Don’t expect any third-party autofocus lenses in the near future

[navastronia]

I don't think that's accurate. Why do we have firmware updates for RF lenses?

Let's ask Canon (and wait 2-3 years for them to answer, à la this 3rd party lens situation)

 

[KirkD]

Although I have a Canon R5 and am heavily-invested in Canon RF glass, Canon's approach to third-party lenses really does limit my glass options. In my own view, this is a strong reason for a person to not purchase a Canon camera, but to go with a manufacturer that has both a) excellent cameras and glass and b) accepts third-party lenses, some of which are outstanding in terms of optics and value.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

So you're complaining about RF glass, but you don't even use an RF mount camera?

Why are you so worried? You shoot mainly architecture. Presumably therefore most of the time you will be using tilt-shift lenses, which in most cases are manual focus, so what difference does it make to you whether Canon permits third parties to manufacture AF lenses in RF mount?

Actually I do not use tilr-shift-lenses, because time usually is an issue for me. I have 12 days in Shanghai for example and in that time frame I want to take photos of as many skyscrapers as possible. Usually I try to take photos of a skyscraper from a distance, but very often I have to come closer. Then I usually use a 15-30 or a 24-70 lens. The RF mount would only be important for me because of the IBIS that would allow me to take hand held shots with lower ISO even at low light.

 

[AlanF]

For the RF mount there only is the cheap RF 100-400 that has a much lower image quality than the EF version and the RF 100-500 that is VERY expensive, made of plastic and only accepts converters from 300mm up.

The RF 100-400mm does not have much lower IQ than the EF 100-400mm II. The RF 100-400mm is nearly as sharp as the EF 100-400mm II at long distances and actually sharper close up. The RF 100-500mm is more versatile than the EF, being really good with the 2x TC at 1000mm and is far better for close ups with it on. As for plastic, the 100-500 is mostly plastic on the outside, and plastic with much metal on the inside. Modern engineering plastics make for a lighter lenses that are strong. I've used all three extensively on the R5 and can speak from much real first hand experience.

 

[jeffa4444]

Canon make RF lenses that bridge 14mm to 800mm so a very broad range is already covered.
Some of the RF lenses get a bad rap unfairly. Take the RF 100-400mm yes its not the RF 100-500mm but it has its own attributes such as being extremely small and light ideal for hiking and at a bargain price relative to its optical quality.
The RF 24-240mm again is a zoom that whilst it needs image correction especially at 24mm its a 10-1 zoom that can be a single walk around lens on vacation. The RF L lenses like the RF 24-70mm f2.8L now have IS or in the RF 28-70mm f2L a fast aperture and image quality matching primes and effective covering three to four focal lenghts.
Sure I have my wants like everyone else like the RF version of the EF 85mm f1.4L IS lens but the EF version works seamlessly on my R5 & R6 with the added benefit of eye tracking and improve IS.
Canon do need to address a wide angle zoom in the RF-S mount and round out f1.4L lenses.

 

[Bonich]

I mentioned this before. While I’m not certain how it plays out in every country or region, here in the USA a company is allowed to reverse engineer a product to interface with another company’s product, even if it means breaking software encryption in order to do it. This was a decision made by the Librarian Of Congress a number of years ago, within whom the authority to make such decisions lies.

so Canon couldn’t forbid it here. Elsewhere, I don’t know.

USA is not of relevance in this regard.
Camera business is a word wide business.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

The RF 100-400mm does not have much lower IQ than the EF 100-400mm II. The RF 100-400mm is nearly as sharp as the EF 100-400mm II at long distances and actually sharper close up.

Before I bought the EF, I checked out the image quality comparison at "The Digital Picture" and there the RF 100-400 showed quite a horrible result. I did not have the chance to compare those lenses personally. So I had to rely on test like that: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

 

[Bonich]

Actually even if I ever switch to mirrorless I will only buy RF glass if there really is no EF option at all that comes close to it. So the only lens I would probably buy right now is the 800mm f/11. There is no EF option for that. I just bought the Canon EF 100-400 II a few weeks ago and my plan is to keep using that even if I switch. For the RF mount there only is the cheap RF 100-400 that has a much lower image quality than the EF version and the RF 100-500 that is VERY expensive, made of plastic and only accepts converters from 300mm up.

Did you ever shoot the RF 100-400???
You are complaining, the RF 100 to 400 weights 40% of the EF, costs 35% of the EF and is better in close-up, IS and reasonable sharpness.
Not too bad of an offer!

If you want the same apertures and more reach: Take the RF100-500.

