All my camera gear stolen. Need advice on buying replacements!

A few weeks ago, I had two cases of cameras and lenses stolen. I was devastated but luckily it was covered under my home insurance. At first I thought I would just get a claim adjustment in the amount of the depreciated gear. In other words, I would get what the gear would cost used. And so I considered switching to the Sony or Nikon systems with the funds I would get. But then I received notice from my insurance that if I replace the gear I had, they would cover the replacement cost of each item. And since this was almost double the funds than if I just took a cash payment, I decided to stick with Canon.

Here are the main items that were stolen: 2x5D3, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8II IS, 24L II/1.4, 40/2.8, Sig85/1.4, 200/2.8.

Looking at the state of camera development, it seems prudent to now move to mirrorless. The R6s are clearly great replacements for my 5D3s. And I see that Canon has a 24-70 and 70-200 in the RF mount so I'm good with those two.

But what about primes? At 24mm, I see there is a 24mm f/1.8 version with IS in RF mount, which seems good. But it's not 1.4 and I'm worried about build quality and weather sealing. Should I just rebuy the 24L and use an adapter?

I can replace my 40mm with the RF 50/1.8. I've read reviews that claim this is an upgrade. And the extra stop of light is welcome. Agreed?

Now here's where I'm torn. I could replace the Sigma 85/1.4 with another Sig85mm and use an adapter. Or if I opt for the 50mm instead of the 40mm stated earlier, I could upgrade the Sigma 85mm to the Sigma 105/1.4 to better complement the 50mm, but I would still need to use the adapter. I would need to pay any difference out of my pocket between the 85 and the 105. Or I could go for the RF 85/2.0, lose a stop of light but get the RF mount and IS.

And finally, there's the old Canon 200mm f/2.8. You can't buy these new any longer and they are hard to find used. There is no RF equivalent that I'm aware of. This was my sharpest lens, sharper than my 70-200mm II IS at 200mm. What's a good replacement for this? Just find one used and use the adapter?

I appreciate any advice you have.

Usually replacement cost insurance means they pay you the dollar amount that it would take to replace what you lost exactly or approximately ('a camera of like kind'). This is necessary because often what you lose cannot be replaced exactly (like a new 5dIII). You might ask your insurance company about this. This would enlarge your options.

In fact my insurance policy did not even require that I use the money to buy a new camera. If I had lost a 5DIII, they would pay me an amount that would enable me to buy today's version of a 5DIII (they would put a value on it). If I wanted to use the money to buy a television, I could have. They didn't care. Your coverage may be different but check.

gmcooper wrote:

In fact my insurance policy did not even require that I use the money to buy a new camera. If I had lost a 5DIII, they would pay me an amount that would enable me to buy today's version of a 5DIII (they would put a value on it). If I wanted to use the money to buy a television, I could have. They didn't care. Your coverage may be different but check.

To be clear, each item was listed with a "cash value" and also a "replacement value". For example, the 5D3s show a cash value of about $1500 and a replacement value of about $2600. So I can choose to buy a new 5D3 and get up to $2600 for it or I can choose to take $1500 in cash and do whatever I want with the money. I can make this decision for each item individually.

But since I was planning on buying back my gear, it behoves me to replace each item up until the replacement value.

The other path I can take, considering all my gear was used, is to rebuy exactly the same items used. I don't want to take advantage of the insurance company at all. But it seems like my policy allows for this replacing of items. So I figure it's a good opportunity to switch to mirrorless now.

In your position I’d be looking at an R6 and an R5 rather than 2x R6

I wouldn’t see a need for a 200mm/2.8 as well as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and leaving out the prime would fund the upgrade of one R6 to the R5.

Of course I have no idea of your actual needs, but I do have a 5DIII and IV and their operations are close enough to be almost seamless when  switch from one to the other - the MkIV touch screen being the main ergonomic difference.  So I would imagine switching between the R5 and R6 would not be troublesome and you might enjoy the 45Mpx of the R5

just a thought

Peter

CameraCarl wrote:

If you are starting from scratch and going mirrorless, why would you consider any EF mount lenses?

- Canon still lacks number of important lenses in RF which are available in EF (number of f/1.4 primes, any 100-105mm faster than f/2.8, any 135mm, any UWA prime faster than f/2.8 etc...)

- many RF lenses prices are way too high

Sure, an adapted EF lens works just as well on R bodies, but why introduce an adapter when you don't need to?

In the real usage, the RF adapter makes zero troubles.

Why not buy the closest RF lens equivalent to the EF lenses you had stolen -- unless you didn't want/need/use the EF lens in the first place? And why the worry about the durability or quality of the Canon RF lenses? What leads you to think that Canon would engineer an RF "L" lens that is any less durable or lower quality than the EF "L" lenses it sold?

