I have had Canon for a long time and am perfectly happy with my R5 but there isn’t an RF equivalent fot the 2 lenses that mostly I use, an old Sigma 150 macro, non OS and 300 2.8 mk2
To be honest I am surprised that Canon haven’t brought out a recent longer macro lens than 100mm, I guess there isn’t a market for it
350lcpete wrote:
I have had Canon for a long time and am perfectly happy with my R5 but there isn’t an RF equivalent fot the 2 lenses that mostly I use, an old Sigma 150 macro, non OS and 300 2.8 mk2
To be honest I am surprised that Canon haven’t brought out a recent longer macro lens than 100mm, I guess there isn’t a market for it
In the case of the 300/2.8, Canon has the 100-300/2.8.
For the macro lens, you'd just adapt - they didn't update the EF 180/3.5L ever either, nor did say Nikon update their long macro lens from the film/early digital era.
Just a niche of a niche lens really, if you want a modern equivalent Laowa made a 180/4 that has AF.
For those complaining about the weight of the z9, have you actually shot with one? It feels perfect in the hand, and it’s such a joy to shoot. I’ve shot canon since the EOS film days, but I’d gladly swap my r5 for a z9, honestly. I wouldn’t carry it around when walking around with my kids, but I’ve got other cameras for that.
I don’t see the point in a whole Nikon vs Canon thread, but trashing Nikon because the z9 is heavy is just a strange.
comotionfilms wrote:
For those complaining about the weight of the z9, have you actually shot with one? It feels perfect in the hand, and it’s such a joy to shoot. I’ve shot canon since the EOS film days, but I’d gladly swap my r5 for a z9, honestly. I wouldn’t carry it around when walking around with my kids, but I’ve got other cameras for that.
I don’t see the point in a whole Nikon vs Canon thread, but trashing Nikon because the z9 is heavy is just a strange.
I looked at the Z9 when it was released in Asia. It is a HEAVY camera.. Nikon is due for a refresh soon. I would bet the new one will be pretty sweet.
I am on the hunt for a nice used 600/4 TC lens. I shoot the 500 II lens and the 600 TC lens is close to the same weight, only slightly longer and 1.5 inches > in diameter. For me that would be the ultimate travel lens. And with Nikon upgrading their Z9 soon.
Looks like Nikon will be pretty fertile hunting grounds from here on out for me. Buying good used mirrorless gear..
I’ve pretty much written canon off
I do have a few budget R bodies (R100 & R50) plus several of canons cheap <cough cough> consumer RF lenses.
But the buck stops there for me now.
I did stumble on a pair of used yungnuo rfs primes a few weeks back (22/1.4 & 33/1.4) both seem to function well on the 2 bodies I have.
But there is no point investing more into a brand that seems to ignore aps-c users.
wzok wrote:
One of my grips also. The last Canon EF lens I let go was the 180mm macro. However, the new Sony 100mm macro with 1.4x or 2x converter changes that.
Can I ask what your views are on the 180 macro please? I have the 100Lis which on crop gives 160mm equivalent. However I hear the 180 highly regarded… Can I ask your views please??
When I decided to go from SLR to Mirrorless I fell into Sony for the lower cost as they had so many lenses to choose from in 2022 when the A7IV came out. I could easily build a cost effective system especially buying used lenses. Canon was not even an option because of their "Pro" only lens mindset. Big, heavy, expensive. They are better now but it takes them years to release these lenses. When did we finally get a simple set of 1.4 primes? It took forever! Canon seems to want all the $$ for themselves to keep the R&D going. Sigma & Tamron would easily take a big chunk out of their bottom line. These 3rd party companies are not like they used to be in the film or early digital days (crappy). They easily compete with or even surpass 1st party on occasion.
All this being said, I'm currently switching over to Canon from Sony... Nothing can be easy
johnctharp wrote:
In the case of the 300/2.8, Canon has the 100-300/2.8.
For the macro lens, you'd just adapt - they didn't update the EF 180/3.5L ever either, nor did say Nikon update their long macro lens from the film/early digital era.
Just a niche of a niche lens really, if you want a modern equivalent Laowa made a 180/4 that has AF.
Thanks I didn’t know about the Laowa 180/4 , just been looking into it, looks interesting, unfortunately sharpness apparently isn’t quite there at macro distances but still looks an interesting and useful lens , would be good for Dragonflies
Kai Wong doing some serious journalism and running through how open the major mounts actually are:
This arose from a previous video of his where he reviewed a new Sony body that some Chinese lenses didn’t work on.
Canon *do* allow Sigma to sell some APS-C lenses for RF (and they are well regarded). The two main differences from other mounts is that Sony in particular allows many more third party lenses, and Canon isn’t sitting back and allowing reverse engineered lenses to be sold. I think the second is a good thing for the average consumer using RF mount.
