The state of third-party lenses for the RF mount, Canon may be involved

[UlfricStormcloak]

Canonrumors... you guys need to remove that "Third Party Lenses for RF" article. It is fully misleading in terms of expectation. I've bought my RP because of that article. Now I have RP + 35, 50 and 85 for RF mount. I need 100-400 and 24. Existed two lenses are not good. So I have to buy $3k 100-500 and 15-35 2.8 or switch to any other system. As you understand this is already exceeds my expenditure for this hobby. I will not sell my current setup because it do what I want from it, but there is no future in it. You should not give a good faith in canon for people that might want to buy their first camera or smth.

Maybe I would find a new job and wouldn't care for such expenditure. But I'm not a professional so I don't have any excuse for purchasing L lenses.

 

[InchMetric]

If These are “third party” lenses, what are “second party”? Home made?

 

[InchMetric]

If Canon were a near monopoly, then laws would come into play that required opening up to competition.

Tell me you’re not a lawyer without…

Which countries’ laws? What would say that you can’t have a system with two parts and sell both parts under limited term patents?

 

[David - Sydney]

This is also a Canon site so there will always be a level of bias, just like if the same kind of topic was asked on a Sony or Nikon forum.

I think that there is an assumption that contributors have some Canon gear so there will be a level of bias. Various contributors try to keep the discussion somewhat sensible and stating evidence where possible to make an assertion and there can be robust debate about it. We also share our experiences to improve everyone's knowledge... building up together rather than denigration

 

[David - Sydney]

I see DLee13 has responded to say he has swtiched from Canon to Sony recently. I don't see any reason why that means he should have to leave CR though.

True but it is easy to see through people trolling who are from other ecosystems. It is fine to keep track of the overall market and trends though.

Not quite switching systems (which is what DLee13 was talkding about), but for what it is worth I have shot Canon for 20+ years and in the last couple of years I have recommended to anyone getting into full frame photography to go with Sony, not Canon, unless they had some very specific use case which pointed to getting Canon (eg a very strong reason to shoot with the RF 28-70 f/2L). As it has turned out, all of the people I know who have moved into full frame photography in the last couple of years (admittedly only a few people) have gone with Sony, and all are happy. (And yes, if you are wondering, a switch from Canon to Sony in the not-too-distant future is on the cards for me - primarily because of the lack of third party AF lenses (particularly Sigma and Tamron lenses, and to a lesser extent Samyang lenses) for the RF mount. I just have other priorities right now.)

Can you list the lenses that Canon can't meet from their EF/RF system?
I have the Samyang 14mm/2.8 as Canon's 14mmL is stupidly expensive and poor coma and I don't need auto focus for astro-landscapes. The Samyang is the right price for my usage and budget.

 

[vangelismm]

Except for bird photographers, R APS-C is now dead without third party lens.

 

[dolina]

Except for bird photographers, R APS-C is now dead without third party lens.

RF crop bodies just came out a few months ago. You make it appear that they have been released starting in 2018

 

[chasingrealness]

Well I guess I’m just glad I got a hold of the Samyang 85mm when I did. I love that lens. What I would really like to see is someone working alongside Canon the way that Tamron and Sony are pairing up to provide adjacently but not directly competitive alternative lens options (28-75, 70-180, 35-150, etc).

I think Canon is doing a great job on the glass they’ve made for RF so far. I hope they pick up the pace, though. In my humble opinion, they need to roll out an L-quality wide/super wide prime (preferably something good for group shots and astrophotography) and some L-quality APS-C lenses in the pipeline asap.

 

[jd7]

True but it is easy to see through people trolling who are from other ecosystems. It is fine to keep track of the overall market and trends though.


Can you list the lenses that Canon can't meet from their EF/RF system?
I have the Samyang 14mm/2.8 as Canon's 14mmL is stupidly expensive and poor coma and I don't need auto focus for astro-landscapes. The Samyang is the right price for my usage and budget.

Yes, sure, I can list lenses for the Sony system which are substantially more to my liking than what I can currently get in the Canon EF/RF system. In fact, I have done it before:

Canon’s roadmap includes 32 new lenses by 2026 according to Canon’s CEO

Sounds like you picked the wrong stores. Start with A or B, and you get one every time. Perhaps you missed the reference to the .nl domain (Netherlands). If you read posts from contributors in Europe you would see that many of them have a much more difficult time getting new releases that...

www.canonrumors.com

Sigma: Hopefully One More Mount in 2022

I know Canon Rumors is a pro-Canon website so what I'm saying may be unpopular, but since the introduction of the R system, I just cannot get excited about what Canon is offering, as optically fantastic as lenses such as the RF 85L may be. I haven't bought into the R system and I have no plan to...

