The Sad Truth About Canon's Future?

[YuengLinger]

you are correct with this lenses.
but lets be honest, the RF 24-105 is realy not cool, to say it friendly.

You honestly share your opinion, but I completely disagree with you. The RF 24-105 is "cool" for hiking and traveling, but, more than that, for enthusiasts or professionals, it is a true workhorse. Combined with its EF predecessor, the f/4 version of this lens has won more Loan Collection awards from PPA, and has been used for more cover shots than pretty much any other lens.

Years ago, when our town had a dozen working photographers, including photojournalists, it was a favorite--even when f/4 was used on ancient dSLR sensors that didn't look great over ISO 1600. Somehow folk just made do with f/4 for many, many situations, and the photographers I reference here also had fast primes and f/2.8 70-200mm lenses to choose from.

24-105mm f/4 is extremely flexible, and its very easy to carry around.

And I love big aperture lenses! Just trying to give you some context. No point misleading newer photographers to believe that they just aren't "cool" if they are using a 24-105mm.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You honestly share your opinion, but I completely disagree with you. The RF 24-105 is "cool" for hiking and traveling, but, more than that, for enthusiasts or professionals, it is a true workhorse. Combined with its EF predecessor, the f/4 version of this lens has won more Loan Collection awards from PPA, and has been used for more cover shots than pretty much any other lens.

To clarify, @peters was replying to my post that mentioned the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 (not the 24-105/4L), so I presume the lens that he’s suggesting is ‘not cool’ is the $400 non-L lens.

By most accounts, the 24-105/4-7.1 has the advantage of covering a very useful focal range at a reasonable cost, but the image quality is mediocre. I doubt it’s winning tons of awards, though there are probably lots of them out there as kit lenses for lower-end FF R bodies.

 

[Sporgon]

Why should I buy a plasticky Tamron???

Hey ! You just upset my all metal and glass 45 and 85 Tamrons !

 

[EricN]

I’m pretty sure you could use your very own EF 180L on a Sony body, with or without a TC, with a Metabones or similar adapter. Same goes for any EF lens, AFAIK.

I'm not sure the AF will work as well, but with macro, chances are you'll be going manually. My question is does the data regarding which lens and distance get recorded in the image files properly?

 

[koenkooi]

I'm not sure the AF will work as well,

In this specific case, the AF on the 180L is 'glacial' even on native bodies, one of the things that the hoped-for RF version should fix.

but with macro, chances are you'll be going manually. My question is does the data regarding which lens and distance get recorded in the image files properly?

The adapters that do AF tend to store things properly in the EXIF as well. YMMV of course.

 

[EricN]

you are correct with this lenses.
but lets be honest, the RF 24-105 is realy not cool, to say it friendly. I had it (only because of the light weight for a extensive 8 day hike where weight was super important) and its realy not an impressive lense at all. The f-stop is realy a problem to get ANY shot in bad light and also limits creative use of DOF. Its also badly build (which is ok, given the weight).
For 200$ more you can get the 28-75mm Tamron for Sony. Its not the same focal lenght, but I would recommend ANY beginner photographer this kind of lense, over the Canon. Its just incredible versatile and the f-stop is REALY great to have, its just no comparison. And there is nothing close for Canons RF mount to this.
And I personaly think this is a big gap for many beginner photogaphers who may start into semi-professional work. I would total recommend a Sony a7 IV with a 28-75 f2,8 Tarmon. The only Canon option is the RF 24-70 (or EF, but do people want to buy used lenses?) which is WAY to expensive for many people...... its an outstanding lense, but there is certainly a lack of options. Same goes for a good and affordable 70-200... I personaly think that the third-party lenses fill a very very important gap for sony, that Canon just doesnt close.

I'll see your 28-75 Tamron and raise you a Canon 28mm f/2.8 and rf85mm f/2 half macro how's that for depth of field? No comparison to 75mm f/2.8? It is another $100 more, but if you're a member here, you know they're often on sale, so it might even be less. You were talking about beginners and I'm a firm believer that limitations in focal length help beginners learn more about image composition in regards to where they need to position themselves (you are free to disagree). To be fair, the two Canon lenses are 80g more so that could be the straw that breaks the camel's your back.

 

[EricN]

You honestly share your opinion, but I completely disagree with you. The RF 24-105 is "cool" for hiking and traveling, but, more than that, for enthusiasts or professionals, it is a true workhorse. Combined with its EF predecessor, the f/4 version of this lens has won more Loan Collection awards from PPA, and has been used for more cover shots than pretty much any other lens.

Years ago, when our town had a dozen working photographers, including photojournalists, it was a favorite--even when f/4 was used on ancient dSLR sensors that didn't look great over ISO 1600. Somehow folk just made do with f/4 for many, many situations, and the photographers I reference here also had fast primes and f/2.8 70-200mm lenses to choose from.

