3rd Party lenses: what if

I'd love the see the Tamron 150-500 as an alternative to the rf 100-500. It is almost 1/3 of the price, or sigma 60,150-600 sport lenses.

Firstly I wanted to write that all Sigma Arts. But then I thought about what benefit would it bring? For sure official RF versions would be more expensive than EF versions due to the fee paid to Canon. And they would allow to take away the EF to RF adapter which I do not mind to use at all.

So for me as a FF shooter I do not see any real advantage

But Canon APS-C shooters might benefit a lot from having all the Sigmas etc. as a native RF-S lenses aimed to the crop only since Canon did abandon RF-S lenses.

I might buy a 150-600 or an ultra-wide well suited to astro work. But there is also a good chance that I wouldn't buy any third party lenses.

The reality is that I know of no third party lens currently available for a Sony mount that I would rush out and buy if available in RF.

OlcayK said:

I'd love the see the Tamron 150-500 as an alternative to the rf 100-500. It is almost 1/3 of the price, or sigma 60,150-600 sport lenses.

Click to expand...

What aperture does it have?

Canon_Guy said:

Canon_Guy wrote

So for me as a FF shooter I do not see any real advantage

But Canon APS-C shooters might benefit a lot from having all the Sigmas etc. as a native RF-S lenses aimed to the crop only since Canon did abandon RF-S lenses.

Click to expand...

Have not thought about aps-c shooters. Good point.

danielhenzphoto said:

Hey there

With potentially new hope for 3rd party lenses, what of the lenses existing now, would you want as a RF-lense?

I rencentely was in Japan (thread here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4700805 ) in one of the giant electronic stores and I had a look at the Sigma and Tamron lenses.

I was amazed how light they are even as a 2.8-Zoom lenses.

What lenses would you go for?

The Tamron 35-150 looks very tempting for me. That would cover what I shoot perfectly (heavy, I know).

Click to expand...

I'll play. What if the Tamron 70-180/2.8 VXD (the one available to Sony e-mount) would come to RF mount and can focus like a native RF USM lens and what if it shoots at least 30 fps. in ES with the R6MKII and what if the price is the same as in the Son mount-----I'm in!!!

You nailed my need perfectly. Shooting concerts from the pit, a 35-150 2-2.8 would be perfect. I NEED one badly.

Canon_Guy said:

Firstly I wanted to write that all Sigma Arts. But then I thought about what benefit would it bring? For sure official RF versions would be more expensive than EF versions due to the fee paid to Canon. And they would allow to take away the EF to RF adapter which I do not mind to use at all.

So for me as a FF shooter I do not see any real advantage

Click to expand...

Did you compare the EF 85mm f/1.4 Art HSM + adapter to the FE 85mm f/1.4 Art DN? The main difference isn't the adapter, the main difference is the new mirrorless design.

Canon_Guy said:

But Canon APS-C shooters might benefit a lot from having all the Sigmas etc. as a native RF-S lenses aimed to the crop only since Canon did abandon RF-S lenses.

Click to expand...

danielhenzphoto said:

Hey there

With potentially new hope for 3rd party lenses, what of the lenses existing now, would you want as a RF-lense?

I rencentely was in Japan (thread here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4700805 ) in one of the giant electronic stores and I had a look at the Sigma and Tamron lenses.

I was amazed how light they are even as a 2.8-Zoom lenses.

What lenses would you go for?

The Tamron 35-150 looks very tempting for me. That would cover what I shoot perfectly (heavy, I know).

Click to expand...

I've liked some Tamron and Sigma lenses I've owned, but not enough to risk buying them again for say Canon mount. I wouldn't be confident they could keep up with Canon's changes in AF over time.

If I wanted to use any of them I'd do it on a different body.

thunder storm said:

Canon_Guy said:

Firstly I wanted to write that all Sigma Arts. But then I thought about what benefit would it bring? For sure official RF versions would be more expensive than EF versions due to the fee paid to Canon. And they would allow to take away the EF to RF adapter which I do not mind to use at all.

