p.7 #1 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
None of that is true either. Tons of Canon shooters use Tamron and Sigma lenses. I see them out all the time. Dude stop being a fanboy for a minute and realize Canon biffed this one. Canon needs 3rd party lenses to fill out the ecosystem. A lot of people can’t afford Canon’s L lenses. The 100-500 is $2800! The Tamron 150-500 Sony is $1200! Sony and Nikon are much better off by offering photographers more options.
AmbientMike wrote:
Basically canon has made a lot of advances people tend to ignore and instead lots of people have decided to complain about lack of 3rd party lenses that Canon isn't letting anyone make. In spite of the fact that hardly anyone on here has been using 3rd party in recent years. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Is this a permanent situation or is Canon trying to sell license in the near future to make lenses nobody knows. How much does Sony owning a lot of tamron have to do with it, who knows.
Sep 01, 2022 at 09:29 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.7 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
None of that is true either. Tons of Canon shooters use Tamron and Sigma lenses. I see them out all the time. Dude stop being a fanboy for a minute and realize Canon biffed this one. Canon needs 3rd party lenses to fill out the ecosystem. A lot of people can’t afford Canon’s L lenses. The 100-500 is $2800! The Tamron 150-500 Sony is $1200! Sony and Nikon are much better off by offering photographers more options.
You told me I was completely wrong about previous major 3rd party issues, that pretty clearly happened. If you think I'm wrong go buy a 90's 3rd party lens. They're cheap they don't work right.
And yes this post is true, too. You not knowing what you are talking about doesn't make me wrong
Yes the 100-500 is expensive. Like a lot of lenses anymore. Including Sony. There are numerous 150-600's available adapted via EF mount.
p.7 #3 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
No I misunderstood your first post. I don’t realize you meant the 90’s cuz yeah those lenses sucked.
But now? Literally every photographer I know has at least one in their kit. And I know a lot of snappers.
AmbientMike wrote:
You told me I was completely wrong about previous major 3rd party issues, that pretty clearly happened. If you think I'm wrong go buy a 90's 3rd party lens. They're cheap they don't work right.
p.7 #4 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
Either is $600USD here but the Canon 85/2 is $100 off right now. I'd imagine either are quite good. EF 24-105 STM isn't heavy or expensive. People can adapt the older 24-105 L EF if they want, some do. Much less expensive than the Sony or newer better RF L.
RF 85mm is mainly just good for product/still life whereas the Sony is better for pretty much everything else.
Even if the Canon RF is better optically, I’d go Sony as it’s not significantly better and the price of the EF is a joke. Like many I don’t want to deal with adaptors so it’s native only, hence why third party lens options are important.
Sep 01, 2022 at 09:42 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.7 #5 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Photosbydlee wrote:
RF 85mm is mainly just good for product/still life whereas the Sony is better for pretty much everything else.
Even if the Canon RF is better optically, I’d go Sony as it’s not significantly better and the price of the EF is a joke. Like many I don’t want to deal with adaptors so it’s native only, hence why third party lens options are important.
Well, they've mostly been the same price here I believe except the rf 24-105 L is better. Sony is currently on sale. And I'm talking about the less expensive fairly light EF 24-105 STM,not the EF L. I believe I mentioned that accurately before
p.7 #6 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
None of that is true either. Tons of Canon shooters use Tamron and Sigma lenses. I see them out all the time. Dude stop being a fanboy for a minute and realize Canon biffed this one. Canon needs 3rd party lenses to fill out the ecosystem. A lot of people can’t afford Canon’s L lenses. The 100-500 is $2800! The Tamron 150-500 Sony is $1200! Sony and Nikon are much better off by offering photographers more options.
One of the things that you said isn't true, since my entire post is supposedly false, is that people are complaining that Canon isn't letting anyone make 3rd party lenses. So are you saying that people aren't complaining, or that Canon is letting people make 3rd party lenses?
The rest of the post is true too. There just hasn't been a lot of 3rd party usage on the Canon board in recent years. Someone posted about the 100 tokina macro on Nikon board didn't even know they still made it. 100-400/5.6-8 RF is $600 last I checked.
p.7 #7 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Oh people are most definitely going to complain. They’re invested in Canon but want options. There’s bunches of people on this thread complaining. And rightfully so.
As far as the boards go, that has nothing to do with how many people shoot them in the real world. Go talk to your local camera store. They sell boatloads of 3rd party lenses. Mine here does. Just because nerds online aren’t taking about them doesn’t mean people aren’t buying them.
