Yongnuo to release Canon RF 35mm F2.0

[Walrus]

In this case, it has a smaller aperture, lacks IS, is bigger and costs more than the 1st party alternative. So I'm not sure who the target market for this lens is, maybe it has less focus breathing and is better for video use?

This lens is of course pretty uninteresting; it's clearly other lenses I want to see released in RF mount.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I assume you mean AF-lenses, and then I think you are almost right. But there was at least also a Samyang AF 14mm for RF-mount.

It does not look too bad

 

[EOS 4 Life]

In this case, it has a smaller aperture, lacks IS, is bigger and costs more than the 1st party alternative. So I'm not sure who the target market for this lens is

It is for us wanting to hear people stop whining over third-party lenses.

 

[ashmadux]

35 mm on crop is just weird, the view is not wide or short and the separation with f2 is not particularly great.. I used to adapt my Canon 35f2is to rebels/M-Bodies but that was terrible.

IMHO, YMMV

 

[LDS]

With ILC market shrinking, Canon should just act like Apple: give me 30% on every lens you sell if you want to mount it on one of my cameras...

And some people will also then tell Canon is right because that way it would ensure "safety", "security" and "quality"...

 

[davidespinosa]

Canon allowing this lens may set a legal precedent that Sigma could take advantage of.

I’m thinking of the case where a trademark owner is obligated to defend the mark. Don’t know whether IP works the same way.

 

[dtaylor]

"For me though, the more interesting aspect is that it's another auto-focus lens for the RF mount. The more vendors that start making RF auto-focus lenses, the better."

Agreed - if this goes on sale normally, it would be more evidence that there is a practical change of stance by Canon. AF 3rd party lenses are what (I think) everyone wants, both for 'exotic' specifications, and simply alternatives (generally at a lower cost) to Canon versions.

I'm still of the opinion that the other manufacturers violated a Canon patent or used their lens firmware. It is legal to make compatible products as long as you can reverse engineer the interface without violating a manufacturer's IP. Companies can't just threaten 3rd parties who have done this correctly, it always ends badly for them. Yongnuo would appear to have done their homework. As for Sigma or Tamron, they might be holding out for a license. Their lenses on EF were sometimes plagued by compatibility issues over time. They may not want to risk that now that they are known for higher priced, first class lenses.

 

[Jethro]

I'm still of the opinion that the other manufacturers violated a Canon patent or used their lens firmware. It is legal to make compatible products as long as you can reverse engineer the interface without violating a manufacturer's IP. Companies can't just threaten 3rd parties who have done this correctly, it always ends badly for them. Yongnuo would appear to have done their homework. As for Sigma or Tamron, they might be holding out for a license. Their lenses on EF were sometimes plagued by compatibility issues over time. They may not want to risk that now that they are known for higher priced, first class lenses.

You may be right - we'll have to wait and see whether others now can / will follow suit. And, yes, exactly how well the Yongnuo version of AF works in test situations.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Canon allowing this lens may set a legal precedent that Sigma could take advantage of.

I’m thinking of the case where a trademark owner is obligated to defend the mark. Don’t know whether IP works the same way.

Yongnuo is legally ok because they denied the lenses compatibility on RF mount.... It's an "accident" that their lenses movable electronic contact points work on RF cametas. Canon didn't design movable contact points on their lenses.

Think of it like the Huawei Mate 60 pro. That phone is in 5G+ speeds in actual use, but it will not display 5G, nor Huawei admits that the phone is 5G capable.

 

[DhlcadR6]

I'm still of the opinion that the other manufacturers violated a Canon patent or used their lens firmware. It is legal to make compatible products as long as you can reverse engineer the interface without violating a manufacturer's IP. Companies can't just threaten 3rd parties who have done this correctly, it always ends badly for them. Yongnuo would appear to have done their homework. As for Sigma or Tamron, they might be holding out for a license. Their lenses on EF were sometimes plagued by compatibility issues over time. They may not want to risk that now that they are known for higher priced, first class lenses.

SigTam don't want to damage their reputations after spending the last decade making some unique&better lenses than 1st party. Samyang and the CN 3rd parties are in SigTam's old spot.

