"Canon is not happy with third party lens makers" is now officially confirmed

[Kisaha]

Big improvement they are not, I got the 16mm RF because it was the only logical choice for the R7 (in terms of size/weight and price), and a unique proposition. Great lens it is not, and I did a little research on most of them.

Obviously not many RF-S options.

How many 1.2f lenses do you believe they sell every month? Or how many people are going to buy the 28-70mm 2f?

The 35mm is a mixed bag, macro it is not.

A part of the Abbott review about the 85mm 2f

"I vastly prefer the autofocus performance of the Samyang to the RF85M, as it utilizes linear motors to achieve faster, quieter, smoother focus.  The Samyang is also weather sealed, comes with a lens hood and a pouch, and has a slightly higher build quality in terms of external materials…not to mention that it has an aperture a full stop larger at F1.4.  The big advantage for the Canon is in magnification, as the Samyang has a rather pathetic 0.11x magnification.  But how about image quality?  Comparing the two lenses at F2 (on the EOS R5) reveals that both are incredibly sharp and have excellent contrast, with perhaps a slight edge for the Samyang."

They produce such excellent lenses that are affraid of Viltrox and Samyang ones! Imagine if they have to compete with Sigma, or other established lens makers..

They put I.S on some of the zooms..something that should have been there for years now and other manufacturers already have..

Selling a piece of plastic for a big proportion of the lens's price (for the cheap lenses at least) is a terrible business decision and shows a lot, and hoods are needed.

[gt3rs]

11 hours ago, ntblowz said:

Rf 24-70 2.8 is heavier than 24-70 ii at 900g vs 805g

Yes, you are right. Of course, once you add the adapter, they are almost the same

[gt3rs]

11 hours ago, Kisaha said:

Big improvement they are not, I got the 16mm RF because it was the only logical choice for the R7 (in terms of size/weight and price), and a unique proposition. Great lens it is not, and I did a little research on most of them.

I'm sorry that you find RF not compelling and a big improvement, but my experience is the opposite.

I sold the 16-35 2.8 II and replaced with the 16 2.8, saved money, is sharper and much more compact, of course it is only 16mm. Point me out a better 16mm 2.8 for the same price? Is on the same league as the RF 15-35 no way but is better at 16mm than the old 16-35.......

I have the EF 24 1.4 II and also the RF 35 1.8 and the latter is much better, so I will probably sell the 24 1.4 (sharpness is okeish, CA is horrible) and replace with the RF 24 1.8 (still waiting some more reviews). Point me at a 35 1.8 at the same price that is better? 

I sold the 70-200 2.8 II and brough the RF 70-200 2.8 and imo this a huge improvement tanks to the size and weight. I take plastic any day if it saves my back and I can handhold easier. I use it a lot backpacking and on a gimbal, the weight saving is very welcomed.

This is the most surprising, I rented 100-500 and compared it with my 200-400 F4 and at the end I decided to sell the 200-400 and brough the 100-500. In term of sharpness wide open they are almost the same, very surprising, of course you lose 1.3 stops. Before I was taking a 1Dx and 200-400 for most sports, now I prefer the R5 with RF 70-200 or 100-500 depending on the sport seems crazy, but I get better result. 

Rented the RF 400 2.8 just two weeks ago for a project and is a really good lens, super sharp and very light weight, but is just exactly the same as the EF version III. I don't need often 400 at 2.8 so I rent when I need but I would rather buy a used EF III version than a new RF.

Rented the RF 50 1.2 and compared to my EF 50 1.2 is just another league and almost not fair. I probably keep the EF one as I mostly use for video only, and it gives a bit of a unique view.

My normal sports/action kit was:
1Dx II
1Dx III
EF 200-400
EF 70-200 2.8
EF 16-35 III
EF 24 1.4 II
EF 24-70 2.8 II

Now is
R5
R5C
RF 70-200 2.8
RF 100-500
EF 24-70 2.8 ii
RF 16 2.8
RF 35 1.8

So from around 30k USD kit to 17k kit and even more impressive from 10 Kg to 5 Kg! and I get better results. 

I don't buy third party lenses anymore as I had Sigma 70-200 and Sigma 120-300 and they were very good but really inconsistent and the money you save in buying them you lose on the value when reselling... as I sell everything that I don't use or replace is an impotent aspect.

Not sure if they sell a lot of 28-70 but is basically impossible to find one. So I guess they are selling many more that what they did expect.

[Kisaha]

Obviously a zoom lens is not comparable with a prime, that is the clearest of clear, and I also said already that I bought the 16mm because it seemed like the most suitable and unique proposition for the R7, so..yes..

I have the EF 70-200 4f, I shoot mainly 4-5.6f anyway - that is my style, and in no way I am changing that lens, having extra options with the speedbooster and the vND.