AmbientMike wrote:
One of the things that you said isn't true, since my entire post is supposedly false, is that people are complaining that Canon isn't letting anyone make 3rd party lenses. So are you saying that people aren't complaining, or that Canon is letting people make 3rd party lenses?
The rest of the post is true too. There just hasn't been a lot of 3rd party usage on the Canon board in recent years. Someone posted about the 100 tokina macro on Nikon board didn't even know they still made it
AmbientMike wrote:
One of the things that you said isn't true, since my entire post is supposedly false, is that people are complaining that Canon isn't letting anyone make 3rd party lenses. So are you saying that people aren't complaining, or that Canon is letting people make 3rd party lenses?
The rest of the post is true too. There just hasn't been a lot of 3rd party usage on the Canon board in recent years. Someone posted about the 100 tokina macro on Nikon board didn't even know they still made it
Sep 01, 2022 at 10:09 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.7 #8 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
Oh people are most definitely going to complain. They’re invested in Canon but want options. There’s bunches of people on this thread complaining. And rightfully so.
As far as the boards go, that has nothing to do with how many people shoot them in the real world. Go talk to your local camera store. They sell boatloads of 3rd party lenses. Mine here does. Just because nerds online aren’t taking about them doesn’t mean people aren’t buying them.
I mean, OK, 70-180 looks good. It's $1k and no IS. Not exactly a bargain. I can probably adapt a non IS 70-200/2.8 for that. Canon I can go 70-200/4 and it's less expensive. Sony has one, but people on the Sony board don't seem to like it much. 35 150 looks great but it's 2.5+ lbs and $1900. Not much savings
If you want little esoteric primes I can't say I'm that interested right now. They don't seem that inexpensive, or light vs zoom, since you need a few. I'm not a big fan of changing lenses anyway
But anyway thanks for admission of my post being right, after all
p.7 #9 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Normal course is for the patent holder to send a letter along with the patent they believe is being infringed. In this case Canon sent to Viltrox. Viltrox would review the patent and if they felt they were infringing they would pull product. Which is what sounds likely happened. If they didn’t and continued to infringe, then it would be willful and not only Canon could win damages but could be punishable by as much as 10x.
I don’t fault Canon for defending their design patent. They need to get these sales to pay for further development work. Canon came out with the new RF lens design for the following reasons:
1. New lens gives them the ability to raise prices, which they did.
2. Design patent protects against other companies cannibalizing their product line. Which is what we are seeing here. The old EF mount either wasn’t patented or was so old it was no longer relevant.
Sep 01, 2022 at 11:35 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.7 #10 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I am not against 3rd party lenses, and have used tons of them over the years, including today. I'm just not interested in another "Sony is the answer!" thread, more people touting Sony on this board over, what, <51mm 3rd party primes? I mean, really?
Given the prices of other brands and the general rejection of often less expensive EF mount bodies including the very inexpensive Rebel line, it's hard to take any claims of Canon being overpriced seriously.
p.7 #11 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
Basically canon has made a lot of advances people tend to ignore and instead lots of people have decided to complain about lack of 3rd party lenses that Canon isn't letting anyone make. In spite of the fact that hardly anyone on here has been using 3rd party in recent years. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Is this a permanent situation or is Canon trying to sell license in the near future to make lenses nobody knows. How much does Sony owning a lot of tamron have to do with it, who knows.
I don't think Sony owns any of Voigtlander, Sigma, Samyang, Laowa, Zeiss, 7Artisans, TTartisans, Yasuhara, Meike, Pergear, SLRMagic, Viltrox, Nisi, Tokina, Lensbaby, Sirui, Mitakon... or any of the other manufacturers making Sony E mount lenses.
Note: this is not touting. It's not an attempt to provide a solution. No Canon advancements were ignored during the making of the post either. It's just a list.
p.7 #12 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
I am not against 3rd party lenses, and have used tons of them over the years, including today. I'm just not interested in another "Sony is the answer!" thread, more people touting Sony on this board over, what, <51mm 3rd party primes? I mean, really?
Given the prices of other brands and the general rejection of often less expensive EF mount bodies including the very inexpensive Rebel line, it's hard to take any claims of Canon being overpriced seriously.
Perhaps where you live Canon isn’t overpriced but here in the UK Canon generally is considerably more expensive than the competition. Other markets may have the same experience.
