p.4 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
My take is that people are reading more into this than is maybe warranted.
Canon allowed third party lens options for decades for the FD, EF, EF-M mounts. They understand full well the pros and cons of having third party lens support for their camera systems.
I find it somewhat odd that their general posture should change so radically all of a sudden. I think they are smarter than this rush to judgement assumes.
I speculated earlier in the thread that this could all just be a preface to Canon finally licensing their lens mount and protocols. I still believe that this is that most likely explanation for these "crease and desist" orders.
Time will tell. But I guess the more people that abandon the R-system over this (real or perceived) issue, the quicker it is likely to be resolved favorably for the rest of us.
p.4 #3 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Dexter75 wrote:
You mean once they have milked their insanely priced lenses for all they can? Will be too late by then. I sold my RP and R6 months ago due to lack of 3rd party support and once news gets out about this Viltrox thing, many others will be doing the same. Sony is crushing it right now. Their bodies are cheaper, their lenses are cheaper and they have strong 3rd party support with great new lenses coming out monthly it seems.
The beauty of the free market is that people can make such choices. And Canon, Sony, Sigma, Nikon, etc., can respond as they see fit.
Aug 30, 2022 at 06:02 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.4 #4 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I've thought about it in recent months Sony is the one that was lacking lenses. The 400 2.8 didn't come out until , what, 2018 or 2019? How many superteles before that? 0? Except the 100-400?
Even now I think they have 400/2.8 & 600/4. After all these years. EF is so horrid that you have to use it. Only got their 70-200/2.8 up to snuff last year from what I read on here!! TS lenses? Forget it. And people bought Sony like crazy.
But now everyone is interested in saying Canon is short on lenses. And you can get an adapter that looks pretty decent and apparently seamless to adapt 30+ years of EF glass.
p.4 #5 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
I've thought about it in recent months Sony is the one that was lacking lenses. The 400 2.8 didn't come out until , what, 2018 or 2019? How many superteles before that? 0? Except the 100-400?
Even now I think they have 400/2.8 & 600/4. After all these years. EF is so horrid that you have to use it. Only got their 70-200/2.8 up to snuff last year from what I read on here!! TS lenses? Forget it. And people bought Sony like crazy.
But now everyone is interested in saying Canon is short on lenses. And you can get an adapter that looks pretty decent and apparently seamless to adapt 30+ years of EF glass....Show more →
Problem is many people don’t want to deal with adapters or bigger bulkier lenses. We shouldn’t have to buy an adapter to adopt a massive Sigma 85mm DG HSM Art when Sigma now make a DN version that’s almost half the weight for the same IQ.
Depending on where you live EF lenses can be more expensive than Sony GM and Sigma DN lenses so that doesn’t make sense either.
p.4 #6 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I responded to this same topic over at another forum. I am not a "Canon Fan Boy" by any means, but Canon does have a very valid point. R & D costs lots of money. Canon has to recoup that money in sales of both cameras and lenses. I applaud Canon for manufacturing an EF to RF lens adapter for those of us who can't afford to upgrade our current EF lens collection. With that simple marketing gesture, Canon has earned my respect for them.
I do own a Nikon D750 with multiple AF-D, AF-S, G, and manyal focus AiS lenses. I also own a Sony A7c with 28-60mm, 40mm f2.5, 85mm f1.8 and a Tamron 24mm f2.8. Because I want to keep my A7c looking/feeling small, for travel, it has not been easy finding OEM or 3rd party lenses that fit the bill. Most lenses make my A7c look and feel way out balance (large lens on a small body).
p.4 #7 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
I've thought about it in recent months Sony is the one that was lacking lenses. The 400 2.8 didn't come out until , what, 2018 or 2019? How many superteles before that? 0? Except the 100-400?
Even now I think they have 400/2.8 & 600/4. After all these years. EF is so horrid that you have to use it. Only got their 70-200/2.8 up to snuff last year from what I read on here!! TS lenses? Forget it. And people bought Sony like crazy.
But now everyone is interested in saying Canon is short on lenses. And you can get an adapter that looks pretty decent and apparently seamless to adapt 30+ years of EF glass....Show more →
I guess the question I would have is 'how long did it take to build out the EF system'? Because there is some R&D that goes into each lens, regardless of its design. The simplest of all the RF lenses, the basic 50/1.8, is also the least expensive. In my mind, I'd like to see a strong selection of mid-range lenses like the 50/1.4 or the old 28/1.8. Not terribly expensive, but pretty good nevertheless (Ok, those are probably not the best examples, as the lens building technology has seemingly passed them by).
