p.3 #1 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Bassat wrote:
I am quite certain I am not the only person staying with EF, and purchasing no RF gear. I use EF, in part because, I can get any lens I want for it: Canon or not. Right now, most of my lens collection is Sigma and Tokina, with one Rokinon. Canon makes equivalents for NONE of them. If I'd had to switch to another camera maker in order to get the lenses I want, I wouldn't be shooting Canon now. I'm not the only one.
I think more people are buying only RF lenses now so as not to have unserviceable EF lenses in the future. Obviously there are some EF only camera/lens users like you, but that group is shrinking as the EF cameras become more and more obsolete. Probably there will be Sigma RF lenses after a while. I can't imagine every buying any but maybe an APO macro if they ever make one. But I don't use LR.
p.3 #2 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Gochugogi wrote:
Years ago, I switched to Canon from Nikon mainly to use the Canon EF lens system. Isn't that why most people choose Canon?
I chose Canon in 2004, because it offered digital full frame.
Feb 19, 2023 at 03:41 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #3 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Well, it makes sense that they'd do this at some point, I prefer to have the option. Idk that I expected it to last forever. But it's kinda ridiculous how people tout mirrorless as the latest tech, DSLR's are antiquated supposedly, then turn around and put an mf lens having no IS on it.
Even my kit lenses on a Rebel have af and IS.
Feb 19, 2023 at 04:39 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #4 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
One reason I chose Canon: the Nikon lenses I still had easily adapted. D70 no metering using older mf nikkors. That and being fortunate enough to get 2 adaptall-2 EOS mounts gave me some lens options, in the beginning. Another reason is better iq, which looks laughable or close looking at it now. Not much difference.
p.3 #5 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Having AF or IS doesn't make a lens advanced, AF and IS is just a tool to be used in some situations. For what I shoot, IS isn't really valuable anyways and I turn it off. AF is great, but not during macro shooting. Some of the best glass on the planet doesn't have AF or IS.
DSLRs are antiquated by the very fact the manufacturers have stopped making them (or at least Canon), so it isn't us saying it, it electronics obsolescence that is doing that. The only choice one has if they don't want mirrorless is to buy up new stock now for the future (buy like 2 or 3 rebels) and put it in storage, or buy used market later, or give up photography as a hobby.
So these two topics really aren't related.
Feb 19, 2023 at 04:42 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #6 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
TeamSpeed wrote:
Having AF or IS doesn't make a lens advanced, AF and IS is just a tool to be used in some situations. For what I shoot, IS isn't really valuable anyways and I turn it off. AF is great, but not during macro shooting. Some of the best glass on the planet doesn't have AF or IS.
DSLRs are antiquated by the very fact the manufacturers have stopped making them (or at least Canon), so it isn't us saying it, it electronics obsolescence that is doing that. The only choice one has if they don't want mirrorless is to buy up new stock now for the future (buy like 2 or 3 rebels) and put it in storage, or buy used market later, or give up photography as a hobby.
So these two topics really aren't related....Show more →
Completely related.
If you want the older, antiquated tech lens, that's fine. But don't give me grief and tell me my DSLR having a more technologically advanced lens since it has af and IS is antiquated. That's just ridiculous.
p.3 #7 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
You can have third party lenses on the RF mount, just use an EF RF adaptor. My 2 Sigma EF lenses work perfectly on my R6. As for sticking with EF I kept my 6D and sometimes use it. I only have to do this once to realize how good the R6 AF is. I think Canon's decision to embargo 3rd party lenses is short sighted, if I could not use my Sigma EF lenses on it I would not have purchased the R6.
p.3 #8 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
AmbientMike wrote:
Completely related.
If you want the older, antiquated tech lens, that's fine. But don't give me grief and tell me my DSLR having a more technologically advanced lens since it has af and IS is antiquated. That's just ridiculous.
As is saying af isn't extremely useful for macro.
I love using focus bracketing for macro and stacking for increased DOF. Sure you can do it manually with still life and art work, but critters and flowers really benefit from 30FPS focus bracketing with precise AF increments.
p.3 #9 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Some of the manual focus lenses have optical qualities and characteristics not found on ones with AF. Voigtländer in particular have their APO Lanthars which are designed for maximum IQ whereas their Nokton line is designed for character. Plus some people like the tactile feel, experience and process of manually focusing their lenses as its more engaging.
AmbientMike wrote:
Well, it makes sense that they'd do this at some point, I prefer to have the option. Idk that I expected it to last forever. But it's kinda ridiculous how people tout mirrorless as the latest tech, DSLR's are antiquated supposedly, then turn around and put an mf lens having no IS on it.
p.3 #10 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Gochugogi wrote:
Years ago, I switched to Canon from Nikon mainly to use the Canon EF lens system. Isn't that why most people choose Canon? I was never happy with my Sigmas, Tamron and Samyang lenses compared to Canon's offerings, so I strongly suspect Canon's proverbial feet and wieners are safe. They're selling their new R system cameras as fast as they can make them. With all the RF and EF lenses on the market, my problem is Canon has too much choice...
