reading the reviews with reference to the 50-200 f2.8 as being a "FF equivalent 400mm f2.8 lens" reminded me of an event just after I had changed from Canon pro gear to the first EM-1 with converter to use my big white canon lenses.
I was invited to the launch of the new canon 400 f2.8 mk2 + other goodies, at our local airport flying club, so along I went.
The rep, an old mate, looked at me a bit sideways when I turned up with the EM-1 and asked to try out the 400 f2.8 on it, but let me have it anyway.
Next moment I'm surrounded by all my canon mates wanting to know what I was using, could they try it and marvelling at the images I was getting from such a "Toy" camera.
The canon rep gave me a cup of coffee and a bun and politely told me to beggar off, I was ruining his sales pitch :-D
And then??
I moved out to the public area outside and sat having more coffee with my canon mates, chatting about the new toy camera ;-)
Later I made some nice money selling my remaining canon kit and have been hooked on Olympus gear ever since
I over-spent on Canon EF lenses in the first flush of what they could do with their native dslr bodies. (D60 - not 60D - anyone). However after no less than six Canon dslr bodies culminating in a first 5D I decided that I wanted to wait until Canon moved on and started to make mirrorless bodies that would take adapted EF lenses. So I went around the obvious traps including adapted Sony NEX6 and A7R (Mk I) before I decided while I liked the NEX6 I was less amused by the A7R.
For a while it looked like my EF lenses might become orphans as Canon resolutely milked the market for as many expensive updates as their loyal users would bear. Maybe a further 10 years by my reckoning. I did buy a remaindered brand new 5Ds for about 1/3 of the original asking price some years after the RF mount hit the streets with some very basic performing bodies. Once on the rolling update waggon, always on the rolling update waggon. I still use the 5Ds with its native EF lenses from time to time - but it strikes me quite old fashioned in its interface. But it is a powerful reliable old thing even if it eats batteries when not used.
By the time Canon decided the dslr game was up I was firmly embedded with M4/3 and have been here ever since. I have only just bought my first L-Mount lens after adapting EF to L for years. I can also have a play with most other ML mount systems which are only an adapter away from my still quite acceptable EF mount lenses.
The catch is that no matter what ML mount system we adopt it is not really seriously feasible to swap mount systems without rendering your previous systems lenses redundant- so carefully choose the system selected. Canon has cheerfully swapped FD for EF and the investment in EF-S never really took off then the EF-M lasted only as long as it suited before aps-c bodies started appearing in RF.
My experience with Canon and its EF mount dslr lenses was locked-in and looking like a disaster unless I kept buying more dslr bodies. Saved by the electronic adapter bell?
