Seriously tho’
I never set out to amass so much, I just look for good deals and if they turn out to be as good as described I hold on to them and see what else I can find, if they don’t they get sent straight back!
I agree it’s a crazy amount to store and I’ll never sell on as the platforms are soaked with scammers
Besides, most are fetching more than I paid these days.
I do loan out stuff to friends who in turn loan me theirs to try too.
Yes, I can’t argue with that.
But when I’m done there is something to sell and recoup at least, plus I had the fun of using them and the loss is minimal compared to the suckers who bought new 🤣
Besides, had I wasted my money on booze, drugs, fags, gambling or greasy take-aways then that really would be tragic, 24hrs it’s gone and you’ve nothing to show for it but worse you’ve lined someone else’s pockets. Now that really is pitiful and also unhealthy too.
It can easily be a collection. Hoarding has a negative implication, that having so much of something has a negative impact. If one can afford the gear then why not? Some people have 100 automobiles or 100 photos on the walls. Some people have thousands of trading cards or stamps or coins.
I think that photo in the other thread was a fake and not representive of the actual gear storage conditions.
Yes I am using my EF lenses with my R6MKII and adapter. It works very well. I only have one RF lens which is the 24-70/2.8 L IS. Recently I took my EF 85/1.2 LII for repair and Canon Canada did a great job with it. I was able to test it the other day.
Arun Gupta wrote:
My EF 400 mm f/5.6 is optically an infinitely better lens than the RF 100/500 f4.5-7.1.
Yes the zoom has its uses.
I wish Canon would make a RF replacement of the EF 400 mm f/5.6.
You must have golden copy or my 400/5.6 is not so good.
I've used a half-dozen 100-500 lenses and they are quite good at 400mm though of course not like a big prime should be. At 500mm the central high-IQ area is smaller, but the 400/5.6 is shorter, does not take a TC very well, has no IS and ridiculous close focus distance. The 400/5.6 is fairly even from center to edge, so I bought it for landspaces, was disappointed, and eventually moved to a pair of 100-400 IIs since they cover such a range. The 400/5.6 is probably in storage somewhere.
Given what Canon is doing now, I have little to no hope for any 300/4 or 400/5.6 prime lenses. It's ridiculous that they have no 300mm primes at all, no 500mm at all, and only that 400/2.8 remounted from the IS III.
If you like smaller 400mm primes try a Nikon with the 400/4.5. It's really lightweight for the FL and f-stop, has fast AF, and takes a 1.4x TC well enough.
Arun Gupta wrote:
My EF 400 mm f/5.6 is optically an infinitely better lens than the RF 100/500 f4.5-7.1.
Yes the zoom has its uses.
I wish Canon would make a RF replacement of the EF 400 mm f/5.6.
My experience is the opposite. The EF 400/5.6L was my main lans for almost a decade on 450D, 7D, 5D2, 5D3, 1DX. Good enough, but showed the classic magenta glow of the 1900´s tele lenses wide open, better at f/6.3, never great even for what it was. I replaced the 400 with the EF 100-400II, which was great, good enough even with the 1.4xIII on the 5D4.
But on the R5 with adapter the 100-500 is much more handy with far better IQ (than the II+1.4III). Probably very close to the bare 100-400II. But the II was short, it did not reach 400mm,
Now with both 100-500 and especially with the different 800mm alternatives at a for the FL extremely low price, Thank You Canon!, I see no use for a 400/5.6 prime at all. With very good IQ out of the RF 100-400 at that low a weight and small size, a 400/5.6 would be a specialty lens when you just have to have exactly f/5.6 at exactly 400mm. How often is that the case?
The 800mm is total addiction (me). I do not get any fussy warm feels for a RF 300-600 f/anything L. Its just not 800! So 400? Z...! A nice small and light 800/8 L? OOooooh yesssss!!!
And to return on topic, I use all my EF Zeiss ZE´s and the EF 400/4 Tele-Apotessar. My only Canon EF lenses are the 18-55 from the 450D kit and an EF-S 15-85.
billsamuels wrote:
I've had really good luck with both Sony and especially Fujifilm cameras using Canon lenses. They adapt quite well with a good lens adapter and the photos look like they were taken with their brand-name lens. I do notice that some lenses aren't as good on Sony as far as exposure so I've had to expose it down to get a proper exposure, but perhaps I'm missing something. The better Fringer adapter from Canon to Fuji works great and it has an F-Stop ring, which makes it easier to change the exposure for fully-automatic lenses.
I have had some issues using the FringerEF-GFX adapter but I am NOT ready to blame the adapter. My inexperience navigating all the GFX menus just to get a shot is confusing.
I will say that the EF lenses that I did NOT have issues with the Fringer adapter were most excellent!
I use the 17mm TSE, 24mm TSE II, the 85 1.4 IS and the 100 2.8 Macro IS adapted to my GFX and
absolutely love the IQ I get from all of them. Oh and I use the full sensor, no cropping..
melcat wrote:
...
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.
Both images using the EF 24-105 on the R5, but I still use the EF 16-35, 24-70II, 70-200II 100-400II and 1.4III TC. Only thing I wish for in the RF mount is a 150-600 5.6 - 6.3 Canon you listening ?
....
It's ridiculous that they have no 300mm primes at all, no 500mm at all, and only that 400/2.8 remounted from the IS III. 
...! A nice small and light 800/8 L? OOooooh yesssss!!!