Perhaps it matters that I still shoot mostly film, and I don't own even one f/1.anything lens. FWIW, I went to Canon when the last of my Yaschica FX-3 S2K cameras died in, maybe, 2008. After 10+ years of shooting Canon digital, I am back to film, mostly with Canon EF mount 35mm bodies. Still, Canon's EF mount has more available lenses than any other mount in history.
I am quite happy with the IQ I get from Sigma, Tokina, and Rokinon lenses. Going by their availability and sale-ability, so are lots of other folks. I remain at a loss as to how Canon LIMITING lens availability is going to IMPROVE Canon's sales number for cameras or lenses. Canon's decision not to allow 3rd party AF lenses is one of two things: temporary, or a HUGE mistake. Perhaps it is both. My guess is that it is a mistake; when they realize that, it will become temporary, and be corrected. Let us hope by that time it isn't too late.
Feb 19, 2023 at 09:18 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #11 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
SNJOps wrote:
Some of the manual focus lenses have optical qualities and characteristics not found on ones with AF. Voigtländer in particular have their APO Lanthars which are designed for maximum IQ whereas their Nokton line is designed for character. Plus some people like the tactile feel, experience and process of manually focusing their lenses as its more engaging.
I'm not saying it's not nice gear, but if you're going to call DSLR's, with all the tech they have, antiquated, you can't go back to a 1960's (if not earlier) focusing mechanism, no stabilization, and consider yourself to be using some modern, high tech gear.
p.3 #12 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
It's hybrid. Cutting edge optical technology in time-tested mechanical housings.
Antiquated? Depends on how you want to define it. The core technology of SLRs, and by extension DSLRs - the reflex mirror system - dates back to the very 50-60s referenced in regards to antiquated manual focusing. So yes, the flapping mirror is antiquated. That's not to say it doesn't work. It does and survived for 35+ years as AF technology matured and digital supplanted film. It has been refined to as good as it's ever going to get because it has now been superseded by technology capable of focusing faster and more precisely directly off the sensor while simultaneously providing a live video feed to the EVF. There is no longer a technical need for the optical viewfinder. But it doesn't mean the optical viewfinder doesn't have desirable qualities. IMO the OVF is still a more pleasing viewing experience than EVFs. But at least for me, I prioritize the improved focus capabilities provided by mirrorless, whether manual or autofocus.
p.3 #13 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Bassat wrote:
Perhaps it matters that I still shoot mostly film, and I don't own even one f/1.anything lens. FWIW, I went to Canon when the last of my Yaschica FX-3 S2K cameras died in, maybe, 2008. After 10+ years of shooting Canon digital, I am back to film, mostly with Canon EF mount 35mm bodies. Still, Canon's EF mount has more available lenses than any other mount in history.
I am quite happy with the IQ I get from Sigma, Tokina, and Rokinon lenses. Going by their availability and sale-ability, so are lots of other folks. I remain at a loss as to how Canon LIMITING lens availability is going to IMPROVE Canon's sales number for cameras or lenses. Canon's decision not to allow 3rd party AF lenses is one of two things: temporary, or a HUGE mistake. Perhaps it is both. My guess is that it is a mistake; when they realize that, it will become temporary, and be corrected. Let us hope by that time it isn't too late. ...Show more →
IIRC, this link is to the original discussion about Canon potentially locking out third party AF lenses and became the official CANON SUCKS rant thread, which you may wish to revive to state your dismay with Canon's decision.
That's not to say I disagree with some of your concerns. Canon certainly risks alienating a segment of its base by maintaining such an exclusionary position. I'm guessing someone at Canon is very aware of this and is taking a calculated risk that it will generally benefit Canon more by 'locking in' new users with all-Canon products and offset those who may switch systems in dismay at their policy.
I'll see if I can find it but seem to recall that someone at Canon stated that the third party exclusion is not necessarily permanent and is intended to allow Canon to establish its RF lens line. If indeed Cosina will release some lenses with electronic RF mount, it's a good sign that Canon is not entirely closed to third party manufacturers.
I suspect Canon noticed what happened with Sony early in their FF mirrorless days: it's possible there were more Canon EF lenses being used on Sony mirrorless than Sony lenses. So Canon did a couple things - they made the RF flange distance longer than the other major mirrorless systems so that other mirrorless system lenses couldn't be physically adapted to RF and focus to infinity (Nikon went shorter flange distance than Sony and now there are Sony FE to Nikon Z adapters - great for users but maybe not great from a corporate perspective). And Canon 'banned' third party use of the RF electronic mount (AF). I'm guessing there was some hubris at play due to the huge EF lens pool that could soften the EF-RF transition for users, unlike the situation for Sony coming from a less popular and less extensive DSLR lens system, where they needed people to adapt third party lenses in order to broaden the appeal of their early FF mirrorless models.