So for me as a FF shooter I do not see any real advantage

Click to expand...

Did you compare the EF 85mm f/1.4 Art HSM + adapter to the FE 85mm f/1.4 Art DN? The main difference isn't the adapter, the main difference is the new mirrorless design.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think this is an interesting question. I was reading Dustin Abbots review of the Sigma 60-600 and he definitely indicted that the E-Mount version seemed to be better optically than the DSLR version he had tested a couple years back. So, it seems that Sigmas mirrorless offerings aren't always just re-mounted versions but at least some have been massaged to some degree.

Canon_Guy said:

But Canon APS-C shooters might benefit a lot from having all the Sigmas etc. as a native RF-S lenses aimed to the crop only since Canon did abandon RF-S lenses.

Click to expand...

I think it's a little unfair to say that Canon has 'abandoned' RF-S lenses given that it's still very early in the lifecycle. It does seem fair to say they aren't treating it with much urgency, though.

It's a strange situation - IMHO Canon could solve maybe 70% of the RF-S problem just by porting over the 11-22, 22 and 32 from EF-M, leaving only a 2.8 standard zoom as an obvious gap (although one that was never filled by anyone for EF-M, which might mean just accepting the need to adapt an EF-S lens for that)

dwkdnvr said:

Canon_Guy said:

But Canon APS-C shooters might benefit a lot from having all the Sigmas etc. as a native RF-S lenses aimed to the crop only since Canon did abandon RF-S lenses.

Click to expand...

I think it's a little unfair to say that Canon has 'abandoned' RF-S lenses given that it's still very early in the lifecycle. It does seem fair to say they aren't treating it with much urgency, though.

It's a strange situation - IMHO Canon could solve maybe 70% of the RF-S problem just by porting over the 11-22, 22 and 32 from EF-M,

Click to expand...

Won't happen. Ruling these lenses out is what selling RF crop cameras is all about. Canon wants you to buy the R50 + kit zoom first, and full frame RF stm primes (especially the 24 and 35mm, but also the 50mm) as a bridge to the full frame camera.

dwkdnvr said:

leaving only a 2.8 standard zoom as an obvious gap (although one that was never filled by anyone for EF-M, which might mean just accepting the need to adapt an EF-S lens for that)

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

Canon_Guy said:

Firstly I wanted to write that all Sigma Arts. But then I thought about what benefit would it bring? For sure official RF versions would be more expensive than EF versions due to the fee paid to Canon. And they would allow to take away the EF to RF adapter which I do not mind to use at all.

So for me as a FF shooter I do not see any real advantage

Click to expand...

Did you compare the EF 85mm f/1.4 Art HSM + adapter to the FE 85mm f/1.4 Art DN? The main difference isn't the adapter, the main difference is the new mirrorless design.

thunder storm said:

But Canon APS-C shooters might benefit a lot from having all the Sigmas etc. as a native RF-S lenses aimed to the crop only since Canon did abandon RF-S lenses.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I like Sigma ARTs. I have the original Sigma 35/1.4 ART FE. I use it like a 50mm field of view with my Sony A6600. It has a warmish colour which is good for portraiture. The lens is nicely built but bulky. It's an old style as if there's a built in adapter to it to fit into e-mount.

If Sigma will make a 35/1.2 ART in an R mount I'll sell my two 35s (the aforementioned FE and original 35/1.4 L). However, I doubt that will happen so I'll keep my 35s.

There's a few I'd love to have in RF mount.

Tamron 20-40 f2.8. Perfect range for me. Small, light and f2.8.

Tamron 70-180. For same reasons above.

Sigma DG DN series primes. I love the small form factor and all metal build quality. I'll take the 20, 35 and 90mm to start.

