Quick backstory, I was a longtime Canon shooter, from around 1998 (I'm not old, you're old) until the Sony A7 came out and I jumped to mirrorless. I picked up a "smart" adapter to adapt my Canon lenses while Sony filled in their lens lineup. Fast forward to whatever year it is now, and I'm shooting with native glass and I've got Canon lenses sitting in a cabinet.
In my opinion, adapting to Sony is no longer worth the hassle, but I've been away from Canon so long I don't know if it adapts better to their mirrorless cameras.
I'm just trying to get a sense of what to do with it. List it here, ship it off to B&H or KEH and get whatever I get, donate to local high school etc.
I donated a bunch of Nikon gear to the local high school, but I actually had cameras to give them, I no longer have any EF mount bodies so they may not be able to use the lenses.
My Canon days go back to 1998, too. I find that the EF lenses adapt beautifully to the Canon mirrorless cameras, working better than on the DSLR bodies.
Ultimately I made the decision to go right into Canon mirrorless and skip Sony when the first R camera came out. Both B&H and Adorama recommended it over the Sony A7 III for my situation and how I photograph.
If you do decide to sell, MPB and FM are both good options. I worked in schools for years, and a lot of camera equipment gets buried in the media closets.
Yes sir I still do and LOVE them! I also use them, via an adapter, on my MF Fuji mirrorless body.
Now I do NOT have a mirrorless Canon yet.
I have become a bit frustrated with the Fuji GFX system. So a Canon replacement may be up for the Holidays.
You have been around here for awhile Brian. See what B&S does for you then check Keh/MPB....Our EF lenses are certainly not going to "appreciate" in value so I am in the same boat as you.
I do find that my Canon bodies still take an excellent image so I will delay any further purchases. I have 2 EF lenses that are over 20 years olde and still take a very sharp image. Both were bought here on B&S back in the day...
Stay cool Brian!
Dan
I was faced with the same issue when I switched to mirrorless 8 months ago. Fortunately I have 2 of my sons that actively shoot with EF bodies. I gave then each a list of the lenses / bodies I had left and told them to decide among themselves how to split them up. The lenses they don't want, they will sell. I'm just glad most of that will continue to see use.
I use EF and EF-M lenses, on EF and EF-M cameras (5DS, 6D, SL1, M5, M6). I also use the same EF lenses on Canon EOS film cameras (650 & pair of EOS 7). I still use a 600-series Polaroid Impulse-AF, FWIW.
I went Sony for about a decade.. I refer to it as my "dark years".. spend that decade permanently frustrated at their !@#$!% color science. Anyway, still using a lot of EF glass.. It's still good, though if you're looking for modern sharpness / rendering (a la Sony), and you have some older Mk I of some items, you might be a bit disappointed.. 35L 1.4 Mk I, 70-200 2.8 Mk I, 17-40L etc.. all come to mind. Definitely usable, but they've been improved or replaced, sometimes 3-4x over since the late 90's.
EF glass I still enjoy and am very happy with..
EF 50 1.2L
EF 70-200 2.8 IS Mk II
EF 300 2.8 IS II
EF 400 2.8 IS II
EF 24-105 f/4 Mk II
EF 40 2.8 STM
If you're talking about consumer level stuff, again, usable, but not going to be up to par with most of the recent RF releases. I'd say give that all away, probably not worth the hassle on eBay and probably won't sell here.
formula4speed wrote:
... until the Sony A7 came out and I jumped to mirrorless. I picked up a "smart" adapter to adapt my Canon lenses while Sony filled in their lens lineup. Fast forward to whatever year it is now, and I'm shooting with native glass and I've got Canon lenses sitting in a cabinet.
Common story: start with Canon EOS (2000 in my case with the D30), then switch to Sony Alpha 7 because it was the first FF MILC and could adapt everything. Finally, transition to native Sony lenses. In my case, the Sony color science and ergonomics from Hell stopped me from investing in any native glass except the STF. My original EF lenses are just consumer primes, so no longer worth money or worth adapting. Only the discontinued 15/2.8 fisheye has any entertainment value.
The giant exception to my Canon EF lens set is the TS-E 135/4L which I bought Day 1 from B&H. At the time, it was glued to my A7ii because that was my active FF body for adapting.
This lens (now discontinued) has no peer, past or present. I can now adapt it to my Nikon Z6.