Comparing plastic RF L lenses to metal EF L lenses can leave someone with the feeling of a lower build quality. Moreover when there are many EF mount lenses from Sigma which by far exceed the build quality for much lower prices.

Also the external zooming 70-200s. From the pure logic it will gather dust, dirt and moisture much easier than its fully closed EF counterparts.

Or if you are considering a non-L lens to replace one of your older "L" lenses, consider if you really do need the extra durability or weather resistance.

CameraCarl wrote:

If you are starting from scratch and going mirrorless, why would you consider any EF mount lenses? Sure, an adapted EF lens works just as well on R bodies, but why introduce an adapter when you don't need to? Why not buy the closest RF lens equivalent to the EF lenses you had stolen -- unless you didn't want/need/use the EF lens in the first place? And why the worry about the durability or quality of the Canon RF lenses? What leads you to think that Canon would engineer an RF "L" lens that is any less durable or lower quality than the EF "L" lenses it sold? Or if you are considering a non-L lens to replace one of your older "L" lenses, consider if you really do need the extra durability or weather resistance.

I would be using this gear for wedding photography.  I have shot in rain and snow so I prefer weather sealed if possible. And same for durability. My gear gets bumped sometimes. Granted, I never had anything break or get damaged, even non-L lenses.

As for getting EF lenses, my understanding is that there are not many RF primes yet. There are the f/1.2s and some f/1.8s and above. The f/1.2s are too expensive for me right now. What RF lens will give me the look that the 24mm@f/1.4 gives me? And what prime will serve as a backup to the 70-200mm@200mm? I used the 200mm prime as that backup. There's no RF equivalent yet.

I'm sure in time Canon will release a full RF lineup. But I think it will take 5 years or more.

Messier Object wrote:

In your position I’d be looking at an R6 and an R5 rather than 2x R6

I wouldn’t see a need for a 200mm/2.8 as well as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and leaving out the prime would fund the upgrade of one R6 to the R5.

Of course I have no idea of your actual needs, but I do have a 5DIII and IV and their operations are close enough to be almost seamless when switch from one to the other - the MkIV touch screen being the main ergonomic difference. So I would imagine switching between the R5 and R6 would not be troublesome and you might enjoy the 45Mpx of the R5

just a thought

Peter

I wouldn't mind an R5 alongside an R6. I have used a 5D3 and 5D4 together for events. No problem switching between the two. But I would need to pay the extra cost out of pocket. I would be using these for weddings and other events. So I'm wondering whether the R6 is sufficient for event photography or not. What benefit does the R5 provide?

As for the 200mm lens, I used it as a backup to the zoom. Not that the EF70-20mm ever failed me, but you want backups for weddings. I once had my 5D3 stop working for a few minutes just as the bride was coming down the aisle. Had I not had my second camera with me, it would've been a disaster! Later I just removed the battery and reinserted it to fix that problem camera.

caphotovideo wrote:

A few weeks ago, I had two cases of cameras and lenses stolen. I was devastated but luckily it was covered under my home insurance. At first I thought I would just get a claim adjustment in the amount of the depreciated gear. In other words, I would get what the gear would cost used. And so I considered switching to the Sony or Nikon systems with the funds I would get. But then I received notice from my insurance that if I replace the gear I had, they would cover the replacement cost of each item. And since this was almost double the funds than if I just took a cash payment, I decided to stick with Canon.

Here are the main items that were stolen: 2x5D3, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8II IS, 24L II/1.4, 40/2.8, Sig85/1.4, 200/2.8.

Looking at the state of camera development, it seems prudent to now move to mirrorless. The R6s are clearly great replacements for my 5D3s. And I see that Canon has a 24-70 and 70-200 in the RF mount so I'm good with those two.

But what about primes? At 24mm, I see there is a 24mm f/1.8 version with IS in RF mount, which seems good. But it's not 1.4 and I'm worried about build quality and weather sealing. Should I just rebuy the 24L and use an adapter?

I can replace my 40mm with the RF 50/1.8. I've read reviews that claim this is an upgrade. And the extra stop of light is welcome. Agreed?

Now here's where I'm torn. I could replace the Sigma 85/1.4 with another Sig85mm and use an adapter. Or if I opt for the 50mm instead of the 40mm stated earlier, I could upgrade the Sigma 85mm to the Sigma 105/1.4 to better complement the 50mm, but I would still need to use the adapter. I would need to pay any difference out of my pocket between the 85 and the 105. Or I could go for the RF 85/2.0, lose a stop of light but get the RF mount and IS.

And finally, there's the old Canon 200mm f/2.8. You can't buy these new any longer and they are hard to find used. There is no RF equivalent that I'm aware of. This was my sharpest lens, sharper than my 70-200mm II IS at 200mm. What's a good replacement for this? Just find one used and use the adapter?

