EF 50/1.2 in the f/1.6-2.2 range, though focus shift kind of kills some of the appeal. I sold both last year anyway, so no looking back (for now ).
p.2 #15 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
I have EF nostalgia because RF lenses weight so much for travel.... and the non L series are not enough quality compared with old EF L lenses I think... but as I see here many people happy with new RF lenses
p.2 #16 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
EF 200-40-mm f/4L IS +1.4x is the one that I have kept and will be kept for a long time. This lens helped me photograph many of my best wildlife shots.
p.2 #17 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
NONE!
I have owned probably ~30 different EF and EF-s lenses and they have been great tools for the time. I still have 16-35L II, 50mm, some EF-s, couple TS-E lenses mostly because I am too lazy to sell them.
But RF lenses are better (or will be better once full lineup is released) that all EF equivalents.
Unfortunately due to electronics, particularly electronically controlled aperture all EF lenses will end up as electronic waste some day. I have Zeiss M42 lenses from 1950s that I can easily use on modern cameras but the electronics in EF glass ruins their longevity.
p.2 #18 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
jcolwell wrote:
EF 200mm f/1.8L USM. It'll be buried with somebody else. Better yet, sold to somebody else.
Max_Pain wrote:
I'm confused at the way you worded this. Do you hate it that badly? I mean, I hate it too. But I'll make the sacrifice and take it off your hands. I'll even pay for the shipping costs. You lose nothing. You understand this is a big sacrifice for me, to bring that terrible lens into my house. What will my children think? But for you, I'll make the sacrifice. Tell me where to send you the shipping money.
It was lost in translation. IOW, the OP (who is not first-language English) made a mistake in the orignal title, which read (approx), "what is the Canon lens you most regret selling?". That's what I answered. I edited my first response to mention this.
p.2 #19 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
I probably won't sell any of my EF-mount lenses, because most are old and likely unsellable anyway. However, in my big stable, there are two lenses I would call excellent, so I would not even try parting with them:
Canon 16-35/4L IS
Tamron 85/1.8 VC
Two more are maybe not as good but carry sentimental value for me, and selling them would probably be more trouble than it's worth:
Canon 24-85/3.5-4.5
Canon 70-200/2.8L IS (yes, I still have the same unit I bought 16 years ago).
p.2 #20 · What's your best EF lenses that you would never sell?
For me it is the 16-35/4 L IS. It is excellent and the RF version does not seem to offer enough benefit to be worth the cost of trading.
And the 100-400 ii. I have the 100-500 but the focal length combination is important enough to me and the quality of the 100-400 is so great it is worth keeping it as backup should the 100-500 go down.
The Tamron 35/1.4. It is my night sky lens and gives the best stars wide open I am aware of.
The 500/4 L IS ii. It still may be the sharpest super tele ever made. Even though the Mark III lenses (400 and 600) handle better and are lighter, they do not seem to be sharper.
)