p.4 #5 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
For what it's worth, Yongnuo produces three budget full frame autofocus lenses for RF mount: a 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, and 85mm f/1.8. They also make some newer f/1.4 primes for crop that look quite promising. These lenses are readily available in the West direct from Yongnuo's online store.
I have the 85mm DSM II and it is honestly excellent. I like it so much that I just ordered the 50mm to see if it might be an alternative to the RF 50 1.8 when I want to travel light. The main criteria for me is rendering: all Canon "nifty fifties" produce a slightly harsh, busier bokeh wide open, IMO. I am looking forward to seeing if the Yongnuo is an improvement.
I believe Yongnuo skirts Canon's RF patents due to having a unique lens mount design (you must press a button on the lens to release it from the body), and the lenses almost certainly use EF protocols.
In addition, Voigtlander and Zeiss make full frame lenses that are officially licensed for RF mount. Manual focus, but having in-lens chips for data communication with the camera.
This of course doesn't let Canon off the hook, but there are at least a few full frame alternatives for people who are willing to explore.
p.4 #6 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
johnctharp wrote:
They're all closed to some degree.
That is an intentionally disingenuous argument. Sony limits to 15fps, more than most people ever use, and no tcs. They have over 300 lenses. Canon allows no one. They are nothing alike in reality.
p.4 #7 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
shadow9d9 wrote:
That is an intentionally disingenuous argument. Sony limits to 15fps, more than most people ever use, and no tcs. They have over 300 lenses. Canon allows no one. They are nothing alike in reality.
That is an intentionally disingenuous argument.
Canon allows some third-party lenses, and many non-Sony E-mount lenses have compatibility issues (see linked video you scrolled past to get here).
Then there are no native Sony adaptations - whereas all EF-mount lenses are electrically native on RF-mount (and the now retired EF-M mount). It's a massive catalog with the most lenses on the market available.
p.4 #8 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
johnctharp wrote:
That is an intentionally disingenuous argument.
Canon allows some third-party lenses, and many non-Sony E-mount lenses have compatibility issues (see linked video you scrolled past to get here).
Then there are no native Sony adaptations - whereas all EF-mount lenses are electrically native on RF-mount (and the now retired EF-M mount). It's a massive catalog with the most lenses on the market available.
Of course, Sony has adapters (plural many) for its A mount catalog, including screw drive lenses.
p.4 #9 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
mogul wrote:
Of course, Sony has adapters (plural many) for its A mount catalog, including screw drive lenses.
None of which are truly 'native', and AF accuracy suffers with screwdrive lenses of all types (we've seen this with adapted 1.8/135 lenses for example). There's no fixing that deficiency, whereas all EF autofocus lenses inherently have the motors in the lens, thus do not suffer from screwdrive AF slop.
Hence, there's a much larger available catalog of lenses that can be natively adapted to RF.
p.4 #10 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
mudlake wrote:
I thought his question had everything to do with your question. You asked what would the Canon need? Well, it would need a full frame sensor to ever compare with the Sony. Comparing an apsc camera to a full frame doesn’t make sense to me.
Thanks, exactly my first thought when he doubled-down and followed up with it having nothing to do with the quest he asked.
p.4 #11 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
johnctharp wrote:
Canon allows some third-party lenses, and many non-Sony E-mount lenses have compatibility issues (see linked video you scrolled past to get here).
p.4 #13 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
johnctharp wrote:
Which shows that it's an ongoing issue; new E-mount cameras release, hordes of lenses need firmware updates... sounds exhausting!
Nope, it's not. It's the first time actually a whole series of lenses, Viltrox in this case, actually needs a fw update to work at all with a new body...
Most likely because Viltrox does not have a Sony license, as it relies on reverse engineering instead.
p.4 #14 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
johnctharp wrote:
Neither does Canon, but here you are arguing that STM motors are somehow 'insufficient' while they are currently used in inexpensive lenses that absolutely can track action.
I think you need to reevaluate your perspective here. All STM motors are not the same, nor were USM motors, nor are linear motors. The implementation in a lens matters as much or more than the overall lens motor type.
I’m willing to accept your point that AF performance isn’t an inherent consequence of the type of focus motor used. It’s clearly possible to boost performance by using multiple stepper motors, as seen in lenses like the 24-120mm f/4 S.
