I like that expression. I'm going to start using that in my daily interactions.
SIGMA will address the RF mount in 2022 [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
That's not what the evidence shows... No, China still ignores Canon's questionable heavy-handed tactics when it comes to third-party lenses. Look at all the third-party RF lenses that are left on the market after Canon shut down the Korean Samyang/Rokinon RF offerings. You'll find they're all from China. Why? Because they don't give a flying f-stop about a Japanese corporation who can't do diddly squat to them about the situation. What are Canon going to do, complain to the Chinese government???
Since you state that "the evidence shows", then please show the evidence that Canon has gone to court (or tried to) in China and got ignored or refused.
LEGO (the toy building brick company) have successfully taken Chinese copycats to court and won. First time was around 15 years ago. Note that I didn't say that China has become 'perfect', has become a 'rechtsstaat' or that it treats foreign and domestic companies equally. I'm only saying that China has gotten 'better' over the last 10-15 years. (there's possibly an argument somewhere for the statement that they couldn't any get worse).
A lot of people claim things like "China does X" or "China is Y" when they have in fact never set foot there, haven't worked there, haven't spoken with the people, don't speak the language, and don't understand the culture. That includes some fairly well-known journalists and self-proclaimed 'China experts' in the US and in Europe.
I'm not an 'expert' on China in any way, but I have lived and worked there for 2½ years and can speak/read and write a bit. That probably puts me ahead of 90-95% of everyone else.
Some people need a specific lens for their photography. I used to take 50-60% of my pictures with the 300 f/2.8 IS L - I miss an RF version a lot, and the RF 100-500 is no substitute at all.
Yes, the missing RF 300 f/2.8 and an RF version of the 200-400mm f/4 is very curious to me too. Since the R3 'supplemental information' pages indicated that they are fully supported in terms of AF, shutter speed and everything else, I expect (well... I hope) that they'll work very well with the EF-RF adapter that's sitting here on my shelf waiting for an R3 body to pair up to.
Canon, gimme gimme that R3.
unfocused
EOS-1D X Mark III
You can't expect that a lens system will be built out overnight or even in a year or two. No company has infinite production resources. That's even more true today in light of worldwide manufacturing challenges.
Existing EF lenses continue to work on R bodies with the adapter, so if one absolutely needs a lens for their business, it is available.
Canon simply has to prioritize and that is my point. It's only natural that their priorities would focus on the most in demand lenses and they've done a good job in meeting the bulk of the market.
You may really, really need a 300 f2.8 but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that it's a very small minority of photographers who fit into the category.
I wonder if the sales of the RF big whites gave an idea of how vital these kinds of lenses are to get to market too.
I wouldn't get an RF 500 f4 even if it came out because I like having the adapter with filter option with my EF. I know there are 'adapters over my dead body' people, but rather suspect there are more than a few who arent, given the increase in price.
I wouldn't get an RF 500 f4 even if it came out because I like having the adapter with filter option with my EF. I know there are 'adapters over my dead body' people, but rather suspect there are more than a few who arent, given the increase in price.
You continue to use logic and facts here. When will you learn?
That’s a good rationale for lenses like the EF 11-24mm and TS-E 17mm, and it’s why any RF replacement would need to offer something major to outweigh that advantage for my use of those two lenses.
But like my EF 600/4 II, your 500/4 already has a drop-in filter slot. I’m curious as to why you need a second slot. I’m not planning to swap my 600 II for the RF version, but the adapter isn’t the reason.
I can use it for any lens rather than having to buy a lens specific one for the 500mm. Also no variable ND for the drop in 500mm at this stage.
Others have already mentioned reverse engineering the protocols... but there is another handshake that important if they want to release an IS lens... and that's effectively communicating with IBIS unit. With the release of the R5/R6... 3rd party lenses got quiet.
Not up on the Lego case and its details, but that sounds like a knock-off or a fake version, which other countries can ban from being imported, because of consumer protection laws, where the product is purporting to be something its not.
