Are EF lenses worth it?

[feng192]

Hey all, I have an R7 and I know EF lenses are cheaper than RF lenses. I’m no professional photographer, mostly shoot family outings or some mini trips I take (either for work or on my own). I know for EF lenses to work, I’d have to get the adapter. But what do you think? Are EF lenses worth it for a mirrorless camera?

[Waddizzle]

Buying the EF adapter makes the most sense if you already own EF lenses.  Most of the EF lenses are no longer in production.  If you want to buy quality EF lenses, then you might be looking at the used lens market.

Canon has released a variety of consumer lenses for the RF mount.  Most of the will exceed the performance of EF lenses.

[ebiggs1]

I would not buy any new EF/EF-S lens. You have a new R7 and you think it is a good idea to put old tech lenses on your new tech R7? Sometimes cheaper is not the best way to go and in this case it isn't. You really didn't think so did you?

[amfoto1]

I have had the same questions about using EF and EF-S lenses on the new R-series cameras... .because I already have quite a few of those lenses after using the EOS/EF system for 20+ years. I asked several of the YouTube reviewers, others online and one or two locally... folks doing shoots similar to what I do but are now doing it with R-series cameras... and the general consensus was that EF and EF-S lenses adapted for use on the R-series cameras work as well or better than they did on DLSRs. One reason is there is essentially no need to "calibrate" the lens to the camera's AF system. That's because the AF sensors of the mirrorless are embedded directly in the imaging sensor, where DSLRs' AF sensors are in the bottom of the mirror box and light has to pass through a semi-transparent mirror and reflect off another mirror to reach them. Even slight misalignment of a mirror in a DSLR can cause focus accuracy issues. No such concern with lenses adapted onto the modern mirrorless. Another benefit of the mirrorless design is the AF sensors get 100% of the light coming through the lens.... where something like only 30% of light in DLSRs reached their AF sensors, the other 70% being redirected to the optical viewfinder. This potentially can enable the mirrorless to focus the same lens faster and in lower light conditions than the DSLR ever could. 

But putting it all aside... Every person I've talked or corresponded with about using various of the EF/EF-S lenses adapted onto an R-series camera has said, "Just do it!" They tell me the lens will work as well or better than ever on the mirrorless. (Personally I've been using an adapted EF 85mm f/1.8 USM on my Canon M5 mirrorless... not the same as R-series of course... but it does work fine.)

Canon has discontinued a lot of EF and EF-S lenses. HOWEVER, there are still some 43 different Canon EF and EF-S lenses listed on B&H Photo's website. That's ten more lenses than Canon has produced so for in the RF mount. There also are huge numbers of Canon EF and EF-S lenses in the used market. Somewhere over 125 million of them have been made and sold by Canon over the last 30+ years.

There are some big gaps in the RF lens selection. I'm sure Canon will eventually fill those with excellent lenses, but for the time being an EF or EF-S lens might serve. For example, there is not yet a truly ultrawide lens for the APS-C R-series cameras. Maybe some day Canon will modify the excellent EF-M 11-22mm to fit and work on the new mount. But in the meantime we still have choice of adapting the EF-S 10-18mm IS STM or the EF-S 10-22mm USM for use on cameras like your R7. Both have been quite good on DSLRs and will no doubt serve well on the APS-C R-series, too.

There also is a choice of adapters, plain or with various optional features that might be useful. For example, there are no Tilt Shift lenses in the RF mount yet. Rumors are a couple are on the drawing board, but in the meantime we have EF mount TS-E 17mm, 24mm, 50mm, 90mm and 135mm... as well as older version 24mm, 45mm and 90mm... that can be adapted. A possible bonus is that some of the adapters provide means of using drop-in filters... either a polarizer or a variable neutral density. The TS-E 17mm lens, in particular, has a large, convex front element that precluded using filters on it. But now it's possible to do so with the adapter. The same is true of a few other lenses too, such as the EF 11-24mm ultrawide and EF 8-15mm Fisheye.

At the same time, there are some neat innovations being added to the new RF and RF-S lenses, that make them well worth consideration. They may offer even better image stabilization and autofocus performance, might be smaller and lighter, or may have other built in features such as a user-programmable control ring (though one of the adapters is available with that, too). 

