Selling Canon Lenses and Upgrading

Dael_Pix

Dael_Pix

Messages
1,616
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Thinking about selling the following and replacing (except for camera) when money allows.

From:
Canon 5DMKIV
Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro
Canon EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III
Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM - Canon Fit

To:
Canon RF 100mm f2.8 L Macro IS USM
Canon RF 24-240mm f4-5.6 IS USM
Canon RF 200-800mm f6.3-9 IS USM

Thoughts on the 24-240mm?

I take macro, landscapes and recently wildlife. I cannot go without a long lens because I replaced the 75-300mm with the 100-400mm for otters in Scotland. While the 100-400 does well, I wouldn't mind more reach, which is why I have chosen the 200-800mm over the 100-500mm.

Although the wide angle lens is damn sharp, I hardly use it these days.
 
Last edited:
I can't comment on the 24-240mm or the 200-800 as I don't have personal experience. However I'd consider keeping the EF 100 for macro and save some money rather than replace with the RF version
 
I dont know much about the mirrorless system but would it not be worth getting a ef to rf converter and using your existing lenses on both cameras as you say your not selling the 5Div
 
Are you seriously contemplating swapping out EF L lenses with newer RF consumer zooms.

My gut says that sounds bonkers. Personally I swapped out the EF50 and 85 1.8’s for the RF equivalents. But I’d rather keep every other EF lens in my collection, purely on cost grounds. There’s no point in buying ‘worse’ RF lenses just to get rid of the need for the adaptor. If you can’t currently afford like for like swaps, keep using the great lenses you own.

Sure, get rid of some stuff you don’t use, or poorer lenses, but a wholesale swap to consumer zooms is bonkers.
 
luthy said:
I dont know much about the mirrorless system but would it not be worth getting a ef to rf converter and using your existing lenses on both cameras as you say your not selling the 5Div
Click to expand...
I'm not using the 5DMKIV because I have the R5, so I will be selling it some time.
 
Aw sorry I thought you were keeping the 5div.
But still the lenses can be used via an adaptor from what Ive read the results are good using that combo.
 
gerry s said:
Have you any idea of shutter count?
Click to expand...
Nope. No idea but I can find out as I know there's some software out there that tells you. I'm not selling it just yet.
 
@Dael_Pix a couple of months ago you were desperate for the highest possible resolution sensor, and now you're planning to buy lenses that don't have the resolving power of your great new sensor.

I might be missing something here; but why? What's the point in buying a high MP sensor, then getting rid of lenses that will take advantage of that to replace them with lenses which won't.
 
Dael_Pix said:
Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro
Click to expand...
decent lens, but EF L IS was a little better in every way. This is what you should be getting other than maybe some sigma or a fancy TSE macro

Dael_Pix said:
Canon EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM
Click to expand...
not too bad at 16mm actually but comes with weird ghosting issue. If you don't push it anywhere near that far just keep it. They are not worth a thing anymore on the market
Dael_Pix said:
Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II USM
Click to expand...
one to get rid off and cash in before they are also worth nothing
Dael_Pix said:
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM
Click to expand...
Seriously selling this would be an absolute travesty unless your copy is well damaged. Probably best zoom they ever made
Dael_Pix said:
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III
Click to expand...
even a tenner is better than this in the bag
Dael_Pix said:
Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM - Canon Fit
Click to expand...
I'd think 100-400 has you more than covered already

Now looking at the proposed travesties and nasties... That some proper hideous soft plastic kit. Unless you totally don't care about IQ. You shouldn't be buying more than R6 mk1, and even that will out resolve these "lenses" many times over.

Dael_Pix said:
Canon RF 100mm f2.8 L Macro IS USM
Click to expand...
I hope you read the reviews. Focus shift. Only sharp at f/8+ or f/2.8. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-100mm-F2.8-L-Macro-IS-USM-Lens.aspx
no better than EF, and a waste of ££££

Dael_Pix said:
Canon RF 24-240mm f4-5.6 IS USM
Click to expand...
plastic waste

www.the-digital-picture.com

Tamron 35mm f/1.4 Di USD Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Tamron 35mm f/1.4 Di USD Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com

Dael_Pix said:
Canon RF 200-800mm f6.3-9 IS USM
Click to expand...
another slow soft plastic....

Does canon really need donations these days?
 
Phil V said:
@Dael_Pix a couple of months ago you were desperate for the highest possible resolution sensor, and now you're planning to buy lenses that don't have the resolving power of your great new sensor.

I might be missing something here; but why? What's the point in buying a high MP sensor, then getting rid of lenses that will take advantage of that to replace them with lenses which won't.
Click to expand...
Shhh... That's the trendy thing. High mp cameras that most users don't even need paired with slow, plastic overpriced lenses that can't even resolve 4k video. I bet they will be all upgrading after the next launch cycle
 
I was only THINKING about it. It wasn't set in stone that I was selling and replacing lenses.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
decent lens, but EF L IS was a little better in every way. This is what you should be getting other than maybe some sigma or a fancy TSE macro


not too bad at 16mm actually but comes with weird ghosting issue. If you don't push it anywhere near that far just keep it. They are not worth a thing anymore on the market

one to get rid off and cash in before they are also worth nothing

Seriously selling this would be an absolute travesty unless your copy is well damaged. Probably best zoom they ever made

even a tenner is better than this in the bag

I'd think 100-400 has you more than covered already

Now looking at the proposed travesties and nasties... That some proper hideous soft plastic kit. Unless you totally don't care about IQ. You shouldn't be buying more than R6 mk1, and even that will out resolve these "lenses" many times over.


