-1

I own canon 80D and have plans to upgrade to either DSLR or mirrorless after few years.Now,I m planning to buy Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 III IS . Will it be worth to invest in Canon EF lenses as I can see the high trend and popularity towards mirrorless cameras.From the specs,RF lenses are more superior with special convenient ring controls.

Please provide your valuable advice ,whether is it really worth to invest in EF lenses now and I wish to keep it for the next 10 years at least.

I shoot occasionally , not a heavy user.

Thank You.

closed as off-topic by Philip Kendall, flolilo, mattdm, Hueco, xiota Mar 14 at 9:06

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions seeking specific product or service recommendations, where the answer is likely to be either entirely personal or short-lived as a result of changing markets, are off topic here. Please rephrase your question to describe the problem you're trying to solve or what you do not understand that prevents you from determining the answer yourself." – Philip Kendall, flolilo, xiota
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Are you ultimately asking about predicted future re-sale value for EF lenses? That's not a subject that will be given much space here, but it is probably worth spending a moment considering how many Canon EOS users there are in the world (and how many functioning (current and future) Canon EOS cameras there might be in 10 years' time). – osullic Mar 12 at 9:58
  • Also, as flolilolilo mentions, EF-RF adapters. – osullic Mar 12 at 10:00
  • @osullic yes , Re sale value is another concern ... – skyhawkat Mar 12 at 11:29
-1

You already accepted an answer but here are my two cents anyway ;-) It - as always - depends on your plans what and how you want to use your equipment.

You already have a Canon DLSR that is capable of making use of the EF lens. With the EF-adapter for a Canon RF you'd be able to use the same lens for both of your cameras so that might be a reason to buy the EF-lens.

If you decide to buy a Canon R model and plan to focus yourself on that system, buying the RF lens might look like the best way to go but I'd wait for the test results concerning the picture quality of that lens. If the quality is less than the EF model can provide (I checked reviews and it's not that bad given the age), you might still go the way with the adapter and the EF lens.

Concerning your statement about RF lenses being superior:

RF lenses are more superior with special convenient ring controls

It's "control" (singular) and the ring only allows you to configure one setting that can be changed with that ring. Personally I don't see any "superiority" here. It might make a particular thing easier to change, so you might be able to get to the shot half a second faster, but if your thing is architecture photography, that wouldn't help you much ;-)

I'd say, wait for the test results and decide after that. Buy the RF lens only if you're cool with the fact that half of your cameras can't use it.

  • ("... it's not that bad given the age.")? The lens in question was introduced less than a year ago, although it is very similar to its predecessor. – Michael C Mar 12 at 17:56
0

We cannot answer whether or not RF lenses are worth waiting for to you (especially without knowing what exactly you plan to do with them) - or how the market will develop, exactly.


What we can answer, though:

Since the EF-RF adapters will provide functionality to the EF lenses on Canon's mirrorless camera lineup, I do not see how 10 years should be a problem.

0

When investing into any kind of technology, that's a risk you have to take.

If you purchase a gasoline car, is gasoline available in 10 years' time or has electricity killed it?

Similarly, if you purchase an EF lens, is mirrorless the thing in 10 years' time?

Fortunately, in the case of EF lenses, the adapter to fit it to a mirrorless RF camera is available and very convenient. The adapter to make electricity into gasoline is a very heavy and inconvenient factory which is expensive to run.

At least when purchasing an EF lens, you aren't restricting yourself to APS-C sized sensors. I'd say APS-C lenses are perhaps the lenses that are more at danger due to full frame becoming less expensive over time, with the greatest danger being obviously EF-M.

Also, Canon has a higher market share than Nikon, so the chances of EF becoming obsolete are less than they are with Nikon stuff becoming obsolete. (Edit: of course I don't mean that Nikon will become obsolete, as any market really requires at least two competitors, or else the only player in the market would select so expensive prices that the prices would attract competitors)

I wouldn't wait for new RF lenses to become available. If I purchased an RF camera, I would use whatever lenses are available for the EF mount and use them with an adapter.

An EF lens is a purchase that will stay useful for 10 years.

  • 1
    "I'd say APS-C lenses are perhaps the lenses that are more at danger due to full frame becoming less expensive over time": full-frame bodies perhaps, but full-frame lenses will always be bulkier, heavier and somewhat more expensive than their APS-C equivalent. – xenoid Mar 12 at 11:38
  • @xenoid Not necessarily. A 35mm lens, for example, would need to be a retrofocus design for an APS-C camera with a 42mm registration distance, while a 35mm lens for a 20mm registration distance could be a simple double Gauss design. Which one will most likely be be bulkier and heavier? – Michael C Mar 12 at 18:01
0

As long as you are shooting with an 80D, the only one of the two lenses you mention that you can use on your camera is the EF lens. That makes your immediate decision pretty easy unless you also plan to purchase an RF body at the same time you purchase a 70-200/2.8.

  • EF lenses can be adapted to RF mount cameras.
  • RF lenses can not be adapted to EF mount cameras.¹

Beyond that, there are more than just mount differences between the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III and the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS. One is an internal zoom/internal focus design that stays a constant length and can be more sealed against dust/weather. The other is an extending zoom design. You probably should wait until some reputable reviewers have had a crack at the new RF lens to see what other differences there might be before you make your choice.

¹ Unless one is willing to use an (as yet nonexistent) adapter with optics that will both degrade image quality and change the focal length in the same way a teleconverter/extender does. Of course this would also mean an effectively narrower maximum aperture.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.