 

[Mr.Click]

This Yongnuo Lens has smoother Bokeh than RF 35 1,8.
I own the RF 35, but I don't Like it's Bokeh. Cause of this,I also own the Tamron 35 1,4. It's lovely ,but huge with mounted RF Adapter.
Would like to have a small native RF Mount Lens with nice Bokeh.

 

[scyrene]

I'll believe it when I see it but regardless, if I were advising someone in the market for such a lens, I would strongly recommend a used RF 35. There are plenty around, and the price difference at this point is surely not substantial. Even if you are pinching every penny, I can't see much attraction in this third party offering. What a lot of the vocal critics have been clamouring for seems to be niches not yet served by native RF lenses. Who knows when they will arrive.

 

[Del Paso]

I'll believe it when I see it but regardless, if I were advising someone in the market for such a lens, I would strongly recommend a used RF 35. There are plenty around, and the price difference at this point is surely not substantial. Even if you are pinching every penny, I can't see much attraction in this third party offering. What a lot of the vocal critics have been clamouring for seems to be niches not yet served by native RF lenses. Who knows when they will arrive.

What I'll never understand is why all those who seem to favour 3rd. party lenses ("better, at least as good, more interesting focals, apertures, price, size, weight") don't get a Panasonic, Nikon or Soni body in order to enjoy these wonderful optics...
If I were dissatisfied with Canon's offer, I wouldn't spend my time whining here, I'd swap brands. I once did it myself.
And don't tell me it's for the Canon bodies, there are enough alternatives.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What I'll never understand is why all those who seem to favour 3rd. party lenses ("better, at least as good, more interesting focals, apertures, price, size, weight") don't get a Panasonic, Nikon or Soni body in order to enjoy these wonderful optics...
If I were dissatisfied with Canon's offer, I wouldn't spend my time whining here, I'd swap brands. I once did it myself.
And don't tell me it's for the Canon bodies, there are enough alternatives.

I get what you're saying, but I can also see that someone wanting 3rd party alternatives for RF because they can't afford the OEM lenses may also not easily be able to afford switching systems, which isn't cheap.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

As for Sigma or Tamron, they might be holding out for a license

Third-party RF lenses had a history of malfunctioning every time Canon released a firmware update.
I think Sigma and Tamron would want to avoid that.

 

[Del Paso]

I get what you're saying, but I can also see that someone wanting 3rd party alternatives for RF because they can't afford the OEM lenses may also not easily be able to afford switching systems, which isn't cheap.

I was referring exclusively to those who continuously criticize whatever new lens Canon do introduce, at the same time praising all the wonderful 3rd. party lenses, they systematically consider to be better or more adequate to the task.
Knowing there are certainly excellent Sigma or Zeiss 3rd party offers, which (Zeiss) I also use.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Yongnuo is legally ok because they denied the lenses compatibility on RF mount.... It's an "accident" that their lenses movable electronic contact points work on RF cametas. Canon didn't design movable contact points on their lenses.

Think of it like the Huawei Mate 60 pro. That phone is in 5G+ speeds in actual use, but it will not display 5G, nor Huawei admits that the phone is 5G capable.

Yongnou mentions "for Canon EOS R cameras".
All of the other lenses I have seen that happen to work say "multi-function mount".

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I'll believe it when I see it but regardless

It is already for sale on their website.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

And don't tell me it's for the Canon bodies, there are enough alternatives

Not at the entry level.
Although, I do not think those are the people whining.
I come across a lot of folks whining on their behalf.
Most entry-level people buy a kit lens and maybe a nifty 50.
Adding in more lens choices adds more confusion.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Yongnuo YN 35mm f/2 R DF DSM autofocus full-frame lens for Canon RF mount released - Photo Rumors

The previously reported Yongnuo YN 35mm f/2 R DF DSM autofocus full-frame lens for Canon RF mount is now officially released and available for pre-order for $375. Here is what you need to know: Small body and light weight Supports custom setting of control ring Equipped with AF/MF focus mode...

photorumors.com