Which EF lenses worth keep

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

If the Tamron is not G2, then that will have to go. As for others ... what improvements do you need?

J.K.T. wrote:

If the Tamron is not G2, then that will have to go. As for others ... what improvements do you need?

Why would it need to go?  I haven't owned this lens, but it can be updated by Tamron Service to work with Canon EF-RF adapters according to Tamron's website.

I had my 24-70 Tamron (non G2) updated and it works wonderfully with my EOS R using the Canon r mount adapter.

I would dump the tamron, either version, and if you can swing it get the RF 100-500 which is an awesome optic.  I had the Tamron before, and it is a decent lens, but not in the same class as the RF lens.  If you don,t need that much reach, consider the RF 100-400 which has had good reviews.

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

ksom wrote:

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

I kept the 16-35 f/4, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400 II, 50mm f/1.8 STM and 100mm macro. All of them decent performers where upgrading to RF counterparts give marginal IQ upgrade, but would mean a significant investment. Also kept a 70-300 L as compact travel zoom on the 6D II I still have.

Replaced the 24-105 f/4 (my workhorse lens) and Sigma 150-600 Sports with the RF 24-105 f/4 and RF 100-500 and added a 800mm f/11.

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

Non of the above lenses support things like high speed continuous shooting or focus bracketing and optically they have been surpassed by newer lenses. Personally would replace either of them over time.

You can start to replace one or two of the most important ones and keep the rest for now. I would personally replace the 24-70and 150-600 first.

Sandor.

I am looking have what would gain from moving to RF. If the quality of the photos don’t show significant improvement, the cost will definitely push me to keep the EF lenses. So if anyone used the both versions of these, please let me know what you think.

thanks,

Ted

Bryan Conner wrote:

J.K.T. wrote:

If the Tamron is not G2, then that will have to go. As for others ... what improvements do you need?

Why would it need to go? I haven't owned this lens, but it can be updated by Tamron Service to work with Canon EF-RF adapters according to Tamron's website.

I had my 24-70 Tamron (non G2) updated and it works wonderfully with my EOS R using the Canon r mount adapter.

I had it and now have the G2. It works on R7 ... sort of. It worked somewhat better with RP. Last I checked Tamron has not updated the firmware on G2 since the RP came. Somehow I doubt there is anything newer for the first version either.

I've still kept the G2 because its good features like much better IS, closer focus and zoom lock are nice enough to put up with its quirks, but it is a close thing. With the first version - no way. There is not much difference in image quality between the two, though.

Thank you all for the inputs.

I am getting the 100-500. Both in this thread and some YouTube reviews agree it is much better than the Tamron. Another reason is that i will use it a lot for some school events.

My 24-70mm is already dead and needs repair. That is likely the next I will replace. 
The hardest to decide is the old 70-200mm, which has been excellent for all these years. I see the RF version is lighter and smaller, which is very attractive.

I will still keep a 5D Mark ii, so may keep the 17-40mm a little longer, until I get a second mirrorless backup body.

This is my current thinking.

That's what I was trying to say - don't look at it as EF vs. RF. Just consider what lenses are available, what they cost and how much you need them. I don't need wide angles much, so I got a used EF 16-35mm f/4 for RP. It is excellent for the price I got it for and serves my needs nicely.

ksom wrote:

Thank you all for the inputs.

I am getting the 100-500. Both in this thread and some YouTube reviews agree it is much better than the Tamron. Another reason is that i will use it a lot for some school events.

My 24-70mm is already dead and needs repair. That is likely the next I will replace.
The hardest to decide is the old 70-200mm, which has been excellent for all these years. I see the RF version is lighter and smaller, which is very attractive.

I will still keep a 5D Mark ii, so may keep the 17-40mm a little longer, until I get a second mirrorless backup body.

This is my current thinking.

I have been through a similar journey over the last two years. My only difference was I bought and sold several EF lenses after I bought my R5.  I find the EF lenses work great on the R series cameras. In fact, for the most part better than they did on the EF cameras.  I have now switched to mostly an RF lens set that works for me.  The EF lenses I have left in my active kit are the EF 70-200 f/2.8 II and the Sigma 14 f/1.8 Art. I don't use 70-200 that much - I bought it for my daughter's indoor sports events. She is now losing interest in sports so I may not keep the lens. I thought about upgrading to the RF, much lighter, but does not work with TCs and I just don't care a lot for the 70-200 FL.

I still have my EF 24-70 f/2.8, but I have never tried it on my R5. I have the RF 24-105 f/4 and that is my main walk around lens. I still like the lens so I have kept it in case my daughter needs to use the lens.

I have gone through a journey on UW lenses. I had used a Sigma 15-35 starting with my 10D and used it on all my cameras since my R5. I sold it (wish I had not) and bought a EF 17-40 big mistake, I never liked the lens and the R5, in my opinion the Sigma was better. I sold the 17-40 and bought a very nice used 16-35 f/4 IS. An amazing lens. Easily one of the best lenses I have ever owned. Worked great on the R5, they only reason I moved to the RF 15-25 f/2.8 was my interest in astrophotography (same reason I bought the Sigma 14 f1.8).

Personally, I would keep using your nice EF lenses with an adapter and slowly move to RF lenses as you budget permits.  Enjoy the journey.

I agree, I love the EF 16-35 f4 on the R series.  One of Canon's special lenses. The used prices make it well worth considering.  Canon was selling refurbished ones during the holidays for $599. They sold out really quickly.

I agree. I kept my EF 24-70 f2.8 for the same reasons. Mine is sharp and I have taken many images I like and have been paid for with the lens. But I think the OP said his lens was having problems.  One of the issues with the MKI is an internal ribbon cable that goes bad. I do not believe Canon still services the lens.