Poll, R mount and 3ed party lenses

KevinRA wrote:

davev8 wrote:

PAntunes wrote:

davev8 wrote:

PAntunes wrote:

davev8 wrote:

PAntunes wrote:

davev8 wrote:

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

what is very well documented is that canon cameras had a really bad outer AF points.

try the same lens on a 1D and tell me what you got.

i think you are thinking of the 1Dmkiii which many units were recalled with a folt

The af points on the 1D are all Cross-type. On the 6D only the central one is. So even with canon lenses, the outside af points were not reliable. That’s why for decades people only used central points when needing reliable AF. And even then, it was not 100% reliable even with the best canon lenses.

Try the same lens on a body where all focus points are cross-type and let me know if it’s still inconsistent.

If it’s the implementation of the protocol and not the camera AF system, the same lens would have the same problem with mirrorless cameras, right?

No if you watch the vid i posted the sigma lenses AF is very reliable on a DLSR but only in live view mode while LV mode on a DSLR works in the same way as the AF on a MILC

so there you go. The af on the lens is reliable if the af system is reliable.

if the af system has problems even with canon lenses, you can’t expect it to be perfect with other lenses.

OK i will rephrase it... it is very well documented that the sigma lenses can be much more unreliable in the AF especially in the outer AF points than the alleged unreliable AF system on Canon DSLRs with canon lenses however its well documented that on DSLRs sigma lenses AF works much better in LV on DSLRs and on canon MILC as do canon EF lenses ..

That’s incorrect. It’s not documented that sigma lenses are less reliable than canon

this is like arguing with a flat earther that willfully ignores the evidence and is totally pointless for me to continue

lenses.

The same problems were widely reported with canon lenses as well.

as well...sooo sigma does have AF problems then

it dont matters what the reason is for it ..... whether its the body's fault or the lenses' fault or canon's fault or sigmas fault or whatever...

It does. If someone is saying that third party lenses are not reliable, but in fact it’s canons af that is not reliable, the blame is not on the lens.

it is when canon lenses are clearly documented to work better and the sigma is a 3ed party lens.. obviously no lens is completely infallible

+1 to the OP on lesser reliability on DSLRs on normal phase detect AF (e.g. no live view) - - I had no luck with 5DSr and IV with Sigma wide angle fast primes - and pre then even with cross point AF points with other fast lenses - less consistent even after calibration. Never eve had an issue with a Canon lens.

Plenty of reviewers cite issue - especially Bryan at the digital picture - so whilst not proven - there is plenty of reliable reports out there backing the OPs point.

Mirrorless though for me has worked great - both the M system lenses and my EF 180 macro are perfect - and would suspect a Art lens too be too. Just the 150-600 C I know with a widely reported issue.

I have a variety of EF, RF and Sigma lenses.  Even one Tamron lens.    The Sigma lenses got bought because they were thought better at sometime specific at the time.   IMO the ART lenses were amazing in sharpness but that alone does do all that I require.   I have the ART 50, 70, 85 and 135 and they offered something specific over the Canon lenses while being worse in some way too (heavy, bulky, different colors)  but always they were cheaper and that is very nice.  Some the Canon lenses of those ART FLs simply were not ultra sharp despite have "character"

However, many of my Canon lenses long before DSLR focus was mature and yet they do continue to work better today on mirrorless Canon bodies than they did originally.  (Keep up that good work Canon!)

Old Sigma lenses of that early generation did not perform very well over time.  However, today's Art lenses so far have done well with only a few USB updates.  I think focus speed may changed between operation with some the Canon camera body models.   I currently use the 70D, 7D2, 5DIV, R, R5 and R7.  I do mainly stills shooting with only some video.  Video can involve several cameras at once.