Canon Will Continue to Expand the RF Lens Lineup at 6 to 8 Lenses a Year

[Bob Howland]

Hahaha....although this wasn't directed at me, I'll comment on my behalf:
It's a daily battle wth the AI mantra fed bot infused trolling we see here. However, I for one am a life long unpaid fanboy who belives in the Canon coolaid. As to others....well, they have their own voices.
Just the other day I was watching a youtube effluencer grinding on about the wonders some obsure Chinease manual focus prime lens, made from ancient and inferior optics. Only to put it on a R5ii and by pass it's amazing AF system...honestly??? At least when Canon decides to pander to this crowd, they punt out a fiscally orientated 45mm f1.2 lens which has an excellent AF system.

I'm not a fanboy but I've been shooting only Canon since 1975. I just look at buyer-seller relationships as inherently adversarial.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

With the advent of the new RF VCM L range, the new RF 45mm f1.2 STM and the new budget friendly and light weight silver ring f2.8 STM zooms...one wonders what 3rd party lenses could actually offer competitvely?

While I'm pleased with the way the RF system has been developing, I have to recognise that third-parties could always add something, and it's not just low end products.

There are now some nice lenses available for RF, but third-parties have other very competitive offers as well, being Sigma, in my opinion, the biggest "threat".

Lenses like theirs 35mm f/1.4 and f/1.2, 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2, 28-45mm f/1.8, 28-105mm f/2.8, and now the 200mm f/2 and 300-600mm f/4, plus their Contemporary primes, for instance.

It may be your understanding that Canon offers a few lenses that are somewhat similar to these Sigma offerings, and I get that, but the thing is: some of these cost half the price of Canon's.

Is the RF 24-105mm f/2.8 twice as good as the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8? Debatable.
Is the RF 28-70mm f/2 twice as good as the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8? Again, debatable.
Is the RF 50mm f/1.2 twice as good as the Sigma 50mm f/1.2? Same.
Lower end 20mm? We have none.

And a lot of their lenses (most) are very robust, weather sealed (all?) and feature linear motors and internal focusing mechanisms.

Don't be mistaken, the pressure is high for Canon, as these other lens manufacturers are showing off their value daily with other lens mounts, and Sigma is doing potentially enough to motivate changing systems for many photographers.

Also, keep in mind: Sigma is a third-party manufacturer in relation to Canon, Sony, Fuji and Nikon's systems, but they are a primary manufacturer for their own cameras and the L mount. Plus all the other brands.

 

[GirlsAreBeautiful]

Sigma lenses are amazing.

This is not to say that Canon completely reinvented them, but the latest iterations of STM motors are more enjoyable to use. It really depends on the lens, though.

The EF 40mm was the first or second STM lens ever, its autofocus is pretty slow and somewhat noisy. There's still a few lenses that I'd say are about as noisy as the 40, such as the RF 50mm f/1.8 and the RF 35mm f/1.8, but some others are different.

There's not a lot of lenses with the newest STM motors yet, as far as I know it's just the RF 7-14mm L, 10-20mm f/4 L (I think), 16-28mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8 and the 45mm f/1.2, but they are provide a significantly better user experience, being quiet and smooth. Some of them are pretty fast, and that includes the 28-70mm f/2.8, which seems to be about as fast as the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II.

Additionally, it's important to distinguish the two types of STM motors. Lenses driven by gear type STM motors tend to be a little noisier and jerky (RF 16, 28, 35, 50,...), while lead-screw tends to be quieter and smoother (RF 24, 85, 10-20, 7-14, 16-28, 28-70,...).
The 45mm uses a new gear-type STM, being an exception, that feels to me like a slow but modern USM, it's pleasant, it's smooth and quiet.

Gear type STM are the smallest motors, being the only choice to equip the smallest lenses.

Thanks for the write up. Very interesting. I'll try more STM in a store, just to see how they perform.

 

[roby17269]

What’s the point in me “educating myself” in the world of Sigma’s “not very sharp at the long end” zooms when they don’t fit on any current Canon body? So you want me to rent / buy a Sony camera, just to satisfy your curiosity? An anathema logic for sure.

No need to rent... just read / watch online reviews and you will see that Sigma has come a long way. You do not seem to have any issues declaring the perfection of Canon lenses you do not have and of Canon lenses that haven't been announced yet. So I am confused by your reaction?

This gear is dependable, sharp, AF is amazing and there is nothing in the 3rd party lens catalogue that can compete with these lenses from Canon. Even Canon’s finest from 15 years ago are vastly superior to the newest 3rd party offerings.

Trend setters marques lead the way and leave the others in their wake to play catch up, when they eventually catch up with where the trend setter once was, they only find that the trend setter has moved the game on again and are still far back down the road again in their wake.

You wrote somewhere else that you are a Canon fanboy... I believe you
I do like Canon, but I do not agree with all of their decisions. And I run 2 systems so I know that other manufacturers have pros and cons as well.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

No need to rent... just read / watch online reviews and you will see that Sigma has come a long way. You do not seem to have any issues declaring the perfection of Canon lenses you do not have and of Canon lenses that haven't been announced yet. So I am confused by your reaction?