I hope you read the reviews. Focus shift. Only sharp at f/8+ or f/2.8. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-100mm-F2.8-L-Macro-IS-USM-Lens.aspx
no better than EF, and a waste of ££££


plastic waste

www.the-digital-picture.com

Tamron 35mm f/1.4 Di USD Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Tamron 35mm f/1.4 Di USD Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com


another slow soft plastic....

Does canon really need donations these days?
Click to expand...
Macro lens - is IS L. I forgot to write it down
Wide angle lens - Never had a problem with ghosting. It's sharp as nails and I did once love it
24-70mm - I cannot part with it because it's my most used lens
100-400mm - Agreed. It's one of the best EF lenses out there. My version is sharp
75-300mm - I stopped using this when I bought the Sigma 150-500mm. = Both are being sold

Canon 24-240mm - From reviews, it appears to be a good lens. I don't care if it's plastic
 
Dael_Pix said:
Canon 24-240mm - From reviews, it appears to be a good lens. I don't care if it's plastic
Click to expand...
It certainly didn't get terrible reviews, unless of course you compare it to the reviews of the superior consumer 24-105, which is still bad, the 24-105 f4 which isn't great, the 24-105 and 24-70 2.8's which are decent, or the ludicrously priced f2 28-70.

That makes the 24-240 easily one of the best 6 standard zoom choices in RF mount (6th best) :ROFLMAO:
 
Dael_Pix said:
Canon 24-240mm - From reviews, it appears to be a good lens. I don't care if it's plastic
Click to expand...
No it is not, particularly at 8K. Did you at least check the resolution crop samples? I guess not in that case...

Dael_Pix said:
24-70mm - I cannot part with it because it's my most used lens
Click to expand...
It was for me too. Now I really regret taking most images with it. Crappy edges everywhere. OK for weddings and portraits though. Best thing I did was to sell it.
 
TimHughes said:
I would keep the EF lenses and use the adapter. I don't see any of the RF choices as being better.
Click to expand...
The 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 (not DS with multiple stop extra vignetting) definitely improved over the old versions. Let's give them that. I don't know if they compare very favourably with the other brands but essentially under 100mm these would be the two lenses I'd take if they gave me a voucher to spend :ROFLMAO:. Then I would hope 100-300 f/2.8 is also OK if you can afford to remortgage. And that's that.
 
welshwizard645 said:
OH regrets selling her EF100-400.....just saying.
Click to expand...
From purely selfish reasons I'd quite like to see more people getting rid of their copies. I can then pick one up for much less. i have 400/5.6L prime, and I don't go that long very often so I need a particularly good incentive to tempt me upgrading.
 
Dael_Pix said:
Wide angle lens - Never had a problem with ghosting. It's sharp as nails and I did once love it
Click to expand...
It is unlikely you have pushed it that far but once you do the only way out is to upgrade to an otherwise rather mediocre f/2.8 III or some special prime
put two black cards on the window with a reasonable gap in between - about a third width each. Shoot the thing and overexpose the window till it goes way beyond white. Now count the ghosts. I haven't seen any other lens perform this badly here. However Hoya HD filters can really facilitate it.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
It is unlikely you have pushed it that far but once you do the only way out is to upgrade to an otherwise rather mediocre f/2.8 III or some special prime
put two black cards on the window with a reasonable gap in between - about a third width each. Shoot the thing and overexpose the window till it goes way beyond white. Now count the ghosts. I haven't seen any other lens perform this badly here. However Hoya HD filters can really facilitate it.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the compromise with all lenses though - need the flexibility of a zoom then optical quality gives in certain areas.
Want ultimate optical quality then probably looking at very expensive primes
It just depends on where the user feels comfortable with image quality v price and the intended use of those images.
Slightly OT but my general advice before splashing out on new gear is to use what you have and then see if it's equipment or technique that's holding you back
 
As already said I would think very carefully before selling your EF 100mm L macro and replacing it with the RF version
I considered getting the RF 100 macro lens in addition to my EF 100 L because it can go to 1.4x ( higher magnification than the EF) but soon realised that for what I photograph it would be a mistake as it has focus shift at the sort of distances that I would photograph dragonflies
 
Last edited:
Generally a zoom with a shorter magnifation range (3x-4x)will provide sharper pictures with less visible lens distortion (barrel or pincushion) than a zoom of much longer zoom range 5x - 10x)
 
Last edited:
taxboy said:
Want ultimate optical quality then probably looking at very expensive primes
Click to expand...
Well it looks like you can have pretty affordable but amazing Sigma ART primes down to 28mm and then suddenly there is pretty much nothing decent for Canon systems regardless of money... E and L mounts have better options for sure.
 
The grass isn't always greener.

What doesn't your current kit do?

Or is it simply change for change sake?
 
Mike.P said:
If I remember correctly @RedRobin had one when he was using Canon and he wasn't that impressed. Think it may be in the Canon thread.
Click to expand...
.... That's right - I wasn't impressed because the lens suffered from unavoidable strongly visible vignetting. Canon told me it was optically unavoidable when at maximum width of focal length and this was due to the extremes of zoom range. That didn't satisfy me for enjoyable use and so I quickly sold it. Otherwise the lens was as excellent as you would expect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top