Frankly, if I bought an R7 today I would get it with the RF-S 18-150mm lens as a useful general purpose "walk around" lens. I'd probably supplement it with the RF 85mm f/2 IS Macro... and possibly the RF 24mm f/1.8 IS Macro as well. But beyond that, at least for now, I'd adapt my EF-S 10-22mm and my EF 100-400mm IS USM "II". Eventually I would want to replace the telephoto with the RF 100-500mm. I'll also eventually probably get one of the RF 70-200mm... but already have EF f/2.8 and f/4 versions that can be adapted for now. .

But, that's just me. You need to do what's best for you... to choose what meets your needs best. 

Have fun shopping!

***********

Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2), EOS M5, some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR

[deebatman316]

Get the native RF Mount lens when possible. I wouldn't suggest buying new EF lenses. The RF Mount has newer technology available. That the EF Mount couldn't offer. Unless an RF Mount equivalent lens is NOT available. In such case you will have to use an adapted EF or EF-S Mount lens. Your existing lenses can be adapted to the RF Mount.

[jaewoosong]

I have a 5D Mark IV with EF 24-70/f2.8L II and R5 with RF 24-70/f2.8L IS.  I connected both lenses to my R5 and took the same picture.  The RF lens was sharper than the EF.  The caveat is that you have to really zoom in to see the difference and the R5 has the megapixels to push the lenses.  I honestly doubt you'd notice a difference on the R7 with a similar test.  I also use the EF 70-200/f2.8L IS II with adapter on my R5 all the time and have no plans to get the RF version.  I sold some EF lenses and slowly swapping to RF lenses but I honestly don't see the need to move away from the EF lenses that I've had for long time.

That said, starting out new with mirrorless, there is no point in buying EF lenses as others have mentioned.

[ebiggs1]

"... the general consensus was that EF and EF-S lenses adapted for use on the R-series cameras work as well or better than they did on DLSRs."

This seems to be somewhat a general statement going around. I really doubt it is true. Just another one of the myriad of half true comments floating around the ole inner web. Once a lens is manufactured it can not change unless something physical is done to it and that is usually bad. Not good. Now if you wanted to qualify that statement to EF/EF-S lenses AF better, I can get on board with that. AF is done by the camera not the lens so it is easy to see that a better AF system would make it seem that the lens is better when it is not any different. 

"I connected both lenses to my R5 and took the same picture.  The RF lens was sharper than the EF."

I think you are absolutely correct. RF is better than EF and there is no good reason to buy EF if you just bought a new R series. If you already own EF that is a different situation and the adapter is the way to go.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... the general consensus was that EF and EF-S lenses adapted for use on the R-series cameras work as well or better than they did on DLSRs."

This seems to be somewhat a general statement going around. I really doubt it is true. Just another one of the myriad of half true comments floating around the ole inner web.

Now if you wanted to qualify that statement to EF/EF-S lenses AF better, I can get on board with that. AF is done by the camera not the lens so it is easy to see that a better AF system would make it seem that the lens is better when it is ngo.

---

You are going to have to find a way to wrap your head around the fact that it is a true statement.  The EF lenses really do perform better on the R Series bodies.

It is time to jump ship, stop arguing semantics, and get on the bandwagon.  The R Series get better performance out of the EF lenses than DSLRs, including the oldest lenses.

[wq9nsc]

EF lenses MAY perform better on a mirrorless body IF:

A. The mirrorless body has a better sensor than the older body used for comparison, this will become the key factor over time as no new DSLR bodies are introduced as sensor quality increases OR

B. The EF native body being used for comparison isn't properly AF calibrated for the lens.

But ultimately, it is focused light hitting a sensor in either architecture that records the image; no new magic is released by chanting the phrase mirrorless in the dark of the moon while clicking your heels together 3 times.

If I was planning to jump ship for better image quality, I would be jumping to one of the nice medium format systems 🙂  But I have never been into the "pixel peeping" aspect of the hobby and, much like the audiophile "monster cable and similar voodoo" purchasers fail the blind identification test with their custom broken in oxygen free cables, try identifying which image is which for a scene taken with a mirrorless versus DSLR without looking at the EXIF data.  Alternatively, I enjoy looking at some of the incredible images captured by Peter Read Miller using nothing more sophisticated than a decent film body and I know that I have never approached his level and no technology would ever put me there.

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

"...I know that I have never approached his level and no technology would ever put me there."

Don't cut yourself short there Rodger. The ability to 'see' a photo is as important as the ability to capture the photo. That is why cameras exist.  Us old photographers use to say, he kas the 'eye'.  You have the eye.