You wrote somewhere else that you are a Canon fanboy... I believe you
I do like Canon, but I do not agree with all of their decisions. And I run 2 systems so I know that other manufacturers have pros and cons as well.

Which lenses are you saying that I am declaring specifically? I've used most of the EF great whites extensively and choose a EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II for size, weight (it's a lot smaller and lighter than a 600/f4), it has better min focus distance and I like to use mine with a 1.4 and 2X tc's to get an effective 600/f4 and 800/5.6. The 600/f4 get the advantage of an effective 1200mm f8 when combined with a 2x TC and yes it's sharp on a R5.
I've handled and used the mkIII versions (which are the same opically as the RF version) and they great but the mkIII 400/2.8 isn't as sharp with a 1.4x and 2x as the mkII.
As to claiming the perfection of gear that is currently unrealeasted....maybe you have me confised with some other guy.
Here's my gear list: Gear
Here's my website: GMCPhotographics which I occasionally update. I used to have a fair bit of my work here on this site, but I removed it all when the site was about to close down and I've not had the time to re-post it yet.
I've been a Canon user since I was 15 when I bought my first SLR, an AV1 on the old FD mount. I bought it so I could use my Dad's lenses (he had an AE-1 programme). I've stayed with the brand my whole life and never needed anyother brand. I loved the EF mount and moved to Digital from film with the 300D. I rapidly jumped to full frame as soon as the EOS 5D was available. I've only recently moved to MILC in the last few years and haven't yet invested in RF glass.
Lenses I am considering upgrading this year are all in the Canon portfolio, RF10-20mm f4L, RF85mm f1.2L and RF100-500mm F7.1L and i don't see any 3rd party matching any of these fine optics.

 

[roby17269]

Which lenses are you saying that I am declaring specifically? I've used most of the EF great whites extensively and choose a EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II for size, weight (it's a lot smaller and lighter than a 600/f4), it has better min focus distance and I like to use mine with a 1.4 and 2X tc's to get an effective 600/f4 and 800/5.6. The 600/f4 get the advantage of an effective 1200mm f8 when combined with a 2x TC and yes it's sharp on a R5.

I used to have the EF 200 2 (for fashion mostly) and sold it to finance the move to MF. I miss that one dearly. I have rented (not owned) the 400 2.8 II for a safari in South Africa and loved it but could never justify buying a big white given how rarely I do wildlife and I don't do sports.

I've handled and used the mkIII versions (which are the same opically as the RF version) and they great but the mkIII 400/2.8 isn't as sharp with a 1.4x and 2x as the mkII.
As to claiming the perfection of gear that is currently unrealeasted....maybe you have me confised with some other guy.

Well these are your words - I haven't searched long past that

I can only imagine the reach this RF 300-600mm f5.6 will have on the rumoured R7II. An effective 500-1000mm! Lets assume this lens will be tack sharp wide open

So you are happy to assume that about an unannounced Canon lens, as well as assuming that recent Sigma offerings are sub par?

Here's my gear list: Gear
Here's my website: GMCPhotographics which I occasionally update. I used to have a fair bit of my work here on this site, but I removed it all when the site was about to close down and I've not had the time to re-post it yet.
I've been a Canon user since I was 15 when I bought my first SLR, an AV1 on the old FD mount. I bought it so I could use my Dad's lenses (he had an AE-1 programme). I've stayed with the brand my whole life and never needed anyother brand. I loved the EF mount and moved to Digital from film with the 300D. I rapidly jumped to full frame as soon as the EOS 5D was available. I've only recently moved to MILC in the last few years and haven't yet invested in RF glass.

I cannot access your web sites from work, sorry. I can't even access my own portfolio from the office (in my signature, together with the list of my current gear)
I have listed on dpreview my old (and sold) gear and the list is getting too long, I think I may delete it out of shame thinking about all the money I've spent
Personally, I have started with the 350D and as you moved to FF as soon as the 5D become available - still have fond memories of the old rascal. But in 2017 I branched out to medium format for fashion photography. I use Canon for travel, wildlife and family stuff now, and Hasselblad for fashion... as well as drones occasionally.

Lenses I am considering upgrading this year are all in the Canon portfolio, RF10-20mm f4L, RF85mm f1.2L and RF100-500mm F7.1L and i don't see any 3rd party matching any of these fine optics.

I have all 3 and they are great in their own different ways, especially my favorite, the 85 1.2... Sigma is supposed to release a 85 1.2 soon, but obviously it's academic since Canon does not allow 3rd party FF AF lenses for RF. And Sigma has a 35 1.2 which Canon has not deemed to release yet, in their infinite wisdom

 

[DocInfoSci]

Here's my website: GMCPhotographics

Respect. Not that you need it from me.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I used to have the EF 200 2 (for fashion mostly) and sold it to finance the move to MF. I miss that one dearly. I have rented (not owned) the 400 2.8 II for a safari in South Africa and loved it but could never justify buying a big white given how rarely I do wildlife and I don't do sports.


Well these are your words - I haven't searched long past that

So you are happy to assume that about an unannounced Canon lens, as well as assuming that recent Sigma offerings are sub par?


