Canon EF glass probably isn't done just yet, but...

umphotography wrote in post #19012683
do you shoot weddings getting tough for a country of old men

i'm an electrician. I mostly do service type work but I've spent the last few days running dedicated circuits in a rich man's garage for a Tesla charger and a dryer. pay is good but the work is hard on an old guy

Just 1. The EF 50mm f/1.4

Over the years I never imagined that Canon would retire the EF line without ever making an update to this lens. Been waiting since my first 5D (classic).

During the FD years, the 50mm was always a good balance (in FL and weight distribution/ergonomic​s) with film cameras IMO. I was eager to try out a good "Canon Walkabout" digital version but it never materialized. I've had several f/1.8 versions (fun, quirky, gimmicky) and never could justify the f/1.2L for a general walkabout.

I'm 64, happy with the results I get from my existing gear and only using ca. 60% of its ultimate capability when comparing MY results using this gear, with that achieved by the best photogs around.

Bottom line: why would I spend more, to gain even more capability that would be wasted on me?

I always though my lens would hold their value over time thus not having any second thoughts about buying EF L lenses. I never thought they would be retiring their lens mount this soon though. That makes me rethink how I want to acquire lenses in the future as I don’t make any money from this “hobby”. I might just stay with a minimalist collection as lens will just depreciate. My lens are worth nothing in the market now so I’m just holding on to them and shooting adapted. We’ll see how the new r5 handles the adapted EF lenses. That can be exciting if they are make the EF lenses perform better in the RF bodies than EF bodies.

I think they should just cut the cord on EF for now. And just provide a seamless experience for RF bodies using EF mounts. Maybe a smaller adapter, or even adapter-less for a few body iterations?

I would love to see something like the current 18-135 Nano USM with a constant f4 in a EFS lens.

ilumo wrote in post #19013014
I always though my lens would hold their value over time thus not having any second thoughts about buying EF L lenses. I never thought they would be retiring their lens mount this soon though. That makes me rethink how I want to acquire lenses in the future as I don’t make any money from this “hobby”. I might just stay with a minimalist collection as lens will just depreciate. My lens are worth nothing in the market now so I’m just holding on to them and shooting adapted. We’ll see how the new r5 handles the adapted EF lenses. That can be exciting if they are make the EF lenses perform better in the RF bodies than EF bodies.

Not introducing new lenses is different than retiring the whole line. Retiring would mean stopping production. Given that Canon is still introducing DSLRs, they're still planning on producing EF lenses. If we look at the FD line, which wasn't easy to adapt to EOS cameras, Canon still produced FD lenses 5 years after EOS was introduced (and offering support after that).

Given that I haven't had any problems with my EF lenses, I'm suspecting them to last a long time....I'll probably break first in deciding to invest in R glass when I see a R camera I must have

ilumo wrote in post #19013014
I always though my lens would hold their value over time thus not having any second thoughts about buying EF L lenses. I never thought they would be retiring their lens mount this soon though. That makes me rethink how I want to acquire lenses in the future as I don’t make any money from this “hobby”. I might just stay with a minimalist collection as lens will just depreciate. My lens are worth nothing in the market now so I’m just holding on to them and shooting adapted. We’ll see how the new r5 handles the adapted EF lenses. That can be exciting if they are make the EF lenses perform better in the RF bodies than EF bodies.

I think they should just cut the cord on EF for now. And just provide a seamless experience for RF bodies using EF mounts. Maybe a smaller adapter, or even adapter-less for a few body iterations?

Lots of doom and gloom in your message. I'm not sure why you're saying that your lenses "are worth nothing in the market"... sure, they are worth less (as opposed to worthless), but they still definitely retain some value.

And all EF lenses perform "better/consistently" already with RP and R, and there's no reason why they would suddenly be less good with the R5... so long as the lens can keep up with resolution, which most should seeing as the R5, as far as I know (can't recall having seen anything about its resolution), will be 45MP, less than Canon's highest resolution body.

Wilt wrote in post #19012530
Lens mounts have been discontinued by companies over the decades. In some cases they were replaced by newer lens lines by the same manufacturer. In other cases the manufacturer went out of business entirely.
But we have seen, over and over, that the USED MARKET is sustained in the marketplace even decades after the original 'obsolescence'. Their usefulness continues onward, even when the market value has declined.
There are millions of EF bodies, and they will not disappear instantaneously. And as long as EF bodies exist, users will exist who want more lenses in the kit, even used ones.

