Current Status Of EF Lenses

I don't think you're wrong about price trends on used EF lenses. 10-15 years ago, the price for a used copy of a current-model EF lens was about 80-90% of a new copy. Now it's more like 50-70%, and EF lenses are on Canon's back burner. People with 4-figures to spend on a used lens have turned to the RF market, generally.

Another thing is that the Canadian exchange rate is at historic lows against other currencies. That 17mm TSE lens you mentioned selling new for $2800 CAD goes for $2149 USD.

And, that 17mm TSE is an expensive, niche lens. Your target market is very small. You need to find that one guy who really wants this one lens, and that guy might not live near you.

Add that all together and you're swimming upstream.

Your best bet is probably selling on Ebay. Love it or hate it, they'll get you a lot of eyeballs, albeit at a price. You could probably sell it quickly for $1500 USD (minus fees). You might be able to get a couple of hundred dollars more if you left it up for a while. A good thing about Ebay is they'll handle the exchange rate and international shipping for you.

drsilver wrote in post #19487762
I don't think you're wrong about price trends on used EF lenses. 10-15 years ago, the price for a used copy of a current-model EF lens was about 80-90% of a new copy. Now it's more like 50-70%, and EF lenses are on Canon's back burner. People with 4-figures to spend on a used lens have turned to the RF market, generally.

Another thing is that the Canadian exchange rate is at historic lows against other currencies. That 17mm TSE lens you mentioned selling new for $2800 CAD goes for $2149 USD.

And, that 17mm TSE is an expensive, niche lens. Your target market is very small. You need to find that one guy who really wants this one lens, and that guy might not live near you.

Add that all together and you're swimming upstream.

Your best bet is probably selling on Ebay. Love it or hate it, they'll get you a lot of eyeballs, albeit at a price. You could probably sell it quickly for $1500 USD (minus fees). You might be able to get a couple of hundred dollars more if you left it up for a while. A good thing about Ebay is they'll handle the exchange rate and international shipping for you.

No doubt it's a specialty lens but I loved it for old and historic buildings, landscapes etc. I wouldn't shoot old buildings without one if I had the choice. I've never sold anything on Ebay, but may look into it. I'm not against listing it here, preferably for a Canada sale, but right now I can't list due to not enough posts or membership time, although it says I've been a member since 2020, even though I joined long before that. I may have a local buyer but not yet. Never thought selling quality glass would be such a hassle.

I own 2 L zoom lens from Canon. And they haven't make any new L lens (zoom or prime) for at least 2 yr. All the new lens are all mirrorless, but when I look at the new mirrorless L zoom lens, the wt. is still the same, very heavy. Hardly any improvement. I was hoping for some lighter wt. len, my current L len is the 70mm to 200 mm, and I think it's 8 lb. I couldn't help but wonder if they can get me some titanium material, or some other lighter wt. material so it's easier to manage.

without that improvement, I don't know if I should bother jump to mirrorless gear

gjl711 wrote in post #19487755
According to the Canon Museum, the last EF lenses were 600mm F/4 III, 400mm f.2,8 III, and a pair of 200mm lenses back in 2018. There were a pair of cinema EF lenses in 2020 but those don't really count though I guess you could use them on any EF mount camera.

If you add up everything--body, lenses, odds and ends--the weight savings from going mirrorless is usually small. The weight savings comes from going to a smaller sensor mirrorless camera, which makes the body lighter and allows the design of smaller, lighter lenses. E.g., the MFT OM Systems OM-1. Unfortunately, the APS-C mirrorless market is pretty weak--a few bodies, but very few lenses designed for the smaller format. Canon has released only two APS-C R-mount lenses, and they aren't top shelf.

happy hopping wrote in post #19493040
I own 2 L zoom lens from Canon. And they haven't make any new L lens (zoom or prime) for at least 2 yr. All the new lens are all mirrorless, but when I look at the new mirrorless L zoom lens, the wt. is still the same, very heavy. Hardly any improvement. I was hoping for some lighter wt. len, my current L len is the 70mm to 200 mm, and I think it's 8 lb. I couldn't help but wonder if they can get me some titanium material, or some other lighter wt. material so it's easier to manage.

without that improvement, I don't know if I should bother jump to mirrorless gear

In terms of weight, sure, lighter would be nice, but in my case, it didn't make much difference in what I was shooting. I was doing older houses and buildings that I could usually drive right up to or walk for a short distance, so weight never mattered to me. If you are doing any long distance hiking I could see it, but are most shooters doing that?