I cannot access your web sites from work, sorry. I can't even access my own portfolio from the office (in my signature, together with the list of my current gear)
I have listed on dpreview my old (and sold) gear and the list is getting too long, I think I may delete it out of shame thinking about all the money I've spent
Personally, I have started with the 350D and as you moved to FF as soon as the 5D become available - still have fond memories of the old rascal. But in 2017 I branched out to medium format for fashion photography. I use Canon for travel, wildlife and family stuff now, and Hasselblad for fashion... as well as drones occasionally.


I have all 3 and they are great in their own different ways, especially my favorite, the 85 1.2... Sigma is supposed to release a 85 1.2 soon, but obviously it's academic since Canon does not allow 3rd party FF AF lenses for RF. And Sigma has a 35 1.2 which Canon has not deemed to release yet, in their infinite wisdom

The EF 200mm f2.0 LIS is a bit of a unicorn lens for me. Everytime I've had the cash in my bank account, none have been available....then when there's a load on the market and the price drops...I'm skint. However it's probably a lens that will get minimal use, unlike the rest of my kit, which is literally the smallest subset of gear for each of my genre requirements.

Let me exand a little bit further my observations with both Sigma and Canon. A number of years ago, I bought a 120-300/2.8 OS and found it to be overy heavy, fragile, poor sharpness at the long end / wide open. It's OS was like a childs toy and it's AF was so inconsistent I was missing shots. It was no where near 300mm in reality and it focussed breathed so much that it was eclipsed by my ef 70-200mm f2.8 LIS II in every respect except it's raw reach. The Sigma was a massive dissapointment compared to my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS and my EF 70-200 f2.8 LIS II. It went back shortly after purchase. I've had and trialled a lot of Sigma lense in the past and I'd read many times...that was the "old Sigma, you should try the new". Each time i find the same limitations in their design philosphy and with their lenses they are always lacking / dissapointing in some way. Sure, maybe 80-90% but not the full 100% I get from Canon's finest. Now compare that to the new Canon RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS. It's is one of the sharpest zoom lenses ever made by anyone, reports from testing web sites I trust, replies and comments from friends I know who personally own and use this lens regularly. One observable test of sharpness, is it sharpness wide open on a R5. How does it respond to a 1.4x TC? If it's as percievably sharp with a 1.4x tc on a R5, then the core lens with a 1.4x is out resolving the R5's sensor.
Very few zoom lenses can do this with a 1.4x TC and (from what i've read and heard from friends) the Sigma 300-600mm f4 is noticably soft at 500-600mm @ f4. With a 1.4x TC it's worse and with a 2x it is almost unuseable on a high density sensor.
What really describes a sharp lens, is when you can drop a 2x TC on it, shoot at it's wide open aperture and for the image to still be sharp and outresolves the R5's sensor. The new RF 70-200 f2.8 LIS Z and RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS are both in that category. They stand untouched by anything that sigma had produced.
In the world of Canon primes, even their latest RF lenses come a bit soft when using 2x TC's. The best of breed are Canon's mk II EF white primes, specifically, the EF 300mm f2.8 LIS II, EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II, EF 600mm f4 LIS II and EF 800mm f5.6 LIS. The Current RF 600mm f4 LIS is rarely used with a 2x, normnally with a 1.4x max and as such it's 2x deficencies are often over looked. The new Canon RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS is remarkable because it's sharpness bar was set against on of Canon's sharpest lenses ever, the EF 300mm f2.8 LIS II. I know many wild life guys who still use the EF prime with a 2x converter as their 600mm f5.6 and get stunning portfolio worthy results. It's THAT good and this Canon zoom matches the prime's result while adding the versatility of the zoom range.
When I consider the history of Sigma's X-600mm f6.3 lenses, it is easy to predict that Canon's rumoured X-600mm f5.6 will eclipse the Sigma in every metric. It's a reputation that Sigma have built for themselves. The difference is that the Sigma is a consumer orientated optic, where the Canon lens is likely to be a pro spec optic and will develop this lens to the highest level they can produce (and a proportial retail price to suit). The only suprise from Canon was the RF 200-800mm, which is a great lens but boarderline in it's sharpness at 800mm on a R5 and noticably soft on a R7. This has been reported by many users and trustworthy lens test sites, but there's a lot of youtube influencers that seemt to pass over this point. This particular lens is NOT a L lens, although it's painted white. If this new lens is intended for a budget concious market, then it may be very similar to the RF200-800mm lens, but reading the rumours on this site it would appear to be a pre-oriented L lens. If this is the case then Canon will throw their very best tech and specs at this lens.
In terms of Sigma's rising of quality and refinement, I can't see anything in their current portfolio that can compete with my current EF lenses, let alone RF variants.

For me, all of my current EF lenses fit my brief perfectly. My issues with my EF 11-24L is that it is a big lump of glass to lug about..but my word...what a beatuful optic. The RF10-20L is a much more portable proposition, but I loose my filtration options. So I would still need to keep my EF lens when I need it for specialist applications. A bit like TSE or Fisheye lenses.

I hear you about the lack of a RF 35mm f1.2, however...I've never found the need for that extra 1/3 stop on a wide angle. The dept of field effects that I enjoy with my EF 35mm f1.4 II L at close focus, I can't imagine that an extra 1/3 of a stop will be particularly noticable than it is between a 85mm f1.4 / f1.2. It's certainly not a lens I would be personally pining for, although I know this is a sore subject and some guys on here are very vocal about it. I also appreciate that my use shooting case scenario is likely different to others.
Canon were very resistant to the calls fro a great 50mm on the EF mount and now we have many great options on the RF mount...2 L's to choose from plus others!

