EF 200mm f/2L IS discontinued. Updated list of (18) EF and EF-S going away soon.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19206122
That would be a major mistake as canon isn't offering anything so special to prevent a new wave of adapted sonys. Canon just caught (or passed) Sony with mirrorless bodies. Many who switched away from Sony using their Canon glass would switch right back if Canon blocked them from using their legacy glass.

Yes, huge mistake. Good example would be owner of EF 11-24. Canon stops it working on R body so user left to decide if adapted on Sony 42mp options, A7RII or A7RIII or 61mp A7RIV is the better choice. Goodbye Canon and good riddance.
FD to EF could be defended due to superior mount. Not making enough FD to EF adapters lost them money.

Implementing a change to prevent perfectly good lenses being used is the kind of move Sony is dreaming Canon will make.

I think.a more realistic approach will be for Canon to eventually stop making/selling the adapters, not to disable their use in firmware.

Eventually Canon needs to have compelling RF replacements for the high-end EF lenses, so buyers see the value in moving to native glass when they are ready to replace them. But that’s a long-term strategy.

Everybody loves a bargain, and there will always be people who will prefer to buy a used EF lens and adapt it, rather than buy a new RF lens. That’s not going to put a significant crimp in Canon’s sales, any more than the used market does today. If anything, it contributes to the idea that Canon is at the heart of an “ecosystem” with many options for buyers.

Many people are now and in the future will be buying new EF lenses. Whether or not they are for use on DSLR, R, or both will not matter if Canon prevents them working on R bodies. It's not just a used market issue.

Canonrumors just posted the patent for the RF 200 f/2 optical formula today. Obviously, nothing is set in stone but it does appear thought is being given to its RF counterpart.

Choderboy wrote in post #19206481
Many people are now and in the future will be buying new EF lenses. Whether or not they are for use on DSLR, R, or both will not matter if Canon prevents them working on R bodies. It's not just a used market issue.

I agree. People are still buying EF lenses and DSLR cameras. Then for some photographers who don't mind the weight of older EF primes from 600mm to perhaps 800mm, it would not make any sense to spend thousands of dollars to replace lenses that are renown for outstanding sharpness and IQ. Continuing the production of the EF-R adapter makes a lot of sense for Canon, otherwise several other companies will still produce the adapters.

If I were to have this lens for a couple of years already, I would not mind "adapting" it to my R6:

https://www.usa.canon.​com …to/ef-800mm-f-5-6l-is-usm

I have been using a Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L USM (black color lens with a red ring) for several years. It does not have IS, but is fast and sharp mounted on the 5D II, and the 7D. Now I am using it "adapted" to the R6, and it works so well that I have no intensions of spending a bunch of money on an RF version of it. In fact, the only RF lens I have is the RF 100-500mm L.

The Rebel line is still the biggest seller. Canon may not develop new models for it but EF/EFS glass will be around for many years to come.

Choderboy wrote in post #19206481
Many people are now and in the future will be buying new EF lenses. .

chuckmiller wrote in post #19208007
The Rebel line is still the biggest seller. Canon may not develop new models for it but EF/EFS glass will be around for many years to come.

Also, it makes no sense to me to replace EF "L" lenses that are proven as being fast, sharp, and great IQ just to gamble on the RF version as being a better lens. Well, those who aren't happy with existing EF lenses and have money to spare could very well sell them and then buy RF ones. The same for new R5, and R6 buyers who don't have EF lenses, and don't want to buy EF lenses to "adapt" to the new bodies. In this case it may be better to buy the new camera and lenses.

Since the performance of the EF lenses I already have is improved by the R6's IBIS, I am very glad that Canon didn't abandon me-as a customer-by providing adapters that allow for the use of existing lenses. The RF lenses may be lighter and compact, something that could be desirable to a lot of people, but not all. In relation to IQ and sharpness, it will take some time for Canon to duplicate and surpass some of the EF lenses. Not only that, but when such things are achieved, these new lenses won't be cheap.

Nikon has done the same, probably for the same reasons as Canon.

Bokeh might be something regarded mostly at forums. Not sure if it could support real sales.
This lens was useful with low ISO cameras, but by now even same old, still available 70-200 F4 L EF will do.

I haven't kept up. Have all the RF lenses received high praise?


L

RayinAlaska wrote in post #19208189
Also, it makes no sense to me to replace EF "L" lenses that are proven as being fast, sharp, and great IQ just to gamble on the RF version as being a better lens.

