Poll, R mount and 3ed party lenses

PAntunes wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

PAntunes wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

I'm getting a bit bored of this rhetoric now.

Look at Sony. When they launched FE, their in house lenses were absolute bobbins - the majority of which were simply DSLR designs shoehorned into mirrorless (some of which are still "current" designs now.

Without 3rd party support, FE mount would have been a car crash.

Putting the massive RF teles to one side, Canon has given us some brilliant "from the ground up" RF lenses. All alongside having full native support for that massive EF back catalogue, which in turn also works with 3rd party EF lenses.

Do you really think Sony's business model is sustainable? Fast forward 5 years when the vast majority of FE lens purchases are 3rd party - where is Sony's incentive to carry on?

We're in a diminishing market. If locking in RF revenue to Canon keeps them investing in the platform, then that's absolutely fine by me. Photography is a business after all.

There have been a lot of third party offers for EF for decades. Even before the digital boom. And canon was still producing new lenses and it was still sustainable. So why won't it be in the future?

Canon never opened the EF protocol to 3rd parties - hence those lenses had to be reverse engineered to work on EF, and never performed quite the same way.

Sony has fully opened the FE mount, meaning 3rd party lenses can perform identically (or better) than native Sony glass.

My understanding is Canon have done exactly the same as the EF mount and said "here's our patents, if you want to try and work around them, fill your boots".

Sorry but the sigma art and many recent tamron worked perfectly with the DSLR.

Sorry but its VERY well documented that the ART lenses had inconsistent AF, especially on the outer AF points, and is the reason I stay away from them on my DSLRs Christopher Frost 85mm F1.4 ART review   go to 2.20 min