The logical fallacy here is false equivalence, because were talking about a Chinese company designing their own unique patented products that work as accessories on someone else's products. That would like BMW trying to ban other companies from making aftermarket windscreen wipers.
Note that I qualified my initial statement when I specified we were talking about Canon-compatible lenses, and not everything that China does in the broad world of international commerce. I was talking specifics, not generalities. The evidence is the existence of Chinese made Rf mount lenses, you can go order them yourself from China online!
All this is going to be a MOOT POINT in a few days ..... SUPER LIGHT-WEIGHT High Refractive Index Sapphire-coated all-Acrylic lens elements, adaptive shape-changing optics and computational photography algorithms melded together in a FULLY OPENS SOURCE under GPL-3 licence terms lens system.
P.S. Anybody want an f/2.8 9600 mm SHARP Super-Telephoto lens with very very little chromatic aberration for around $2000 USD?
V
P.S. Anybody want an f/2.8 9600 mm SHARP Super-Telephoto lens with very very little chromatic aberration for around $2000 USD?
V
Context really helps when you make a statement that reads like something out of a science-fiction novel. Have aliens landed, or did you get those flux capacitors working and have come back from the future? What exactly are you going on about here???
Treat such posts as if they are statements from young child who’s gotten ahold of some advanced textbooks and excerpted words at random in a vain attempt to sound impressive.
Or do what those of us who’ve been here a while do, and ignore @HarryFilm.
A 9600mm f/2.8 would be greater than 3400mm (11 feet) wide.
Who said I expected anything? I replied to a statement saying that the existing lineup and zooms could cover all needs. Not true. And I still miss it. There are two other - much less popular - big whites with RF mount already, so it certainly could have happened by now.
With @HarryFilm‘s superawesomefantastic open source technology, such a lens would be only the size of a dry erase marker.
unfocused
EOS-1D X Mark III
Then I don’t understand why you replied to my post, since I didn’t say anything like that. If someone said that you should reply to them.
As a side note to your second point, what evidence do you have that the two existing big whites are much less popular than the one you want? And how does the existence of two other lenses prove that Canon could have released a third lens by now?, since you probably aren’t privy to their sales data and manufacturing capacity.
I too do think that Canon's current RF lineup of 24 lenses covers virtually all applications in photography. Perhaps there are a few exceptions where an EF lens is needed with an adapter, but that's just fine for now.
What I think what Sigma brings to the table is (1) better prices, and (2) availability. For example, Sigma's 35/1.4 DG DN for Sony costs $900 and Canon's 35/1.4L mk2 costs $1800. The much-anticipated Canon 35/1.2 will likely cost a lot more than that.
Much has been said about Sigma 150-600 versus Canon RF 100-500. I'm sure that the Canon is a tad better and some people prefer it for that reason. For me, the 100-500 is simply too rich for my blood. I bought the Sigma when it first came out and I'm extremely happy with it. It perfectly serves my needs as an amateur. I suppose that we have the 100-400 now, but I really appreciate the extra reach and extra 2/3 stop at the long end of the Sigma lens.
What I think what Sigma brings to the table is (1) better prices, and (2) availability. For example, Sigma's 35/1.4 DG DN for Sony costs $900 and Canon's 35/1.4L mk2 costs $1800. The much-anticipated Canon 35/1.2 will likely cost a lot more than that.
Much has been said about Sigma 150-600 versus Canon RF 100-500. I'm sure that the Canon is a tad better and some people prefer it for that reason. For me, the 100-500 is simply too rich for my blood. I bought the Sigma when it first came out and I'm extremely happy with it. It perfectly serves my needs as an amateur. I suppose that we have the 100-400 now, but I really appreciate the extra reach and extra 2/3 stop at the long end of the Sigma lens.
I didn't start shooting until I was like 28 (I was worried I'd geek out and spend the price of a house on gear... and I did) but still that was '95 and I learned old-skool, brace against forehead, left hand really supporting the gear, elbow on chest...
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)