I already commented on the ones I cared about. I know nothing about 300-400mm lenses, I have never used, or need, one, so I can't be helpful. I am tempted to grab one of the last 70-300 EF NANO, just because of the nano system, which is the best in Canonland.

Also, the 18-135 EF-S NANO with the power zoom thingy, makes the R7 (with the vND adapter) an excellent dead cheap and small run n gun video camera, power zooming, vND and all.

When most were using the 24-70mm with the Canon C100 cameras I always preferred for run and gun the cheap 18-135mm, a lot more options in my opinion, lighter, more versatile, so it's something I do.

Even in the above quote about the 85mm the man preferred the Samyang! What else I can say?

Non L lenses don't even have a lens hood (not only the inconvenience, the added price also)..that is utterly tragic..not even protected by the elements a bit, so you have to buy L for all the bells and whistles, no, we need options. Just a couple of rubber flanges for God's shake, not make them IP67..

You seem excited about your kit and buys, great, but most people I talk with are not. It is not surprising that Sony seems to be the leader right now, Canon has lost its edge, it is back on track, but lock everyone else out of the RF can only be bad for the customers, us.

My next RF buy will probably be an A7iv competitor, and maybe the cheap 50mm, or any interesting RF-S. I need pancake primes, fisheye, small and light ultra wide zoom and a professional EF-S probably, lenses that will sell to the thousands, not to the few.

I am not getting rid of my EF glass yet..right now it offers options.

[MrSMW]

On 8/29/2022 at 11:11 PM, Eric Calabros said:

Nikon is no different. They have filed a lot of patents for Z mount communication. They wouldn't do that if they wanted to make it open, or less restrictive. Even the content of the patents indicates a long term plan is integrated into the mount, since they have defined a generation compatibility. Its like Gen2 body uses the most potential capabilities of Gen2 lens, but can't use all capabilities of Gen3 lens, or something like that.  

 

Apparently, Tamron have announced their first Nikon Z lens, some variable aperture zoom, but it’s a start. Maybe…

So:

Sony + Sigma + Tamron

L Mount + Sigma (part of L Mount so duh!)

Nikon + Tamron (early days)

Fuji + Viltrox + Sigma + Tamron

Canon paddling their solo kayak.

Of the major players and lenses with AF because there are many other mainly Chinese manufacturers who make all kinds of MF only prime lenses.

Maybe every major APSC/FF camera manufacture does need a sidekick buddy?

I’ve been a big fan of Sigma in recent years but Tamron for me are the one’s now making the stuff that ticks my boxes.

[mercer]

The patent on the EF mount expired years ago and is probably the major reason why they changed to RF.

I'm of the opinion that changing mounts was one of the biggest mistakes Canon has made.

We got a smaller camera that have a tendency to overheat and bigger lenses. What's the point?

I'm sure there are some fine RF lenses, but there are some fine EF lenses as well and some fine FD lenses. Canon always made great lenses.

At the end, the heart of this issue is intellectual property. Canon spent years and millions of dollars in R&D developing the RF mount.  Chinese companies shouldn't be allowed to come in and reverse engineer Canon's property without offering some type of royalty, especially since they're directly competing with their more modern features. We're not talking about all manual lenses, using century old lens designs that sell for under $100.

[Andrew Reid]

21 hours ago, gt3rs said:

I sold the 16-35 2.8 II and replaced with the 16 2.8, saved money, is sharper and much more compact, of course it is only 16mm. Point me out a better 16mm 2.8 for the same price? Is on the same league as the RF 15-35 no way but is better at 16mm than the old 16-35.......

For me it makes no sense to compare a prime to a zoom!

Of course a 16mm prime is going to perform better than an old zoom that was never even that amazing to begin with.

21 hours ago, gt3rs said:

I have the EF 24 1.4 II and also the RF 35 1.8 and the latter is much better, so I will probably sell the 24 1.4 (sharpness is okeish, CA is horrible) and replace with the RF 24 1.8 (still waiting some more reviews). Point me at a 35 1.8 at the same price that is better? 

The old EF 35mm F2.0 is better for a start!

AF is internal, stepping motor.

The RF 35mm f1.8 has a front element that moves!

I found it to be one of the worst mechanical designs and noisiest lenses I've ever used on any system. Also one of the most plasticy.

21 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Rented the RF 50 1.2 and compared to my EF 50 1.2 is just another league and almost not fair. I probably keep the EF one as I mostly use for video only, and it gives a bit of a unique view.

Also had the RF 50 1.2 and preferred the old EF lens. It has more character. No, it isn't as sharp. But it looks far less clinical.