Numerous others I'd strongly consider, but I could be happy with a kit of just those lenses for most of my shooting.

thunder storm said:

dwkdnvr said:

Canon_Guy said:

But Canon APS-C shooters might benefit a lot from having all the Sigmas etc. as a native RF-S lenses aimed to the crop only since Canon did abandon RF-S lenses.

Click to expand...

I think it's a little unfair to say that Canon has 'abandoned' RF-S lenses given that it's still very early in the lifecycle. It does seem fair to say they aren't treating it with much urgency, though.

It's a strange situation - IMHO Canon could solve maybe 70% of the RF-S problem just by porting over the 11-22, 22 and 32 from EF-M,

Click to expand...

Won't happen. Ruling these lenses out is what selling RF crop cameras is all about. Canon wants you to buy the R50 + kit zoom first, and full frame RF stm primes (especially the 24 and 35mm, but also the 50mm) as a bridge to the full frame camera.

Click to expand...

You may be right - I guess we'll see eventually. The RF 16, 50 and 85 are perfectly reasonable and inexpensive options to use on an RF-S body, and I wouldn't expect RF-S versions/flavors since there were never EF-M versions either. I'd argue that there is still room for RF-S 22/32 lenses even with the RF 24/35 but I'd understand if they never appeared - it would be disappointing for migrating EF-M users to lose the 32/1.4, but not catastrophic.

The 11-22 would seem to be the most 'critical' of the EF-M lenses to bring over, as it seems to be superior to the EF-S options and there aren't any RF lenses that come close to covering the range. (good thing this seems to be the one RF-S lens we have a rumor on for 2023)

Which just circles back to a fast standard zoom being the real gap for RF-S, and since that is a slot that never got filled on EF-M (even by 3rd parties), it may well be something we never see. (adapt the EF-S 17-55 or suck it up and get the RF 15-35 I guess ). Even Sony who also doesn't really seem to value APS-C as a first-class platform has a $1400 16-55/2.8 though, so who knows. Looking at 3rd party options, really only the Tamron 17-70/2.8 is out there as an APS-C zoom that looks compelling, so it's not like the market is flooded with options (there's also the Sigma 18-50, but it looks less interesting to me given the limited range).

I just got my R7 mostly for birds/wildlife with the RF 100-400, and am still not entirely sure how much 'general purpose' shooting I'll be doing with it. Given my needs, I don't see the current situation as unworkable given the EF-S options available. I have the 18-150 kit lens, and am thinking that picking up the EF-S 10-18, EF-S 24 pancake, RF 50/1.8 would be a pretty solid lineup even if not perfect. All are 'dirt cheap' in photo terms, so the risk is minimal even if we see better versions in the future. I'm not sure I need a 'standard zoom' for photo, but I do find the idea of the Sigma 18-35 for video intriguing.

thunder storm said:

Canon_Guy said:

Firstly I wanted to write that all Sigma Arts. But then I thought about what benefit would it bring? For sure official RF versions would be more expensive than EF versions due to the fee paid to Canon. And they would allow to take away the EF to RF adapter which I do not mind to use at all.

So for me as a FF shooter I do not see any real advantage

Click to expand...

Did you compare the EF 85mm f/1.4 Art HSM + adapter to the FE 85mm f/1.4 Art DN? The main difference isn't the adapter, the main difference is the new mirrorless design.

Click to expand...

No I did not compare them by my self. 85mm is not my favourite FL and I am not planning other than Canon body.

But looking at the TDP comparison, I see the EF 85/1.4 Art vignetts less, has sharper corners but has more PF. So that points rather to some pluses and minuses for each lens, not the overall lead of the DN version.

So speaking about the IQ, DN version gives some difference not the advantage.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

But Canon APS-C shooters might benefit a lot from having all the Sigmas etc. as a native RF-S lenses aimed to the crop only since Canon did abandon RF-S lenses.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Canon_Guy said:

thunder storm said:

Canon_Guy said:

Firstly I wanted to write that all Sigma Arts. But then I thought about what benefit would it bring? For sure official RF versions would be more expensive than EF versions due to the fee paid to Canon. And they would allow to take away the EF to RF adapter which I do not mind to use at all.