So far, they are at least slightly better, and that is talking about the cheaper, non-L lenses. RF 50 F/1.8 comes to mind as a slightly better lens, RF 35 F/2 and RF 85 F/2 are better than their F/1.8 EF brethren, and have IS and macro options as well. The RF 24-105 F/4-F/7.1 IS is good for the class it is in, and the RF 24-240 F/4-F/6.3 IS is actually a little better than the 24-105 F/4-F/7.1 IS, with the 24-240 bing quite a good standard zoom lens as a result.

The L-lenses are definitely better, all of them, some even in a different league (RF 85L, RF 50L), or have created a league of their own (RF 28-70 F/2). The zoom lenses are all better, and all have IS as well with the exception of the RF 28-70.

In short, they are at least slightly better, and have features that comparable EF siblings do not have, like extended range, IS, closer focusing options, compact build, or are extremely good, as in best in class.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

chuckmiller wrote in post #19208345
I haven't kept up. Have all the RF lenses received high praise?

L

Some RF lenses may be better than their EF L counterparts, but in reality it is too soon to tell. An RF lens mounted on a R5 or R6 probably benefits from both IBIS and lens IS working in conjunction with each other to a greater degree than an EF L lens that has IS, and that is "maybe" if both IBIS and lens IS are active at the moment. But lens sharpness and IQ rendition from the two lenses (EF and RF ) is open to debate.

If I would have had a Canon EF 100-400mm and a 1.4x extender, I would not have purchased that RF 100-500mm lens. All my lenses other than the RF above do not have IS. All are primes except for two lenses: 100mm Macro USM (yes, an inexpensive but very sharp lens), 135mm f/2 L, 200mm f/2.8 L, 70-200mm F/4 L (zoom), and 400mm f/5.6 L. The RF 100-500 zoomed to 400mm "may" be better than the the EF 400mm L prime? Maybe yes, maybe not.

All of this is open for debate, and as for me, the EF primes above benefit from IBIS, so in a way this is a "plus" for these old lenses.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19208345
I haven't kept up. Have all the RF lenses received high praise?

L

From what I am reading and seeing in comparisons

The 100-500 and the 800 F/11 are getting lots of praise. Reasons.....Reach and light weight lens with good IQ. The 100-500 is very very hand holdable so no need for a tripod.....and the 800 F/11 has killer reach and it would be comparable to having a 100-400 in your hands

On Picture comparisons and IQ.....My Opinion.....Its a wash. Maybe a little better corner sharpness and you have to pixel peep to see it. The EF glass is will remain outstanding glass and IMHO.....smart photographers will continue to buy EF L lens when gear junkies cant contain the desire to have the latest and greatest

The one RF lens that totally blows me away is the RF50 F/1.2 and the RF85 F/1.2.....but at $2200.00 and $2600.00 I would be in no hurry to buy......The RF50 Blows the current 50L out of the water. BUT.....If you have an 85 1.4.....I would not switch over for an RF 85.......The RF 100-500 is very interesting but way overpriced to me......personally...T​he sigma 150-600....at $1000.00.....is way worth the limited drawbacks it has

Guys with great super teles like 300F/2.8 version 2.....400 DO's V2,......I dont see anyone letting those go and I dont see anyone selling them off to get RF versions......I think the draw will be the big reach lens because they cant be hand held....shooting the big whites on a tri pod is a PITA

umphotography wrote in post #19209493
From what I am reading and seeing in comparisons

The 100-500 and the 800 F/11 are getting lots of praise. Reasons.....Reach and light weight lens with good IQ. The 100-500 is very very hand holdable so no need for a tripod.....and the 800 F/11 has killer reach and it would be comparable to having a 100-400 in your hands

On Picture comparisons and IQ.....My Opinion.....Its a wash. Maybe a little better corner sharpness and you have to pixel peep to see it. The EF glass is will remain outstanding glass and IMHO.....smart photographers will continue to buy EF L lens when gear junkies cant contain the desire to have the latest and greatest

The one RF lens that totally blows me away is the RF50 F/1.2 and the RF85 F/1.2.....but at $2200.00 and $2600.00 I would be in no hurry to buy......The RF50 Blows the current 50L out of the water. BUT.....If you have an 85 1.4.....I would not switch over for an RF 85.......The RF 100-500 is very interesting but way overpriced to me......personally...T​he sigma 150-600....at $1000.00.....is way worth the limited drawbacks it has

Guys with great super teles like 300F/2.8 version 2.....400 DO's V2,......I dont see anyone letting those go and I dont see anyone selling them off to get RF versions......I think the draw will be the big reach lens because they cant be hand held....shooting the big whites on a tri pod is a PITA

Agree with you. And I am certain the appropriate "thinkers" at Canon thought about the consequences incurred by not providing its customers with the adapters needed for the R-series. Besides that, the construction quality and performance of some expensive Canon primes are second to none.