I can appreciate your points and why it upsets you. But realize not everyone is upset the way you are. I am one who is fine with what Canon has released so far for RF and in the meantime am happy to continue to use my existing EF lenses on my R cameras to fill the RF gaps. If I'm unhappy with Canon, it's that they haven't released more mid-upper tier RF lenses. I'm still waiting for my unicorn lens: 70-135/2L IS.
Feb 19, 2023 at 11:10 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #14 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
I've owned Leica lenses from the 1930's that focused the same. Incidentally they had mirrorless cameras before that, Leica came out in the 1920's, for one.
I'm not saying that you can't use and enjoy this stuff. Older, less technological gear is still nice. 50+ year old lenses are often still pretty usable . Especially if you don't require the latest af technology.
But people can't reasonably look down their nose at me for shooting DSLR, calling it antiquated, if they're using an antiquated mf only lens having no stabilization. Those have been around forever. Nothing new.
p.3 #15 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Just tagging in again. You can adapt a great deal of glass to the RF Mount. More trivial now than ever. EF, F, R, OM, M, etc.
You can't however use E-Mount or Z-Mount, which are the other two main modern FF Mounts. Fujinon mounts should also be mentioned. And anything L Alliance is the same exact flange depth and doesn't work, though if you are determined on a few of those you can convert them, different topic though.
Hard to say why it took Canon a hot moment to license out the RF protocol and support, but I suspect it was to lock things down and make it "make sense" really.
As I mentioned about previous license deals, I suspect highly what we'll see from Cosina and likely Zeiss thereafter is pure manual focus lenses, perhaps with manual or electronic iris control, and certainly lens metadata. Cosina's tease merely states with "electronic contacts". And this method of boxing out certain features on 3rd party glass has been common for some companies in the past. Though I still have older EF Mount Sigma glass that happens to be autofocus, which I think was a point of contention for years if I recall right.
The big companies want you to buy into their AF and lens related features, that hasn't changed. Also Canon's spent a mountain of money developing the new communication protocols and AF motors for the RF mount.
Tracking a few patents alluding to lenses on the horizon, Canon has a bunch of interesting stuff incoming. More affordable primes and very specific zooms. Perhaps the most daunting are the 24-120 and 120-300 f/2.8 zooms. If they hit those designs with some solid performance without major distortion, despite likely the lens being a bit large, those will be a rather amazing pair.
Still early days in this system, but as I mentioned before, 3rd party glass and releasing more professional minded glass that has kept a segment of folks from going all in on RF would be really nice to figure out this year.
p.3 #16 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
AmbientMike wrote:
I'm not saying it's not nice gear, but if you're going to call DSLR's, with all the tech they have, antiquated, you can't go back to a 1960's (if not earlier) focusing mechanism, no stabilization, and consider yourself to be using some modern, high tech gear.
I never called DSLRs antiquated. I just stated some reasons why some like to use MF glass.
It’s certainly encouraging for the RF platform that Cosina will be releasing a lens for it. The fact that it has electrical contacts suggests this lens has been made in agreement with Canon and therefore they have some sort of license.
p.3 #17 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
AmbientMike wrote:
I've owned Leica lenses from the 1930's that focused the same. Incidentally they had mirrorless cameras before that, Leica came out in the 1920's, for one.
I'm not saying that you can't use and enjoy this stuff. Older, less technological gear is still nice. 50+ year old lenses are often still pretty usable . Especially if you don't require the latest af technology.
But people can't reasonably look down their nose at me for shooting DSLR, calling it antiquated, if they're using an antiquated mf only lens having no stabilization. Those have been around forever. Nothing new.
I am sure nobody is looking down on you for using DSLRs. Shoot whatever you want, the only one telling you have to buy RF gear is canon.
The proper term for DSLR is deprecated, not antiquated or obsolete.
p.3 #18 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
TeamSpeed wrote:
The proper term for DSLR is deprecated.
Not really. “Deprecated” means ”express disapproval of”; for example, in software engineering it means “stop using this now, we’re going to take it away soon”. I don’t think that’s what you meant, and of course Canon have no way to make existing DSLRs stop working because third parties reverse engineered the raw formats.
They are discontinued old technology which still works.
Old lenses are discontinued old technology which usually doesn’t work as well as the newer stuff... when the camera maker deigns to make the equivalent new lens. Which is a problem with the overall market having shrunk.
p.3 #19 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
I cannot believe I missed this thread!