24-105mm f/4 is extremely flexible, and its very easy to carry around.

And I love big aperture lenses! Just trying to give you some context. No point misleading newer photographers to believe that they just aren't "cool" if they are using a 24-105mm.

If I was worried about looking cool, then photography I would quit photography right now!

 

[jd7]

I'll see your 28-75 Tamron and raise you a Canon 28mm f/2.8 and rf85mm f/2 half macro how's that for depth of field? No comparison to 75mm f/2.8? It is another $100 more, but if you're a member here, you know they're often on sale, so it might even be less. You were talking about beginners and I'm a firm believer that limitations in focal length help beginners learn more about image composition in regards to where they need to position themselves (you are free to disagree). To be fair, the two Canon lenses are 80g more so that could be the straw that breaks the camel's your back.

If someone was happy going with primes, the Sony option would be the FE 28/2 (or there is the Viltrox 28/1.8) and the FE 85/1.8.

 

[YuengLinger]

To clarify, @peters was replying to my post that mentioned the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 (not the 24-105/4L), so I presume the lens that he’s suggesting is ‘not cool’ is the $400 non-L lens.

By most accounts, the 24-105/4-7.1 has the advantage of covering a very useful focal range at a reasonable cost, but the image quality is mediocre. I doubt it’s winning tons of awards, though there are probably lots of them out there as kit lenses for lower-end FF R bodies.

Thanks, Nero. Even if it's an older thread, I should be clearer on context! Apologies to @peters, as I wouldn't want the f/4-7.1 either. Just too slow at the long end.

 

[EricN]

If someone was happy going with primes, the Sony option would be the FE 28/2 and the FE 85/1.8.

You do get some weight savings and a wider aperture, but from what I understand, even on sale, you'll pay more than full price of the Canon lenses (and lose the half macro capability on the 85). Is that worth the difference when most people agree Canon's bodies are providing better ergonomics, a lower price and slightly lower weight? You could say, "Canon doesn't have ibis on the RP or R8," but we are talking about beginners who need to learn about proper technique - that's going to be more difficult when ibis allows them to be sloppy and have their elbows out like a bird. I guess if someone was absolutely convinced they need IS the 85 has it, but while the 28 doesn't, do you really need it for 28? I'm not sure a well informed beginner is going to choose Sony's options. Where Sony has the advantage is social media presence, which, in that case, there's not much point discussing because if someone will believe everything without their own research...

 

[Quack]

Say what you want or think about Sony bodies, you will never convince me to buy (again) such unergonomic crap. Panasonic, Leica, Fuji GFX, Nikon? Why not.
But never again a Sony. I was p....d after not even 2 weeks. Third party lenses? Cheaper, but Canon RFs are simply better. Why should I buy a plasticky Tamron???

It's rather annoying that after about 10 years of being on various forums and other internet and social media sites, we still have the Sony lovers who seem to have lost all sense of perspective. Sony has succeeded, despite having some of the worst cameras ever made in their first two generations, because they were, and still are, brilliant at marketing. Sony is "cool" because they targeted internet influencers right from the start, knowing that the younger generations are getting virtually all of their information from the internet and social media. They know that influencers are putting out content in a hurry, often without any time at all to properly review their products, so they concentrated on flashy specs that could easily be compared to other brands. Didn't matter how well those specs worked, as long as the numbers were higher. Even today, despite making strides to fix their many shortcomings, their mount still does not have enough room between grip and lens. Based on a number of reviews I have seen, their EVFs, despite having higher resolution (great specs again), are duller and not as bright as the competition. Speculation from the reviewers, Sony uses cheaper glass. People continually refer to Canon's RF lenses being so much more expensive, and yet every time I check prices of the same or very similar lenses, the price is qute comperable. Those complaining of lack of 3rd party lenses for Canon RF are mainly on forums such as this one. EF lenses, especially used, are somehow beneath those forum folks. Yet, if you go on numerous Facebook groups, where perhaps more typical camera users are posting, EF lenses are very popular for RF cameras, so the "Sony has more lenses" line is really just another piece of baloney. If you like Sony - and today's cameras can all do a fantastic job - feel free. Buy all the Sony eqiupment you want. But, please stop telling people how Sony is so much better, or how Sony cares so much more about its customers. Or any of the other bullcrap lines we have heard for a decade now.