Here’s just one example
Canon 100-500 L = £2979
Sony 100-400 GM = £2149
Sony 200-600 G = £1599
Tamron 150-500 = £1099
Sigma 100-400 = £899
Sigma 150-600 = £1199
Yes the Canon 100-400mm for £699 exists but that it f8 at the long end so if a photographer needs a wider aperture, cheaper than the 100-500 and doesn’t want to adapt an EF mount lens there’s no lens on RF that fits that criteria.
p.7 #13 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
SNJOps wrote:
Perhaps where you live Canon isn’t overpriced but here in the UK Canon generally is considerably more expensive than the competition. Other markets may have the same experience.
Here’s just one example
Canon 100-500 L = £2979
Sony 100-400 GM = £2149
Sony 200-600 G = £1599
Tamron 150-500 = £1099
Sigma 100-400 = £899
Sigma 150-600 = £1199
Yes the Canon 100-400mm for £699 exists but that it f8 at the long end so if a photographer needs a wider aperture, cheaper than the 100-500 and doesn’t want to adapt an EF mount lens there’s no lens on RF that fits that criteria.
Truth is, adapting an EF lens is not really a problem, and for nearly all of the Canon EF lenses and the third party EF lenses, their operation is exactly the same on the RF mount when adapted, as it is on the EF. The one exception I have is that my Sigma 150-600 doesn't seem to like eye AF and will move focus behind or in front of the subject when it's used that way. I haven't tried it with other AF modes, at least not extensively.
So any of those lenses available in EF mount are easily adapted to the RF mount. Plus, you can grab a new or used Canon 400/5.6L and have an outright excellent piece of glass for a decent price (note - I'm not sure if it's available new any more), not to mention the excellent EF 100-400L II.
My point is that many options do exist, and with few exceptions and/or caveats, anything made in EF mount can be used on the RF mount through the inexpensive Canon adapter. Granted, I'd like to see Canon compete more directly with the likes of the Sigma 150-600 (though I've learned that the IQ on the Siggy can't really match with Canon's glass) or the Sony 200-600, or even more importantly, the Nikon 500 f/5.6 pf (DO glass basically) which has shown to be an excellent, semi-affordable lens, reasonably lightweight super telephoto lens.
p.7 #14 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Penny wise-Dollar foolish?
Interchangeable lens/ System Camera makers typically offer affordable entry level gear to new users, as once invested in system become longtime clients. Newbies may well choose systems that offer more options than those that do not.
My first Canon was an ELAN7 with a Tamron "Full-range" lens, but over time I upgraded to all Canon.
Many can never afford $5K to $20K "big whites", so the notion that eliminating Sigma, or Tamron would increase sales of those is nonsense. What's next---Flash?
p.7 #15 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Yes they will work, but with serious limitations. Older EF lenses cannot achieve anywhere close to full FPS on R bodies. If I’m shooting an R5 I want native glass.
Tom_W wrote:
Truth is, adapting an EF lens is not really a problem, and for nearly all of the Canon EF lenses and the third party EF lenses, their operation is exactly the same on the RF mount when adapted, as it is on the EF. The one exception I have is that my Sigma 150-600 doesn't seem to like eye AF and will move focus behind or in front of the subject when it's used that way. I haven't tried it with other AF modes, at least not extensively.
So any of those lenses available in EF mount are easily adapted to the RF mount. Plus, you can grab a new or used Canon 400/5.6L and have an outright excellent piece of glass for a decent price (note - I'm not sure if it's available new any more), not to mention the excellent EF 100-400L II.
My point is that many options do exist, and with few exceptions and/or caveats, anything made in EF mount can be used on the RF mount through the inexpensive Canon adapter. Granted, I'd like to see Canon compete more directly with the likes of the Sigma 150-600 (though I've learned that the IQ on the Siggy can't really match with Canon's glass) or the Sony 200-600, or even more importantly, the Nikon 500 f/5.6 pf (DO glass basically) which has shown to be an excellent, semi-affordable lens, reasonably lightweight super telephoto lens....Show more →
p.7 #16 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Tom_W wrote:
Truth is, adapting an EF lens is not really a problem, and for nearly all of the Canon EF lenses and the third party EF lenses, their operation is exactly the same on the RF mount when adapted, as it is on the EF. The one exception I have is that my Sigma 150-600 doesn't seem to like eye AF and will move focus behind or in front of the subject when it's used that way. I haven't tried it with other AF modes, at least not extensively.
So any of those lenses available in EF mount are easily adapted to the RF mount. Plus, you can grab a new or used Canon 400/5.6L and have an outright excellent piece of glass for a decent price (note - I'm not sure if it's available new any more), not to mention the excellent EF 100-400L II.