I appreciate any advice you have.

One thing about the EF 200mm f2.8, it will not allow for full fps on the R5/R6 due to it's age.  It works just great at a lower fps, so the images are fine and not sure how important the full 12 fps is for you.

tdbmd wrote:

One thing about the EF 200mm f2.8, it will not allow for full fps on the R5/R6 due to it's age. It works just great at a lower fps, so the images are fine and not sure how important the full 12 fps is for you.

That's interesting. I remember something about TCs limiting the number of available autofocus points for certain cameras long ago, but I've never heard about older lenses limiting the FPS of these newer cameras. Is there a list posted by Canon somewhere?

In any case, I don't do too much action/sports photography so not too worried about this.

caphotovideo wrote:

tdbmd wrote:

One thing about the EF 200mm f2.8, it will not allow for full fps on the R5/R6 due to it's age. It works just great at a lower fps, so the images are fine and not sure how important the full 12 fps is for you.

That's interesting. I remember something about TCs limiting the number of available autofocus points for certain cameras long ago, but I've never heard about older lenses limiting the FPS of these newer cameras. Is there a list posted by Canon somewhere?

In any case, I don't do too much action/sports photography so not too worried about this.

There is a page in the manual for both the R5/R6 that list the lenses that are compatible with full H+ shooting (12 fps)

caphotovideo wrote:

A few weeks ago, I had two cases of cameras and lenses stolen. I was devastated but luckily it was covered under my home insurance. At first I thought I would just get a claim adjustment in the amount of the depreciated gear. In other words, I would get what the gear would cost used. And so I considered switching to the Sony or Nikon systems with the funds I would get. But then I received notice from my insurance that if I replace the gear I had, they would cover the replacement cost of each item. And since this was almost double the funds than if I just took a cash payment, I decided to stick with Canon.

Here are the main items that were stolen: 2x5D3, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8II IS, 24L II/1.4, 40/2.8, Sig85/1.4, 200/2.8.

Looking at the state of camera development, it seems prudent to now move to mirrorless. The R6s are clearly great replacements for my 5D3s. And I see that Canon has a 24-70 and 70-200 in the RF mount so I'm good with those two.

But what about primes? At 24mm, I see there is a 24mm f/1.8 version with IS in RF mount, which seems good. But it's not 1.4 and I'm worried about build quality and weather sealing. Should I just rebuy the 24L and use an adapter?

I can replace my 40mm with the RF 50/1.8. I've read reviews that claim this is an upgrade. And the extra stop of light is welcome. Agreed?

Now here's where I'm torn. I could replace the Sigma 85/1.4 with another Sig85mm and use an adapter. Or if I opt for the 50mm instead of the 40mm stated earlier, I could upgrade the Sigma 85mm to the Sigma 105/1.4 to better complement the 50mm, but I would still need to use the adapter. I would need to pay any difference out of my pocket between the 85 and the 105. Or I could go for the RF 85/2.0, lose a stop of light but get the RF mount and IS.

And finally, there's the old Canon 200mm f/2.8. You can't buy these new any longer and they are hard to find used. There is no RF equivalent that I'm aware of. This was my sharpest lens, sharper than my 70-200mm II IS at 200mm. What's a good replacement for this? Just find one used and use the adapter?

Yes the Canon EF200mm 2.8 is a beautiful lens and I will not part with mine.  You should grab one used if you can find a nice one.  I doubt it's on the road map for the RF line.

I appreciate any advice you have.

Messier Object wrote:

In your position I’d be looking at an R6 and an R5 rather than 2x R6

I wouldn’t see a need for a 200mm/2.8 as well as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and leaving out the prime would fund the upgrade of one R6 to the R5.

The prime is nice to carry and fits in bags easily.  The 70-200 2.8 is a terrible lens to carry around.

Of course I have no idea of your actual needs, but I do have a 5DIII and IV and their operations are close enough to be almost seamless when switch from one to the other - the MkIV touch screen being the main ergonomic difference. So I would imagine switching between the R5 and R6 would not be troublesome and you might enjoy the 45Mpx of the R5

just a thought

Peter

I would have no problem adapting EF lenses.  When the time comes this is what I will be doing.

Sad to see the 200/2.8 L is no longer available. There are many used ones available.  I prefer the first one with built in hood, but they are getting older.

Didn't read all of the replies but I'd switch to mirrorless. I have RP, R5 and R7 and love them. I'm not an expensive lens person and have RF 24-105 f4, 24-240, 16mm 100-400 and 15-30. On my way to Canadian Rockies to use them.

Why not get the latest technology (within reason).

Kent