 

[Skyfall]

Plz give me an rf 50-150 f2.8 stm. The perfect companion to a wide angle when traveling

 

[roby17269]

The EF 200mm f2.0 LIS is a bit of a unicorn lens for me. Everytime I've had the cash in my bank account, none have been available....then when there's a load on the market and the price drops...I'm skint. However it's probably a lens that will get minimal use, unlike the rest of my kit, which is literally the smallest subset of gear for each of my genre requirements.

That's true about the 200 2 availability. I can only imagine that Canon did not make a lot of those. When I sold it on eBay it went almost immediately.
It's also true it is quite a niche lens... but it is capable of greatness as well

Let me exand a little bit further my observations with both Sigma and Canon. A number of years ago, I bought a 120-300/2.8 OS and found it to be overy heavy, fragile, poor sharpness at the long end / wide open. It's OS was like a childs toy and it's AF was so inconsistent I was missing shots. It was no where near 300mm in reality and it focussed breathed so much that it was eclipsed by my ef 70-200mm f2.8 LIS II in every respect except it's raw reach. The Sigma was a massive dissapointment compared to my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS and my EF 70-200 f2.8 LIS II. It went back shortly after purchase. I've had and trialled a lot of Sigma lense in the past and I'd read many times...that was the "old Sigma, you should try the new". Each time i find the same limitations in their design philosphy and with their lenses they are always lacking / dissapointing in some way. Sure, maybe 80-90% but not the full 100% I get from Canon's finest. Now compare that to the new Canon RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS. It's is one of the sharpest zoom lenses ever made by anyone, reports from testing web sites I trust, replies and comments from friends I know who personally own and use this lens regularly. One observable test of sharpness, is it sharpness wide open on a R5. How does it respond to a 1.4x TC? If it's as percievably sharp with a 1.4x tc on a R5, then the core lens with a 1.4x is out resolving the R5's sensor.
Very few zoom lenses can do this with a 1.4x TC and (from what i've read and heard from friends) the Sigma 300-600mm f4 is noticably soft at 500-600mm @ f4. With a 1.4x TC it's worse and with a 2x it is almost unuseable on a high density sensor.
What really describes a sharp lens, is when you can drop a 2x TC on it, shoot at it's wide open aperture and for the image to still be sharp and outresolves the R5's sensor. The new RF 70-200 f2.8 LIS Z and RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS are both in that category. They stand untouched by anything that sigma had produced.
In the world of Canon primes, even their latest RF lenses come a bit soft when using 2x TC's. The best of breed are Canon's mk II EF white primes, specifically, the EF 300mm f2.8 LIS II, EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II, EF 600mm f4 LIS II and EF 800mm f5.6 LIS. The Current RF 600mm f4 LIS is rarely used with a 2x, normnally with a 1.4x max and as such it's 2x deficencies are often over looked. The new Canon RF 100-300mm f2.8 LIS is remarkable because it's sharpness bar was set against on of Canon's sharpest lenses ever, the EF 300mm f2.8 LIS II. I know many wild life guys who still use the EF prime with a 2x converter as their 600mm f5.6 and get stunning portfolio worthy results. It's THAT good and this Canon zoom matches the prime's result while adding the versatility of the zoom range.
When I consider the history of Sigma's X-600mm f6.3 lenses, it is easy to predict that Canon's rumoured X-600mm f5.6 will eclipse the Sigma in every metric. It's a reputation that Sigma have built for themselves. The difference is that the Sigma is a consumer orientated optic, where the Canon lens is likely to be a pro spec optic and will develop this lens to the highest level they can produce (and a proportial retail price to suit). The only suprise from Canon was the RF 200-800mm, which is a great lens but boarderline in it's sharpness at 800mm on a R5 and noticably soft on a R7. This has been reported by many users and trustworthy lens test sites, but there's a lot of youtube influencers that seemt to pass over this point. This particular lens is NOT a L lens, although it's painted white. If this new lens is intended for a budget concious market, then it may be very similar to the RF200-800mm lens, but reading the rumours on this site it would appear to be a pre-oriented L lens. If this is the case then Canon will throw their very best tech and specs at this lens.
In terms of Sigma's rising of quality and refinement, I can't see anything in their current portfolio that can compete with my current EF lenses, let alone RF variants.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I agree that years ago Sigma lenses could not hold a candle to the best of Canon's offerings.
But in recent years they have upped their game consistently and they have demonstrated they can achieve quality comparable to everyone else.
If they were so manifestedly inferior, do you think they would continue to sell to Sony and L mount users and EF mount users?
As for comparing their 300-600 4 to Canon's rumored zoom, I think your prediction is a tad premature. Of course we won't be able to properly compare them since we can't mount them on the same camera.

For me, all of my current EF lenses fit my brief perfectly. My issues with my EF 11-24L is that it is a big lump of glass to lug about..but my word...what a beatuful optic. The RF10-20L is a much more portable proposition, but I loose my filtration options. So I would still need to keep my EF lens when I need it for specialist applications. A bit like TSE or Fisheye lenses.

It's great that you're happy with your lenses... but the world has not stood still since those were made available.

I hear you about the lack of a RF 35mm f1.2, however...I've never found the need for that extra 1/3 stop on a wide angle. The dept of field effects that I enjoy with my EF 35mm f1.4 II L at close focus, I can't imagine that an extra 1/3 of a stop will be particularly noticable than it is between a 85mm f1.4 / f1.2. It's certainly not a lens I would be personally pining for, although I know this is a sore subject and some guys on here are very vocal about it. I also appreciate that my use shooting case scenario is likely different to others.
Canon were very resistant to the calls fro a great 50mm on the EF mount and now we have many great options on the RF mount...2 L's to choose from plus others!

Well... Nikon and Sony (thanks to Sigma) have a 35 1.2... so I want one as wel! I understand the difference is small, but I would also prefer an optically corrected lens. We have a digitally corrected video focused 35 already. So Canon give us a no-compromise stills-first monster and I will give you my money no questions asked

And great photos on your gallery!

 

[Del Paso]

Plz give me an rf 50-150 f2.8 stm. The perfect companion to a wide angle when traveling

Why not a 50-200 (since I often use my 70-200 at 200mm) while also missing 50mm.

 

[dolina]

While I'm pleased with the way the RF system has been developing, I have to recognise that third-parties could always add something, and it's not just low end products.

There are now some nice lenses available for RF, but third-parties have other very competitive offers as well, being Sigma, in my opinion, the biggest "threat".

Lenses like theirs 35mm f/1.4 and f/1.2, 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2, 28-45mm f/1.8, 28-105mm f/2.8, and now the 200mm f/2 and 300-600mm f/4, plus their Contemporary primes, for instance.

It may be your understanding that Canon offers a few lenses that are somewhat similar to these Sigma offerings, and I get that, but the thing is: some of these cost half the price of Canon's.

Is the RF 24-105mm f/2.8 twice as good as the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8? Debatable.
Is the RF 28-70mm f/2 twice as good as the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8? Again, debatable.
Is the RF 50mm f/1.2 twice as good as the Sigma 50mm f/1.2? Same.
Lower end 20mm? We have none.

And a lot of their lenses (most) are very robust, weather sealed (all?) and feature linear motors and internal focusing mechanisms.

Don't be mistaken, the pressure is high for Canon, as these other lens manufacturers are showing off their value daily with other lens mounts, and Sigma is doing potentially enough to motivate changing systems for many photographers.

Also, keep in mind: Sigma is a third-party manufacturer in relation to Canon, Sony, Fuji and Nikon's systems, but they are a primary manufacturer for their own cameras and the L mount. Plus all the other brands.

Sigma offers attractive Art lenses at select focal lengths but the assertion that they could motivate system-switching ignores optical benchmarks, autofocus performance, ecosystem depth and system integration. Canon RF is superior in coverage, optical quality, AF speed, system cohesion and future-proofing.

 

[roby17269]

Sigma offers attractive Art lenses at select focal lengths but the assertion that they could motivate system-switching ignores optical benchmarks, autofocus performance, ecosystem depth and system integration. Canon RF is superior in coverage, optical quality, AF speed, system cohesion and future-proofing.

I am not sure I understand to what the RF mount is superior... other mounts have pros and cons and their own areas of excellence, same as RF does

And I fail to see how opening RF to 3rd party FF AF lenses would not improve the mount's coverage and depth? After all Sigma is offering a number of lenses that have currently no equivalent in RF.

 

[AJ]

IMO, Sigma is often first out of the gate. Then, some time later, Canon comes along and releases something that is typically better, but also more expensive.

Examples.
14 mm f/1.4 - the ultimate astro lens. Sigma's version came out in 2023, Canon's version came out recently.
100-300 f/2.8. Sigma's 120-300 f/2.8 OS HSM came out in 2010.

Ditto for Tamron. Their 28-75/2.8 was released in 2021 and sold very well. People liked its speed and compact design. Canon released its copycat 28-70/2.8 in 2024.

 

[DocInfoSci]

In terms of third party lenses, I found over the years the following:

• Optical quality tended to be equivalent to the better non-L Canon lenses. For example, the gold ring USM lenses. Eventually Sigma really stepped up its game and produced lenses that specifically solved Canon flaws (UWA coma, for example) and/or generally competed with mid-tier L quality (24-105L, for example). I have over time used (and sometimes owned) lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and IRIX (non-cinema).
• Third party compatibility has greatly varied over time, an issue which continues through today. The USB docks helped, but never assured a guarantee. It really made the investment of cash into more expensive third party lenses ($1k+, let alone $6k+) a questionable investment over a decade. In the latest example, something in cameras after the R6 / R5 broke IRIX compatibility — and all that lens series does is confirm focus plus transmit metadata (e.g., lens type). USB firmware docks on the Canon side are largely discontinued, and so with that an inevitability of camera compatibility breakage.
• In the modern context, quality third party lenses tend to be priced similarly EF lenses anyhow. A solid Sigma costs the same as a solid EF comparable, and either one will have tradeoffs in optical quality, DLO integration, or lens barrel robustness.
• Very few compete optically or in lens body construction with modern L RF designs.

I've yet to encounter any third part lens that competes with premium contemporary Canon lenses, and I've yet to have a friend say they have either. If someone is willing to spend $10k in any currency on a single lens I sincerely doubt the lack of third party lenses are going to cause said person to jump ship because of a missing third party line — or it's a rare, very niche situation. Canon makes a premium product that is as expensive as "L" because it caters first to professionals.

In an older IT company I worked at when getting going in the industry the president used to tell us that we had one flagship product for a market and all other products just needed to be technically eligible — that is, tick enough boxes on paper to be allowed to compete for client funds but by no means had to be better than anyone else's (or even half as good). Canon's non-premium tier probably meets the "technically eligible" definition in a modern context of other manufactures. For example, the STM non-L lenses get the job of focusing photons onto a sensor done and they're fine for what they are but they're not the reason for someone to start with Canon cameras as opposed to Sony or Nikon; rather, they make a Canon camera body equally eligible for a newcomer's cash.

I think from Canon's perspective the EF catalog, which is still present for common use cases, is a de-facto third party lens option for the RF mount. Want to save money? Sigma has a 12-24 f/4 but Canon EF has an 11-24 — align sales and they're the same effective price in Canada. Sigma has a 24-105 f/4 but Canon has an EF 24-105L II IS USM — align sales and they're the same effective price in Canada. Ditto for Tamron, and ditto for IRIX (but in IRIX's case Canon also has AF). Might some of these be optically better than EF? Sure, but there's also no assurance they'll work on the R1 II, or the R5 III — but the EF lenses will.

All of my third party lenses have been sold off, and they were all sold off for compatibility reasons. I won't buy more until they are officially supported by Canon. Not while EF exists new or like-new with warranty, at any rate.

That stated, I think the people in this forum buying $10k+ lenses need to keep in mind that many people want the experience of exotic lengths but cannot justify the lofty price of new editions. And for mediocre non-L products (not bad, just average for the industry all factors averaged out) then why not cheaper third party options? Not everything is brute force making money or having the most Instagram followers— it might be nostolgia for 1990s photography (enter Sigma's more affordable Great White or prior Great Blacks). B+ and A- for 2/3rds the cost for most people will be perfectly fine — they probably aren't editing anything so refined that A+ would make the difference anyhow.

Myself, I probably represent an aspect of this category. I am well heeled thanks decades of hard work and good fortune, but I don't buy the $10k lenses. Why? I have a farm and animals are expensive; I am an enthusiastic power lifter who spent loads of money building a sweet home gym; I like to travel; etc. Eventually I want to retire. My wife has her priorities. A- for me is good enough as a (generally) non-commercial photographer, and if Sigma offered select lenses under Canon blessing then I'd think about them in a serious way. Jump ship without? Obviously not. Consider them as alternatives to B through A- RF lenses? Sure thing.

For people much less fortunate (industry specifics, now retired, many mouths to feed, injury with medical needs in an expensive health system, etc.) these options actually might make the selection of a platform a real material matter. This being a Canon forum, I don't think it's good enough to say just go buy Sony or Nikon — obviously that's an option — but the nature of this forum is hope for the future for the Canon community. I think that just like in the EF era third party options form entry points, retirement enjoyment, etc. I don't think people should sneer as hard as they do at the possibility. Just because many of us are fortunate enough to have all Canon gear doesn't mean that's the only valid path forward. And even those of us with non-Canon gear (some of my gear is solid but not Canon) we'd like to replace them with non-$10k but better than meh options that are Canon-compliant, and if a third party makes that a better likelihood then hurray. I mean, $4.1k for a 500mm f/5.6 with weather sealing from Sigma (or their $7.7k f/4 EF mount edition still in stock) vs $11.5k for a Canon EF 500 f/4 for your average non-commercial photographer? Only an ignorant person would tell the candidate to avoid the Sigma and cough up an extra $7.4k for... what? I can't think of the reason.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I agree that years ago Sigma lenses could not hold a candle to the best of Canon's offerings.
But in recent years they have upped their game consistently and they have demonstrated they can achieve quality comparable to everyone else.
If they were so manifestedly inferior, do you think they would continue to sell to Sony and L mount users and EF mount users?
As for comparing their 300-600 4 to Canon's rumored zoom, I think your prediction is a tad premature. Of course we won't be able to properly compare them since we can't mount them on the same camera.

It's great that you're happy with your lenses... but the world has not stood still since those were made available.

While the world as you put it may have "moved on", I've yet to see a Sigma wildlife lens that is actually sharp wide open, let alone sharp with a 2x teleconverter.
My old EF 400mm f2.8 LIS was a beautiful lens. Sharp optics, fast AF, great IS....just a bit too heavy. Super sharp wide open and super sharp with a 1.4x, to the point that it was just as sharp as it was natively on my camera. However results with a 2x TC were not so great and needed at least 1/3 of a stop to sharpen up enough. A full stop and it was really usable.
The mkII version is lighter and one of three sharpest lenses Canon have ever produced - period. It's wide open performance with a 2x teleconverter is better than the older mkI lens with a 1.4x tc....it's THAT good. So in my findings, Sigma have not come close to that lofty bench mark set by Canon from over 15 years ago. In fact they don't seem to be able to make a super tele that is sharp at it's longest end natively, wide open. So they are inferior to the optics Canon was producing 27 year ago with their mkI.
Even Canon's newer EF mkIII version is not as sharp as the mkII (which is the same lens as the current RF version). It's design brief was to match the sharpness of the Mk1 BUT it's primary design objective was to be as light and portable as possible. It did this astonishingly well, hand holding a mkI was for the brave / super fit and could only be done for a few mins / seconds at time. The mkII was a lot better in this regard but the mkIII is only a liitle more cumbersome than a 70-200/2.8 and a 1.4x TC. It's THAT good, to the point that it opens up new opportunities to hand hold a lens like this that could not realistically be done before without a tripod. It's AF and IS is slightly superior, it's handling and usability is vastly superior but it's Image quality took a step backwards. But even this mkIII version knocks the new Sigma back 20+ years. Sigma is coming out of the dark ages, but is still a long way from where Canon was even 27 years ago with ther mkI.
I would not buy a RF 400mm f2.8 LIS because it's not great fit for me, my current EF mkII is actually a better lens for me. if I did consider an RF wildlife lens, it would be the RF 600mm f4, because I won't need the 2x Tc option too much and it would give me the option of either lens. 400 or 600.
However, I am keen to see what Canon develops next for a rumoured mkII or a zoom variant. If they can make a EF 100-300/f2.8 that matches their superlative EF 300mm f2.8 LIS II (one of the other three top performers) then a rumoured RF 400-600mm f2.8-f4 will be iconic and revolutionary. Combining ALL of the benefits of a 400/2.8 and 600/f4, the sharp ness of the mkII primes but none of the down sides.

My upgrade path is not found in Sigma becuase they have NOTHING that can upgrade what I already have. Sigma have some similar lenses but they have no benefits for me over what I already have. I have no gear lust because I don't make those kinds of mistakes. My lenses are tools and they very carefully assessed and selected before I make my investment. My upgrade path is found in Canon because I can see real world benefits, the question is...is it fiscally incentivised enough to sway me with my current gear and my current budget? I don't spend money because I have it, I invest in equipment that will bring me a direct improvement to my photography. I save and buy, I then compare old to new and if I was right (and I usually am) I then sell the old one.

I am not as prejudiced as you suppose or keep hinting at, I'm a Canon beliver because the gear is worth beliving in. I like to invest in "best of breed" gear, not "it's ok", "quite good" or "90% but cheaper" gear. I think it is one of tenets of Socialism that you accuse your opposition of the thing you are more guilty of.

 

[roby17269]

While the world as you put it may have "moved on", I've yet to see a Sigma wildlife lens that is actually sharp wide open, let alone sharp with a 2x teleconverter.
My old EF 400mm f2.8 LIS was a beautiful lens. Sharp optics, fast AF, great IS....just a bit too heavy. Super sharp wide open and super sharp with a 1.4x, to the point that it was just as sharp as it was natively on my camera. However results with a 2x TC were not so great and needed at least 1/3 of a stop to sharpen up enough. A full stop and it was really usable.
The mkII version is lighter and one of three sharpest lenses Canon have ever produced - period. It's wide open performance with a 2x teleconverter is better than the older mkI lens with a 1.4x tc....it's THAT good. So in my findings, Sigma have not come close to that lofty bench mark set by Canon from over 15 years ago. In fact they don't seem to be able to make a super tele that is sharp at it's longest end natively, wide open. So they are inferior to the optics Canon was producing 27 year ago with their mkI.
Even Canon's newer EF mkIII version is not as sharp as the mkII (which is the same lens as the current RF version). It's design brief was to match the sharpness of the Mk1 BUT it's primary design objective was to be as light and portable as possible. It did this astonishingly well, hand holding a mkI was for the brave / super fit and could only be done for a few mins / seconds at time. The mkII was a lot better in this regard but the mkIII is only a liitle more cumbersome than a 70-200/2.8 and a 1.4x TC. It's THAT good, to the point that it opens up new opportunities to hand hold a lens like this that could not realistically be done before without a tripod. It's AF and IS is slightly superior, it's handling and usability is vastly superior but it's Image quality took a step backwards. But even this mkIII version knocks the new Sigma back 20+ years. Sigma is coming out of the dark ages, but is still a long way from where Canon was even 27 years ago with ther mkI.
I would not buy a RF 400mm f2.8 LIS because it's not great fit for me, my current EF mkII is actually a better lens for me. if I did consider an RF wildlife lens, it would be the RF 600mm f4, because I won't need the 2x Tc option too much and it would give me the option of either lens. 400 or 600.
However, I am keen to see what Canon develops next for a rumoured mkII or a zoom variant. If they can make a EF 100-300/f2.8 that matches their superlative EF 300mm f2.8 LIS II (one of the other three top performers) then a rumoured RF 400-600mm f2.8-f4 will be iconic and revolutionary. Combining ALL of the benefits of a 400/2.8 and 600/f4, the sharp ness of the mkII primes but none of the down sides.