I also hated how the RF 50 1.2 picked up marks from the finger like a magnet. It has that horrible super-fine texture that just gets ingrained with dirt. You have to handle it like a lab techie.

21 hours ago, gt3rs said:

So from around 30k USD kit to 17k kit and even more impressive from 10 Kg to 5 Kg! and I get better results. 

17K is not exactly cheap is it.

In fact $2500 for the 50mm 1.2 is completely nuts.

For a lens that probably costs $200 max to make.

 

[BTM_Pix]

Without reverse engineering, you couldn't pick up a €100 Canon camera that shoots RAW or have a Canon EOS-R5 that doesn't pretend it is overheating.

Reverse engineering a product to create a new interoperable product isn't fundamentally illegal either.

Threatening a manufacturer of such a product that you will activate a firmware procedure to render their products unusable causing them to incur huge financial losses having to refund customers probably is though.

I'm not saying that is what has happened in this case of course.

Nor am I suggesting it is in the case of Fotiodiox's L mount adapter with its dire capital bold letters warnings of instant destruction if you put them on a Leica camera either.

Of course, to take a more generous view, it can be easily argued that they are merely protecting their customers from damaging their own cameras with these attractive third party products that they have no inclination to make first party versions of either entirely or at a reasonably competitive price.

 

[independent]

Tested on our R5 and RED Raptor, the RF 50mm 1.2 far out resolved the EF 50mm, which looked out of focus in comparison. Resolution isn't everything, but the EF also suffered from more chromatic aberration, fringing, and busier bokeh.

I don't know. Great lenses are expensive—even EF lenses like the 35mm 1.4 ii or the most recent EF zooms. The RF are nearly the same price as those—and the Sony counterparts as well. If you're complaining about the RF, you might as well complain about everything else.

About the RF exclusivity, we'll see how it plays out. Still see a ton of 3rd party RF lenses being released on B&H. 

 

[gt3rs]

6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

For me it makes no sense to compare a prime to a zoom!

Of course a 16mm prime is going to perform better than an old zoom that was never even that amazing to begin with.

 

Of course, you can compare primes with zooms

Compare the EF 24-70 II at 2.8 with a EF 50 1.2 at 2.8 and you will see how bad it is the prime, unsharp, a lot of CA.... I have both. I use the 50 1.2 for its "dreamy" effect and rarely, but for photo is basically useless.... 

Compare EF 70-200 III at 135 at 2.8 with EF 135 2.0 at 2.8 and you will see the zoom is as good as the prime.

Compare EF 70-200 III at 85 at 2.8 with EF 85 1.2 II at 2.8 and you will see the zoom is better than the prime.

Now the 16mm 2.8 is one of the cheapest wide-angle at 300$ and it perform better than 2200$ lens and people are arguing that RF are too expensive and no improvements. And no there are no 16 2.8 in EF... the closest is the EF 14 2.8 II that is not better for 4x the price...

RF has some quite good cheap leases and some very good expensive lenses what is missing is the middle ground.
But the cheap RF ones are not great mechanical but are fast focusing, construction is meh, but are quite compact, lightweight and produce better image that many EF even L counterparts.... I take cheaper plastic and no included hood that produce better images at any time.
The 24-105 RF 4-7.1 kit lens is better than the EF 24-105 4 I (not a great lens but much more expensive and heavier) go figure.... and at some point I had both.... 

 

[Avenger 2.0]

Makes me wonder what Blackmagic will do with their next cameras. Guess a RF mount is out of the question now and an EF mount is a dead end in the long run. Would personally love to see a 6k with MFT mount.

[Kisaha]

@gt3rsman, noone is comparing primes with zooms, this is the unwritten rule since ever!

Are you buying 130 primes to compare with the 70-200?! And when the prime at 138mm is better than the zoom you change lens while on action?! C'mon..

I understand and respect what you say (in your first post) but you are loosing gravitas with silly statements like these.

It is funny that you bring back the 16mm, the only RF I own, obviously I did the right thing, but you do realize that "From a technical standpoint, the RF 16mm f/2.8 STM offers poor quality on a high megapixel camera. The broader center is perfectly sharp but the quality is falling apart in the corners. And that's with auto-correction. The lens is basically unusable in pure RAW mode with excessive barrel distortion, extreme vignetting and high lateral CAs. It's about as underdesigned as it gets and relies heavily on digital correction to lift it back from the imaging abyss. With auto-correction applied, there's only a mild amount of barrel distortions, the vignetting is low even at f/2.8 and the CAs have been killed off" (by Opticallimits)

Its value as a lens increases because of its low value in money, not the exceptional optical performance of it.. I mean, this lens is great, because it is cheap, and make sense on a crop camera, plus small and light. 