My point is that many options do exist, and with few exceptions and/or caveats, anything made in EF mount can be used on the RF mount through the inexpensive Canon adapter. Granted, I'd like to see Canon compete more directly with the likes of the Sigma 150-600 (though I've learned that the IQ on the Siggy can't really match with Canon's glass) or the Sony 200-600, or even more importantly, the Nikon 500 f/5.6 pf (DO glass basically) which has shown to be an excellent, semi-affordable lens, reasonably lightweight super telephoto lens....Show more →
I specifically mentioned if someone doesn’t want to adapt EF lenses no matter how well they work. There are reasons why that might be..
-EF lenses tend to be larger and heavier than mirrorless equivalents and adding an adapter on top of that only makes that worse and will affect ergonomics.
-In many many cases the new mirrorless version is optically superior to the DSLR version, lighter, more compact with better AF performance.
-An adapter can be forgotten/lost before or during shooting
Then there’s just the simple thing of buying a new body and wanting new lenses that fit natively onto said body. Adapting EF lenses is a viable solution for a lot of people but not all.
p.7 #17 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
Yes they will work, but with serious limitations. Older EF lenses cannot achieve anywhere close to full FPS on R bodies.
"Serious limitations"? Don't be hyperbolic. This is one, very narrow and specific limitation that affects only a subset of EF lenses on a subset of camera bodies.
While it is true that older EF lenses cannot achieve 12fps in mechanical shutter mode, there are 39 newer lenses that can, including most everything that has been produced in the past 10 years. Moreover, most EF lenses of any vintage can be used with higher framerates in electronic shutter mode.
Most agree that EF lenses perform better on R-series bodies.
jwolfe wrote:
If I’m shooting an R5 I want native glass.
That's an understandable personal choice. Just don't invent reasons to justify it.
p.7 #18 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Well if you are shooting sports or birds it makes old glass useless. It robs all the advantage of shooting mirrorless if you can’t shoot full FPS. Plus I’ve been told by numerous shooters that old glass doesn’t track birds worth a darn on the R5.
So if you’re a birder you’re pretty much limited to new glass or RF lenses.
garyvot wrote:
"Serious limitations"? Don't be hyperbolic. This is one, very narrow and specific limitation that affects only a subset of EF lenses on a subset of camera bodies.
While it is true that older EF lenses cannot achieve 12fps in mechanical shutter mode, there are 39 newer lenses that can, including most everything that has been produced in the past 10 years. Moreover, most EF lenses of any vintage can be used with higher framerates in electronic shutter mode.
Most agree that EF lenses perform better on R-series bodies.
That's an understandable personal choice. Just don't invent reasons to justify it.
p.7 #19 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
Well if you are shooting sports or birds it makes old glass useless. It robs all the advantage of shooting mirrorless if you can’t shoot full FPS.
"Old glass" being the operative term here. As I said, 39 lenses do not have this limitation, including all of the current and recent production lenses used by birders and sports photographers. Tons of photographers used the EOS R5 and R6 with adapted lenses with great success at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
Moreover, this issue doesn't really affect the EOS R3, since it can be used without compromise in electronic shutter mode. Presumably, the same will apply to future replacements for the R5 and R6 if they have stacked sensors.
I can't speak to what you've been told, but there is no shortage of testimonials on the net that says stuff works:
p.7 #20 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Sure if you’re talking the latest EF glass it works great. But again this is about people who don’t have $6,000 to spend on a lens. If you try and shoot a 500mm f4 IS mark I on an R5 the experience is not positive. Nikon does not have this limitation. But that’s beside the point.
The point of the thread is Canon is shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing options for photographers that can’t afford a $2800 100-500. There’s tons of canon shooters using Tamron 150-600’s who want to upgrade to mirrorless with the R7. But it’s either the 100-500 or nothing. I don’t count the 100-400 since it isn’t long enough.
Personally I can afford whatever I want and still won’t shoot Canon now. The 100-500 is a compromised design, and there are no other lightweight alternatives. Despite them having great bodies.
See where I’m coming from?
garyvot wrote:
"Old glass" being the operative term here. As I said, 39 lenses do not have this limitation, including all of the current and recent production lenses used by birders and sports photographers. Tons of photographers used the EOS R5 and R6 with adapted lenses with great success at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
Moreover, this issue doesn't really affect the EOS R3, since it can be used without compromise in electronic shutter mode. Presumably, the same will apply to future replacements for the R5 and R6 if they have stacked sensors.
I can't speak to what you've been told, but there is no shortage of testimonials on the net that says stuff works:
