Canon executives address third-party RF future

[EOS 4 Life]

My understanding is that Nikon only allows third-party AF lenses on a case by case basis.

Sony has a process as well but it is company by company instead of lens by lens.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

This is a hill I will die on. Not allowing for affordable options will prevent amateur photographers from entering the Canon system.

There are plenty of affordable RF lenses and EF lenses work just fine.
I want third-party lenses too but that is a problem that does not exist

 

[EOS 4 Life]

All we have now is heavy expensive 1.2 RF primes and cheap craps 1.8 primes which are all terrible for video. Can we get a set of 1.8 primes with fast auto focus and no focus breathing like Sony, Nikon, and Panasonic. Also can we get some light 1.4 L primes. Canon has great bodies but lack of lenses.

Sony lenses are no better at focus breathing.
They have focus breathing correction just like Canon does.
Sony had it first.
Nikon and Panasonic are a different story.

 

[John Wilde]

I'm sure Canon will cover the needs of many, but it can't happen quickly - it takes some time for them to do so.

Canon has said that their goal is to release 7-8 new RF lens models per year.

 

[DhlcadR6]

This is what I thought when I originally chose the EOS R over Sony A7III. But it's disappointing 5 years into the RF mount there are still huge gaps in the lens lineup. New lenses are coming out at a very slow pace.

And I think Canon dropped the ball with their latest extra slow lenses like 15-30 f/4.5-6.3. My only adapted EF lens is the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 Di OSD, which wipes the floor with the 15-30 at a similar price point. For ultra-wide, I would also prefer what Sigma and Tamron have for Sony rather than the RF 14-35 f/4 L or it's bulkier 2.8 brother.

No...The Tamron 17-35 cannot wipe the 15-30. I also owned the Tamron, its motor is slow, and have to shoot RAW with it, its SOOC colors are dull as the other Tamrons from that era(35-150/2.8-4). The RF15-30 actually focus fast and silent, IMHO it's equivalent to the EF17-40L back in the days. And lacking the 2mm is making a significant difference for UWA.

For comparing RF14-35L to Sigma 16-28 / Tamron 17-28. They are in different league, it's pointless to compared them.

 

[Marphoto]

All we have now is heavy expensive 1.2 RF primes and cheap craps 1.8 primes which are all terrible for video. Can we get a set of 1.8 primes with fast auto focus and no focus breathing like Sony, Nikon, and Panasonic. Also can we get some light 1.4 L primes. Canon has great bodies but lack of lenses.

I’ve been attacked for saying that though it could be in Canon’s best interest to open up at least the optical design portion to Tamron and Sigma. I hope they embrace it.

 

[Longtermer]

There are plenty of affordable RF lenses and EF lenses work just fine.
I want third-party lenses too but that is a problem that does not exist

This is a point that can't be repeated often enough. Canon went out of their way when the RF mount was launched to ensure the compatability of EF lenses, which in some cases seem to work better than previously on the new R bodies. I know that it is 'better' not to have to adapt a lens, but if $s are the big issue, and there is a need for a very specific lens, then is it such a big thing?

For all that, good news that Canon is actively negotiating with the 3rd party manufacturers. More choice is always a good thing.

 

[sanj]

That trinity definitely has an impressive price and focal range but if someone needs and or wants an f2.8 trinity this is the cost here in the UK (inclusive of our local VAT)

Canon RF
15-38mm L = £2499
24-70mm L = £2519
70-200mm L = £2999
Total = £8017

E mount (Sigma and Tamron mix)
14-24mm DG DN Art = £1299
24-70mm DG DN Art = £1049
70-180mm Gen 1 = £1149
Total = £3497

There are many working pros doing both stills and video who are on tight budgets and simply can not afford Canon L/Sony GM/G prices but need professional results and features. Currently Canon doesn't provide/allow native RF solutions, Sony doesn't provide them either but they do allow Sigma, and Tamron to do so instead. I personally have the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art DG DN as my main studio portrait lens and shot it on 60mp and it is more than capable of producing great IQ and for half the price of the Sony equivalent. Yes the GM II is better in everyday but the Sigma is 90% as good and that is more than good enough for me.

I think Canon would do well to do their own cheaper alternatives to the classic trinity, similar to what Tamron have on emote.

Every company places itself in a price range standard and provides quality to match. Canon is more expensive than some, cheaper than others. I find that they charge appropriately for the quality they provide.

 

[BC]

That trinity definitely has an impressive price and focal range but if someone needs and or wants an f2.8 trinity this is the cost here in the UK (inclusive of our local VAT)

Canon RF
15-38mm L = £2499
24-70mm L = £2519
70-200mm L = £2999
Total = £8017

E mount (Sigma and Tamron mix)
14-24mm DG DN Art = £1299
24-70mm DG DN Art = £1049
70-180mm Gen 1 = £1149
Total = £3497

There are many working pros doing both stills and video who are on tight budgets and simply can not afford Canon L/Sony GM/G prices but need professional results and features. Currently Canon doesn't provide/allow native RF solutions, Sony doesn't provide them either but they do allow Sigma, and Tamron to do so instead. I personally have the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art DG DN as my main studio portrait lens and shot it on 60mp and it is more than capable of producing great IQ and for half the price of the Sony equivalent. Yes the GM II is better in everyday but the Sigma is 90% as good and that is more than good enough for me.

I think Canon would do well to do their own cheaper alternatives to the classic trinity, similar to what Tamron have on emote.

Canon's idea of an "affordable alternative" nowadays involves a variable zoom that's f7.1 at the long end. There's no in between and they constantly crap on anyone not forking out for their absolute top gear or *all* their gear (re: we're not giving you good video specs so you buy a C300).

