Archive 2022 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.8 #1 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
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.
You want to shoot the bigger heavier, more expensive 500pf instead of 100-500, and are fixated on the 100 500 price, in spite of the fact that it is about the same as current 70-200/2.8's. BTW the 200-600 is good sized, definitely not light. I think 100 500 wins, there
You're probably going to say how much sharper the prime is, but Steve Perry did a test and the difference in the center vs 300pf+1.4 & 200-500 was pretty negligible. And even Leica made teles and didn't bother in the corners, since they generally don't matter much on the photos taken on teles.
If you don't go older 300/2.8, for instance, sure 200-600 similar priced. But 5.6-6.3 is a pretty big limitation. Older Nikon 300/2.8's can be really cheap, but I'd guess they're screw drive and that's probably a pretty big limitation.
p.8 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Well yeah I will argue that. I’ve shot the 100-500, the Sony 200-600 and the 500mm pf side by side and there’s no contest. The Nikon blows them all away. I can crop way tighter due to sharpness.
But you’re skirting the issue, and being a fanboy. There’s NO inexpensive long lens option in RF mount. Nikon has the 200-500 and will soon have their own 200-600. Sony has the 200-600 which is every bit as sharp as the Canon and $1,000 less expensive. And that’s just looking at birding lenses.
You can argue all you want that the 100-500 is a great lens, but in reality it’s average at best. And massively overpriced for what it offers.
AmbientMike wrote:
You want to shoot the bigger heavier, more expensive 500pf instead of 100-500, and are fixated on the 100 500 price, in spite of the fact that it is about the same as current 70-200/2.8's. BTW the 200-600 is good sized, definitely not light. I think 100 500 wins, there
You're probably going to say how much sharper the prime is, but Steve Perry did a test and the difference in the center vs 300pf+1.4 & 200-500 was pretty negligible. And even Leica made teles and didn't bother in the corners, since they generally don't matter much on the photos taken on teles.
If you don't go older 300/2.8, for instance, sure 200-600 similar priced. But 5.6-6.3 is a pretty big limitation. Older Nikon 300/2.8's can be really cheap, but I'd guess they're screw drive and that's probably a pretty big limitation. ...Show more →
p.8 #3 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
For the record, the Canon 100-500 is 1530g vs the Nikon 500 pf which is 1463 g. Real world prices are about the same if you’re buying used.
The Nikon 200-500 is $1400. The Sony 200-600 is $1900. Both can be had significantly cheaper used. Canon has ZERO to compete with these.
jwolfe wrote:
Well yeah I will argue that. I’ve shot the 100-500, the Sony 200-600 and the 500mm pf side by side and there’s no contest. The Nikon blows them all away. I can crop way tighter due to sharpness.
But you’re skirting the issue, and being a fanboy. There’s NO inexpensive long lens option in RF mount. Nikon has the 200-500 and will soon have their own 200-600. Sony has the 200-600 which is every bit as sharp as the Canon and $1,000 less expensive. And that’s just looking at birding lenses.
You can argue all you want that the 100-500 is a great lens, but in reality it’s average at best. And massively overpriced for what it offers.
p.8 #4 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Not sure why some are talking Canon vs Sony native lenses here. This is about 3rd party and Sony is leaps and bounds ahead of both Canon and Nikon in regards to 3rd party lens support on their FF mirrorless system, its not even close. The excellent Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for the Sony E mount at $1,050 is $1k cheaper than the Sony version and a whopping $1,400 cheaper than the Canon RF version. Thats just one example. How awesome would it be to have that Sigma 24-70 for the RF mount? Unfortunately due to Canon's greed, we will never see that. So RF users will be stuck paying an absurd $2,400 for a native 24-70 f/2.8 No thanks.
p.8 #5 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I think the problem that Canon will face is that there isn't anything that makes their system unique (in a positive direction).
Nikon has produced a series of novel, affordable, light supertelephotos.
Sony has produced compact extraordinary quality primes and zooms with new focusing motor that makes them silent, smooth, and extremely fast. In addition to this every lens that Tamron, Sigma, Voigtlander, Samyang/Rokinon, Viltrox, all support E mount. You can get a 35-150 f/2-2.8.
