I think that you can add the Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM (small) or Sigma 14mm f/1.4 DG DN Art Lens (large) and/or maybe the Sigma 15mm f/1.4 Fisheye DG DN Art to the Sigma 20mm.
An astro modified second hand A7Sii could be a good choice.
Upvote
0
Canon is in deep talks with third-party lens manufacturers
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
An astro modified second hand A7Sii could be a good choice.
I really miss the "film character" and general user experience of Canon cameras but I just can't go RF until they address the lens situation. I'd like to go back to APS-C but only if I can grab the amazing Sigma 1.4 primes and some of the 3rd party zooms. RF-S lens selection sucks and I'm not gonna pay $500 for STM 1.8 primes.
Upvote
0
It's incredible that Canon hasn't managed to make a decent 50 1.4 in nearly 40 yearsSpeaking about that, last week I got myself an used Eos R on eBay; it came with some extra stuff, as the EF-RF adapter, an EF-S 24 STM, and especially an EF 50 f1.4 USM which was quite interesting to me, as the last time I got a Canon 50 f1.4 in my hand it was 15 years ago, in 2009 on a 5D classic, as discovered in my archive (and pictures weren't as bad as I remembered, to be fair).
So I gave the 50 f1.4 a special treatment, and brought to "the wall of shame", as in the external wall of my condo, which is my testing ground for how a lens behave, without any scientific pretence of course, it's just let's see if the lens work properly, and if I have two identical lenses, or two or more identical (or so) focal lengths from different manufactures, let's see a quick and unscientific comparison.
So, the wall of shame saw a three lens competition, tested on the 30mpx Eos R on a tripod and remote release:
EF 50 f1.4
RF 50 f1.8
Sigma 40 f1.4 Art (reframed to match the two 50's)
Sigma vs Canon @ f1.4 100% centre frame
View attachment 215168
The two Canon at their widest common aperture @ f1.8 100% centre frame
View attachment 215169
...now I soon enough remebered why I always hated that terrible EF 50 f1.4
(In both comparisons, made in AV, the EF 50 f1.4 has 1/3 stop faster shutter, so it seems it has a slight better light transmission, at the same aperture, then both RF 50 1.8 and the 40 1.4 Art. At any narrower aperture, shutter was identical, so it seems this light transmission advantage kicks in only below f2)
I'd argue the 50 1.8s aren't much better. My best photo with one was stopped down and in black and white. The LoCA on the EF 50 STM was incredible.
Upvote
0
Well, that RF 50 f1.8 is not that bad tbh in the wide centre, and even the borders are quite acceptable for what it cost; of course the corners are pretty blurry, but no one is going to look there in a real life scenario when shooting wide open, life is not a flat brick wall luckilyIt's incredible that Canon hasn't managed to make a decent 50 1.4 in nearly 40 years
I'd argue the 50 1.8s aren't much better. My best photo with one was stopped down and in black and white. The LoCA on the EF 50 STM was incredible.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
wait . they made a decent one 40 years ago?It's incredible that Canon hasn't managed to make a decent 50 1.4 in nearly 40 years
I'd argue the 50 1.8s aren't much better. My best photo with one was stopped down and in black and white. The LoCA on the EF 50 STM was incredible.
Upvote
0
Well, now you’ve gone and spoiled my fun.
I will say, as I consistently say, that Canon will make decisions based on what’s best for their business. That some people are clamoring for 3rd party RF lenses means nothing to Canon, unless and until it affects their bottom line. So far, the data suggest it hasn’t in this case.
I can certainly imagine scenarios in which allowing select 3rd party lenses benefits Canon, especially if they can restrict them to lenses that don’t directly compete with RF. Of course, from the 3rd party manufacturers’ viewpoint, it’s probably exactly those ‘bread-and-butter’ lenses where they want to undercut Canon’s prices and move lots of units. I can easily see that leading to an impasse.
agreed, but be honest about it. don't give some CEO crap answer that there are no restrictions on the mount when a year ago you literally said there was a year ago.
I think that part ground my molars a bit. Also the article seemed to imply that how dare us discuss what the heck is happening and why there isn't there any third party RF lenses. but that could be language translation.
That all being said it seems to be moving forward, if not slowly but it's devil in the details, given Canon's lack of transparency I think this rollout could be a dog's breakfast that hurts the consumer more than helps.
Upvote
0
I wish we could get a straightforward answer. Even if by some miracle there are "no restrictions" on third party mounts, one has to wonder if the goal at Canon is to obfuscate every millimitre of the way. I am just getting so tired of this- yes Canon, it's been six years and we still don't know when you're gonna open up the mount. Surely it's when a team of bean counters have min:maxed a scenario but all this is really doing is destroying any goodwill you have.
I just want pro-grade smaller lenses like they have on Sony that take advantage of the size reduction in mirrorless bodies. The 50 1.2 is a monster and the 50 1.8 feels like a cheap toy. Where's the vast middle ground of well engineered and built and compact lenses? I'd kill for a set of Sigma Arts in native RF mounts or even some well made 1.8's.
I just want pro-grade smaller lenses like they have on Sony that take advantage of the size reduction in mirrorless bodies. The 50 1.2 is a monster and the 50 1.8 feels like a cheap toy. Where's the vast middle ground of well engineered and built and compact lenses? I'd kill for a set of Sigma Arts in native RF mounts or even some well made 1.8's.
Upvote
0
Perhaps Canon is blocking certain lenses that they intend to release sometime? The RF mount has done a great job with the new Canon birding lenses that were not available on EF and only from third parties, they probably didn't want the third parties affecting their sales before they got a chance to make their own lenses.