www.canonrumors.com

Or to give another example, take the situations with ultra wide zoom lenses. With the Sony system, I can choose between the relatively traditional Sony 16-35 f/2.8 which is highly regarded or lenses such as the small and light Tamron 17-35 f/2.8 and Sigma 16-35 f/2.8. In the Canon system, if I want an RF lens (which ideally I would want), I choose between an extremely expensive (and not exacxtly small and light) f/2.8, a still very expensive f/4, or a rather slow aperture 15-30. If I go with an EF mount lens, I have more options and price points, but nothing very small or light (and the adapter doesn't help in that regard) or even really that cheap. No doubt the EF 16-35 f/4 is an excellent lens, but I would rather take my chances with the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8 or Sigma 16-35 f/2.8 given they are lighter, smaller, cheaper and a stop faster. (Yes, I know there are optical trade offs required to make the lenses smaller and lighter, and yes, I'm sure I could get by just fine with max f/4 on an UWA zoom. However, as I say, I'm more excited to take my chances with a smaller, lighter and cheaper f/2.8 lens.)

To be clear, these are my personal preferences taking into account size, weight, cost, etc. I am not saying Canon doesn't make good gear. Much of it is excellent, and even the gear I'm critical of (eg the RF 35 f/1.8 and RF 85 f/2) is not actually bad gear. I am, however, unimpressed with Canon, taking into account the package of image quality, size, weight, cost, etc. With Sony, I can get a relatively small and light system with at least pretty good image quality, and (probably) not have to sell a kidney to get it. The EF/RF system doens't offer that. (You can use EF gear and pay less compared with RF gear, but a lot of it still isn't exactly cheap and it doesn't allow for small and light.) I know the RF system still hasn't been around that long, but if there were third party manufacturers making RF lenses, there is a greater chance someone would be making the sort of lenses which appeal to me.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Except for bird photographers, R APS-C is now dead without third party lens.

OMG, a camera format that is a couple of months old is already dead because Canon only released two native lenses at launch. I mean, it's not like RF lenses can work on it or the dozens of EF and EF-S lenses can work on it with a simple adapter or anything, right?

Hey chicken little, the sky isn't falling.

 

[Del Paso]

Except for bird photographers, R APS-C is now dead without third party lens.

Your post is simply ridiculous, sorry.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canonrumors... you guys need to remove that "Third Party Lenses for RF" article. It is fully misleading in terms of expectation. I've bought my RP because of that article. Now I have RP + 35, 50 and 85 for RF mount. I need 100-400 and 24. Existed two lenses are not good. So I have to buy $3k 100-500 and 15-35 2.8 or switch to any other system. As you understand this is already exceeds my expenditure for this hobby. I will not sell my current setup because it do what I want from it, but there is no future in it. You should not give a good faith in canon for people that might want to buy their first camera or smth.

Maybe I would find a new job and wouldn't care for such expenditure. But I'm not a professional so I don't have any excuse for purchasing L lenses.

What makes you say the existing RF 100-400 and RF 24/1.8 are not good? One of our highly respected forum members, who has shot with great white lenses and has the RF 100-500L, also has and sings the praises of the RF 100-400.

As for system cost, for FF you can get a set of three zooms covering 15mm to 400mm for $1500, or if you swap the 16/2.8 for the 15-30, you can cover UWA to telephoto for $1250. IMO, that's a bargain for a FF system.

 

[antonio_s]

IIRC the Zeiss EF lenses had a proper license .

There was no licensing of technology on those lenses. Zeiss said it themselves. They were fully manual anyway. Canon also has a page on their site saying there are no third-party licensed EF lenses.

 

[antonio_s]

There is no law against reverse engineering. If the 3rd parties are infringing on patents then that is a different story.
"certain number of users" is the key issue. Given Canon's dominance and ongoing profitability for their shareholders, I don't see them being worried about a few users that they lose vs the potential new EF/RF lenses that they can sell. Canon cannot be everything to everyone and doesn't attempt to do so albeit their EF plus RF lenses cover a huge range of niches.


Canon are migrating to RF. The R mount has only just hit its 4th anniversary and yet people are suggesting that the R system isn't good enough and will move to Sony etc because they have 3rd party lenses.

Clearly Canon they are putting their R&D effort into new bodies and RF lenses. EF has been here since 1987 and Canon said they sold 100 million lenses up to 2014 alone. Some have been updated over time, others have been put to pasture but I don't see a wholesale end-of-sale notices for EF lenses for years to come. Why would Canon do that as virtually all the R&D costs have been amortised and it is only current manufacturing capacity which would be an issue IMHO.

Sigma, Tamron etc will stop making EF lenses when sales drop or it is uneconomical to contain. Neither of which has happened yet.