People are still buying and using Canon AE-1 cameras.

They're also still buying and using Topcon Super DM 35mm cameras and Mamiya C330 TLRs and Mamiya RZ67 medium format cameras. I wish they'd stop. They're keeping the prices obscenely high.

ilumo wrote in post #19013014
I always though my lens would hold their value over time thus not having any second thoughts about buying EF L lenses. I never thought they would be retiring their lens mount this soon though. That makes me rethink how I want to acquire lenses in the future as I don’t make any money from this “hobby”. I might just stay with a minimalist collection as lens will just depreciate. My lens are worth nothing in the market now so I’m just holding on to them and shooting adapted. We’ll see how the new r5 handles the adapted EF lenses. That can be exciting if they are make the EF lenses perform better in the RF bodies than EF bodies.

I think they should just cut the cord on EF for now. And just provide a seamless experience for RF bodies using EF mounts. Maybe a smaller adapter, or even adapter-less for a few body iterations?

"This soon?" It's been over thirty years. I'm still shooting with a 50mm f/1.8 Mark I (metal lens mount) that was manufactured in 1987...on my EOS R.

The transition could not have been made more soft. It's sure more soft than the Big Bang from the FD mount to the EF mount. There was no useful way to adapt EF lenses to FD cameras or vice versa. I was mad at Canon for years over that, and didn't get rid of my F-1 cameras and FD lenses until 1995. Fortunately for Canon, Nikon didn't yet have its autofocus act together yet (you needed a score card to figure out which Nikon bodies had what degree of automation with which Nikkor lenses) and nobody else was seriously in the professional 35mm market. So I wound up with Canon again.

I'm currently all RF in bodies and all EF in lenses. I'll replace my EF lenses as they reach their end-of-maintenance points, as I would have even if the RF mount had not been introduced.

RDKirk wrote in post #19017132
People are still buying and using Canon AE-1 cameras.

They're also still buying and using Topcon Super DM 35mm cameras and Mamiya C330 TLRs and Mamiya RZ67 medium format cameras. I wish they'd stop. They're keeping the prices obscenely high.

RDKirk wrote in post #19017135
"This soon?" It's been over thirty years. I'm still shooting with a 50mm f/1.8 Mark I (metal lens mount) that was manufactured in 1987...on my EOS R.

The transition could not have been made more soft. It's sure more soft than the Big Bang from the FD mount to the EF mount. There was no useful way to adapt EF lenses to FD cameras or vice versa. I was mad at Canon for years over that, and didn't get rid of my F-1 cameras and FD lenses until 1995. Fortunately for Canon, Nikon didn't yet have its autofocus act together yet (you needed a score card to figure out which Nikon bodies had what degree of automation with which Nikkor lenses) and nobody else was seriously in the professional 35mm market. So I wound up with Canon again.

I'm currently all RF in bodies and all EF in lenses. I'll replace my EF lenses as they reach their end-of-maintenance points, as I would have even if the RF mount had not been introduced.

I whole-heartedly agree with RDKirk. Canon not introducing new EF lenses is essentially meaningless. Canon will continue to service existing gear for some period of time. Most Canon gear will outlive Canon's service commitment. When Canon will no longer fix stuff, others will. I have no fear the my Canon 80D and crop frame lenses will continue to function for quite some time. When it dies, I will replace it.
With respect to old gear being worthless, I wish. Go to E-Bay, KEH, Adorama and/or B&H and try to buy Pentax 645(N/II) gear. Look at the offerings for medium format folders, RB/Z67, and TLRs. Most of that stuff is in questionable condition, condition is listed as "---" because used implies that it works. There is still a healthy market for 70+ year old gear. Get back to me 70 years after Canon stops servicing EF gear. On second thought, don't bother, I'll be almost 150 by then.

PentaxShooter wrote in post #19017285
I whole-heartedly agree with RDKirk. Canon not introducing new EF lenses is essentially meaningless. Canon will continue to service existing gear for some period of time.

