[Brightcolours]

The EF 35mm f2? It is great fo rclose focus images as it renders nicely there, but at infinity its bokeh is not great... So just for close ups and deep DOF infinity stuff. And the extreme corners always stay unsharp.

[Rover]

I've lost my account 1.5 years ago for some reason and has only been visiting sporadically since. But I see at least the Canon forum is pretty lively, only they're mostly discussing RF mount things now (another reason I did not rejoin - I do not have anything relevant to say).

You're a highly respected and relevant contributor here.
If that would be interesting to you,  today I am getting 35mmf2.0 prime, the old one, a tiny nice piece of equipment

Thanks. I still don't feel qualified to offer anything relevant on the RF-related topics (other than my usual brand of misdirected sarcasm, that is).
I would not get any of the old lenses at this point though. The 35/2 IS, on the other hand...

[toni-a]

Although I do use a RF camera but all my lenses are EF and have absolutely no plans of getting any RF lens for the time being as I am quite happy with my setup, was considering the RF 35mm f1.8, now it's ruled out.
As everyone is moving RF, EF lenses prices should soon drop significantly , when seeing your final result, nobody would care if the lens used is EF or RF, and as a user of both, only advantages of RF bodies are face detection and eye autofocus and autofocus precision at shallow DOF , if someobdoy doesn't need those, I find no point moving RF

[wim]

Although I do use a RF camera but all my lenses are EF and have absolutely no plans of  getting any RF lens for the time being as I am quite happy with my setup, was considering the RF 35mm f1.8, now it's ruled out.
As everyone is moving RF, EF lenses prices should soon drop significantly , when seeing your final result, nobody would care if the lens used is EF or RF, and as a user of both, only advantages of RF bodies  are face detection and eye autofocus and autofocus precision at shallow DOF , if someobdoy doesn't need those, I find no point moving RF

You do have the RF body benefits with EF lenses mounted on an RF body via adapter as well.
That was a clever move by Canon, AFAIAC.

The real reason to move to RF lenses is support, especially once parts for the EF lenses run out. And that has started happening for some EF-lenses that were current prior to the move to R-bodies already.

[Rover]

I shudder to think of all the expenditures I'd have to go through if I were to ever switch to ML... absolutely unfeasible unless I find an abandoned goldmine (fat chance). So for me, it'd be similar at best... ML body with my current crop of EF lenses adapted.

It'd be fun to screw my EF 24-85 on to something like Nikon Z9 or Sony A7R IV, of course. I woulda won points for the oddest lens/camera combo ever.

[Brightcolours]

The oddest combo would be a Sigma FP with Canon EF 50mm f1.0 USM or something heavy adapted like that.

[wim]

I shudder to think of all the expenditures I'd have to go through if I were to ever switch to ML... absolutely unfeasible unless I find an abandoned goldmine (fat chance). So for me, it'd be similar at best... ML body with my current crop of EF lenses adapted.

It'd be fun to screw my EF 24-85 on to something like Nikon Z9 or Sony A7R IV, of course. I woulda won points for the oddest lens/camera combo ever.

Just take it slowly. I do. Basically I replaced my ageing 5D II with an EOS R plus a few adapters, and an RF 25-105L to start with. I was impressed, and sold my EF 50 F/1.2L plus a few other lenses I never used anymore, and replaced that with an RF 50L Next an RF 85L when I realised how capable the EOS R was with AF etc., and again sold a few lenses plus the old EF 85L II. Basically, the RF 50L and 85L didn't cost me anything, I ended up with a little extra money in the pocket. And since I sold the 5D II well before the EOS R arrived, I actually got some decent money for that too. All in all I spent relatively little so far.

Currently saving for an R5, but by the time i have the budget available, there may be an R5 II already .

[toni-a]

I shudder to think of all the expenditures I'd have to go through if I were to ever switch to ML... absolutely unfeasible unless I find an abandoned goldmine (fat chance). So for me, it'd be similar at best... ML body with my current crop of EF lenses adapted.

It'd be fun to screw my EF 24-85 on to something like Nikon Z9 or Sony A7R IV, of course. I woulda won points for the oddest lens/camera combo ever.

plenty imagine that getting a new camera will give you better photos, we all know this is niot true
mirrorless just makes some things relatively easier to do that's it
Canon 1 DmkIV is still a very capable camera, although now you can get for a very low price some very capable cameras like 5D3 if you are into landscape 5Dsr can still do wonders and the prices are down

[Arthur Macmillan]

Well, the question is what the R7 will give us. Nobody knows the specs.

My guess is it will give us 24-32 MP in a APSC sized image circle and a Digic-10 era GPU, along with animal eye tracking focus and compatibility with the most lenses of any camera system in the world, as I think compatibility with EF/EF-S and RF is a given.  If it caries the "7" from the 7D/II it will be weather sealed and robust.  It will have a high resolution screen and EVF.  It should also have a touch screen and IBIS, as it will bear the name representing Canon's flagship.  Probably a backlit imager with the best low light performance seen from Canon in any APSC offering to date.

That is what I have been patiently waiting for.  I don't really have a clear path forward if they don't produce one!

-Mac

---

I am a happy owner of 7D2 and EOSRP
my prefered camera would have been 7D2 but it lacks precision focusing like EOSRP 
EOS R7 would solve this, especially if it comes bundeled with a compact kit lens 
Should I sell 7D2 and get R7 ? or better keep an all weather sturdy DSLR ?
EOS RP would have been great if there were compact RF lenses... But maybe getting RF 16 and 35mm and using  primes as go around lenses would solve the issue ?

The thing that makes me excited is the eye tracking focus system.  Yet, I only have opinions of others as to whether it is the "real deal".  The 20 MP R6 just isn't enough for me.  The 45 MP R5 is $3,900.  I'd hate to pay $3,900 to find out that the AF system as a whole is not good enough for me.  That is where the R7 comes it.  It should have both high resolution and animal eye tracking. 

Actually two more things are potentially exciting.  IBIS, and superior low light performace.  In the R5/6 the IBIS seems for real.  It is pretty easy to see how well camera shake is handled.  But if low light performance is not far, far better than the 7DII then that would not be very exciting.

However, so long as it is priced below the R6 I would not mind taking a chance on it!  So let me stress test the claims of the R5 in a camera that costs half as much!  That is what would sell me!

-Mac

[Brightcolours]

The R5 has great AF with animal eye tracking.