Re: Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses
38
boldcolors wrote:
Does anyone know if Canon officially claimed that they will not tolerate any 3rd party lenses for the RF mount? I mean...the R was released many years ago by now and we still have no native mount alternatives other than Canons own superexpensive glass. Or the cheapo kit-alternatives which seem to be mediocre at best.
You lost all credibility right there. None of the non-L primes is mediocre. The 35 and 85 are both excellent. The 50 is very good. The 16 is not only good, but also unique (check out the recent DPReview video on this site). The 100-400 is pretty much a reason in itself to switch from a different system to Canon. I say that from extensive experience of using those 5. Almost everyone who has the 24-240 says very good things about that too. I have seen many amazing results from the 800 F11 (lots of YouTube videos from great wildlife photographers).
This may sound weird but if this continues I might consider another system
and I would hate that. I love what Canon is doing right now in the camera department but if they are going to charge $$$$ for the lenses and force me in that direction, I don't know. Furthermore, I happen to like the warmer rendering from Sigma and Tamron more than Canons own look so there is also that.
Of course there is the EF-RF adapter but both Sigma and Tamron have ditched the EF mount it seems so the options are getting slimmer each time they release a new lens for the other brands.
Cheers and enjoy your friday!
Thanks for bringing this up. It’s been at least a day since someone made the laughably false claim that Canon only makes very expensive or mediocre RF lenses, and nothing in between.
-- hide signature --
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile