Poll, R mount and 3ed party lenses

Zeee wrote:

davev8 wrote:

unhappymeal wrote:

davev8 wrote:

Dave C 150 wrote:

It should be obvious that people would vote for wanting 3rd Party lenses in RF mount. But not everybody has. Why could you possibly not want that?

because some folk want different things to you

You don't have to buy them if you don't want to. But experience tells us that they are generally cheaper ( I know some people on DPR have unlimited funds!) and the odd ones crop up that are better than the OEM version. What's not to like? Then again, some people voted for Brexit!

There is a big list of negatives with 3ed party lenses

just like Brexit ..but some still voted for it

Such as? There seems to be no negatives on the FE mount. They focus like native lenses and many are competitive with (or better than) Sony's offerings. What's not to like?

so you have not heard that ...many 3ed party lenses have often had to go back for firmware updates with new bodys. like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 .or can be done with a dock..that why sigma invented the dock so AF and other things can be adjusted,, ...it is well documented that sony fit 3ed party lenses the IS oftern doesn't play as well with the IBIS as sony lenses also with sony some of the 3ed party lenses don't allow full speed burst rate according to DPR latest vid..my Tamron 24-70F2.8VR i can't switch the VR on or i get soft photos on my R6...no probs with my R lenses

That happened to me with a Sigma flash which is why I stopped buying 3rd party.

i have no problem with 3ed party lenses but in the past, i have not bought some solely for incompatibility problems like the sigma ART lenses often have inconsistent AF with DSLRs ..but with MILC they seem fine so are on my shopping list

The crux I think here is reverse engineering vs licensing - reverse engineering can be an issue - as it seems to be with the sigma 150-600 and the R5/7 - and how it was with the sigma 50 1.4 Art and 35 1.4 Art and pre then many others with DSLR's.

But to dismiss third party I think one misses out - Canon does not make a 180mm IS macro so really like my sigma 180 OS f/2.8 which works brilliantly on the R5 and R10 - the EF-M little lenses cover areas Canon dont make like 56mm f/1.4 and 16 f/1.4 which would be great to see in RF and work perfectly on EF-M. I'd not buy super expensive (the 500mm f/4 sigma is reported to not AF as well as the canon) - or where there is a reasonable priced Canon equiv like the 24-105 or 70-200s..  Some great 3rd party glass though Canon simply does not make - or like the 24 Art which the sigma is arguably better (bar AF on DSLRs) than the 24 EF L and much cheaper too.

Choices - great to have on EF and EF-M - bit of a shame re RF.....