I have been ranting quite some time now about how it frustrates me that "all the good stuff" is mostly on Sony E-mount (Voigtlander 35/50/65/110 APO lanthar, 21/1.4 Nokton, Zeiss Loxia/Batis).
I am very pleased to hear Cosina finally comes with some RF-mount lenses! I always thought it was an AutoFocus license thingy and not a manual focus thingy. Of course I could come up with the certain information being passed down from lens to body about focusguide, but I didn't know that was the case.
While I still have a Canon 16-35/4L and a 70-200/2.8 II, 95% of the time I use my three Zeiss lenses (50MP, 100MP, 135APO) of which the 100MP is practically glued to my R6.
Since 2014, I have found what I was always looking for3D like rendering/micro contrast/whatever you want to call it, and it pleases me to see that the RF-mount is finally being picked up by Cosina.
I cannot even begin to mention what I would desire, but I believe both Zeiss and Voigtlander could create so many lenses here...
One of my hopes is to see more lightweight (size) Zeiss lenses as good as the Zeiss classic lineup, or maybe as the Loxia's. An RF-mount version of the 35/2 distagon, 50/2MP, 100/2MP (I hope one with less CA than my original 100MP, but I guess superior 3D rendering comes at a cost...) and 85/1.4 Planar would be very nice.
By the way, either Zeiss or Voigtlander is fine, I don't care, as long as I have superior 3D rendering preferably with apochromatic designs (I hope it will be with less lens element count, but I guess an APO-design requires more lens elements). Voigtlander is more affordable than Zeiss, often without compromising on 3D/IQ.
I really hope they bring over some of the existing E-mount beauties to the RF-mount like:
Voigtlander 35/50/65/110 Apo Lanthar (especially that 65 APO) or Voigtlander 21/35/58 Nokton, Zeiss Batis 85 (but I guess AF is one bridge too far yet...).
A sidestep from this great news: I really REALLY hope all the exif information will be filled correctly, especially the lensmake, so that Lightroom and flickr show it again (see my rant about this here).
By the way, is there any reason why 3rd parties always seem to stop at 135mm and almost never produce primes like a 200/2.8, or 300/4? Canon has a 200/2.8L (which is in deseperate need for a mark II upgrade by the way), but Zeiss' longest prime, at least for Canon EF mount, was 135mm
p.3 #20 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Deathchant wrote:
By the way, is there any reason why 3rd parties always seem to stop at 135mm and almost never produce primes like a 200/2.8, or 300/4? Canon has a 200/2.8L (which is in deseperate need for a mark II upgrade by the way), but Zeiss' longest prime, at least for Canon EF mount, was 135mm
My guess is the majority of the market for such lenses wants autofocus. A high performance, relatively expensive, moderately fast manual focus telephoto would be a very niche product. Another factor could be that most efforts at these focal lengths are being put into zoom lenses with optical performance at a comparable level. Or at least close enough for the price point, with the additional features/benefits of a zoom. I think it's a reason you see a number of mid-price range zooms topping out at 400-500-600mm and not so many topping out at 200-300, other than the requisite 70-200/2.8 style, or as 'kit' zooms at the lower end of the price/performance range.
A possible advantage for moderately fast manual focus lenses is that they can be a lot smaller than AF counterparts (for example some from Voigtlander, but not necessarily Zeiss's Milvus and the Classic line that preceded it). This seems to hold up mostly in the wide to short tele range. However, Sigma's "i" series is impressively compact with AF. Once you're at 135mm and longer, there's less size difference compared to AF options. And AF conveniences are very compelling with telephoto lenses.
But if there is a company that seems to like niches, it's Cosina. There's hope they'll eventually reintroduce a 180 APO. I'd prefer a compact f/4. But for me it would be a difficult choice between it and Canon's RF 70-200/4. The zoom would give me a broader use envelope and would probably be optically close enough.
My feeling is that at least as far as Canon is concerned, the 200mm+ moderate speed prime market has been replaced by zooms. The 600/11 and 800/11 are obvious exceptions, but those make more sense as primes to achieve the desired price point. I'd like to see Canon put DO and other size reducing features into moderate speed 200, 300 and 400 primes, but with high optical performance.
PhilH wrote:
You can adapt a great deal of glass to the RF Mount. More trivial now than ever. EF, F, R, OM, M, etc.
You can't however use E-Mount or Z-Mount, which are the other two main modern FF Mounts. Fujinon mounts should also be mentioned. And anything L Alliance is the same exact flange depth and doesn't work, though if you are determined on a few of those you can convert them, different topic though.
As I suggested earlier, it's likely no mistake Canon made the RF flange distance what it is relative to Sony and Nikon specifically to prevent 'easy' adapting of competing system mirrorless lenses. I don't think Canon is concerned about those adapting manual focus SLR lenses from old systems because those don't necessarily represent 'lost sales' in the way adapting current mirrorless lenses from competitors would.