I'm about due for another body as my 5DIV secondary is getting pretty rough. I'll give it another year to see if I stay with a system that treats its customers with absolute contempt.

 

[dlee13]

Huh? The only Sony thing I’d ever buy is a tv.

PS5 should be a strong consideration too!

 

[Brikna]

Canon has said that their goal is to release 7-8 new RF lens models per year.

Yes, the goal has been met. In the less than 5 years of existence of the R system, Canon currently offers 35 RF(S) lenses + 2 RF extenders.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Every company places itself in a price range standard and provides quality to match. Canon is more expensive than some, cheaper than others. I find that they charge appropriately for the quality they provide.

People seem to be obsessed by F stops even when the T stops favor the other lens and/or they have to stop down the lens to actually use it.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Yes, the goal has been met. In the less than 5 years of existence of the R system, Canon currently offers 35 RF(S) lenses + 2 RF extenders.

The RF mount launched with a lot of lenses.
The pace of new lenses has been closer to 4 a year.
They stated that they wanted to about double that for the next few years.

 

[Snapster]

No...The Tamron 17-35 cannot wipe the 15-30. I also owned the Tamron, its motor is slow, and have to shoot RAW with it, its SOOC colors are dull as the other Tamrons from that era(35-150/2.8-4). The RF15-30 actually focus fast and silent, IMHO it's equivalent to the EF17-40L back in the days. And lacking the 2mm is making a significant difference for UWA.

For comparing RF14-35L to Sigma 16-28 / Tamron 17-28. They are in different league, it's pointless to compared them.

If there would be a Sigma 16-28 f/2.8 for the RF mount I would certainly compare it to the RF 14-35 f/4 before rushing off to get the Canon.

The 15-30 is not even a consideration because of how slow it is.

 

[Del Paso]

Canon's idea of an "affordable alternative" nowadays involves a variable zoom that's f7.1 at the long end. There's no in between and they constantly crap on anyone not forking out for their absolute top gear or *all* their gear (re: we're not giving you good video specs so you buy a C300).

I'm about due for another body as my 5DIV secondary is getting pretty rough. I'll give it another year to see if I stay with a system that treats its customers with absolute contempt.

"Absolute contempt"?
My goodness, are you really so sensitive to feel despised by a profit company not producing what you want?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm about due for another body as my 5DIV secondary is getting pretty rough. I'll give it another year to see if I stay with a system that treats its customers with absolute contempt.

Why wait? Switch now, that way you can teach Canon a lesson.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The RF mount launched with a lot of lenses.
The pace of new lenses has been closer to 4 a year.

Let’s try basic math. Four RF lenses launched with the R in 2018. Over the next 5 years, they added 32 lenses. 32 / 5 means 6.4 lenses per year. How is that ‘closer to 4’? Seems closer to 7-8 to me. But then, I understand basic math.

 

[roby17269]

I don’t shoot many landscapes, but when I do I find the TS-E 17L and 24L II to be unmatched. Nikon’s PC-E lenses aren’t as good (or as wide), and Sony never bothered with that type of lens.

I'm just back from Italy and I took with me 3 lenses: the TS 24mm f/3.5L II, RF 50mm f/1.2L and the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L. I had a blast. But, unexpectedly, I ended up using the 100-500 the most for macro-ish, distant wildlife, portraits and a lot of panoramas. I ended up with 4.5K photos in 2 weeks (we went on the Alps and on the sea in Liguria) and roughly 4.2K were taken with the 100-500.

It's so versatile and it does not kill me (yet) while hiking with it and the R5 and the DJI Mini 3 Pro Love all my toys

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm just back from Italy and I took with me 3 lenses: the TS 24mm f/3.5L II, RF 50mm f/1.2L and the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L. I had a blast. But, unexpectedly, I ended up using the 100-500 the most for macro-ish, distant wildlife, portraits and a lot of panoramas. I ended up with 4.5K photos in 2 weeks (we went on the Alps and on the sea in Liguria) and roughly 4.2K were taken with the 100-500.

I spent two weeks in Italy as well, took the R8 with RF 14-35/4L, 24-105/4L, RF 24/1.8, RF 28/2.8, RF 100-400 and TS-E 17/4L. Pretty much entirely urban (Venice, Rome, and several small cities on Sicily), the only real nature outings were a sunset trip up Mt. Etna and scuba diving (for which I used my iPhone 14 Pro in a dive housing with good flood lights). Lots of lenses, but on any given outing I took only 2-3. For daytime walkarounds it was the 14-35 and 24-105 with either the 24/1.8 or the 28/2.8. Blue hour just the TS-E 17 and 24-105, and I used the 100-400 only on Mt. Etna.

The majority of my images were with the 14-35/4 and 24-105/4:

 

[Del Paso]

I'm just back from Italy and I took with me 3 lenses: the TS 24mm f/3.5L II, RF 50mm f/1.2L and the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L. I had a blast. But, unexpectedly, I ended up using the 100-500 the most for macro-ish, distant wildlife, portraits and a lot of panoramas. I ended up with 4.5K photos in 2 weeks (we went on the Alps and on the sea in Liguria) and roughly 4.2K were taken with the 100-500.

It's so versatile and it does not kill me (yet) while hiking with it and the R5 and the DJI Mini 3 Pro Love all my toys

This what I always want to do. Only essentials.
But I usually end up taking (also to Italy, mostly hiking) : Leica + 18+28+35+90, Eos 5 D IV+ 50 Zeiss macro, EF 100-400 + 1,4 Ext + TSE 24, binos etc... Sometimes I just hate myself!