That said, I think you’re mistaken in saying that Canon doesn’t deliberately limit autofocus performance in some of their lower end lenses. In my view, this is very much a conscious design decision by Canon, likely driven by market segmentation rather than technical necessity.
For example, I’ve shot with the EF 16–35L, 35L, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 135L, and 70–200L, and it was quite clear that the autofocus performance of the 40/2.8 and 50/1.8 was not on the same level as the 70-200L.
On higher-end lenses such as the RF 28–70mm f/2L and the RF 50mm f/1.2L, the Canon versions still don’t match the autofocus performance of their Sony counterparts, possibly because Sony uses more motors (four) to drive the heavy glass elements.
matthewm wrote:
I just got the 35/1.8 yesterday and just fiddling with it around the house, I found mine to be very sharp (sharp enough for me as the R + 35 isn't my main camera). What I've found with mine is that the focus in video is S - L - O - W. Like... painfully so. And not particularly accurate in my limited experience. I was hoping I could use it as a sort of tabletop review setup for my YouTube channel, but the old 28/3.5 EF-M lens on the Canon M5 was MUCH faster.
I'm still on the fence as to whether or not I'll keep the 35 at this point. Canon needs to do better....Show more →
jhonzatko wrote:
I'm very satisfied with optical performance, but very disappointed by autofocus performance (on R5).
Usually i use only AF-C and in this mode lens is oscillating back and forth around the subject and many photos are slightly out of focus ...
Man this lens was disappointing to me. On paper it sounds like it would be a blast, but yeah the execution just is not great. It's big, it's plasticy, the focus is S L O W, the images are boring..
Gochugogi wrote:
Not really a sports and critter lens. But, yeah, it and the RF 85 2.0 Macro IS STM are utter crap in AI servo mode and yet they do well what they were designed for.
steamtrain wrote:
there's no reason to make such a lens with the poor AF Canon gave it. You can make a low light lens with fast AF in servo, you can make a wide view lens with fast AF in servo, and you can make a lens with 0.5x magnification with fast AF in servo, and you can make a lens doing it all WITH fast AF in servo. There's zero relationship between the design goals of this lens and the poor AF it has.
ghost123238 wrote:
Hey all I recently purchased a 28-70 F2 from Best Buy.
...
on faster action the lens seemed to be back focusing/slow to grab focus. I understand that f2 is a very thin DOF especially up close. I was just curious if anyone else had exp with this or did I get a lens that had been dropped or something. Also I was shooting in Servo and my shutter speed was 1/3200 or above so I don't think it was motion blur. It seem to happen when I was up close and personal with the lens more than when I was further away. ...Show more →
rscheffler wrote:
I wouldn't classify the 28-70 as a very fast focusing lens. Having just used the new 24-105/2.8 Z for a couple weeks to compare against it, the Z had noticeably faster AF and IMO was able to better follow focus in some types of poor lighting situations.
p.4 #15 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
If the R7ii doesn't have a stacked sensor, or isn't global (obviously this isn't happening lol), I'm not interested.
I've seen too many R7s fail last few years to want one. Tho a stacked apsc monster would be pretty awesome...
p.4 #16 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
aCuria wrote:
That said, I think you’re mistaken in saying that Canon doesn’t deliberately limit autofocus performance in some of their lower end lenses. In my view, this is very much a conscious design decision by Canon, likely driven by market segmentation rather than technical necessity.
For example, I’ve shot with the EF 16–35L, 35L, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 135L, and 70–200L, and it was quite clear that the autofocus performance of the 40/2.8 and 50/1.8 was not on the same level as the 70-200L.
This is absolutely the case. The autofocus on the EF 40mm pancake is perhaps the most leisurely of any Canon lens that I have used, haha. But I also never missed a shot with this lens because of its focusing speed. (And optically, it is just lovely.)
I don't think Canon "gimped" these lenses artificially though. Every product is made to be appealing at its price point and for its intended use.
Canon EOS 5D Mark IVEF40mm f/2.8 STM lens40mmf/2.81/400s400 ISO-1.0 EV
Canon EOS R6EF40mm f/2.8 STM lens40mmf/2.81/200s800 ISO0.0 EV
p.4 #17 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
garyvot wrote:
This is absolutely the case. The autofocus on the EF 40mm pancake is perhaps the most leisurely of any Canon lens that I have used, haha. But I also never missed a shot with this lens because of its focusing speed. (And optically, it is just lovely.)