If one stop from 2.8 to f4 isn’t too bothersome, the 70-200 f4 is much lighter and a bit smaller.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19493921
If one stop from 2.8 to f4 isn’t too bothersome, the 70-200 f4 is much lighter and a bit smaller.

I've had both Canon 70-200 f4 IS and 2.8 IS II. Both are excellent and the f4 is a good bit smaller and lighter, pretty much a totally different lens for those two measures.

Steven H Campbell wrote in post #19493893
In terms of weight, sure, lighter would be nice, but in my case, it didn't make much difference in what I was shooting. I was doing older houses and buildings that I could usually drive right up to or walk for a short distance, so weight never mattered to me. If you are doing any long distance hiking I could see it, but are most shooters doing that?

Starting in the 1970's the Olympus OM-1 started the revolution in SLR body size and weight, and the Canon AE-1 and its tennis star advertising campaign got
Everyman to adopt the small and automated SLR. The world forgot about small and lightweight when the dSLR came about, but started to think about it again with mirrorless. But the mirrorless weight saving is minimal because we're talking only about a short bit of metal surrounding airspace reduction in RF (vs. EF lens) lens of same FL. When the FL can be 0.62x (for APS-C) for comparable AOV, the weight saving is more substantial, but so far Canon's emphasis is FF mirrorless.
Having been an Olympus OM system user since the 1970s, I severely miss its diminuitive size and weight, compared to even the Canon 7DII APS-C (somewhat reduced) body size, and have longed for a more compact system but AF lenses are not diminuitive. It is not a matter of long distance hiking, when you are a tourist walking about a foreign city all day, the weight and bulk of the dSLR system can be fatiguing.

Wilt wrote in post #19493997
Starting in the 1970's the Olympus OM-1 started the revolution in SLR body size and weight, and the Canon AE-1 and its tennis star advertising campaign got
Everyman to adopt the small and automated SLR. The world forgot about small and lightweight when the dSLR came about, but started to think about it again with mirrorless. But the mirrorless weight saving is minimal because we're talking only about a short bit of metal surrounding airspace reduction in RF (vs. EF lens) lens of same FL. When the FL can be 0.62x (for APS-C) for comparable AOV, the weight saving is more substantial, but so far Canon's emphasis is FF mirrorless.
Having been an Olympus OM system user since the 1970s, I severely miss its diminuitive size and weight, compared to even the Canon 7DII APS-C (somewhat reduced) body size, and have longed for a more compact system but AF lenses are not diminuitive. It is not a matter of long distance hiking, when you are a tourist walking about a foreign city all day, the weight and bulk of the dSLR system can be fatiguing.

Light weight options have always been out there. The XXXD, XXXXD, and SL series were significantly smaller and lighter than the XXD and XD series as was the M. I'm guessing that the XXXD cameras were Canons biggest sellers but I have never seen a breakdown.

gjl711 wrote in post #19494064
Light weight options have always been out there. The XXXD, XXXXD, and SL series were significantly smaller and lighter than the XXD and XD series as was the M. I'm guessing that the XXXD cameras were Canons biggest sellers but I have never seen a breakdown.

Yes, smaller digital cameras were out there, but none of the ones you mention were aimed at the professional level shooter...in the case of the OM series, all single-digit models were aimed at professional users. This photo demonstrates the giant proportions of even the APS-C dSLR vs. a full size SLR body for the pro and the small size SLR body for the pro. Add a comparable FL and aperture lens and the comparison is even more dramatic.

"Aimed at the professional user" is a fast moving target that is highly time-specific. . I might look at those OM-1 era cameras and wonder, how many 15 FPS bursts can they do? Oh, right. And it goes on from there. What would pros from the OM-1 days do if given the choice between that and an M50?

Wilt wrote in post #19493997
... But the mirrorless weight saving is minimal because we're talking only about a short bit of metal surrounding airspace reduction in RF (vs. EF lens) lens of same FL. ...

The mirrorless weight saving is significant for me. My birding rigs:

EF - 7D2 and 100-400mm II weighs 2480 g (2705 g with the 1.4x)
RF - R7 and 100-500mm weighs 1977 g

That is significant.

Archibald wrote in post #19494425
The mirrorless weight saving is significant for me. My birding rigs:

EF - 7D2 and 100-400mm II weighs 2480 g (2705 g with the 1.4x)
RF - R7 and 100-500mm weighs 1977 g

That is significant.

It certainly can be depending on your usage. For travel and hiking, all weight savings are a bonus. Just jumping out of your car, not so much.