Let's ask Canon (and wait 2-3 years for them to answer, à la this 3rd party lens situation)I don't think that's accurate. Why do we have firmware updates for RF lenses?
Upvote
0
Let's ask Canon (and wait 2-3 years for them to answer, à la this 3rd party lens situation)I don't think that's accurate. Why do we have firmware updates for RF lenses?
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.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?
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.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.
USA is not of relevance in this regard.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.
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=0The 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.
Did you ever shoot the RF 100-400???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.
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.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.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
Yes, the EF 400mm DO II test looks really strange, The corners look sharper than the center.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.
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.Yes, the EF 400mm DO II test looks really strange, The corners look sharper than the center.
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...
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 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.
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.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 ...