 

[Del Paso]

It's rather annoying that after about 10 years of being on various forums and other internet and social media sites, we still have the Sony lovers who seem to have lost all sense of perspective. Sony has succeeded, despite having some of the worst cameras ever made in their first two generations, because they were, and still are, brilliant at marketing. Sony is "cool" because they targeted internet influencers right from the start, knowing that the younger generations are getting virtually all of their information from the internet and social media. They know that influencers are putting out content in a hurry, often without any time at all to properly review their products, so they concentrated on flashy specs that could easily be compared to other brands. Didn't matter how well those specs worked, as long as the numbers were higher. Even today, despite making strides to fix their many shortcomings, their mount still does not have enough room between grip and lens. Based on a number of reviews I have seen, their EVFs, despite having higher resolution (great specs again), are duller and not as bright as the competition. Speculation from the reviewers, Sony uses cheaper glass. People continually refer to Canon's RF lenses being so much more expensive, and yet every time I check prices of the same or very similar lenses, the price is qute comperable. Those complaining of lack of 3rd party lenses for Canon RF are mainly on forums such as this one. EF lenses, especially used, are somehow beneath those forum folks. Yet, if you go on numerous Facebook groups, where perhaps more typical camera users are posting, EF lenses are very popular for RF cameras, so the "Sony has more lenses" line is really just another piece of baloney. If you like Sony - and today's cameras can all do a fantastic job - feel free. Buy all the Sony eqiupment you want. But, please stop telling people how Sony is so much better, or how Sony cares so much more about its customers. Or any of the other bullcrap lines we have heard for a decade now.

To quote from Katie Britt: "Enough is enough".

 

[jd7]

You do get some weight savings and a wider aperture, but from what I understand, even on sale, you'll pay more than full price of the Canon lenses (and lose the half macro capability on the 85). Is that worth the difference when most people agree Canon's bodies are providing better ergonomics, a lower price and slightly lower weight? You could say, "Canon doesn't have ibis on the RP or R8," but we are talking about beginners who need to learn about proper technique - that's going to be more difficult when ibis allows them to be sloppy and have their elbows out like a bird. I guess if someone was absolutely convinced they need IS the 85 has it, but while the 28 doesn't, do you really need it for 28? I'm not sure a well informed beginner is going to choose Sony's options. Where Sony has the advantage is social media presence, which, in that case, there's not much point discussing because if someone will believe everything without their own research...

In my neck of the woods, and doing a quick search just now (I've only looked at the prices at a couple of camera stores):

Canon RF 28/2.8 A$495 versus Sony FE 28/2 $508.
Canon RF 85/2 A$887 versus Sony FE 85/1.8 A$706.
Canon R8 A$2,184 versus ... I'm not sure Sony has a direct competitor to the R8, does it? The Sony A7C II is perhaps the closest thing(?), and that is A$2,651. Otherwise, you'd have to look at a second-hand Sony body. (For comparison, I see the Nikon Z5 for A$2,178, and the Panasonic Lumix S5 II for A$2,106.)

So, at least where I am, the Sony lenses (combined) would cost you a bit less, and weigh a bit less, than the Canon lenses (and the Sony lenses would give you a little more aperture while the Canon lenses would give you hgiher maximum magnification and IS in the case of the 85mm - although if our comparison includes A7C II versus R8 then the IS on the 85mm is offset against the IBIS in the A7C II). Once you factor in a full frame body the Canon setup would be cheaper though, at least unless you were willing to buy second-hand (and I haven't tried to compare the prices of second-hand Canon and second-hand Sony bodies). However, once you are in the Sony system, there are a variety of relatively small, light and affordable lenses, particularly when you factor in the third party options (and there are a wide variety of those, including particularly small and light but plasticky Samyang "tiny series" lenses to moderate aperature but all metal Sigma i series lenses, among many others). And looking at higher end first-party lenses, I see, for example, Canon RF 70-200/2.8L IS A$4,068 versus Sony 70-200/2.8 GM II OSS A$3,188, Canon RF 24-70/2.8L IS A$3,452 versus Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II A$2,737, Canon RF 50/1.2L A$3,953 versus Sony 50/1.2 GM A$2,543, and Canon EF 35/1.4L II A$3,213 versus Sony 35/1.4 GM A$1,806. So, if our theoretical beginner ends up gettting hooked on photography and starts buying more lenses, I think it is reasonable to think the lenses would end up costing quite a bit less, and weighing less too (I haven't stated weights above but you can do the comparisons), with the Sony system.

As for ergonomics, as someone who shot Canon for many years, I do like the feel of them compared to similar level Sony cameras, eg Canon R6 and R6II versus Sony A7 IV . That said though, personally I don't find the difference that great. For example, while I like the feel of the Canon R6 and R6II a bit more than the Sony A7 IV, I don't find them that different and I don't have any problem with the Sony. YMMV.

To be clear, I am not predicting doom for Canon. I am happy to accept Canon knows the market well and is making good choices with a view to maximimising its profit, which is what it exists to do. Nor I am saying the Sony system is unequivocally better than the Canon system, eg Canon offers some lenses like the 28-70/2L and the 100-300/2.8L IS which don't have equivalents, so if those lenses are useful to you then that gives the Canon system a signficant advantage (although the Sony system has some lenses which don't have equivalents in the Canon system too, eg the Tamron and Samyang 35-150mm f/2-2.8 lenses). However, I do think there are reasons why some well informed beginners might choose Sony over Canon.

