Poll, R mount and 3ed party lenses

noggin2k1 wrote:

PAntunes wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

PAntunes wrote:

davev8 wrote:

PAntunes 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

No, the problem was the AF system of the DSLR cameras when using non cross type focus points.

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

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx

A mis-focused image heads straight to the trash can most of the time and AF accuracy performance testing is always a high priority for me. As I mentioned at the beginning of this review, AF accuracy was the biggest detractor from the predecessor EX model lens, heightening my sensitivity level to this issue on the new one. After capturing over 600 tripod-based images of various subjects strictly for the purpose of testing AF, each capture starting in an out-of-focus condition, I found that this lens focuses consistently accurately. Not every image is perfectly sharp, but a very considerable percentage of them are. Expect peripheral AF points to be slightly less accurate than the center, but they are still working mostly well for me.

https://www.slrlounge.com/sigma-85mm-f1-4-art-review-the-beauty-of-this-beast/

Using back-button AF with cross-type AF points on a Canon 5D Mark III, we put it through its paces. Out of all shots fired, the Sigma 85 Art only missed 30% (70/250) of the shots taken, and some due to unexpected movement of the subject. That is extremely proficient, especially considering that the Canon 85L, when put in the exact same scenarios, missed 40% (100/250) of shots, so chew on that.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/sigma-85mm-f14-dg-hsm-art-review#section-performance

Autofocus is both fast and generally accurate, although the latter is also dependent on the host camera’s abilities.

And I know this because I shot canon for almost a decade and was using the same canon lenses on a 5DII and on a 1Dx, and they performed differently on those two bodies.

are you surprised!!!??? the AF module in the 5Dmkii was from 2005 and had 9 points and it was antiquated then

the AF module on the D1x was brand new for the 1Dx in 2011 with 61 pionts and had 2 and 1/2 times as many cross-type AF points than ALL the AF pionts put together in the 5Dmkii

So now test the Sigma 85 1.4 with that camera instead of the 6D that had a similar AF of the 5DII.

EDIT THIS SHOULD BE IN RED you>>>saying that reverse engineering EF didn’t produce reliable lenses is a myth.<<<<<<

me...i never mention reverse engineering

Back to my first point... Sigma art lenses worked perfectly with the DSLR, or at least as good as any lens on such old af system could..

you cherry-pick the lens and cherry-pick the body as you did ...has one of the newest DSLR canons ever made got cross-type AF points which you infer the sigma lenses need. check out..I am done with sigma lenses by David.C.Allan

this is the end for me as I say before its like arguing with a flat earther..the general consensus is typically but not a hard and fast rule some lenses are fine some folk have no problems but many do. sigma EF fit lenses do have not as reliable AF as a canon lens on canon DSLRs but are better on a MILK

the End

http://thebrotographer.com/reviews/sigma-85mm-art/

I directly compared the Sigma 85mm Art to the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II and found that the Sigma had FAR less dropped frames due to the focus missing when shooting at f/1.4.

So, if the problem is that well known, why are different reviewers finding the sigma to perform just as good as the canons?

Is a 16 year old lens really the benchmark?

Make it a fair comparison, use the EF 85mm 1.4 L IS, and it'll be a very different result.

I think you're missing the point. A sigma lens is not worst because it doesn't nail the focus every time. Many Canon L lenses have the same problem. Even the same lens on different bodies has different behaviours.

So if someone says that third party lenses are not good because they're not 100% perfect, they'll have to say the same about OEM.

No I can definitely see your point: rather than comparing Sigma and Canon lenses that were released within 1 year of each other, you've decided to compare to an antiquated Canon lens, in order to get favourable results for the Sigma.

Sure, if you go hunting through Canon's EF back catalogue, I'm sure you'll find some anomalies where modern 3rd party lenses may perform better.

However, compare modern with modern, and the 3rd party lenses just won't compare.

Oh really? So when I posted the review of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM from 2016, the same year of the sigma, and the review indicates that the lens is inconsistent focusing, that doesn't count, right?

Same year, same AF inconsistency, but I'm guessing that if it isn't the 85 1.4, it doesn't count as a Canon OEM L lens having af problems with canon bodies.

Those lenses work perfectly with that EF protocol when used in a mirrorless camera.

yes i think if you read my post i say sigma lenses work fine on MILC and DSLR live view

i would not put it past canon to trip 3ed party lenses up like in 2003 ish when every sigma lens ever made stopped working on the newly released 10D,300D and i think 1Dmkii

sigma found this out at a launch show when folk that buy a new canon body went over to the sigma stand only to find non of the lenses worked ..sigma had to rechip them ..thats why you can upgrade the firmware in meny 3ed party lenses by USB today

.
.
.
.
Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me it is bad I know it is .....................................................................................................
the EOS M is not dead and wont be for a long time ....as long as you don't want a flagship camera with a VF...if that's the case it died sometime ago
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
.........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
.....................................................................................................
If you wait for a camera that will tick all your boxes ....by then you will have more boxes to tick..... so the wait continues .....David Appleton