I don't think Canon "gimped" these lenses artificially though. Every product is made to be appealing at its price point and for its intended use.
Back when the 40/2.8 was released, Minolta/Sony, Tamron and Sigma did not make lenses that could match the autofocus speed of Canon’s top lenses. In fact Minolta/Sony still relied on screw-drive autofocus, which I am sure you would agree is objectively slow. Canon’s AF motor technology was so far ahead of the competition, which allowed Canon to reserve it only for their higher-end lenses.
I do agree that the autofocus speed of a lens like the 40/2.8 STM is not "unusably" slow. it is possible to get good results if the subject is not moving too much.
However, if the subject is moving, I fully expect the slower autofocus speed to affect the hit rate.
garyvot wrote:
Every product is made to be appealing at its price point and for its intended use.
This is exactly my point: autofocus speed in lenses is being used by Canon as a product-segmentation tool (i.e., tied to price tiers).
As a result, lenses like the Canon RF 50mm STM and RF 85mm STM end up focusing more slowly than even the lowest end Sony 28–60mm kit lens.
It’s telling that complaints about this show up fairly often. Many users simply expect responsive autofocus performance from a first party lens in 2026, regardless of the lens price.
I just bought the RF 85 f2 STM to replace a faulty EF 85 f1.8 USM. First use case was doing event photography. Felt like I lost a lot of shots that I wouldn’t have with the USM lens at an event I photographed recently.
Note that Canon has also imposed limits on the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM similar to Sony’s restrictions on third-party lenses, preventing it from shooting at 40 fps.
In my view, I would much rather use a third-party lens limited to 15 fps with fast, responsive autofocus than a first-party lens like the RF 85 f2 STM that can shoot at 40 fps but is held back by sluggish AF performance.
p.4 #18 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
aCuria wrote:
In my view, I would much rather use a third-party lens limited to 15 fps with fast, responsive autofocus than a first-party lens like the RF 85 f2 STM that can shoot at 40 fps but is held back by sluggish AF performance.
The RF 85/2 is special in this case, because it's a half-macro. But you were going to skip that part, right? Where you can limit the focus range and improve focus speed, because that doesn't support your whining?
(of course you're going to mention the 50/1.8 STM, the cheapest lens Canon makes - and far more accessible than anything first-party available on other mounts - but then skip the peppy STM focus of the 45/1.2 lol)
p.4 #19 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
aCuria wrote:
Note that Canon has also imposed limits on the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM similar to Sony’s restrictions on third-party lenses, preventing it from shooting at 40 fps.
You are stretching the truth to support your narrative. Canon isn't imposing arbitrary limits--older EF lenses are limited by their technology. This framerate limitation does not apply to newer EF lenses, including inexpensive consumer lenses like the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM.
p.4 #20 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
johnctharp wrote:
The RF 85/2 is special in this case, because it's a half-macro. But you were going to skip that part, right? Where you can limit the focus range and improve focus speed, because that doesn't support your whining?
(of course you're going to mention the 50/1.8 STM, the cheapest lens Canon makes - and far more accessible than anything first-party available on other mounts - but then skip the peppy STM focus of the 45/1.2 lol)
The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di III VXD is a full 1:1 macro lens and still delivers noticeably faster AF. That alone undermines the idea that the RF 85/2 should be given a pass simply because it is a half-macro.
Given that Tamron, as a third-party manufacturer, can achieve fast and responsive AF in a full macro lens, it is entirely reasonable to expect a first-party Canon lens to meet or exceed that level of performance in a half macro. Calling the RF 85/2 “special” because of its close-focusing capability does not explain or excuse its slow AF.
We can set aside the 50/1.8 since you don’t consider comparing it to the Sony 28–60 kit lens fair for some reason. I do not know enough to comment on the 45/1.2, but given that it does cost more than the FE28-60 kit lens, I would hope it at least focuses as fast?
The bigger concern, in my view, is the relatively slow autofocus on high-end lenses such as the RF50/1.2L and RF28-70L. Despite being expensive, professional-grade optics, their autofocus performance doesn’t match that of other L-series lenses like the RF24-70L, or comparable high-end glass such as the 50/1.2GM and 28-70GM.