 

[EricN]

It's interesting how pricing changes according to location. Canon charges more in UK, too...

I was thinking some people when start from a gift. Maybe a kid said, "Gwandpa! I want a camwa!" and then they get a Hasselblad.

 

[jd7]

It's interesting how pricing changes according to location. Canon charges more in UK, too...

I was thinking some people when start from a gift. Maybe a kid said, "Gwandpa! I want a camwa!" and then they get a Hasselblad.

Starting wtih a Hassy would be some way to start!

 

[EricN]

Starting wtih a Hassy would be some way to start!

Might have to put it in a toy dump truck just to move it

 

[AutoMatters]

Has Canon officially lost the youth market in photography? I think they have...

I recently had the privilege of covering one of the coolest races I've been wanting to shoot since I first heard about it - TX2K. This is a race that involves a lot of exotic cars going head-to-head in an elimination ladder - many breaking 215mph with a Nissan GTR breaking 237mph this year. Anyway, this was not my typical group of photographers I get to work with...most of the people out there shooting weren't professionals working for any publications, so I got to see a lot of new faces. Most of the photographers there were between the ages of 18-25, judging by the looks of them, and upwards of 90% of them were shooting on Sony. Canon was very poorly represented...but Nikon even more so.

I was told over 90 people were given official media access (get to be trackside with a vest) and if I had to guess, only 8-10 photographers were on Canon and maybe half of those were on Canon mirrorless. I personally saw only 3 people using Nikon. Literally everyone else was shooting Sony mirrorless.

Eventually I found myself chatting with several of them and I brought up the fact a lot of them were shooting Sony. Do you know what several of them they told me? Lenses and price. Several months ago, I made a post about how Canon would lose the market of up-and-coming photographers if third party manufacturers were left out of the RF mount. It was very interesting to see this on display.

I said this because I can still remember what it was like to be an up-and-coming photographer that eventually became a full-time professional. Along the way, I could only afford a Canon L-series lens here and there. I bought the best body I could realistically afford, and then I bought the best lenses I could afford. This allowed me to stay within the Canon ecosystem and grow into it. Right now...I don't see that as an option for photographers looking to buy new cameras. I know Canon always says people can adapt EF mount lenses but that is NOT something people want to do. Sure, that makes the transition easier for a lot of us since we can still use our older lenses as we migrate over, but "fresh" photographers going out and buying a Canon R6 or EOS R seldomly do so with the intention of adapting lenses and they can't really afford ANYTHING on the Native RF mount.

This is a very big deal in my opinion and I don't see it working out very well for Canon in the long run.

Very well said. I agree.
Even as someone who is not just starting out, I really wish that I had been given the option to use Tamron lenses with my R3 bodies. To go mirrorless and have cameras with a great autofocus mode for shooting auto racing, I switched over from Nikon a few years ago, after being a Nikon shooter for 50 years (most recently with a D5 and a D4S), so I had no Canon EF lenses. I sold all of my Nikon stuff, which was probably a mistake. I sure was not going to buy a bunch of Canon EF lenses designed years ago, for my new tech RF bodies. Until recently, for an all-purpose photojournalism Canon RF lens I had no other choice than to buy the non-L Series 24-240mm (not weather-sealed and not even a switch on the lens barrel to easily focus manually (really, Canon???!), when what I really wanted was an RF 28-300 (preferably an L-Series weather-sealed version), just like the lens I used most often with my Nikon cameras. The 24-240 failed after a while (it jumped on zooming, so Canon replaced it). I recently bought the new Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 lens, but it is huge and very heavy — so much so that it has given me tendonitis! By the way, CPS is GREAT — 24/7 people there to answer my calls and actually know enough to help me!

 

[jd7]

Might have to put it in a toy dump truck just to move it

I suspect the idea of a Hasselblad in a toy dump truck would give some Hasselblad aficionados a heart attack!

 

[EricN]

I suspect the idea of a Hasselblad in a toy dump truck would give some Hasselblad aficionados a heart attack!

"BREAKING NEWS: A 6 year old young girl who carries the camera in her tonka truck and her 83 year old grand father are the only survivors of a mysterious coincidence that somehow caused all Hasselblad customers to die of congestive heart failure. Hasselblad did not respond for comments (possibly because they also experienced the same cause of death)"

 

[Quack]

...I sure was not going to buy a bunch of Canon EF lenses designed years ago, for my new tech RF bodies. ....

Lens design is an old tech and has not changed much in the last 20 years. You will not find better lenses for the price than used Canon EF L lenses, in my opinion.