No News for Third Party Full Frame Canon RF Lenses

[John Wilde]

In all seriousness, I sometimes wonder if the demise of the M format was due in part to the fact some M devices did in fact "hit the APS-C lineup correctly"...I know both of my daughters think so.

Canon's best selling M was the M50. The R50 is an appropriate replacement.

It doesn't make economic sense to have two lens mounts. Canon's flaw was not starting with the RF mount in the first place.

 

[David - Sydney]

I’m hoping for a 3rd party 1:1 200-ish mm macro with AF, but only it it outperforms my EF180L. I don’t have any other wishes for lenses, just for V1 sized RF bodies

Hard to imagine that a 3rd party would release a lens not better than a ~30 year old lens.

 

[CharlesB]

I’m hoping for a 3rd party 1:1 200-ish mm macro with AF, but only it it outperforms my EF180L. I don’t have any other wishes for lenses, just for V1 sized RF bodies

I was considering getting the EF180L very recently. I have the R5 Mark ii but there's such good deals on some of the old EF lenses, it's hard not to consider them.

How are you liking the 180 and what camera do you have it on? I have the 100L macro, so I wasn't sure if it'd make sense getting the 180. I have a few other macro lenses too, my most used is probably the mp-e 65mm.

Maybe it makes more sense to wait for a 3rd party or new RF mount that can compete. I feel like if there's a 3rd party lens manufacturer that can/will make something it will be Venus/Laowa.

 

[David - Sydney]

View attachment 222747

I had never looked at the numbers, but a guy on Facebook did the numbers. (I can't confirm the accuracy, but I'm sure it's close if not bang on)

Sure we have EF, but I think people want their core lenses with an RF mount.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. The lack of nuance does not constitute reality.

Sony haven't changed their E mount since 2010 vs a mount change like Nikon and Canon have done within the last ~6 years. So I assume that the ~230 refers to the E mount Sony lenses both Sony and 3rd parties produced still 2010.

Saying that there is only 50 RF lenses seems to negate all the Canon EF/EF-S lenses not to mention the 3rd party ones that still work perfectly via an adapter.
I was using 3 EF FF lenses on my RP/R5 yesterday (8-15/4, Samyang 14/2.8 and Sigma 20/1.4). Only one of these is a manual AF lens.

Perhaps they could have said "native RF mount lenses" or maybe lenses currently for sale new for instance would have prompted people to think more....
I wonder if the Sony figure includes the Canon EF lenses that could be adapted to E mount? Sony also didn't have an option but to open their E mount as they had no OEM lenses back in 2010.

"I think people want their core lenses with an RF mount."... in an ideal world - yes but it isn't a major impediment except in some people's minds.
I would be quite happy with a manual Sigma 14/1.4 in EF mount for instance and wish that other 3rd parties were still releasing new lenses in EF mount.
The release of manual Zeiss lenses for R mount wouldn't factor into this statistic either.

 

[Swissbob]

If they hadn’t released the recent low budget fixed aperture zooms I would’ve been switching to Sony. Thankfully the 28-70 f2.8 was exactly what I needed.

Although I would still love the Tamron 35-150. Perfect lens for me.

I have this lens for Sony E Mount, it’s a masterpiece

If Canon would develop one, I would probably use it much more than my 24-105 2.8.

 

[koenkooi]

I was considering getting the EF180L very recently. I have the R5 Mark ii but there's such good deals on some of the old EF lenses, it's hard not to consider them.

How are you liking the 180 and what camera do you have it on? I have the 100L macro, so I wasn't sure if it'd make sense getting the 180. I have a few other macro lenses too, my most used is probably the mp-e 65mm.

Maybe it makes more sense to wait for a 3rd party or new RF mount that can compete. I feel like if there's a 3rd party lens manufacturer that can/will make something it will be Venus/Laowa.

I use the EF180L on an R5II, R8 and M6II. I like it very much and it performs as expected of an L macro lens. The biggest downsides are the glacial AF and the glacial aperture mechanism. When supporting the lens with my left hand I can feel the aperture closing each shot, even with gloves on!

It's a lot longer and heavier than a 100mm, but a fully extended MP-E65 has a similar feel. The IBIS in the R5II stabilizes the EVF nicely, which helps me with framing a lot. I don't notice it having an impact on actual photos.