The one thing that is in Canon's favor - you can adapt EF lenses with full function. So as the RF lineup is developed, there are alternatives. I would say that in most cases, you can also adapt third party EF mount lenses.
Not 100% ideal, but I think they're putting out a few new lenses a year and that's a positive thing.
p.4 #9 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Sony started with nothing and needed those third-party lenses. Canon has a long history of excellent EF lenses that can be easily adapted to the RF mount.
At some point it would be smart for Canon to open the RF mount to licensing, but your guess is as good as mine.
From my own viewpoint as a user, I wish Tamron lenses would be available in the RF mount (I never thought I would say that), but since they're aren't and since there's no indication they will be anytime soon, it's time to abandon Canon because I don't want their ridiculously large lenses.
Hell, they make me look back at Sony, which I don't even like.
Aug 30, 2022 at 08:33 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.4 #10 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Sony had no lenses, supposed to buy Sony. Canon has lenses, supposed to buy Sony due to lack of lenses. Drives me nuts
35/1.8's are about the same, canon less than an ounce heavier but has 1:2.
85/2 has 1:2, probably better than Sony due to that, not much heavier
50/1.8 Rf is extremely light. Sony 1.4 is huge. And expensive. You wonder if people interested in something in between a 50/1.8 & 1.2 have looked at the size of the Sony.
85/1.2: yeah, it's heavy. It's an optical masterpiece.
50/1.2: a bit heavier than the Sony but either lens is heavy about 2 lbs.
70-200/2.8 Rf: light considering aperture and FL.
70-200/4 Rf: light and compact
24-105 L:supposed to be the best 24-105. Not heavy, about 1.5 lbs.
Canon is supposedly going to release 8 lenses per year next 4 years
And I don't see any f/2 mid range zoom in Sony.....
Aug 30, 2022 at 09:25 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.4 #11 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Canon 24-70/2.8 Rf sounds far superior to Sony. Canon's IBIS probably a lot better and Canon finally managed to put IS in a 24-70/2.8.
p.4 #12 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
johnvanr wrote:
From my own viewpoint as a user, I wish Tamron lenses would be available in the RF mount (I never thought I would say that), but since they're aren't and since there's no indication they will be anytime soon, it's time to abandon Canon because I don't want their ridiculously large lenses.
Hell, they make me look back at Sony, which I don't even like.
You could consider Panasonic instead of Sony. Not sure if Tamron is making L mount lenses, but Sigma is, given they're one of the founding members of the L mount alliance.
Aug 30, 2022 at 10:11 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.4 #13 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
The Thom Hogan article really negative to the point of being inaccurate. He really doesn't seem to like Canon. That said he mentions Sony is largest shareholder in Tamron, if correct that might explain why there aren't Rf Tamron lenses.
The older 3rd party was apparently reverse engineered or something since little or none of the older 3rd party is any good on DSLR bodies other than 1D and maybe other early cameras. Just don't really work properly. 3rd party issues regardless of the reasons aren't new, unfortunately. And Nikon seems to have had a lot of issues on 3rd party, too.
p.4 #14 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
Sony had no lenses, supposed to buy Sony. Canon has lenses, supposed to buy Sony due to lack of lenses. Drives me nuts
35/1.8's are about the same, canon less than an ounce heavier but has 1:2.
85/2 has 1:2, probably better than Sony due to that, not much heavier
50/1.8 Rf is extremely light. Sony 1.4 is huge. And expensive. You wonder if people interested in something in between a 50/1.8 & 1.2 have looked at the size of the Sony.
85/1.2: yeah, it's heavy. It's an optical masterpiece.
50/1.2: a bit heavier than the Sony but either lens is heavy about 2 lbs.
70-200/2.8 Rf: light considering aperture and FL.
70-200/4 Rf: light and compact
24-105 L:supposed to be the best 24-105. Not heavy, about 1.5 lbs.
Canon is supposedly going to release 8 lenses per year next 4 years
And I don't see any f/2 mid range zoom in Sony.....