I'd believe that Canon has not "prioritized" the adapters, but I absolutely do not believe that it's shortness of inventory is any different from the impact Covid has had on manufacturing in general. At the same time they have been unable to keep the adapters in stock, they have not been able to provide the R5 and 6 without people having to wait months,..

...and the very RF lenses that the conspiracy theorists here would have us believe Canon is forcing us to buy by not being able to keep up with adapters, are even harder to come by then adapters. So that theory is completely off base. If we can't buy the RF lenses, then how does this theory work? I have never since announcement seen an RF 800mm or 100-500mm "in stock" they've all been pre-order every where I have looked. Compared to RF adapters, I have seen come and go in stock.

Lastly, unlike $4k cameras and multi $k RF lenses, part of the reason for the shortage of RF adapters in regular retail sources is due to the same mentality as those that were trying to sell Purell for 10X it's actual cost on eBay etc. At only $99 or $199 it's easy for the fly by night "opportunists" to grab up inventory as it becomes available, and resell. You can absolutely find these adapters, you just have to be willing to pay the buttheads that have bought up, and continue to buy up so much of the stock to resell at 2X the cost on eBay.

In the meantime, the 3rd party EF RF adapters are also available, and they appear to be working just fine.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19209961
I'd believe that Canon has not "prioritized" the adapters, but I absolutely do not believe that it's shortness of inventory is any different from the impact Covid has had on manufacturing in general. At the same time they have been unable to keep the adapters in stock, they have not been able to provide the R5 and 6 without people having to wait months,..

...and the very RF lenses that the conspiracy theorists here would have us believe Canon is forcing us to buy by not being able to keep up with adapters, are even harder to come by then adapters. So that theory is completely off base. If we can't buy the RF lenses, then how does this theory work? I have never since announcement seen an RF 800mm or 100-500mm "in stock" they've all been pre-order every where I have looked. Compared to RF adapters, I have seen come and go in stock.

Lastly, unlike $4k cameras and multi $k RF lenses, part of the reason for the shortage of RF adapters in regular retail sources is due to the same mentality as those that were trying to sell Purell for 10X it's actual cost on eBay etc. At only $99 or $199 it's easy for the fly by night "opportunists" to grab up inventory as it becomes available, and resell. You can absolutely find these adapters, you just have to be willing to pay the buttheads that have bought up, and continue to buy up so much of the stock to resell at 2X the cost on eBay.

In the meantime, the 3rd party EF RF adapters are also available, and they appear to be working just fine.

You are correct.
I was looking for a Canon EF 100-400mm lens at B&H, Crutchfield, and Adorama, and it was on backorder. A lot of stores didn't even have the 1.4x extender that I wanted to purchase along the EF 100-400mm lens. Then I decided to buy the RF 100-500mm instead, and the only store that had it was Amazon.

In reality I would have preferred an EF 100-400mm and the 1.4x extender over the RF 100-500mm lens. The latter is a very nice lens, but in my view that extra 100mm at f/7.1 is not worth so much money. Maybe I feel this way because I seldom use the EF 400mm prime (I am used to primes). It would be wonderful to own a Canon EF 600mm or EF 800mm fast prime, but these lenses are out of my budget. The RF 800mm is relatively inexpensive, but f/11 kills it for me regardless of the high ISO capabilities of the R6.

By the way, the RF 100-500's plastic barrel that extends/retracts when the lens is zoomed from 100-500mm attracts the very fine pet's hair I know this sounds ridiculous, but I found myself wiping the lens with my gloved hands to remove the hair accumulating on the lens barrel when photographing the local sled dog races. It is possible that it was my dog's hair on my clothes and gloves (I have no idea). I also noticed that the front glass remained free of dust and hair throughout the race. I was glad about the latter.