Hmm. Have we seen the end of EF/EF-S lenses?

Most tradesmen would agree with you, they cannot afford, nor do they own the best of the best of all the tools they use in their trade.

Those arguments of "you have to own the best body and the best lens to produce the best photos" is bunk, and is only forum fodder at best.

Also, Canon doesn't make the best lenses, there are other manufacturers that create lenses Canon can't match, so restricting one to just one particular brand of body and lenses seems counter to the desire for photographic nirvana.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18784931
..... Also, Canon doesn't make the best lenses, there are other manufacturers that create lenses Canon can't match .....

Wouldn't that statement be better as a qualified statement, instead of a blanket statement?

I mean, when it comes to the long telephotos that so many sports and wildlife photographers use, I believe that Canon does make the best lenses and that other manufacturers can't match what Canon produces. Who makes a 600mm f4 that is better than the most recent Canon 600mm f4 ?


.

Wilt wrote in post #18784787
Only if Canon is stupid enough to think that all the EOS mount dSLRs and film SLRs ever sold will suddenly result in no additional EF mount lenses sold because EOS mount camera owners lose all desire to buy anything but used lenses.

...or the buying public actually does something unexpected like only choosing to buy used lenses to fit their EF mount cameras.

There is a third option I believe more likely. Canon just continues with it's current line of lenses, farming out manufacturing and adds no new or replacement lenses.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18784898
Canon's best lenses cost over $10,000.
I don't use those lenses because I can't afford them. So it doesn't matter if the body I use works with Canon's best lenses or not.
I think that the vast majority of interchangeable lens camera buyers are in the same position when it comes to using Canon's best lenses - they are way out of reach.

With DSLRs, those huge lenses have two distinct values; they get you shallower DOF and more subject light, and they AF faster with legacy AF systems. As sensor AF gets more sensitive and speeds up, that one benefit of huge lenses disappears, and a 400/8 lens becomes more usable with AF, even with a 2x TC (800/16), so you may still be able to focus, but without the lower diffraction, shallower DOF, and lower noise (at a given shutter speed) of a huge lens.

For me and for the people that I know and shoot with, the value of f4 and f2.8 supertelephotos has everything to do with how they render the out-of-focus background, and nothing at all to do with shutter speed.

We don't really care about shutter speed except for those instances when we're shooting subjects in motion. Even at 600mm and 800mm with no IS, one can get tack sharp images at 1/100th of a second and slower if they know what they're doing and have good long lens technique.

In many scenarios, those cheaper f5.6 and f6.3 600mm lenses just don't render backgrounds as pleasingly as the $10,000 big whites.

Remember, my post was in response to a discussion about the best lenses in the world, and had nothing to do with what is practical or reasonable or what works for the masses.

I would love one of Canon's big f/2.8 whites but alas, totally out of my price range.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18784943
Wouldn't that statement be better as a qualified statement, instead of a blanket statement?

I mean, when it comes to the long telephotos that so many sports and wildlife photographers use, I believe that Canon does make the best lenses and that other manufacturers can't match what Canon produces. Who makes a 600mm f4 that is better than the most recent Canon 600mm f4 ?

.

Qualify it if you must, I just expressed a general fact, and like you, I am not buying a $10K+ lens. Won't happen ever...

My general sentiment is that if you want the best out of photography by getting the best gear, Canon bodies and lenses aren't always the choice. They have their strengths in some areas and weaknesses elsewhere, so be prepared to spend alot of money on gear to get the best there is for photography these days.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18784999
In many scenarios, those cheaper f5.6 and f6.3 600mm lenses just don't render backgrounds as pleasingly as the $10,000 big whites.

Rendering of backgrounds is a purely subjective thing, there is no definitive "good background rendering" description. I know people that love the ring bokeh of mirror lenses, I personally find it distracting. I don't mind the rendering of my Sigma 600 f4.5 lens on my M50, as an example, and it is fine enough I am not spending $10K+ on a big white. The new Sigma 500 f4 seems to get great reviews too.

Then again, probably shouldn't go down that discussion path as this has nothing really to do with EF/EFS lenses. Yes it is quite clear EF/EFS lenses are nearing their demise, and soon after that the DSLR as we know it. Eventually all EF focal lengths will be covered by RF lenses at a new higher price.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18784999
For me and for the people that I know and shoot with, the value of f4 and f2.8 supertelephotos has everything to do with how they render the out-of-focus background, and nothing at all to do with shutter speed.

When I state the conditions for a point of normalization, it has nothing to do with what "should" be done. Obviously, any parameter can become unbound, like exposure time, when the camera and subject are relatively stable. Normalizations are meant for demands.

I listed some of the benefits of the bigger lenses; I didn't say that you have to take advantage of all of them.
I said that one of the benefits will disappear with better AF systems, which was my main point. When I mentioned "the same shutter speed", it was to say that a bigger lens gives less noise if you do need the (same) shutter speed because of magnification (or subject motion)..

I really struggle hard to figure out why, when I make conditional statements, that people want to challenge what I said as if I said this is what people "should" do, or what "is", when I actually wrote about "if" or "when". It is really getting tiring.

All of this makes me think it's best not to invest in any new EF lenses in the near future, at least until I can figure out what the future of Canon's DSLRs are vs. development of mirrorless.
Can't be too good for their overall lens-sales stats in 2019. Unless they come out with a killer new R-mount camera and can ramp up R-mount lens production fast enough.

f8andBeThere wrote in post #18785046
All of this makes me think it's best not to invest in any new EF lenses in the near future, at least until I can figure out what the future of Canon's DSLRs are vs. development of mirrorless.
Can't be too good for their overall lens-sales stats in 2019. Unless they come out with a killer new R-mount camera and can ramp up R-mount lens production fast enough.

It will be a great time for the used market (buyers) for those L lenses you might have wanted but couldn't afford. I suspect we will have a bell curve of EF lens sales over the next 5 years.

ed rader wrote in post #18784703
From canon rumors:

Rumoured RF lenses for 2019:
•RF 16-35mm f/2.8L (or similar)
•RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS (or similar)
•RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (or similar)
•RF 105mm f/1.4L
•RF 85mm f/1.8 IS STM
•RF Macro lens
•RF non-L kit lens

with these, all I need is the body

All I need is to win the lottery to pay for them!

I am more curious what a person that extols the virtues of the RF lenses will have for results which then will make up for the expense of all those lenses and bodies. What exactly is the ROI on such a series of expenses? Will more prints sell? Or is this just for personal OCD knowing one has the latest and best at the time?

I hear mechanics always talking about a particular brand of tool, or newly developed tools, and how they want to buy them, however over the years, they still do the same work they always have, as they have shifted through various tools due to the advertising of a Snapon salesman or other brand advertising.

Sometimes it feels like the same thing in discussions about photographic gear.

Canon's best lenses = RF mount

we are talking about lenses, not cameras. but now that you mention I think canon will make no more new FF DSLRs. i.e., the 5dV will be mirrorless.

not so sure about crop, and really don't care. I already have 80d to gather dust