35/1.8's - Owned both lenses, Canon has nicer rendering but the AF motor is trash compared to the Sony
85/2 - Not everyone wants a half macro lens and prefer the faster aperture which the Sony has at f/1.8 and nearly half the price (not to mention the 85mm DN Art is almost the same price as the Canon RF 85mm and is a much better lens)
50/1.8 - The RF lens is a nice size but sharpness isn't as good as the RF 35/85 and has poor STM motor. Sony have the 50mm f/1.8 which is similar and the 55mm f/1.8 which is a phenomenal lens, RF mount has no f/1.4 lens to compare lol
70-200/2.8 - Same for the Sony GM lens which is newer and found to be optically better
Also not to mention all the third party options for Sony which is the main point of this thread, not Canon vs Sony for first party lenses...
p.4 #15 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Photosbydlee wrote:
35/1.8's - Owned both lenses, Canon has nicer rendering but the AF motor is trash compared to the Sony
85/2 - Not everyone wants a half macro lens and prefer the faster aperture which the Sony has at f/1.8 and nearly half the price (not to mention the 85mm DN Art is almost the same price as the Canon RF 85mm and is a much better lens)
50/1.8 - The RF lens is a nice size but sharpness isn't as good as the RF 35/85 and has poor STM motor. Sony have the 50mm f/1.8 which is similar and the 55mm f/1.8 which is a phenomenal lens, RF mount has no f/1.4 lens to compare lol
70-200/2.8 - Same for the Sony GM lens which is newer and found to be optically better
Also not to mention all the third party options for Sony which is the main point of this thread, not Canon vs Sony for first party lenses... ...Show more →
Say what you will about STM focusing motors, but they tend to be highly accurate, and are generally silent for video shooting. Slightly slower AF acquisition performance for stills is not a deal breaker with short primes, in my experience.
p.4 #16 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
Say what you will about STM focusing motors, but they tend to be highly accurate, and are generally silent for video shooting. Slightly slower AF acquisition performance for stills is not a deal breaker with short primes, in my experience.
Silent for video maybe but super noisy for stills. The Nano USM motor they used in the RF 100-400mm is so much better, it’s super fast but so silent and I really wish they had used that in the RF 35mm and 85mm.
p.4 #17 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
My recollection, which I can't prove, is that Tamron had some licensing agreements with Canon for EF mount, but the other mfgs went the reverse engineer route.
Take that with a grain of salt, but that's what I remember from my Canon days.
rscheffler wrote:
Sony didn't really have a choice if they wanted to get traction with their FF FE system as quickly as possible. But yes they've done well and it does present more options for photographers. It may keep some loyal to Sony due to the greater variety of lenses available at lower price points.
I worked in photo retail in the 90s and remember selling third party AF lenses in Canon EF mount. The EF mount was released in 1987, IIRC. Maybe back then Canon was more permissive or did licensing?
I remember one customer bought a Tokina 80-200/2.8 that didn't work properly on his Canon camera. What we would now consider firmware incompatibility. So it's possible it was reverse engineered rather than licensed because you would expect it to work correctly, if licensed. ...Show more →
p.4 #18 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
tsdevine wrote:
My recollection, which I can't prove, is that Tamron had some licensing agreements with Canon for EF mount, but the other mfgs went the reverse engineer route.
Take that with a grain of salt, but that's what I remember from my Canon days.
The latest Sigma lenses for EF have in camera corrections, whilst no Tamron lens does.
p.4 #19 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Doesn't surprise me. I was reflecting back to like the 90's. Back then there was info circulating that Tamron licensed the EF mount....so much earlier on than present.
I have no ideal what the current state is for EF mount.
numbertwo wrote:
The latest Sigma lenses for EF have in camera corrections, whilst no Tamron lens does.
Aug 31, 2022 at 10:21 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.4 #20 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
It's just weird. In recent years I've felt I'm out of touch with the Tokina etc 3rd party lenses from hanging out on here. People have mostly been using OEM. Actually got on my nerves. Thought maybe I need to look somewhere else or even just peruse B&H site to see the options. Now everyone is clamoring for them.
Does Thom Hogan even shoot Canon? Someone posted on the Nikon board that he switched to nikon from fuji. Why is he losing his mind over Canon 3rd party lenses? The 100-400 he uses on landscapes is hardly light
