Which EF lenses worth keep

ksom wrote:

I am moving to mirrorless. Which EF lenses did you keep?

I have the follow:

- 24-70 2.8 L (first version)

- 70-200 2.8 L (first version)

- 24mm 1.4 L

- 17-40mm 4.0 L

- Tamron 150-600mm

- 50mm 1.4

- 85mm 1.8

Thanks,

Ted

As some others have said, it depends to some extent on your budget. I had similar issues in my transition to mirrorless when I got my R5 (and subsequently my R7). It was made easier for me since I sold my 5D IV to my son and also gave him some lenses as Christmas and birthday gifts ( for example, he got my 70-200 2.8 IS L II lens).

Here’s what I did, or  what I would do with your collection: (note - this assumes you can afford it)

First, because of the IBIS on the R5, R6 and R7 bodies, those non IS EF lenses become quite viable.

I would actually sell the 24-70 and buy an updated version. Better IQ, better IS (versus none), no adapter needed.

The EF 70-200 2.8L (non IS version) was, in my opinion, the best of my 70-200 2.8 lenses, whether IS or not. For the money you would get by selling it I would keep theis and use on my IBIS R series body. If my body did not have IBIS, then I would buy the RF version. For what it’s worth, I did buy a RF 70-200 2.8 L, but I still regret giving up my old EF 70-200 2.8 L those many years ago.

I would keep the 24mm 1.4L  I don’t think there is a RF equivalent.

Sell the 17-40 4.0L. I gave mine to my son for Christmas. I got the RF 14-35 F4.0 L IS and am extremely happy with it on both my R5 and now also on the R7  To some extent it would replace the EF24-70 functionality on a crop series R camera.

If you can afford it, get the RF 100-500. Also get a 1.4 or 2.0 RF teleconverter. The lens is simply fantastic on both my R bodies, and the converter works very well when i need the extra reach. However this is an expensive proposition no matter what. If you can’t stretch to the cost opf the RF 100-500 L then why not update the lens  firmware and use what you have.

Have fun.

Chris