Obviously I'm Team Canon in terms of gear.
BUT
The camera bodies after the R6 and R5 did kill a number of EF lenses from third parties. In some cases, these EF lenses simply confirmed focus and reported lens data, such as the IRIX lenses. I doubt very much that the EF instruction set changed for any technical reason in the R6 II / R5 II / R3 / R1 and so am inclined to believe Canon scuttled those lenses despite being yesteryear tech. It very much would necessitate upgrades to new Canon specific lenses and probably raise the ire of customers against the third parties. Then, RF mount adaptations of EF lenses from various Chinese manufactures "disappeared" along with their support.
It's really, really hard to not believe that, at a minimum, Canon is being deliberately antagonistic.
A company like Sigma is probably established enough that the game between them and Canon is somewhat gentlemanly and thus for whatever set of reasons to them there are now Sigma lenses for the RF crop sensor. But, I doubt other than engineering for 35mm projection across 20mm of air for the flange distance (Sony has 18mm of air) there's not much else left for Sigma to do for FF, other than make Canon happy. In fact, I'm starting to think the primary motivation for Canon's allowance for the Sigma crop lenses is simply to sidestep antitrust, as informed by my own corporate work.
Unless Canon or Sigma is very specific in their statement, history suggests the FF electronic lenses from third parties are de facto blocked, regardless of the legal or financial disincentives being used.
But I think the true disgruntlement here is that Canon has not produced a full line for quality mid-tier offerings for a focal range that matches the EF options over the 1990s and 2000s at equivalent pricing. There are steps in that direction, like the 200-800 which is an excellent compromise lens by all accounts. VCM is kinda-sorta in that direction, tech great but cost meh. More is needed to be done. And that pinch makes people look at Sigma, which is an excellent third party example of what can be done, and go... man, I wish I had some of those options in the middle.
If we just sit here and talk the best of the best, then Canon has delivered on all accounts. And priced accordingly. But if we talk great yet competent at hobbyist levels of abuse and engagement then there are huge holes in the lineup compared to what was before in terms of both cost and capability.
I think there's hope. At 6-8 lenses a year, there's room for mid-tier excellence to come into being at reasonable prices. A perfect example I return to over and over is the 300mm f/4 L (IS and non-IS) — it offered 90% of the base 2.8 performance and 80% of the TC performance in a form and cost that allowed Canon and professionals to easily justify the 2.8 option while meeting the interests and wants of the well heeled hobbyists. More of this is needed. Sigma gives that to Sony and Nikon. Does it matter who gives it to Canon? No. But Canon has only very reluctantly shown an interest in doing that in-house for FF up to this point in RF despite making oodles of cash.
It's valid for Canon enthusiasts to stand up and say that they've noticed and its starting to move from annoying to semi-insulting. It's been almost eight years since the RF mount was released. Mid-tier L was well established at the long end by then for EF.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
.
(Hoping my wife won't read this answer...)
