Archive 2022 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.10 #1 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
Are you talking to me? I’ve moved on. I generally don’t engage trolls who sit in their basement and argue about cameras online. I spend most of my time working.
Your search history has no photos that I can see. So your opinion really has no purpose other than to argue for the sake of arguing. Personally I’m going to go shoot. Good day.
You come up with more stupidity than anyone I have ever run into on here. First you tell me I'm completely wrong. Not once but twice. Which was pretty ridiculous to begin with and both times you admitted I did actually post accurately. Then I didn't understand aperture, after more years of photography (I may have had something published before you) than I care to admit. Have you been to the Sony board yet to tell them their 400/2.8's, the same FL as the 100-400/5.6-8 you say is too short as you blather your nonsense endlessly, aren't long enough?
Now I didn't ever post any photos on here. You are just full of it.
p.10 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
If Canon made a 200-600 or 200-500 DO zoom I’d switch immediately. I can’t hand hold heavy glass anymore. That would be a game changing lens.
Tom_W wrote:
A quality DO zoom would be a great asset for birding. I would suggest the 200-600 range, but perhaps ending up at 4.5 or 5.6, or even the unusual f/5.0. Of course, all those those things add up to bigger glass, but if I'm going to venture out on walkabout, I really would prefer a zoom. As the 400 f/4 DO and Nikon's 500 f/5.6 PF show, you can get a pretty handy package using the DO technique, and very good IQ can be obtained.
Come to think of it, aren't the 600/11 and 800/11 DO lenses? Both, despite their cost-saving designs (constant aperture), have pretty good IQ, all things considered, and a great price. ...Show more →
Edit - FM doesn't like YouTube links very well, but its there...
Sep 04, 2022 at 01:38 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.10 #6 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah perhaps? Great link.
My camera actually got stuck at 7.1 a few days ago. Believe it or not. Yes I'm looking at other cameras but I shoot at 7.1 so much just shot it. So it's not a bad aperture at all. Can't say it's perfect using 1.4 but even there Ive probably used it a lot with 1.4 at 7.1 on Tamron 180. 5.6 + 1.4 isn't that fast either. Neither is ideal.
I can't figure out why you are complaining about lens size and then wanting a 200-600. One guy I guided birding had one. Pretty big lens. Probably useless to point out that the 100-500 is a lot lighter in this thread. I've carried lenses 200-600 weight. No thanks. Never say never, I probably will again, kinda heavy though. Same listed weight as 300/2.8 adaptall-2 60B I used a lot several years ago, actually a bit more. Not sure if listed Tamron weight includes mount though
p.10 #7 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
Hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah perhaps? Great link.
My camera actually got stuck at 7.1 a few days ago. Believe it or not. Yes I'm looking at other cameras but I shoot at 7.1 so much just shot it. So it's not a bad aperture at all. Can't say it's perfect using 1.4 but even there Ive probably used it a lot with 1.4 at 7.1 on Tamron 180. 5.6 + 1.4 isn't that fast either. Neither is ideal.
I can't figure out why you are complaining about lens size and then wanting a 200-600. One guy I guided birding had one. Pretty big lens. Probably useless to point out that the 100-500 is a lot lighter in this thread. I've carried lenses 200-600 weight. No thanks. Never say never, I probably will again, kinda heavy though. Same listed weight as 300/2.8 adaptall-2 60B I used a lot several years ago, actually a bit more. Not sure if listed Tamron weight includes mount though...Show more →
Sony 200-600mm is $2390 AUD / $1998 USD
Canon RF 100-500mm is $4164 AUD / $2899 USD
I hate heavy lenses but the RF 100-500nm is not worth nearly double the AUD price. Once again shows why we need third party lenses on RF considering Canon’s insane pricing.
p.10 #8 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
At one point Canon was rumored to be working on a non-L 200-600mm. That would still be a great lens for them to release. The Sony is not a GM lens and the Nikon 200-600mm will not be an S lens. If Canon refuses to let Sigma and Tamron into the party they should at least offer a birding lens that’s affordable.
