Poll, R mount and 3ed party lenses

Canon_Guy wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

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.

Didn't read the whole of your beef but this statement is as wrong as it can be.

What I love about modern Sigma Art lenses is that they deliver 95-100% of the image quality of the Canon RF lenses but for 30-50% lower prices.

Sigmas like 14-24/2.8, 40/1.4, 105/1.4, 135/1.8 are fabulous class leading lenses for very reasonable prices.

IQ wise yes, AF no. We're solely talking about 3rd party EF lenses not offering "full native" AF experience.

I don't know what do you mean by "full native AF experience". But I know from my own experience that by far not all Canon RF lenses have fast and accurate AF. The RF 85/2 is a good (or rather bad) example. Both Sigmas 40/1.4 and 105/1.4 focus MUCH faster. Same as Sigma 85/1.4.

Canon RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm vs Sigma EF 105mm f/1.4 is a night and day difference. The first one is OEM + native RF with all the extra communication pins blah blah blah, while the last one is "adapted" + third party....

The RF 85mm f/2.0 is a landscape lens, it's a macro lens, it has great IS, AF is sufficient for landscapes (although macro not so much), a boat load of contrast, close to zero distortion..... but wait, what again was the 85mm mostly used for? Landscapes? Macro? Apparently that was a bit difficult question for Canon.

The 24mm OTOH is used for a lot for stuff where distortion matters, but what did Canon decide here? Let it distort like crazy, even though it's a prime. Weird design choices....