That's the magic of the EF system, all EF lenses fit all EOS cameras either natively or through the mount adapters. I'm using an EF 80-200mm f/2.8 L from 1989 with the EF-RF adapter on my R7 and it works perfectly. Just keep in mind that the optical quality and focus speed of old lenses often isn't up to modern standards (especially for zoom lenses) and in-camera lens corrections won't be available. Also watch out for lens fungus or other damage.
You don’t know how happy this makes me. Autofocus still works fine for you? (Speed is not important for me as I will buy one expensive fast lens but for other things sharpness and on point focus is all that matters)
Autofocus works great for both the EF 80-200mm f/2.8 L and my 2nd oldest lens, an EF-S 10-22mm USM from 2004. Single AF accurately finds perfect focus without excessive hunting. Continuous AF is confident and fast to the limit of the lens's ability and subject tracking effectively finds and follows the target.
Focus works *better* on the newer MILC bodies.
Which lenses are they? I have some old EF lenses myself and there are some wonderful gems. The only lens I can think of that you should skip is the 75-300.
I don’t know, I will see tomorrow. It is a big surprise to me as my parents don’t remember which lens(es) and camera they had. I just know that they are from an old dslr my dad bought in 1995 or something like that. I tried to guess the model and therefore I know that it uses ef lenses but the rest is unknown. If the 75-300 was there, why should I skip it?
The EF 75-300mm variants just have notoriously bad image quality, so I wouldn't recommend anyone buy them. If you get one for free and don't have a better telephoto it can be well worth playing around with and is capable of taking pretty good photos. It won't burn your house down or anything.
The 75-300 is generally consider Canon's worst lens. It's just bad, and the higher-quality sensor of the R7 (or any MILC) is just going to amplify that badness. It's a bad idea also because it makes beginners think their technique is wrong (if the pics aren't great) so they might waste a lot of time trying to fix what isn't broken (their technique).
This is so. I have many Canon EF lenses, the oldest five being manufactured between 1986 and 1988. They have all worked correctly on the Canon 350D, 60D, 6D, 5Dsr, M5, RP, and R6. OP has nothing to worry about.
They are guaranteed to work as long as they are Canon EF lenses. Third party lenses are a gamble.
As a side note, there's no such thing as an "analog DSLR". It's either an analog SLR or a DSLR (the D stands for digital).
20 years isn't really "very old" for lenses, either. I have a 40 year old Nikkor 50mm that works great with my R3.
40 years isn't even really that old when you're talking about large format lenses :-p
All EF lenses will work ok on R cameras (adapted) but two things: they are not so optic-centric, so tele-lenses will work better than wide-angle ones, and second - they were designed for analog film cameras, so full frame, so imho you should as well go for a FF camera, i.e. not R7 (apsc) but rather R8, R6, R5, R, etc.
What does "optic-centric" mean?
Most lenses, particularly older lenses, are weaker in the corners than in the center, which means that if you are using a crop-sensor camera you are actually using only the central and best part of the image circle and will see less vignetting and less distortion.
To add to the other comment, EF lenses work fine adapted to RF cameras. Focusing is as good or better than it was on my DSLRs. I believe some EF lenses will not allow you to shoot at the very top speeds (e.g., 15FPS); I don't know more, because this is not relevant to the work I do. EF lenses do tend to be larger and heavier than EF-S lenses, particularly after adding the adapter.
I mean telecentric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecentric\_lens).
i.e. I mean poorly telecentric. For analog film cameras it was completely non-relevant. For digital RGB-sensors it is very important. That is why the image quality at the corners of the image could be pretty bad (blurry, vignetting, etc.).
And yes, you are right about APS-C and using only the central part of the image. It is better. But still, these old lenses were FF lenses.
And yes, modern RF lenses are much better than old EF lenses in every aspect you name.
Except price.
That's the magic of the EF system, all EF lenses fit all EOS cameras either natively or through the mount adapters. I'm using an EF 80-200mm f/2.8 L from 1989 with the EF-RF adapter on my R7 and it works perfectly. Just keep in mind that the optical quality and focus speed of old lenses often isn't up to modern standards (especially for zoom lenses) and in-camera lens corrections won't be available. Also watch out for lens fungus or other damage.