Canon has... what? 2 externally focusing f/1.2 primes, one of which costs $3099 and weighs as much as a car, a handful of externally focusing STM motor f/1.8 primes, a 28-70 f/2 designed to give you de quervains and carpal tunnel, a selection of superteles which are super expensive with teleconverters and adapters welded on.
There isn't much left in the camera market, all there really is left is professionals and enthusiasts. Canon will eventually lose the enthusiast market with their current approach. There is a reason their sales are ticking down and Sony and Nikon are ticking way back up.
I say all of this as a person who is fully a Canon shooter at this point. It is just reality that Canon is not keeping pace with the competitors lens-wise or arguably camera wise (tho this is much more debatable), and they are also playing nasty with their potential partners. It's not a good long term strategy.
p.8 #6 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
This.
Jesse Evans wrote:
I think the problem that Canon will face is that there isn't anything that makes their system unique (in a positive direction).
Nikon has produced a series of novel, affordable, light supertelephotos.
Sony has produced compact extraordinary quality primes and zooms with new focusing motor that makes them silent, smooth, and extremely fast. In addition to this every lens that Tamron, Sigma, Voigtlander, Samyang/Rokinon, Viltrox, all support E mount. You can get a 35-150 f/2-2.8.
Canon has... what? 2 externally focusing f/1.2 primes, one of which costs $3099 and weighs as much as a car, a handful of externally focusing STM motor f/1.8 primes, a 28-70 f/2 designed to give you de quervains and carpal tunnel, a selection of superteles which are super expensive with teleconverters and adapters welded on.
There isn't much left in the camera market, all there really is left is professionals and enthusiasts. Canon will eventually lose the enthusiast market with their current approach. There is a reason their sales are ticking down and Sony and Nikon are ticking way back up.
I say all of this as a person who is fully a Canon shooter at this point. It is just reality that Canon is not keeping pace with the competitors lens-wise or arguably camera wise (tho this is much more debatable), and they are also playing nasty with their potential partners. It's not a good long term strategy....Show more →
p.8 #7 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
The Canon R5, R6, and R7 kit are currently the top ranked cameras on the B&H website when sorted by "bestsellers".
If this (real or perceived) issue with third party lenses does start to impact sales, I'm fairly sure Canon will adjust.
Sep 02, 2022 at 02:03 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.8 #8 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
For the record, the Canon 100-500 is 1530g vs the Nikon 500 pf which is 1463 g. Real world prices are about the same if you’re buying used.
The Nikon 200-500 is $1400. The Sony 200-600 is $1900. Both can be had significantly cheaper used. Canon has ZERO to compete with these.
Not according to B&H site. 100-500 is lighter at 1365g. Yours is heavier and doesn't even zoom!!! For the same price!!!
To use your logic again (which, for any Nikon users not posting dubious anti Canon claims on the Canon board, I don't necessarily think this, but here goes) : the 500pf is such a ripoff!! Look at Steve Perry's comparison. I can get the same sharpness in the center of 200-500!!! For a fraction of the price!!! Why would anyone buy that stupid 500mm lens. 3600 bucks!!!
Or: Sony is such ripoff. I cam get 150-600 C, having more range, for less than half the 200-600!! What a ripoff the 200 600 is. And my EF body is under $1k used.
p.8 #9 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Seriously, though if anyone is interested in the reasons I'm not super interested in primes right now you might look at the number of primes needed to cover the range of the 18-55.
But I found another 3rd party lens yesterday that I'm not sure I ever heard of. Af 85 1.2 rokinon EF. But nobody has been interested in 3rd party on here much in recent years. Now everyone is up in arms it seems. Odd
p.8 #10 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Ah the fragile ego of a fanboy.
I am a Canon fan. A good deal of my sports career was shot on Canon. I have no ill-will towards Canon at all. When the R5 was released I even looked at switching, or at least running two systems. But I keep coming back to the same problem - there are no good birding lenses for the RF mount that are light weight and affordable. F7.1 and not properly working with a teleconverter kills the 100-500 for me, because at dusk I need every bit of 5.6, especially since I’m shooting with a TC on all the time.
And since you can’t seem to properly look up a weight:
From the Canon USA website:
Approx. 3.0 lbs. / 1365g (No tripod mount)
Approx. 0.35 lbs / 160g (Tripod mount only)
So that equals, wait for it, 1525 g
From this discussion I doubt you’ve actually shot with any of these lenses, which makes this even more hysterical.
