DSLR and Mirrorless owners

[slat]

When you purchase new lenses do you purchase just mirrorless lenses or lenses that will work on both?
I am thinking of purchasing a mirrorless camera in the near future along with a couple of the trinity lenses, 24-70 and 70-200. I do have a Canon 80D that I think I'll still use.
Does it make since to buy EF lenses to use on both or just invest in the RF lenses?

 

[Stevedevil01]

With RF camera’s getting more popular, EF lenses are falling in price, Hence as I only do Photography I picked up an EOS 5D Mk iv with a shutter count of 241 for a steal, Canon will stop supporting EF lenses in the near future, so the balance is then the question, Video on the RF and the dedicated lenses is far above the EF lens, Its all about what you need to get from the Camera, and remember the Camera only records the image that your Glass gives it !!!!

 

[Ysarex]

When you purchase new lenses do you purchase just mirrorless lenses or lenses that will work on both?
I am thinking of purchasing a mirrorless camera in the near future along with a couple of the trinity lenses, 24-70 and 70-200. I do have a Canon 80D that I think I'll still use.
Does it make since to buy EF lenses to use on both or just invest in the RF lenses?

I have some excellent older legacy lenses that I continue to use, but the initial reason I bought my first mirrorless camera was to get the lenses that the shorter flange distance makes possible and that can't be had for a DSLR. When I decided to upgrade back in 2012 I did what my teacher Jim taught me many years ago: "Lenses take pictures, cameras hold film. Get your priorities straight." I started shopping for lenses. After I found the first lens I wanted I discovered I'd be buying a mirrorless Fuji camera. I still have that lens -- Fuji's XF 14mm f/2.8 and it still has no counterpart available for a DSLR. My 14mm Fuji lens is 100% distortion free. A lens of equivalent focal length for a DSLR will have to be designed to clear the mirror and that design compromise comes with lens distortion. The shorter flange distance you find in all mirrorless cameras is an advantage for the lens designer especially for wide lenses.

 

[Stevedevil01]

Again not clear on what you want to achieve, as I shoot old fashioned Full Frame, I get that the market is moving sideways a bit, but lens quality is priority, Having the lens closer to the sensor accelerates the outer lens abrasion, as rule of thumb, better to shoot an f2.8 at f4 etc

 

[cgw]

Having the lens closer to the sensor accelerates the outer lens abrasion...

Oh no, not the dreaded lens abrasion!!! The inner type is bad but the outer variety is truly awful.

 

[Stevedevil01]

Having the lens closer to the sensor accelerates the outer lens abrasion...

Oh no, not the dreaded lens abrasion!!! The inner type is bad but the outer variety is truly awful.

Again you could offer some advice, but you choose to mimic others responses, I imagine that your happy with your own photography, so keep it to yourself then

 

[Golem]

Again not clear on what you want to achieve, as I shoot old fashioned Full Frame, I get that the market is moving sideways a bit, but lens quality is priority, Having the lens closer to the sensor accelerates the outer lens abrasion, as rule of thumb, better to shoot an f2.8 at f4 etc

Nobody worrys about "outer lens abrasion". Most users keep a UV filter over their outer lens, and can just replace it should it become too badly abraded.

Minor abrasions just add a hint of "vintage romance" so a mildly abraded filter is worth keeping for special use (example attached).

 

[Kwillmorth]

I suggest that the mirror less bodies are the go-to choice. They have the advantage of having a shallower depth from lens mount to sensor, providing room for adapters. For example, all Canon R series bodies are capable of using native, plus, with adapters, DSLR and vintage lenses.

I have an R5 with an RP backup, both full frame. For glass, I have several RF native lenses in L and non L qualities, several EF lenses I use with an EF/RF adapter, a couple of Nikon DX automatic lenses with an F/RF adapter that provides manual control of aperture, and a few M42 mount vintage and SuperTakumar lenses I install with an M42/RF adapter. This flexibility and the ability to go back to some wonderful old 35mm film lenses means I can revisit lenses that cannot be used with DSLR bodies, as their are relatively few adapters, or no room to make them work. I have never found the adapters added to the lens length an issue, as they are only about 3/4" deep, and weigh next to nothing.

The ability to use the EF lenses at great prices today (new and used) plus application of 3rd party glass readily available for EF, gets around Canon's blockade of 3rd party supply of full frame R lenses, and some of their insane RF L glass pricing. In a recent purchase, I picked up a lightly used Tamron EF mount SP45mm lens that is near L glass outstanding, and includes stabilization and weather sealing - for less than the lower end unsealed, good-enough grade RF glass, so it is a win win.

I prefer full frame over ASPC or M4/3 as I don't like the whole crop factor messing with the optics, like having to have a 35mm lens to get 56mm field of view and the imposition of that crop on every lenses characteristic center to corner/edge rendering. With full frame, the lens is what it says on it, and the vintage 35mm film glass works as it should including the desired optical effects that make them so special.

I also believe that over time, buying lenses for crop sensor bodies just creates an inventory of lenses that jam you up in having to crop a full frame sensor later, which really cuts resolution down - ex: a 45mp full frame sensor in 1.6 crop mode to use crop sensor lenses, becomes a 28mp sensor, and 26mp sensor is cut down to 16mp. I can always use a crop lens today on a full frame sensor, but in the future, any crop lenses (like the Nikon DX lenses I have) will be relegated to cropped reduced resolution mode that reduces their utility and value (I keep them only because they are good lenses, of too little value to sell or trade in). Since the future is likely to continue to drive toward full frame sensors with higher mp count (from 45 to 100+, global, etc), I see no reason to buy glass (which can last decades if properly cared for) that reduces the value of future tech updates in the body.

 

[Kwillmorth]

In general, when compared side by side, the RF lenses are superior to some degree to the EF lenses of the same basic spec., with a few exceptions.The RF lenses also have the control ring, and improved image stabilization for those who like those features. In my case, I start with searching the RF lenses available as preference one. If that misses the mark (price, performance, focal length, aperture, etc...), I look to EF lenses on an adapter. Then, should there be a better 3rd party choice, either RF or EF mount, I go there. Finally, there are vintage lenses, oddball iconic glass, cinema stuff, etc... with various mounts, primarily all manual operation, as long as I can source an adapter, I will go there. At this moment, that includes Nikon F and M42 threaded adapters for lenses I either had on hand or purchased for their character. That's the advantage of mirrorless, you can pretty much find a way to adapt any lens you might want to it with excellent results - assuming you are good with whatever functional.limits that involves.

 

[Golem]

the initial reason I bought my first mirrorless camera was to get the lenses that the shorter flange distance makes possible and that can't be had for a DSLR.

Quite similar to the reason I bought my first Nikon Z.
I was very much interested in the very compact little lenses that are almost always in Leica M-mount.

You cannot use those on a FF SLR. They are useable on my Sonys but the very short lenses (11,15, 21 etc) are problematc on the Sonys due to the thickness of the sensor stack.

Nikons have the thinnest stack (as thin as Leica) and so now I am very involved with Nikon ... but having nothing at all to do with Z-lenses vs F-lenses or lens designs for deep or shallow bodies. My concern was with deep or shallow sensor stacks.

I did acquire the relatively compact Nikon Z 14-30 simply cuz I stumbled into it dirt cheap, and am very appreciative that such an ultra wide zoom from an SLR is always humongous.