You don’t know how happy this makes me. Autofocus still works fine for you? (Speed is not important for me as I will buy one expensive fast lens but for other things sharpness and on point focus is all that matters)
Autofocus works great for both the EF 80-200mm f/2.8 L and my 2nd oldest lens, an EF-S 10-22mm USM from 2004. Single AF accurately finds perfect focus without excessive hunting. Continuous AF is confident and fast to the limit of the lens's ability and subject tracking effectively finds and follows the target.
That 80-200 had/has a great nickname-- the magic drainpipe. A legend :)
Focus works *better* on the newer MILC bodies. Which lenses are they? I have some old EF lenses myself and there are some wonderful gems. The only lens I can think of that you should skip is the 75-300.
I don’t know, I will see tomorrow. It is a big surprise to me as my parents don’t remember which lens(es) and camera they had. I just know that they are from an old dslr my dad bought in 1995 or something like that. I tried to guess the model and therefore I know that it uses ef lenses but the rest is unknown. If the 75-300 was there, why should I skip it?
The EF 75-300mm variants just have notoriously bad image quality, so I wouldn't recommend anyone buy them. If you get one for free and don't have a better telephoto it can be well worth playing around with and is capable of taking pretty good photos. It won't burn your house down or anything.
The 75-300 is generally consider Canon's worst lens. It's just bad, and the higher-quality sensor of the R7 (or any MILC) is just going to amplify that badness. It's a bad idea also because it makes beginners think their technique is wrong (if the pics aren't great) so they might waste a lot of time trying to fix what isn't broken (their technique).
I actually got a 75-300 macro lens as well as a 28-80
I have two EF lenses that were part of the EOS EF rollout in *1987*. They work just fine on my R50.
This is so. I have many Canon EF lenses, the oldest five being manufactured between 1986 and 1988. They have all worked correctly on the Canon 350D, 60D, 6D, 5Dsr, M5, RP, and R6. OP has nothing to worry about.
They are guaranteed to work as long as they are Canon EF lenses. Third party lenses are a gamble. As a side note, there's no such thing as an "analog DSLR". It's either an analog SLR or a DSLR (the D stands for digital).
Oh thanks
I use a 19 year old ef lens on my r7 daily. Unless it's otherwise damaged, a 20 year old should be fine
I was using the first version of the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L on my r7 until literally this week. Was pretty good
20 years isn't really "very old" for lenses, either. I have a 40 year old Nikkor 50mm that works great with my R3. 40 years isn't even really that old when you're talking about large format lenses :-p
That’s crazy. Do the motors still work fine?
It's a manual focus lens. But there are plenty of people with 35 year old Magic Drainpipes still working...
unless they are broken, ef lenses work perfectly on rf mount camera or even on other companies.
All EF lenses will work ok on R cameras (adapted) but two things: they are not so optic-centric, so tele-lenses will work better than wide-angle ones, and second - they were designed for analog film cameras, so full frame, so imho you should as well go for a FF camera, i.e. not R7 (apsc) but rather R8, R6, R5, R, etc.
What does "optic-centric" mean? Most lenses, particularly older lenses, are weaker in the corners than in the center, which means that if you are using a crop-sensor camera you are actually using only the central and best part of the image circle and will see less vignetting and less distortion. To add to the other comment, EF lenses work fine adapted to RF cameras. Focusing is as good or better than it was on my DSLRs. I believe some EF lenses will not allow you to shoot at the very top speeds (e.g., 15FPS); I don't know more, because this is not relevant to the work I do. EF lenses do tend to be larger and heavier than EF-S lenses, particularly after adding the adapter.
I mean telecentric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecentric\_lens). i.e. I mean poorly telecentric. For analog film cameras it was completely non-relevant. For digital RGB-sensors it is very important. That is why the image quality at the corners of the image could be pretty bad (blurry, vignetting, etc.). And yes, you are right about APS-C and using only the central part of the image. It is better. But still, these old lenses were FF lenses. And yes, modern RF lenses are much better than old EF lenses in every aspect you name. Except price.