Meaningless to you but not to me, I would have liked to see Canon make EF equivalents of the Nikon PF lenses, I believe they will in the new R mount but I am pretty sure they are done with anything new for EF. I switched to Nikon after 29 years of using Canon for the super lightweight PF telephoto lenses, my neck and back will thank me for it.

I have a mirrorless Panasonic and have used a Sony in the past also, I much prefer an optical viewfinder.

Canonuser123 wrote in post #19017397
Meaningless to you but not to me, I would have liked to see Canon make EF equivalents of the Nikon PF lenses, I believe they will in the new R mount but I am pretty sure they are done with anything new for EF. I switched to Nikon after 29 years of using Canon for the super lightweight PF telephoto lenses, my neck and back will thank me for it.

I have a mirrorless Panasonic and have used a Sony in the past also, I much prefer an optical viewfinder.

As near as I can tell with 5 minutes of Google.com, Canon beat Nikon to the punch with diffractive optics lenses. The 400 DO was released in 2001, updated by the 400 DO II in 2014. Nikon has released a 500mm PF. PF == DO == PF: same technology.

Both are outrageously expensive. All of them appear to have significant flare problems with bright lights in the frame. There is a reason DO/PF isn't more popular. I have never used either DO or PF. I don't shop in that price range unless I'm looking for a car.

PentaxShooter wrote in post #19017457
As near as I can tell with 5 minutes of Google.com, Canon beat Nikon to the punch with diffractive optics lenses. The 400 DO was released in 2001, updated by the 400 DO II in 2014. Nikon has released a 500mm PF. PF == DO == PF: same technology.

Both are outrageously expensive. All of them appear to have significant flare problems with bright lights in the frame. There is a reason DO/PF isn't more popular. I have never used either DO or PF. I don't shop in that price range unless I'm looking for a car.

Canon had a zoom 70-300 DO and the original 400 DO a long time ago, the 400 DO was not nearly as good as the latest version. The Latest Canon 400 DO lens is twice as expensive as the 500 PF Nikon lens, Nikon also has a 300 PF. This website has lots of great example photos from the Nikons as do the FM forums. The Nikon 500mm PF is 3.2 lbs, the 300mm PF weighs 1 pound 10 ounces. Canon does not have anything comparable.

Canon has a 300 mm f4 IS lens that is a very old design and about a pound heavier than the Nikon 300mm f4 PF, the Nikon has much better image stabilization but I really went to Nikon for the 500 PF.
I have neck back and shoulder issues that drove me towards a lighter system and although I believe Canon will have an answer for the Nikon lenses in the future, I believe they will be for the R mount and not EF.

Link to Nikon 500 PF lens thread. https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1499529

chuckmiller wrote in post #19012423
.
What would you like to see Canon release before they end EF production?

Please, don't say they should update every lens in the line to f/1.2 and weigh 1 ounce and cost $1.
.

What a great question, Chuck!

I often spend a lot of time daydreaming about what the "ultimate" lens would be for certain types of wildlife photography. . The traditional focal lengths usually don't work very well for me, and I am often fighting against the lenses I use because they either don't go wide enough, or don't go long enough, or don't have a big enough aperture opening to produce the kind of blur that I want. . I always try to be realistic, and understand that with greater capability comes increased weight and increased cost. . I only "dream up" lenses that could actually be made and don't defy the laws of physics or economics.

So, this question of yours is perfect for me, because I am always thinking about this stuff anyway.

--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

EF 300-800mm f5.6 IS

I would love to see Canon make something similar to the Sigma 300-800mm f5.6 that serves as my main lens. . It is a useful focal length range, but has some shortcomings that I think Canon would clean up if they were to make something comparable.

In a new Canon EF version, I would expect it to be significantly lighter than my Sigma, which is 13 pounds. . I see the reduction in weight between the first Canon 600mm f4 IS lens and the latest version of the 600mm f4, and if they could make a 300-800mm that uses the same weight-saving construction, then I could see it coming in at just 9 pounds, and not being so very front-heavy.

Another improvement I would like to see if Canon were to make a 300-800mm would be improved aesthetic qualities in the out-of-focus areas, a.k.a. "bokeh". . The way out-of-focus background or foreground vegetation looks is extremely important to me, as I feel that it makes or breaks many wildlife images. . If Canon were to use 11 rounded aperture blades, as they do in some of their cinema lenses, I think that would render things more smoothly in my backgrounds and foregrounds. . This is extremely important, and one of the things that really bothers me about my Sigma.