Canon has stopped manufacturing a number of EF lenses, especially ones with a direct RF replacement. Supply chain, plus there are copious numbers in the wild already of basically all of them.
Sigma for one is still selling all their EF lineup and even marketing the HSM DSLR lenses (on mirrorless bodies too, either in the E versions or on the Canon/Nikon adapters --- I mean, see their promotional blog, which has posts about using the DSLR lenses in the field made recently). I actually think Sigma is going to keep making EF lenses for a bit longer than Canon.
Obviously one day they will stop. I'm actually pretty sure they'll be making RF lenses by then. And considering how they have kept even every superseded DSLR lens on the market, I think really they're a long way off from discontinuing them.

 

[amorse]

Can you list the lenses that Canon can't meet from their EF/RF system?
I have the Samyang 14mm/2.8 as Canon's 14mmL is stupidly expensive and poor coma and I don't need auto focus for astro-landscapes. The Samyang is the right price for my usage and budget.

I think that's my biggest concern here - not necessarily affordability, but the fact that these manufacturers wouldn't be filling niches that aren't lucrative for Canon to fill going forward. For instance, there are EF versions of off brand lenses that Canon just aren't likely to make in RF. Some examples - the Sigma 14mm f/1.8, 14-24 f/2.8, 105mm f/1.4, and the Laowa 24mm probe - for me, all of those are interesting lenses. All of those are available for EF and can be adapted today so the pathway to use them remains, but my fear is that over time these new small niche lenses no-longer get released in a format which can be used on RF. I'm sure the people leaving for lack of these lenses is a drop in the bucket (by definition of being niche lenses) compared to what Canon stands to gain by building walls around the ecosystem, so I understand the decision, but as a user it does concern me.

 

[antonio_s]

Canonrumors... you guys need to remove that "Third Party Lenses for RF" article. It is fully misleading in terms of expectation. I've bought my RP because of that article. Now I have RP + 35, 50 and 85 for RF mount. I need 100-400 and 24. Existed two lenses are not good. So I have to buy $3k 100-500 and 15-35 2.8 or switch to any other system. As you understand this is already exceeds my expenditure for this hobby. I will not sell my current setup because it do what I want from it, but there is no future in it. You should not give a good faith in canon for people that might want to buy their first camera or smth.

Maybe I would find a new job and wouldn't care for such expenditure. But I'm not a professional so I don't have any excuse for purchasing L lenses.

May I recommend the Sigma 100-400C and 24mm prime. These are both readily available and will work like a charm on your RP. There are many improvements using them on the R-series vs. a DSLR.

 

[koenkooi]

There was no licensing of technology on those lenses. Zeiss said it themselves. They were fully manual anyway. Canon also has a page on their site saying there are no third-party licensed EF lenses.

OK, but they are not fully manual, they have electronically controlled apertures.

 

[Bob Howland]

Except for bird photographers, R APS-C is now dead without third party lens.

Wild guess: They will port most or all of the M-mount lenses to RF within two years. I'd like the 11-22 as well but I imagine that, for most people, the 18-150 will be good enough.

 

[UlfricStormcloak]

What makes you say the existing RF 100-400 and RF 24/1.8 are not good? One of our highly respected forum members, who has shot with great white lenses and has the RF 100-500L, also has and sings the praises of the RF 100-400.

As for system cost, for FF you can get a set of three zooms covering 15mm to 400mm for $1500, or if you swap the 16/2.8 for the 15-30, you can cover UWA to telephoto for $1250. IMO, that's a bargain for a FF system.

I would be happy with 100-400 if it would have a good sharpness across the frame. From what I've seen so far in tests it differs from 100-500 like night and day. Sigma on the other hand is not. Sigma starts to struggle on 400mm. I seriously was considered to buy sigma for EF mount, but unfortunately it has focus issues when you're adapting it to rf mount.

On youtube you would find a review for 24mm 1.8. It has god awful coma and this is deal breaker for me. Again I can adapt any other EF lens, yes. But I'm new to the system and the rf mount is fresh as well. I can wait for a proper lens and I did. 24 1.8 not worth the money. With no 3rd party I'm no longer considering to invest in RF mount.

 

[SNJ Ops]

I would be happy with 100-400 if it would have a good sharpness across the frame. From what I've seen so far in tests it differs from 100-500 like night and day. Sigma on the other hand is not. Sigma starts to struggle on 400mm. I seriously was considered to buy sigma for EF mount, but unfortunately it has focus issues when you're adapting it to rf mount.

On youtube you would find a review for 24mm 1.8. It has god awful coma and this is deal breaker for me. Again I can adapt any other EF lens, yes. But I'm new to the system and the rf mount is fresh as well. I can wait for a proper lens and I did. 24 1.8 not worth the money. With no 3rd party I'm no longer considering to invest in RF mount.

For the particular lens you are after options exist on L and E mounts from Sigma in the form of the newly released 20mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4 DG DNs. Canon may make lenses in that category but they haven’t yet and they would cost a lot more while not necessarily being a lot better.