Please avoid complaining - and avoid switching!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Before I bought the EF, I checked out the image quality comparison at "The Digital Picture" and there the RF 100-400 showed quite a horrible result. I did not have the chance to sompare those lenses personally. So I had to rely on test like that: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Bryan (TDP's owner) usually tests just one copy of a lens, and sometimes he gets a bad copy. If that happens with an L-series lens, he generally tests more copies (IIRC, for the EF 24-70/2.8L II he tested four copies of the lens). With an inexpensive, non-L lens if he finds poor IQ he generally finds other ways to praise the lens and moves on.

As a specific example, when I was writing the review for his site on the EF-M 18-150, my copy of the lens performed substantially better than his ISO 12233-type testing indicated. He tested a second copy, that one was much better and is the one currently shown in the TDP comparison tool.

 

[AlanF]

Before I bought the EF, I checked out the image quality comparison at "The Digital Picture" and there the RF 100-400 showed quite a horrible result. I did not have the chance to sompare those lenses personally. So I had to rely on test like that: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

The digital picture is not 100% reliable for image comparisons - just compare its comparison with the EF 400mm DO II, it has the zoom sharper. I have had 3 copies of the EF 100-400mm II and 2 of the 400mm DO II and the prime was sharper, as every other review site finds, including lensrentals measurements on many copies.

 

[Bonich]

Recently I added a lens to my RF kit which is not in the Canon lineup:
- adapted Angeneux 185mm 2.3

It was never better than today.
Sorry, no AF, it is a biest to get the focus right but it delivers subject separation.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

The digital picture is not 100% reliable for image comparisons - just compare its comparison with the EF 400mm DO II, it has the zoom sharper.

Yes, the EF 400mm DO II test looks really strange, The corners look sharper than the center.

 

[MythPlayer]

If they're think EF Lens adapter is "solution", Now we have many "Thrid-party camera body" to choice.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, the EF 400mm DO II test looks really strange, The corners look sharper than the center.

The site is otherwise so good that it's too easy to believe everything on it. My experience is don't base your buying on those charts. Some sites do seem more reliable, like opticallimits which rarely gets it wrong.

 

[peconicgp]

Isn't the solution for this to have Sony and Nikon just put in all of their advertising that their new lense mounts support third party autofocus lenses? If that drives consumers to their brands and Canon loses customers than Canon will change their mind sooner than 2024.

 

[emc]

If EF lenses work very well on RF mount with adapters, I don't see how it could be different for third party lenses in RF mount. Unless the adapter is not neutral.

 

[fred]

Can't really blame Canon for being afraid of SIGMA's outstanding glass. Near perfect F1.4 Art primes, premium F2 I series primes featuring the best build quality on the market and an expanding range of traditional as well as innovative zoom lenses - all at half or even 1/3 of the cost of Canon's own lenses. They simply can't compete...

 

[navastronia]

Can't really blame Canon for being afraid of SIGMA's outstanding glass. Near perfect F1.4 Art primes, premium F2 I series primes featuring the best build quality on the market and an expanding range of traditional as well as innovative zoom lenses - all at half or even 1/3 of the cost of Canon's own lenses. They simply can't compete...

Strong statement. I think you're exaggerating a little, but the point remains that they're extremely competitive.

 

[CrPr]

The RF 100-400mm does not have much lower IQ than the EF 100-400mm II. The RF 100-400mm is nearly as sharp as the EF 100-400mm II at long distances and actually sharper close up. The RF 100-500mm is more versatile than the EF, being really good with the 2x TC at 1000mm and is far better for close ups with it on. As for plastic, the 100-500 is mostly plastic on the outside, and plastic with much metal on the inside. Modern engineering plastics make for a lighter lenses that are strong. I've used all three extensively on the R5 and can speak from much real first hand experience.

Totally agree with you. I switched from the EF 100-400 II and I'm using the RF 100-500 for more than a year now, also in rough conditions, with R5 and R6. The EF was very good indeed, but the new one is better in any regard: optics in general, especially close ups and - not to forget 100 mm additional reach. All that in a package that is lighter, a big advantage for nature photography. Thus, for me there is no absolutely no reason to look back ...

 

[AlanF]

Totally agree with you. I switched from the EF 100-400 II and I'm using the RF 100-500 for more than a year now, also in rough conditions, with R5 and R6. The EF was very good indeed, but the new one is better in any regard: optics in general, especially close ups and - not to forget 100 mm additional reach. All that in a package that is lighter, a big advantage for nature photography. Thus, for me there is no absolutely no reason to look back ...

The EF 100-400mm II is an incredibly good lens and I got many years of fun and great shots with it, and so did my wife with my second copy (I even sold one and had to buy another when I missed it). The RF 100-500mm seems very well liked by everyone who actually uses it, and I love it. And, I also love the RF 100-400 for being so light and sharp.