AmbientMike wrote:
Not according to B&H site. 100-500 is lighter at 1365g. Yours is heavier and doesn't even zoom!!! For the same price!!!
To use your logic again (which, for any Nikon users not posting dubious anti Canon claims on the Canon board, I don't necessarily think this, but here goes) : the 500pf is such a ripoff!! Look at Steve Perry's comparison. I can get the same sharpness in the center of 200-500!!! For a fraction of the price!!! Why would anyone buy that stupid 500mm lens.
Or: Sony is such ripoff. I cam get 150-600 C, having more range, for less than half the 200-600!! What a ripoff the 200 600 is. And my EF body is under $1k used. ...Show more →
p.8 #12 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
It’s not a brand war to me. I think Canon, Nikon and Sony all make great products. My criticism of Canon is a lack of vision and choices for photographers of all budgets. I happen to shoot Nikon now, but that could change in the future based on my needs and what’s available.
Tom_W wrote:
Nothing gets the blood flowing like a good old-fashioned camera brand war!
p.8 #13 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
Seriously, though if anyone is interested in the reasons I'm not super interested in primes right now you might look at the number of primes needed to cover the range of the 18-55.
But I found another 3rd party lens yesterday that I'm not sure I ever heard of. Af 85 1.2 rokinon EF. But nobody has been interested in 3rd party on here much in recent years. Now everyone is up in arms it seems. Odd
Why is it odd?
RF mount was new.
Most threads are about RF mount cameras.
Third party lenses had not yet become available for RF mount cameras, so people just waited.
Now there is indication that not only is Canon not helping those that want to develop third party lenses, they are actively stopping it.
I can't understand why people are now talking about it... 😭
p.8 #14 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
The Canon R5, R6, and R7 kit are currently the top ranked cameras on the B&H website when sorted by "bestsellers".
If this (real or perceived) issue with third party lenses does start to impact sales, I'm fairly sure Canon will adjust.
Thats not how it works, they are not in any order. As explained to me by someone who works at B&H, you want to pay attention to the gold #1 seller badges as they define the bestsellers in a category. So as of now, the best sellers are actually the a7IV for FF, the Canon T7 for APS-C and the Kodak PIXPRO for compact cameras. The silver top seller badges are the next most relevant cameras. Anything without a badge is meaningless really.
p.8 #15 · 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 →
Truth is, adapting EF lenses is a problem and SNJOps is correct. You have to add in the cost of the adapter, not to mention it adds size and weight.
As I already mentioned, locally I could buy the brand new 400g Sigma 16-28mm f2.8 DN Art which is Mirrorless only for $1000AUD or I could spend $1799 to get the much older, heavier and slower EF 16-35mm f/4L. Even the Sony 16-35mm f/4 G PZ which came out this year and is only 350g I got for $1400 brand new.
You are correct many options do exist, but they aren’t as feasible compared to brand new third party options that are only available on other brands thanks to Canon (not to mention Sony first party options that are much cheaper too).
Sep 02, 2022 at 04:34 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.8 #16 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
Ah the fragile ego of a fanboy.
Were you talking about you or me?
I definitely got a good laugh out of complaining so loudly about an f/7.1 lens. Then you shoot at f/8! For that matter 5.6 isn't exactly great in low light. This sounds familiar...
And I'd probably take off the tripod mount most of the time shooting hh. If you are shooting on a tripod the 7.1 makes less difference.
Sep 02, 2022 at 05:48 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.8 #17 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Jesse Evans wrote:
Why is it odd?
Because nobody cared about 3rd party lenses til this week. Not much really
p.8 #20 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
You really kinda have a problem with comprehension.
Yes I shoot at f8 until it’s too dark and I take the TC off. But once you add a TC to an f7.1 lens it’s f10. You should know this if you actually shoot with long lenses. That’s why I said f7.1 is a no go. You can’t use a TC in anything other than bright light.
I’m planning to add the 800mm pf once Nikon makes an R7 competitor so I won’t need a TC at all.
AmbientMike wrote:
Were you talking about you or me?
I definitely got a good laugh out of complaining so loudly about an f/7.1 lens. Then you shoot at f/8! For that matter 5.6 isn't exactly great in low light. This sounds familiar...
And I'd probably take off the tripod mount most of the time shooting hh. If you are shooting on a tripod the 7.1 makes less difference.
