The transition from mirror to mirrorless should be less painful than from film to digital ?

[SBK]

I am far from making the move, but I am wondering what your thoughts are on this transition.

On my side, moving from the Nikon film-camera world to the Canon digital-camera world was painful as I had to let go a lot of cameras (1x F90X and 3x FM2n), prime lenses from 24 to 300mm and a PC lens.

One of the big advantages of mirrorless is when you shoot in places like churches where you don't want to be loud.

Canon EF lenses can be used on R cameras so it's not like those lenses are totally wasted. So, I think the transition should be smoother ?

What do you think ?

[Waddizzle]

I think it is a well thought out transition.  How much smoother do you think it should be?  Everything you described about Canon users transitioning from DLSRs to mirrorless bodies sounded pretty good.  

[ebiggs1]

"What do you think ?"

The fact is, you have no choice. Canon has decided that mirrorless is the future.  It is just a matter of time and you won't have a choice. Unless you are a serious pro wanting a 1 series, there are no pro level mirrorless yet, your best course if mirrorless.

[kvbarkley]

In your case it was not the transition to digital that was painful, but the transition to a new ecosystem.

[SBK]

"I think it is a well thought out transition. How much smoother do you think it should be? Everything you described about Canon users transitioning from DLSRs to mirrorless bodies sounded pretty good."

Yeah, the reason I am asking is I might spend some money in the 35mm f/2 IS USM, 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2 L, and 200mm f/2.8 L, and was wondering if I should wait for the mirrorless version. Still thinking. The problem is i could wait for a long time.

"The fact is, you have no choice. Canon has decided that mirrorless is the future. It is just a matter of time and you won't have a choice. Unless you are a serious pro wanting a 1 series, there are no pro level mirrorless yet, your best course if mirrorless."

No, I am an amateur, and don't make a living out of my photo gear.

"In your case it was not the transition to digital that was painful, but the transition to a new ecosystem."

During my film time, I bought a brand new Nikkor AF 35mm f2 in which the aperture blades showed traces of oil after 1 year of use and then they  became sticky, where the blades stopped closing when pictures were taken. Pics came back all overexposed. Then when it was time to move to the digital world, I was looking at the Nikon D600. It was a big Nikon mess. So I did not buy the D600. That was when I lost confidence in Nikon quality control. Even when the D610 came out I didn't want to make the jump and switched to the Canon world with the 6D and took all pics with my 50mm 1.8 STM for 5 years.

[Waddizzle]

"I think it is a well thought out transition. How much smoother do you think it should be? Everything you described about Canon users transitioning from DLSRs to mirrorless bodies sounded pretty good."

Yeah, the reason I am asking is I might spend some money in the 35mm f/2 IS USM, 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2 L, and 200mm f/2.8 L, and was wondering if I should wait for the mirrorless version. Still thinking. The problem is i could wait for a long time.

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

Perhaps ont thing you need to consider is service life.  I think all of those lenses are well over 10 year old designs, so I think their service life could be somewhat limited.  Being several years old, your 6D camera body may have a limited future when it comes service life, too.  The main problem is in obtainng the spare electronic parts.

If I were in your position, I do not know what I would do.  I cover that range of focal lengths with a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.  The Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM is a great lens, which I gave to my son for video work.

[ebiggs1]

"I might spend some money in the 35mm f/2 IS USM, 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2 L, and 200mm f/2.8 L, and was wondering if I should wait for the mirrorless version."

Wait?  Do you know Canon already has the RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM, RF 85mm F1.2 L USM and RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens (includes your 135mm and 200mm).

Who knows when other FLs will come out but if I were to start a new R system today it would include the RF 24–105mm F4 L IS USM as my first buy.  These lenses are all outstanding and at least the equal of the current EF series.

[SBK]

"Wait? Do you know Canon already has the RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM, RF 85mm F1.2 L USM and RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens (includes your 135mm and 200mm)."

RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM, RF 85mm F1.2 L USM and RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM  =  $6,427.73

35mm f/2 IS USM, 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2 L, and 200mm f/2.8 L =  $3,014.94

All prices are as of today 12/12/2020 at B&H, taxes included.

I think for professionals like you are, the prices are not the most important thing, you buy them as tools for your work. But for amateurs like me, $3000  vs  $6400  is a big deal.

That said, I do want to thank you for steering me towards the mirrorless world. My thinking process has been revolving around the Canon EF lenses due to the prices. Perhaps, the best transition for my particular case is to spend $2100 in the Canon RP and the RF 24-105mm f4 IS USM, for now and get some prime lenses later.

[Waddizzle]

"35mm f/2 IS USM, 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2 L, and 200mm f/2.8 L =  $3,014.94"

If you swap out the 85mm, 135mm, and 200mm for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II/III USM, then you spend even less.

I have considered buying the 135mm f/2L because it is a great portrait lens.  However, I can shoot at f/2.8 with the 70-200 zoom, and add more bsckground blur in Photoshop, if I wanted more.

"Photoshop is cheaper than camera gear!"

[SBK]

If I understand it correctly, the Canon R5 and R6 have the built-in-body Image Stabilizer.

So does that mean that none of the RF lens would ever need IS ?