I made the jump from Nikon film to Canon digital around '02 and have gone from the 1D to 1Dx and currently two 5DIV's and a 1Dx with EF L's. I specialize in Food and Lifestyle images and 80% of my images are shot while mounted on a tripod. I see little to no advantage to transitioning to ML. My kit currently consists of the EF 16-35/2.8III, Sigma 35/1.4, 50L, 85/1.4LIS, 100/2.8LMacro and 200/2.8LII and feel that I'm prepared for just about any project.
I have one mirrorless body and mostly EF lenses. At one time I thought I would slowly replace my EF lenses with their RF counterparts, but now I think I'll just mostly keep what I have and put my money into RF lenses with no EF equavelent, such as the 200-800. I already have the 24-240.
formula4speed wrote:
"Anyone still using EF mount lenses?"
I’m an amateur / hobbyist and still use EF lenses every day. It seemed RF lenses were the future but we’re disappointed with the RF lenses we have especially compared to the Nikon and Sony line up. The new Canon bodies have worked well.
ctgoldwing wrote:
Your EF lenses haven't suddenly deteriorated
I was faced with the same issue when I switched to mirrorless 8 months ago. Fortunately I have 2 of my sons that actively shoot with EF bodies. I gave then each a list of the lenses / bodies I had left and told them to decide among themselves how to split them up. The lenses they don't want, they will sell. I'm just glad most of that will continue to see use.
Now I have room on the shelves to fill with RF
I gave my son (7 years old) some of my Olympus m4/3 stuff that wasn't getting used and he's been impressing me greatly, I think some of my Canon lenses are bigger than the camera and lens combined on the Olympus.
Sounds like there is still some life out there for EF lenses, so I'll have to see about finding them a good home. I feel like the focus is generally on the latest and greatest on FM, when I quickly browsed the B&S for Canon gear it seemed pretty much exclusively mirrorless.
Till they break/stop working I really don't have justification to switch - I have two ML lenses because my wife took ownership of the 100-400_mk2 and 16-35_f4. with a ML body, my MF lenses become easier to use, but for most part, my large stockpile of CPL, ND and other filters are sitting inside a drawer with no or very little use.
They are tools and I bough into quality, so yes, mostly I still use EF mount lenses.
I still use a few EF lenses—the EF 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS USM II mainly—but I sold most of my 20-some EF lenses and replaced them with RF lenses. Using an RF/EF adapter is okay for larger lenses, but I found the adapter spoiled the charm and portability of small primes, especially pancakes and wide angle. With few exceptions, the RF variants are better in every way than my prior EF lenses: smaller, lighter, sharper, smoother AF for video and better IS. When the RF system was introduced in 2018, the RF lens selection was meager. It's huge now and offers more choices than most mere mortals need.
Bacalhau wrote:
Till they break/stop working I really don't have justification to switch - I have two ML lenses because my wife took ownership of the 100-400_mk2 and 16-35_f4. with a ML body, my MF lenses become easier to use, but for most part, my large stockpile of CPL, ND and other filters are sitting inside a drawer with no or very little use.
They are tools and I bough into quality, so yes, mostly I still use EF mount lenses.
Yes, the EF lenses still work great unless they can no longer resolve to high MP levels of some cameras (not unique to mirrorless) or keep up to work you're doing (again, not unique to mirrorless).
Yes, RF lenses can be newer, lighter, and use technologies that allow for that, but there has to be a deficiency in the current lens(es) to make the switch. That is, unless you're independently wealthy.
formula4speed wrote:
Quick backstory, I was a longtime Canon shooter, from around 1998 (I'm not old, you're old) until the Sony A7 came out and I jumped to mirrorless. I picked up a "smart" adapter to adapt my Canon lenses while Sony filled in their lens lineup. Fast forward to whatever year it is now, and I'm shooting with native glass and I've got Canon lenses sitting in a cabinet.
In my opinion, adapting to Sony is no longer worth the hassle, but I've been away from Canon so long I don't know if it adapts better to their mirrorless cameras.
I'm just trying to get a sense of what to do with it. List it here, ship it off to B&H or KEH and get whatever I get, donate to local high school etc.
I donated a bunch of Nikon gear to the local high school, but I actually had cameras to give them, I no longer have any EF mount bodies so they may not be able to use the lenses....Show more →
As others have noted, EF glass generally works better on Canon mirrorless than it did on native EF mount cameras. Better focus accuracy and consistency for one. But there are some performance limitations mostly around mechanical shutter and EFCS continuous frame rates. Lenses prior to around 2010-2012 result in fps reductions (Canon publishes a list of compatible lenses to reach full fps).
That said, having transitioned from EF to RF starting in 2022, the only EF glass I still use is primarily because of the lack of RF equivalent. For me this is mostly the 200-400 but also the 85/1.4L IS (the RF 85/1.2 lacks IS and is massive even though it's optically superior) as well as the TS-E lenses.