 

[koenkooi]

Hard to imagine that a 3rd party would release a lens not better than a ~30 year old lens.

It could have IS that doesn't jive with Canon IBIS, like my Sigma 150OS or now-sold Canon EF100L.

 

[scyrene]

View attachment 222747

I had never looked at the numbers, but a guy on Facebook did the numbers. (I can't confirm the accuracy, but I'm sure it's close if not bang on)

Sure we have EF, but I think people want their core lenses with an RF mount.

Obviously more choice is generally better, but I wonder how much overlap there is in the various mounts. Or to put it another way, how many distinct types of lens (focal lengths, apertures, other features like macro capability) are represented by these numbers. Just a thought.

 

[David - Sydney]

It could have IS that doesn't jive with Canon IBIS, like my Sigma 150OS or now-sold Canon EF100L.

I didn't find any problems using my EF100L with my R5. I thought that IBIS wouldn't have been as useful for shorter focal lengths in any case.
I didn't find any substantial improvement for instance moving to the RF100L except for the extra magnification and maybe faster focus speed.

 

[koenkooi]

I didn't find any problems using my EF100L with my R5. I thought that IBIS wouldn't have been as useful for shorter focal lengths in any case.
I didn't find any substantial improvement for instance moving to the RF100L except for the extra magnification and maybe faster focus speed.

Switching between the RP and R5, the pictures done with the R5 had a much bigger motion blur (after downscaling to 26MP to match the RP) for the same settings and subject. There's something in the 'old' ILIS algos that hits a low performance band around 1/200s. Pretty much all Canon IS systems will amplify shuttershock when using MS at that speed, but even with EFCS the EF100L+R5 combo had motion smearing, where the RP didn't. Turning IS off on the lens made it better, but I didn't spend all that € on ILIS and IBIS to keep it disabled!

After switching to the RF100L all those issues went away. I don't know if it was just my copy, my way of handling or a combination there of, but I hated the EF100L on my R5.

 

[Deleted member 392549]

I cannot say that I have had any such issues with the EF100L on the R6, and I use it a lot as a portrait tele.

 

[Bob Howland]

Canon's best selling M was the M50. The R50 is an appropriate replacement.

It doesn't make economic sense to have two lens mounts. Canon's flaw was not starting with the RF mount in the first place.

Also, the m-mount used the EF-mount intereface protocol. With the end of the M-mount, Canon no longer has to maintain that.

 

[el peso]

I cannot say that I have had any such issues with the EF100L on the R6, and I use it a lot as a portrait tele.

Huh, I intentionally bought a new EF100L from 2010 for my R6m2 after reading stories about the RF100L shift focus. More than that, it cost me as twice as cheap compared to RF100L from grey sellers. This is the only EF lens for me.

 

[Bonich]

So far only Cosina has released FF RF lenses, but all 3 don’t have AF. I guess Zeiss would be the second company, also all manual focus.

Those Voigtländer lenses are great and they make my AF lenses to sit unemployed in the shelf
Those Zeiss lenses will be even greater.

But do not forget your statement to be wrong: As far as I know the most 3rd party lenses for FF RF most are made by Loawa, I didn't even count them.

 

[Dima135]

I think I've had enough. I'll switch to Nikon in a year or two. By and large, Canon has not produced a single RF lens that would meet my needs and be affordable for me.
All companies now have a trend of making good lenses in the mid-range segment. You could say that Nikon already has two lines of such primes. Even non-G Sony primes have weather protection and internal focus. People talk about Sigma and Tamron, but I don't even ask for that. It would be enough for me if Canon itself filled the middle segment. But Canon only start trying this year do something like that with their new 28-70 and 16-28, and it looks terrible. They turned out to be worse and more expensive than the first attempts of Tamron and Sigma in this direction. In fact, these lenses are entirely in line with the L-series price logic. You kind of get more value if you buy the old 24-70. You don't have to extend it, it has a very usable 70mm with good sharpness, the correction profile doesn't cut off so much of the image at 28mm and you will get a dedicated separate control ring. And I'm not sure if Canon will try to make mid-range primes and what will come of it considering how much their standarts has dropped in the L series.
And don't even mention EF. All other mounts can also work with the EF. Sometimes even better than canon. On Sony, you can work with the "sticky" EF Sigmas from the nineties, while digital Canons have not supported them for a long time. In addition, due to the fact that many photographers like me cannot find anything useful on the RF mount, the prices for EF lenses are in no hurry to fall. Our Sigma Art lenses are the most expensive on used market.
Canon is obviously in a profit-squeezing phase, and it's a pretty long one. I can't wait too long for them to wake up.

