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 !!!!

 

[Ysarex83 77]

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

 

[cgw114 140]

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).

 

[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 an ultra wide zoom from an SLR is always humongous while this lens is neat and small.

 

[Ysarex83 77]

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.

I use a couple of Leica M-mount lenses on my Fujis. The 90mm macro Elmar is fantastic and I love my Zeiss 35mm Biogon.

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 an ultra wide zoom from an SLR is always humongous while this lens is neat and small.

 

[Light Fandango]

My setup:
Nikon Z9
Two Z-lenses, 14-24mm 2.8 and 24-120 F4, for travel and such. No real desire to have more Z-lenses.
Five Milvus Nikon- F-mount primes with Z-adapter for the Z9, for more involved shooting.
By having the Milvus lenses with the F-mount and iris ring, they also fit perfectly on our 35mm film cameras, as well as being usable via adapters on other digital cameras, should that ever be needed.

C.

 

[TJMcG111]

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

I don't know what this means.

 

[smoke665]

I don't know what this means.

I think what he was trying to say was lens abrasion (scratches) on the exterior of "rear" element, being closer to to sensor on a mirrorless, will show up more. No difference between a DSLR & mirrorless on front scratches.

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).

For years I kept a UV filter attached, until I realized that the lack of sharpness in my images wasn't me it was the filter. Took them off a few years ago, and havent looked back. I still have them, use them occasionally for lens protection in a dusty environment, and for special effect shots like smearing Vaseline on the filter.

 

[1981eagle]

For years I kept a UV filter attached, until I realized that the lack of sharpness in my images wasn't me it was the filter. Took them off a few years ago, and havent looked back. I still have them, use them occasionally for lens protection in a dusty environment, and for special effect shots like smearing Vaseline on the filter.

I think that the 'No filter' vs. 'Protective filter' debate is much like the 'Watch winder' vs. 'no watch winder' debate that goes on with automatic watch people. There probably isn't a 'correct' answer and it's more of a matter of one's comfort level.

I personally don't use a filter for protective reasons (UV or otherwise). I have one that I may screw on from time to time, but I do use ND's and a CPL from time to time. For protection I rely mostly on the lens hood. But - like I said - to each their own and there is likely no 'right' answer.

 

[cgw114 140]

Boxers or briefs???
I put good quality clear filters on my 35mm lenses, always have. Why? They've taken hits and done their sacrificial duty often enough to keep me slapping them on new or cherry used glass.
They're not on my MF lenses since they're never exposed to the same risks--forget that they're also ruinously pricey that big. They're on all Nikon and Fuji AF glass. Frankly, I've never been embarrassed by the alleged IQ compromises some claim they inflict.
Besides, I'd much rather scrub the bejesus out of a 50 buck filter than a front element any day!

 

[Thiophilos]

Some folks experience hits to the glass of their lenses. If that happens to your lenses, it is best to use a clear filter and pay the piper as necessary.

If you don't have that problem, don't use a filter.

It's simple. Use a filter if you need one. If you don't, don't.

I have replaced my frequently-used lenses with mirrorless ones. They are very expensive, but they have advantages. I kept some EF lenses that are much-less used - for instance the Canon MP-E65 and a fish eye.

Many report that their EF lenses work even better on their mirrorless cameras. So if you don't mind using the adapter and want to save some money, EF is the way to go.