Photosbydlee wrote:
Sony 200-600mm is $2390 AUD / $1998 USD
Canon RF 100-500mm is $4164 AUD / $2899 USD
I hate heavy lenses but the RF 100-500nm is not worth nearly double the AUD price. Once again shows why we need third party lenses on RF considering Canon’s insane pricing.
p.10 #9 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
At one point Canon was rumored to be working on a non-L 200-600mm. That would still be a great lens for them to release. The Sony is not a GM lens and the Nikon 200-600mm will not be an S lens. If Canon refuses to let Sigma and Tamron into the party they should at least offer a birding lens that’s affordable.
I agree - Canon never chose to compete head-on with the Sigma and Tamron (spell check almost got me there) 150-600, or the Nikon 200-500. No granted, the Canon 100-400 L II is really a top-notch zoom, but 400 isn't 600. Although my 100-400 with the 1.4X was sharper than the sigma at 600 so there is that.
That would be a great asset to have in their stable, I'd say.
Sep 04, 2022 at 06:23 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.10 #10 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Except Canon does have a light, inexpensive telephoto. The 100-400. Only $600 & under 1.5 lbs.!! Much, much lighter than the 150-600 C, which is about 3x as heavy. 100-400 probably less expensive, too, even if you buy 150-600 used. The 150-600 C is hardly compact.
I'm not a big fan of f/8, but guess what happens if it's small?
The 200-600 is a bit longer, only 1/3 stop faster and ~50% heavier than 100-500. Not likely one from Canon is much smaller.
p.10 #11 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Yes. The 100-400 is too short for birding, so you have to add a 1.4x, which leaves it still on the short end and f8. The 200-600 is a great FL for birds and small for its power. It would be even cooler is Canon used DO technology and made a 200-600mm DO.
I’m just bummed the Sigma 150-600mm won’t come to RF mount.
Tom_W wrote:
I agree - Canon never chose to compete head-on with the Sigma and Tamron (spell check almost got me there) 150-600, or the Nikon 200-500. No granted, the Canon 100-400 L II is really a top-notch zoom, but 400 isn't 600. Although my 100-400 with the 1.4X was sharper than the sigma at 600 so there is that.
That would be a great asset to have in their stable, I'd say.
p.10 #12 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
At one point Canon was rumored to be working on a non-L 200-600mm. That would still be a great lens for them to release. The Sony is not a GM lens and the Nikon 200-600mm will not be an S lens. If Canon refuses to let Sigma and Tamron into the party they should at least offer a birding lens that’s affordable.
I tried the Sony 200-600mm once for birding (I’m horrible at it) at it was a really nice lens. I’m not sure how fast it would be Canon make one, if it’s a decent aperture they’d likely charge a fortune for it but if it’s not L, they’ll probably make it f/11 or something on the long end.
Sep 04, 2022 at 09:41 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.10 #13 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I guess I'll say it again. 100 400 has been used to shoot photos of birds since 1998. The 200-600 is a big lens. 150-600 C is pretty chunky, too. 100-400 is tiny, 200-600 over 3x as heavy. 100 500 much lighter than 150-600 C, even
But one reason Canon isn't likely to make this stuff people suggest is because they already have the 100-500. Which is lighter than some 70-200/2.8's, and 500mm is really pretty long. And $2000 vs $2800 isn't really huge imo. If the used price is high, it's probably in part because it's a good lens
If you get 2/3 to a stop better stabilization, or more, on Canon, you should be able to get better performance in low light most of the time. If you need a fast lens, 200-600 isn't fast either.
p.10 #14 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
I guess I'll say it again. 100 400 has been used to shoot photos of birds since 1998. The 200-600 is a big lens. 150-600 C is pretty chunky, too. 100-400 is tiny, 200-600 over 3x as heavy. 100 500 much lighter than 150-600 C, even
But one reason Canon isn't likely to make this stuff people suggest is because they already have the 100-500. Which is lighter than some 70-200/2.8's, and 500mm is really pretty long. And $2000 vs $2800 isn't really huge imo. If the used price is high, it's probably in part because it's a good lens
If you get 2/3 to a stop better stabilization, or more, on Canon, you should be able to get better performance in low light most of the time. If you need a fast lens, 200-600 isn't fast either....Show more →
Once again you aren’t understanding the point of this thread. There is a Tamron 150-500mm that’s not much difference in weight but significantly cheaper. You keep go on about an old EF Sigma lenses when there’s new THIRD PARTY OPTIONS for Mirrorless only that are much cheaper viable alternatives that don’t require any adapter so would be better if Canon stop milking their customers.