I would also expect a new Canon 300-800mm f5.6 to have the latest Image Stabilization, which is absent on my Sigma.

If Canon were to make an EF version of the lens I just described, I think it would probably cost between $16,000 and $20,000. . I don't think that is unrealistic, given that the Sigma retails new for an even $8,000.

--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

EF 35-150mm f4 IS

I always found my 24-105mm f4 to be a very useful focal length range on my 1.6 crop sensor bodies, but very awkward on full frame bodies. . The equivalent range on a full frame would be 38-168mm.

In fact, I pretty much stopped using that lens for wildlife once I moved to full frame, because the 24-105 range is so awkward. . I miss that lens and the types of wildlife images it produced, but I want to keep using full frame and have no interest in going back to a 1.6 crop body.

So, if Canon would make a lens with a range that is close to the 38-168mm range, that would be extremely useful to me for wildlife and bird photography.

Tamron has a 35-150mm f2.8/4 that seems just about right. . I plan on getting this lens in the near future, simply because I need that range and Canon doesn't have anything close.

--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

EF 50-200mm f2.8 IS

Can Canon please bring back the 50-200mm focal length? . They made an EF mount L series lens back in the late 1980's that was a 50-200mm f4.5. . I have one and use it on occasion. . The range is quite useful - so much more useful that that silly 70-200mm range. . 70-20mm is so damn limiting - yuck!

I love the range of my 50-200mm L lens, but the first-generation autofocus is extremely clunky and slow. . And the f4.5 aperture is too small. . The lens is extremely small and light, and I wouldn't mind it becoming larger and heavier, so if they made a 50-200mm with modern IS and modern autofocus and that was an f2.8 instead of f4.5, that would be extremely useful.

I'll never understand why they went to 70-200mm instead of 50-200mm, when the 50-200mm was so optically perfect - extremely sharp and bright and contrasty at all points within its range. . I suspect there was no "real" reason to narrow the range so much, and that it was done just to protect the sales of other lenses in their lineup ...... why sell a customer one lens when you can make them buy 2 or 3 lenses to do the same job?

--------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

BIF Special - EF 500mm f5.6 w/ built-in 1.4

Lastly, I would like to see Canon make a long telephoto specifically for photographing birds in flight. . A true "BIF Special".

This would need to be rather light, as most BIF photographers hand-hold while shooting. . Yet it would have to have plenty of reach, because most BIF photographers need the reach to get sufficient pixels on target. . Image Stabilization would be unnecessary, because this would be specifically designed for photographing birds in flight in good light at fast shutter speeds.

So I would like to see a 500mm f5.6 with a built-in 1.4 extender similar to what the 200-400mm f4 has. . I think that'd be as perfect as possible for most professional-grade BIF photography.

As far as hand-holdability goes, I think the size and weight would be reasonable. . Everyone I know who has a 200-400mm f4 uses it without a tripod most of the time. . They hike around with it handheld. . And I think a 500mm f5.6 would be very close to the same size as the 200-400mm, and even a bit lighter. . If all of these people I know use the 200-400mm handheld with no problem, then certainly most able-bodied wildlife photographers would have no problem handholding a 500mm f5.6.

The goal of this would be to offer a perfect professional-grade BIF lens, NOT to offer an affordable way to get to 500mm (which is the route that Nikon took). . The built-in 1.4 extender and state-of-the-art optics would probably result in a heftier price tag than many people would hope for, but the quality would be worth it. . I surmise that $5,000 would be just about right.

Well, that pretty much covers the 4 EF mount lenses that I would like to see Canon produce before the close down EF development altogether (if they haven't already).

.

ed rader wrote in post #19012656
.
dude you are old! i'll be 65 next month
.

I had no idea, Ed. . I thought you were right around my age (51). . You definitely looked closer to 50 in the profile pic you had on Instagram (I notice you must have changed it recently because the profile pic you have there now looks different).

Now that I realize you're 65, I can better understand why you seem to value reduced size and weight in certain lenses, such as the 100-500mm f7.1.


.

I would agree with the EF 35-150 IS f4 or I would take a 18-135 IS f4 Nano USM