Could the third parties complete the rest of the conversion from EF-M to RF-S lenses? Or will Canon say no, because they really want you to buy an R8 and 50mm f1.8 or f1.2, instead of buying an R50 and a future RF-S 32mm f1.4.
Could the third parties complete the rest of the conversion from EF-M to RF-S lenses? Or will Canon say no, because they really want you to buy an R8 and 50mm f1.8 or f1.2, instead of buying an R50 and a future RF-S 32mm f1.4.
Upvote
0
Doesn’t chatgpt have that capability already? It can already both restyle and summarize already.
Upvote
0
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
My hope is that any 3rd party lenses will fill gaps that canon doesn’t want to release lenses in eg wide/fast or long/macro or 50/1.4
I still don’t get 3rd party lens not being released in Ef mount - even with manual focus
I guess the point of the negotiations is to have combined OIS/ibis af work well but probably not at full speed (similar to Sony).
It probably isn’t worth canon’s time/money to worry about the Chinese rf lenses
Some folks mention that the amount has been out for a number of years, but there are some super duper chasm wide gaps especially with the mentioned 50 mm. Can an obviously doesn't want to make this land so just let a third party do it.
They're probably thinking they're going to lose sales on their $2,200 behemoth, but folks like me wasn't buying it anyway. But business tends to look at things differently.
Instead of really fulfilling completeness with their lineup they're busy making $3,000 super high specialty lenses that there wasn't a previous market for so kind of testing the waters with no guarantees they're going to be a hit. All the resources and to those but then much less into the full lineup and don't even get started on RFS which is a disaster. I've written off my next generation of crop cameras being cannon because I don't trust them to put out the products that I want, or even the products that already existed that they choose to not re-release.
But then maybe that's the point as they have shuffled there marketing and their classes of bodies.
Upvote
0
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Speaking about that, last week I got myself an used Eos R on eBay; it came with some extra stuff, as the EF-RF adapter, an EF-S 24 STM, and especially an EF 50 f1.4 USM which was quite interesting to me, as the last time I got a Canon 50 f1.4 in my hand it was 15 years ago, in 2009 on a 5D classic, as discovered in my archive (and pictures weren't as bad as I remembered, to be fair).
So I gave the 50 f1.4 a special treatment, and brought to "the wall of shame", as in the external wall of my condo, which is my testing ground for how a lens behave, without any scientific pretence of course, it's just let's see if the lens work properly, and if I have two identical lenses, or two or more identical (or so) focal lengths from different manufactures, let's see a quick and unscientific comparison.
So, the wall of shame saw a three lens competition, tested on the 30mpx Eos R on a tripod and remote release:
EF 50 f1.4
RF 50 f1.8
Sigma 40 f1.4 Art (reframed to match the two 50's)
Sigma vs Canon @ f1.4 100% centre frame
View attachment 215168
The two Canon at their widest common aperture @ f1.8 100% centre frame
View attachment 215169
...now I soon enough remebered why I always hated that terrible EF 50 f1.4
(In both comparisons, made in AV, the EF 50 f1.4 has 1/3 stop faster shutter, so it seems it has a slight better light transmission, at the same aperture, then both RF 50 1.8 and the 40 1.4 Art. At any narrower aperture, shutter was identical, so it seems this light transmission advantage kicks in only below f2)
What I'm confused by is how did you not know that wide open the EF 1.4 has issues. The lens is pretty much legendary at this point - and that's a known known so you didn't actually create any new information.
Hell, mine didn't even like to focus on my 5D3 above 2.5. But since I pretty much never use it aside from two eight I have the opposite experience... It has created tens of thousands of wonderful images for me over the years. Yes I would like to replace it, but this is canon we're talking about... sigh.
Not telling anyone what to think but I've been using this lens at 2.8 for a decade and I don't have any issues. I'm sure there's a ton of others that use this lens without issue as well. It's not like there's a lot of options in the 50 mm space.
It's ridiculous how many years this is taking but no way I'm purchasing the cheapo 50 so I guess I'll keep waiting. I alternate with a 35 F2IS
Upvote
0
I very well did know; as I said, I had one in 2009 on my 5D classic. Didn't want to create new info, it was just a fun test to see "yes, it was bad...but HOW bad will it actually be today on a relatively recent 30mpx sensor, when compared to the sharpest std lens on the market, and to the newest cheapo f1.8 50mm from Canon?"
If you want to replace it, and you use it from f2.8 onwards anyway, any 50 f1.8 from Canon (EF I, EF II, EF STM, RF STM) will work the same or better, while costing less, the EF II can be found for 50/60€, the RF STM it's the most expensive and can be found for 100/120€, while the EF 50 f1.4 can be sold (I just did with the one I tested) for 150€. So in the worst case (if you have R bodies) you spend the same for the RF STM which is sharper, or less for any EF copy that will work the same at any aperture relevant to you.
And there are many options out there actually in the std lens field, the Canon 40 STM is sharper (and you said you shoot starting from f2.8 anyway, so it's ok), the Tamron 45 VC is great and it's even stabilized, the Sigma 50 Art is amazing (and now relatively pretty cheap, you can buy one used as new for 300/350€), and my Sigma 40 Art is as sharp as the RF 50 f1.2 L but cost 750€ brand new.
Of course the 40 STM is tiny, the Tamron 45 is bigger then yours but still manageable, while the 50 Art is big and heavy, and the 40 Art is a plain monster in size and weight.
So you do have a lot of choices if you don't want to buy a 50 f1.8 from Canon, albeit many of them will bigger and heavier; and again, the RF STM it's a best buy and will top and overcome your EF 50 f1.4 in any aspect, except not having the wider aperture "just in case", but as seen in my test, you wouldn't use the widest aperture even in emergency.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