So for me as a FF shooter I do not see any real advantage

Click to expand...

Did you compare the EF 85mm f/1.4 Art HSM + adapter to the FE 85mm f/1.4 Art DN? The main difference isn't the adapter, the main difference is the new mirrorless design.

Click to expand...

No I did not compare them by my self. 85mm is not my favourite FL and I am not planning other than Canon body.

But looking at the TDP comparison, I see the EF 85/1.4 Art vignetts less, has sharper corners but has more PF. So that points rather to some pluses and minuses for each lens, not the overall lead of the DN version.

Click to expand...

O.k., granted.

Canon_Guy said:

So speaking about the IQ, DN version gives some difference not the advantage.

Click to expand...

In my opinion the DN has better IQ when portraits is the use case. It's also way more portable, which is the main advantage obviously. There are lots of use cases where the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm might be a bit better (when you need close to zero distortion, best stabilization, the best magnification ratio), however, for me an 85mm prime is mostly used for portraits, so I like this design being geared towards portraits yet being portable. I might not be the only one.

Canon_Guy said:

Canon_Guy said:

Canon_Guy said:

But Canon APS-C shooters might benefit a lot from having all the Sigmas etc. as a native RF-S lenses aimed to the crop only since Canon did abandon RF-S lenses.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

thunder storm said:

Canon_Guy said:

thunder storm said:

Canon_Guy said:

Firstly I wanted to write that all Sigma Arts. But then I thought about what benefit would it bring? For sure official RF versions would be more expensive than EF versions due to the fee paid to Canon. And they would allow to take away the EF to RF adapter which I do not mind to use at all.

So for me as a FF shooter I do not see any real advantage

Click to expand...

Did you compare the EF 85mm f/1.4 Art HSM + adapter to the FE 85mm f/1.4 Art DN? The main difference isn't the adapter, the main difference is the new mirrorless design.

Click to expand...

No I did not compare them by my self. 85mm is not my favourite FL and I am not planning other than Canon body.

But looking at the TDP comparison, I see the EF 85/1.4 Art vignetts less, has sharper corners but has more PF. So that points rather to some pluses and minuses for each lens, not the overall lead of the DN version.

Click to expand...

O.k., granted.

thunder storm said:

So speaking about the IQ, DN version gives some difference not the advantage.

Click to expand...

In my opinion the DN has better IQ when portraits is the use case.

Click to expand...

Agree. For purely portraits its optical deficiencies will not mind in most cases.

thunder storm said:

It's also way more portable, which is the main advantage obviously.

Click to expand...

For people who care about size and weight. Which I am not. But many / most are.

thunder storm said:

There are lots of use cases where the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm might be a bit better (when you need close to zero distortion, best stabilization, the best magnification ratio), however, for me an 85mm prime is mostly used for portraits, so I like this design being geared towards portraits yet being portable.

Click to expand...

Beneficial for sure if this is the target.

thunder storm said:

I might not be the only one.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

But Canon APS-C shooters might benefit a lot from having all the Sigmas etc. as a native RF-S lenses aimed to the crop only since Canon did abandon RF-S lenses.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

With my former Nikon system, I had two Nikkor lenses and three 3rd party ones. I found the Nikkors held their value better and were quicker and easier to sell. I lost more value with the 3rd party lenses and they took longer to sell.

I know that everybody's trying to save a buck/pound/euro, etc. by getting 3rd party glass and/or trying to thumb one's nose at the big guys like Canon, Nikon, etc., but with my R6 purchase last summer I've resolved to buy RF-only glass. I'm hoping that by spending more in the beginning on brand recognition and better quality, I might lose less in the end, i.e. less % of depreciation when it comes time to sell. But to each his own.