I hate heavy lenses but if it comes down to paying $2390 AUD / $1998 USD and getting an extra 100mm on the long end (which also has a faster aperture), I’ll put up with the extra 800g or so for nearly half the cost plus having plenty of third party options, another brand seems much more reasonable.
Sep 04, 2022 at 11:18 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.10 #15 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Photosbydlee wrote:
Once again you aren’t understanding the point of this thread. There is a Tamron 150-500mm that’s not much difference in weight but significantly cheaper. You keep go on about an old EF Sigma lenses when there’s new THIRD PARTY OPTIONS for Mirrorless only that are much cheaper viable alternatives that don’t require any adapter so would be better if Canon stop milking their customers.
I hate heavy lenses but if it comes down to paying $2390 AUD / $1998 USD and getting an extra 100mm on the long end (which also has a faster aperture), I’ll put up with the extra 800g or so for nearly half the cost plus having plenty of third party options, another brand seems much more reasonable.
150-600 mentioned above go tell that poster. So yes I can comment on it. The 150 500 is f/6.7 at 500 and much heavier than the Canon 100-500, about the same weight as 150-600 but less reach.
If you are concerned about people not understanding things, you are really talking to the wrong person. I definitely get this thread. People are interested in running down Canon even if it makes no sense.
p.10 #17 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
I still have my 500mm f/4L IS Mark I, which is even heavier than the Mark II.
You are no doubt right about the RF version slimming down, similar to the v3 EF models, but I think it would be cool if Canon changed things up and gave us (maybe) a 500 f/4.5 DO IS that is considerably smaller and lighter still. I think losing a third of a stop at this focal length would be worthwhile for the gains in portability.
Pretty sure they won't do this though. Since Canon basically invented diffractive optics, they've been somewhat conservative in where and how they are applied....Show more →
Even a 500 f4.5 (Not DO).
Original 500 f4.5: 3000 g - 6.6 lb
500 f4 L IS: 3870 g - 8.5 lb
(Not a straight f4.5 vs f4 comparison as the f4 also had IS.)
Using the same tech as the V3 400 2.8 and 600 4, a 500 f4.5 could be around same weight as the 150-600 Sigrons, 1 stop faster and much better optically. Even lighter if Canon can match Nikon:
p.10 #18 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
dolina wrote:
If you're in the market for 3rd party lenses then get any EF lens and use an EF to RF adapter with it.
I read on another forum that pharma companies have a monopoly on pharma products they R&Ded for 6 years(?) then it becomes generic? Canon & Nikon deserve to recoup whatever money they spent on R&D and make a tidy profit as an incentive to innovate.
Do they? Not everyone agrees, but who cares? Whether or not Canon deserves it is irrelevant. They have the right to prevent 3rd party lenses being used on their bodies, or at least they have the resources to take legal action and they don't even have to win in court to achieve their goal, they just need to cause enough financial pain to make it non profitable for the 3rd parties. That is relevant.
Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Sony are currently allowing 3rd party lenses.
Of course any EF mount lens can be used with an adapter on an RF body.
What if you want one of the Samyang 'Tiny' Series? You're out of luck.
You are also out of luck from some amazing Tamron lenses, two in particular, the 35-150 f2-f2.8 and the 70-180 f2.8.
Also, all of the Voigtlander lenses.
Sigma I series
Sigma DG DN series
Sigma 35 1.2
The 'just use an adapter' suggestion does not apply to many great 3rd party lenses made in the last several years and they don't seem to be slowing down. Tamron has even released their first 2nd series mirrorless lens, the 28-75 2.8.
I know I don't want to wait until Tamron 4th gen mirrorless lenses may be able to be used on a Canon body.
Great link.