Its lens hood costs 35€ by the way, on a 350€ lens..

I do agree they are missing the middle ground.

Also you never commented on the advantages of speedboosters and vND adapters that the use of EF lenses offer. With those, you can have different focal lengths for an EF lens, plus the Holy Grail of run and gun videography, vND for whatever EF lens you put. This is something that burns me for years, as it was highly unpractical (for me) to change front NDs for all lens's changes or buy NDs for multiple lenses, or using step up/down rings.

[gt3rs]

15 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

@gt3rsman, noone is comparing primes with zooms, this is the unwritten rule since ever!

Are you buying 130 primes to compare with the 70-200?! And when the prime at 138mm is better than the zoom you change lens while on action?! C'mon..

I understand and respect what you say (in your first post) but you are loosing gravitas with silly statements like these.

What are you talking about? Andrew said that is normal that 16 2.8 is better than 16-35 2.8 L II because is a prime and I should not compare prime with zoom.

My answer is that you can compare as some zooms are better than primes at the same aperture and focal length. Really the opposite of what you guys are saying... with this silly rule don't compare with primes etc..

But you know what you are right you did a lot of research and by owning 1 RF lens and zero FF camera you right in claim that RF lenses are no improvements over EF ones..... 

 

[Kisaha]

If you can't understand that zooms are built with a different purpose than primes, then there is no point in arguing. Noone ever said "I need an 70-200, so I am going to buy an 135mm". I can't make it more graphic for you.

What I use professionally, and what I own, are two different things. You do not even know what I do in the industry! Another lame argument, and a cheap one also. 

[newfoundmass]

You can compare whatever lenses you want, but it's not fair to compare primes and zooms. The design of a zoom lens prevents it from matching the optical quality of a prime. That's the trade off you make for convenience and versatility. So, I mean, if you want to compare a 16mm prime to 16mm on a zoom you're free to do so, but no one is going to take it seriously. It's just not a useful comparison. 

[gt3rs]

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

If you can't understand that zooms are built with a different purpose than primes, then there is no point in arguing. Noone ever said "I need an 70-200, so I am going to buy an 135mm". I can't make it more graphic for you.

What I use professionally, and what I own, are two different things. You do not even know what I do in the industry! Another lame argument, and a cheap one also. 

You don't use lenses above 200mm (8 ouf 22 are above 200mm) and you only use 1 RF lens on a APS-C camera and yet you are proclaiming:

"Big improvement they are not"

Really professional and credible, only big claims with no backed evidence..... again, not a single example of what you have tested or used other than 1 single RF lens that is the second cheapest one..... and even there you complain that you did not get a hood......while no other manufacturer is offering something similar at that price.

This is the problem of this forum a lot of people trashing equipment that they never ever have used..... even less useful than those paid YT reviewers.

 

[gt3rs]

4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

You can compare whatever lenses you want, but it's not fair to compare primes and zooms. The design of a zoom lens prevents it from matching the optical quality of a prime. That's the trade off you make for convenience and versatility. So, I mean, if you want to compare a 16mm prime to 16mm on a zoom you're free to do so, but no one is going to take it seriously. It's just not a useful comparison. 

Can people read?

Absolutely not true, some zooms are better than primes as posted above the EF 24-70 and EF 70-200 are optically better than EF 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and on pair with 135 2.0. The EF 24-70 2-8 II at 24 2.8 is much better than the EF 24 1.4 II at 2.8. I have/had all these lenses. All expensive L lenses.

The new affordable RF 15-30 seems a tad better in the corner that the RF 16 2.8 (here we go again with a zoom better than a prime) and both better than the old 16-35 II L. Also, most of the EF L wide angle zooms are better than the EF 14 2.8 L v1.

Now in case of the proclaimed by people that never have used one, no improved RF lenses, the RF 50 1.2, RF 85 1.2 are better optically than the RF 70-200 and RF 24-70.

But yes I lost all my credibility by really comparing zooms with primes instead of trusting you guys with the super generalized statement: primes always better optically than zooms and RF are no improvements over EF.

I'm really sorry that I'm so dumb not trusting your claims but lose time in testing things out.........

Do me a favor test one of the above examples you may learn something new.

[gt3rs]

@Kisaha are you a kid or what to downvote 🤣? This is really professional..... 

[Andrew Reid]

I don't know of any successful long established camera system that doesn't have a range of third party accessories and lenses for it.

So for Canon to be blocking this, and presumably companies like Sigma as well, shows they are prepared to harm their own ecosystem in order to protect the rip off pricing of their native lenses.

It really just boils down to that.

I am glad you like your 70-200 though

[Kisaha]

9 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

@Kisaha are you a kid or what to downvote 🤣? This is really professional..... 

Young at heart!