And why do you think that’s a good thing for the average consumer? You think choice hurts consumers?
melcat wrote:
Kai Wong doing some serious journalism and running through how open the major mounts actually are:
This arose from a previous video of his where he reviewed a new Sony body that some Chinese lenses didn’t work on.
Canon *do* allow Sigma to sell some APS-C lenses for RF (and they are well regarded). The two main differences from other mounts is that Sony in particular allows many more third party lenses, and Canon isn’t sitting back and allowing reverse engineered lenses to be sold. I think the second is a good thing for the average consumer using RF mount.
comotionfilms wrote:
And why do you think that’s a good thing for the average consumer? You think choice hurts consumers?
I can't answer for @melcat, but I if you watch the video, you will see there are various compatibility issues that can affect the unlicensed brands (mainly the Chinese lens makers) which may or may not be addressed via firmware. So, consumers could end up in a "buyer beware" situation.
You can argue that more choice is always good. But I can see a counterargument where a major brand prefers to protect its customers from poor experiences (when at least some of the blame may blow back on them) by shutting down unlicensed products (famously, Canon with RF).
garyvot wrote:
I can't answer for @melcat@, but I if you watch the video, you will see there are various compatibility issues that can affect the unlicensed brands (mainly the Chinese lens makers) which may or may not be addressed via firmware. So, consumers could end up in a "buyer beware" situation.
You can argue that more choice is always good. But I can see a counterargument where a major brand prefers to protect its customers from poor experiences (when at least some of the blame may blow back on them) by shutting down unlicensed products (famously, Canon with RF).
crisdesign wrote:
It’s disingenuous to compare the weight of a gripped body to a non-gripped one just to win an argument. In your example, replace the Z9 with a Z8, or the R5 with the R1, and then tell us the numbers.
Alternatively, you could use the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5, since it’s the closest equivalent to the 400mm f/4, and again provide the weight and price.
Good luck and merry xmas
500pf looked pretty cool until someone got on here spewing the garden variety Canon stinks "stuff," and said the 100-500 is no good in comparison. Turns out, there's not much weight difference, and the 100-500 is cheaper new, regardless of all the inexplicable complaints on 100-500 cost (500pf was cheaper used, but one can argue it doesn't hold its value.) One zooms, and is 2/3 stop slower, a pretty acceptable tradeoff, especially given 5.6 isn't really too fast , either
I got excited about the 800pf after watching Fro's video, "only" $6500 and 5 lbs, but, well, its still $6500 and 5 lbs. Some apparently still prefer the 10 lb, $16+k (currently on sale) 800/5.6 F mount, since it's sharper, and 600/4 rf isnt really too much heavier
You said you had to have 5.6, 400 4.5 +tc can't do that. Its 6.3, not much faster than 100-500 but doesn't zoom, and, once again, more expensive than the 100-500 that's supposedly so expensive. Also Z8 + 400 4.5 is heavier than R5 + 100-500
Closed or not, a new RF Canon is pretty expensive IMO. The R5 MkII is currently "on sale" for $3,899.00 at Canon USA. Surprisingly, that was the same price of a 5DSR at release, but I will not call the R5 MkII price "reasonable".
As a hobbyist, it has become too expensive to keep up. I got my 5DSR when they were steeply discounted at nearly 1/2 off, and replacing EF lenses with RF lenses is also a crazy expensive option.
Prices on EF stuff keeps dropping, so there's no point in dumping it- the stuff still works just fine.
danski0224 wrote:
Closed or not, a new RF Canon is pretty expensive IMO. The R5 MkII is currently "on sale" for $3,899.00 at Canon USA. Surprisingly, that was the same price of a 5DSR at release, but I will not call the R5 MkII price "reasonable".
Massively increasing capabilities while dealing with tariffs and inflation, and managing to keep the price the same, isn't 'reasonable' to you?
danski0224 wrote:
As a hobbyist, it has become too expensive to keep up. I got my 5DSR when they were steeply discounted at nearly 1/2 off, and replacing EF lenses with RF lenses is also a crazy expensive option.
Prices on EF stuff keeps dropping, so there's no point in dumping it- the stuff still works just fine.
One thing to consider, as has recently been mentioned, is that lenses aren't just tubes with glass in them anymore. The chips in the lens have to "talk" to the chips in the camera and come to an agreement on focus, aperture, etc. And in time to keep up with the photographers need to get the shot "right now".
Canon might just have decided that they weren't interested in simply handing over the specs and code of the lens chips to just anyone who asked. Let's say you get a 3rd party RF lens with autofocus, etc from a Chinese maker. And it doesn't work. How much grief will Canon get? How much will the lens maker get? And who will actually respond with something that keeps the customer happy?
I'd like to see more RF lenses, and not all with a red ring on them. But Canon is in business for Canon, not the 3rd party lens makers.