 

[Loswr]

I think I've had enough. I'll switch to Nikon in a year or two. By and large, Canon has not produced a single RF lens that would meet my needs and be affordable for me.

Why do people think this is an airport? Departures don't need to be announced. Bye.

In addition, due to the fact that many photographers like me cannot find anything useful on the RF mount, the prices for EF lenses are in no hurry to fall.

Given that Canon continues to dominate the market, the 'many photographers like you' don't represent a meaningful number. Sorry.

 

[rombe3jr]

If they hadn’t released the recent low budget fixed aperture zooms I would’ve been switching to Sony. Thankfully the 28-70 f2.8 was exactly what I needed.

Although I would still love the Tamron 35-150. Perfect lens for me.

I think you are representative of a large portion of the market. Canon is barely keeping up with the lens market. Sigma & Tamron are just the top of the iceberg. Chinese lens manufacturers are bringing low aperture glass at small fractions of the cost of Canon to E/X/Z mount... the competition is getting fierce.

 

[mimbu]

Canon has always hated the 3rd party makers. Back in the SLR days they used to intentionally break compatibility when they released new cameras. We had to send lenses into Sigma or Tamron for "chip upgrades" to restore compatibility. Canon is the reason those USB docks were released, so that lens firmware could be upgraded by users instead of requiring the lenses to be sent back to the manufacturers.

Personally I don't think Canon has plans to open RF mount to full frame third party AF lenses anytime soon. Perhaps never.

If they do, it will be in a VERY limited way, far more limited than what Nikon has done.

 

[Del Paso]

I was considering getting the EF180L very recently. I have the R5 Mark ii but there's such good deals on some of the old EF lenses, it's hard not to consider them.

How are you liking the 180 and what camera do you have it on? I have the 100L macro, so I wasn't sure if it'd make sense getting the 180. I have a few other macro lenses too, my most used is probably the mp-e 65mm.

Maybe it makes more sense to wait for a 3rd party or new RF mount that can compete. I feel like if there's a 3rd party lens manufacturer that can/will make something it will be Venus/Laowa.

Before buying the EF 180 macro, better test it also at infinity.
Mine was a tack -sharp macro lens, but really poor at infinity. Corners were absolutely mushy, even at f/11, certainly a case of bad luck.
I also missed the optical stabilization (minor drawback!)

 

[Billybob]

Well many of us simply want better versions of our EF mount lenses. All I wanted was a new version of the 50 1.4 which is my most used lens over the last decade and still works great as long as I use it at f2.5 or higher. There isn't an RF equivalent of my EF lenses that I need to buy aside from that 50 and I can't talk about the latest Canon attempt without cursing and raging.

...

I never get pissed enough that I would sell my existing Canon gear but I could see a ton of other people doing it because this is just nonsense already.

I haven't sold and won't be selling my Canon gear. I've always preferred Canon ergonomics to either of the other guys', and there are a trio of RF zooms (14-35mm f/4, 70-200mm f/2.8, and 100-500mm; a trinity?), that cover my basic needs without complaints.

Of course, there are "special needs", mostly primes, that forced me to look elsewhere. I have a Nikon body and mostly prime lenses, either Z or E mount. Sony lenses work great on Nikon Z bodies (the universal recipient?), so I have Sony's fantastic 50mm 1.4 GM (less than a $1000 during the Christmas holidays) and 135mm 1.8 GM, and several Nikon exotic long primes (400mm TC, 600 and 800 pf). This works for me.

So, while I prefer to use my Canon R5 bodies (I took one with the 100-500 on an African safari; no Nikon gear because photography was not the primary focus of the trip), I would prefer to add a long exotic Canon DO to complete my travel safari kit.