My upgrade path is not found in Sigma becuase they have NOTHING that can upgrade what I already have. Sigma have some similar lenses but they have no benefits for me over what I already have. I have no gear lust because I don't make those kinds of mistakes. My lenses are tools and they very carefully assessed and selected before I make my investment. My upgrade path is found in Canon because I can see real world benefits, the question is...is it fiscally incentivised enough to sway me with my current gear and my current budget? I don't spend money because I have it, I invest in equipment that will bring me a direct improvement to my photography. I save and buy, I then compare old to new and if I was right (and I usually am) I then sell the old one.

I am not as prejudiced as you suppose or keep hinting at, I'm a Canon beliver because the gear is worth beliving in. I like to invest in "best of breed" gear, not "it's ok", "quite good" or "90% but cheaper" gear. I think it is one of tenets of Socialism that you accuse your opposition of the thing you are more guilty of.

I haven't heard of a Canon RF 400-600 2.8-4 - that would be awesome if indeed they make one but I would expect it to be more than $15K... and in any case it is academic until it materializes, like all the discussions on the RF 300-600 4-5.6 or 5.6... they may be great lenses but we cannot mount them on RF bodies since they do not exist yet. So I won't call them iconic or revolutionary just yet. The Sigma 300-600 exists but we cannot mount it on RF bodies as well since Canon doesn't want us to.

Everything I have read about the 300-600 4 say it's a great lens apart from the weight. Especially in the context of price. Do you have any evidence of the contrary? Otherwise yes, you would be prejudiced. By definition.

Regardless. It is totally fine that you are fully satisfied with the Canon system. But you seem unable to accept that not everyone is a Canon believer. They are a corporation that wants to make money, not the leaders of a cult. I am a Canon user, no more no less. I like my Canon gear as I like my Hasselblad gear. And I would appreciate more choice, specifically access to some of Sigma's latest offerings.
So what exactly would I be "guilty" of? Apologies but I am not really sure about what you're trying to say in your last paragraph.

 

[P-visie]

I haven't heard of a Canon RF 400-600 2.8-4 - that would be awesome if indeed they make one but I would expect it to be more than $15K... and in any case it is academic until it materializes.

Canon has a patent application for a 400-600mm f2.8-f4 lens (and a Canon RF 300-600mm F2.8-4.5L)
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-patent-application-lets-go-long/

 

[DocInfoSci]

I'd love to see Canon run with Sigma's 500mm f/5.6 concept at the same tier as the 200-800 silver ring, making it a series of mid-tier performers at a more economical cost for hobbyists:

• RF 500mm f/5.6 IS
  • IQ meets or exceeds 200-800 at 500mm
  • weather sealing meets or exceeds 200-800
  • Programmable similar to 200-800
  • Variable aperture
  • Excellent edge-to-edge performance with 1.4x
  • Excellent center performance with 2x
  • MSRP CAD $4.5k
  • As compared to zoom: 200-800 is CAD $2.8k, and at 500mm is f/8
• RF 300mm f/4 IS
  • IQ meets or exceeds 200-800 at 300mm
  • weather sealing meets or exceeds 200-800
  • Programmable similar to 200-800
  • Variable aperture
  • Excellent edge-to-edge performance with 1.4x
  • Excellent center performance with 2x
  • MSRP CAD $3.5k
  • As compared to zoom: 200-800 is CAD $2.8k, and at 300mm is f/6.3

This would create a more budget appropriate, in the context of Canon, line of mid-tier L or L-like lenses from 14mm -> 1000mm (with TC). By targeting the tele primes in the same series as the silver ring Canon avoids cannibalising professional tier equivalents due to build, AF drive, and aperture reductions. To the professional, the price and quality of the zoomable Great Whites or primes will be economically justified. The typical hobbyist is probably not buying those lenses to start with, so in the majority of cases Canon justifies the purchase and use of its camera bodies more than it loses anything to lens sales at the premium end.

This would also be conceptually similar to the 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 lenses released in the 1990s, which were extremely popular with hobbyists (and continue to be recommended today across the Internet as low budget options with reasonable performance).

Canon could market these as backyard safari options: the 200-800 for ultimate convenience in variable situations (field events), the 300 for large game (dogs, sports children), and the 500 for dangerous or small game (cats, urban coyotes, racoons). No doubt the 1.4 extender would pretty much well sell 1:1 within 24 months of a lens purchase. They'd have a similar design and visual aesthetic, which does matter in terms of collection for many people. They'd be especially well positioned for the 20-32mp crowd, especially those who don't believe in downsizing all those precious pixels to achieve IQ, which means ISO 12800 quality actually means something.

I have no doubt if Canon can make and sell a 200-800 for CAD $2.8k list price then they could easily achieve with modern materials and similar compromises the primes for probably the same, but with allowance for markup because, well, Canon — and that's what Sigma charges for its 500 5.6.

Someone like me would probably grab one of each over a nine year period and never think of Sigma again.

(But wait — wouldn't that be the same as buying a $10K lens? Yes... and no. Yes for total cash. No for the fun factor of multiple lenses, mm spread, and wife approval factor, which is more easily accommodated in installments. )

 

[roby17269]

Canon has a patent application for a 400-600mm f2.8-f4 lens (and a Canon RF 300-600mm F2.8-4.5L)
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-patent-application-lets-go-long/

Ah thank you - I tend to forget about patents