Otherwise, every RF L series lens I now use that replaced an EF equivalent is optically superior and/or provides other shooting performance improvements.
Maybe see how your son does with the Olympus gear and if there's maybe an eventual desire to 'upgrade' to FF? Though I doubt he'd want to 'downgrade' to a DSLR, so a used R body might be necessary if you don't want to adapt to one of your old Sonys for him to use. I doubt going the B&H or KEH route will get you much for it, though it's way more convenient than selling privately. You can probably ballpark this by checking values for the lenses you have now and dividing it in half.
The only downside to sitting on the glass longer, assuming your lenses are the latest EF versions, would be service support from Canon, which typically runs about 5 years after discontinuation. Pretty much every EF lens that isn't a latest version super-tele or latest version TS-E is now discontinued.
There is no substitute for the TS-E lenses in Canon RF, Nikon Z or Sony E.
I really still like my 500/4 IS II. IQ is better than any Canon body can resolve.
I have both the Metastones and the Sigma EF to Sony E adapters. After numerous FW updates no EF lenses AF as well as on an RF body with the Canon adapter.
formula4speed wrote:
Quick backstory, I was a longtime Canon shooter, from around 1998 (I'm not old, you're old) until the Sony A7 came out and I jumped to mirrorless. I picked up a "smart" adapter to adapt my Canon lenses while Sony filled in their lens lineup. Fast forward to whatever year it is now, and I'm shooting with native glass and I've got Canon lenses sitting in a cabinet.
In my opinion, adapting to Sony is no longer worth the hassle, but I've been away from Canon so long I don't know if it adapts better to their mirrorless cameras.
I'm just trying to get a sense of what to do with it. List it here, ship it off to B&H or KEH and get whatever I get, donate to local high school etc.
I donated a bunch of Nikon gear to the local high school, but I actually had cameras to give them, I no longer have any EF mount bodies so they may not be able to use the lenses....Show more →
I'm still using ef, looking at prices lately looks like a lot of people are. Seems like they've gone up on some things looking at keh. 70-200/4 L non IS surprised me, it's $500-600+, so are some of the 16-35's like f/4 & 2.8 v2
So far, I’ve only replaced my EF 100–400 f/4.5–5.6 II, by the RF 100–500. This was done for the lighter weight and extra 100mm, not because of image quality.
I originally planned to switch to Sony, but covid got in the way. By the time it was over, I didn’t want to waste time learning a new system and acquiring and testing lenses before I could travel again. So the expedient thing to do was to buy an R3 and use mostly my old lenses.
Under the original Sony plan, I would have kept the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 II, Zeiss 50mm and 100mm f/2 macros, and EF 180mm f/3.5 macro, macro twin flash, and 1Ds Mk III. There are no Sony equiivalents to these lenses, and only a third party one for the flash. This is kind of a cohesive system in a bad way in that none of the lenses are weather sealed, they’re all metal-bodied, the system weighs a ton and then for this kind of photography a tripod is often desirable. I prefer the optical viewfinder for this kind of slow macro and landscape photography, and I have the angle finder for the 1Ds Mk III.
For my purposes the EF 16–35mm f/4 IS is a better lens than its RF successors. Canon still haven’t made an RF successor for the EF 24–70mm f/4 IS. These 2 lenses and the 100–500 form my main lens set for the R3.
I’d like to replace my tired-looking 17 year old EF 70–200mm f/4 IS with the collapsing RF one, but Capture One doesn’t have a lens profile for that. Otherwise, I would have bought it in the recent sales.
I would also like to replace my EF 35mm f/1.4 and EF 50mm f/1.2, which as many know are not up to modern standards, but I don’t find any of Canon’s current 35mm and 85mm prime offerings to be suitable. I may sell them and just do without for the moment.
I will add for anyone considering keeping their EF 100–400mm II or buying one, that there is a lens firmware update which fixes its AF on RF mount bodies. I tested this, and it doesn’t harm AF on my DSLRs.
I'm still using the 16-35/4 IS and 24 TSE II, at least if I ever get out to do landscapes again.
The RF 70-200/4 is quite good, but for the far edges. EFCS helps a lot on the tripod since it has no collar.
The 100-400 IS II and 100-500 in use weights are the same, not counting the EF-RF adapter. I sometimes throw a copy of the 100-400 II in the luggage as a spare zoom, but have not used it seriously. Thanks for the info on the FW. Can the update be done on an RF body with the lens adapter, or does it require an EF body?
