How Much Longer Will You Wait?

Batdude said:

For third party lenses.

Im complete new to the Canon world, and (so far) I think I’m okay with the lenses I have. I actually have not done any paid work since I purchased my new R3 several months ago, so I have put less than 1000 images to it, so if I wanted to resell it with the new lenses I got and go with a different brand I might not lose that much.
I’m not gonna lie, I keep seeing how other camera manufacturers keep coming out with awesome prime lenses and some wide aperture zooms as well, and that’s just awesome man, and I do ask myself if I’m going to be happy with Canon long term because of the lack of excitement due to the restrictions or limitations of not having the option of a wider selection of third party lenses. I mean, how long has it been since Canon came out with the RF mount and do you personally not mind not having the opportunity of using a wider lens selection at a more affordable cost?

Like I said, as of now I’m very happy with my R3, the camera is just beautiful, but, I’m obviously still restricted and that’s just not a cool feeling either you know what I’m saying?

Click to expand...

I was hoping I could shoot Canon and sony side by side, but I think I will buy a second Sony body because the lens options I like do not exist for Canon and/or are expensive for what it is.

It's not just third party. I also thing some of the GM primes are better than VCM or L prime options. The Sony 20-70mm f/4.0 isn't a third party lens, Canon doesn't have it.

And some of the third party lenses aren't just affordable, they are unique as well. 28-45mm f/1.8. Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8.

It depends on your needs of course, Canon has some options which the FE mount is lacking.

Batdude said:

PicPocket said:

I don't see any real sense in waiting for third party lenses. Whether a lens is third party or not is not a fundamental property of what I can shoot with it, so I really don't care

So, that boils down the real question to whether there is a lens available from a third party on a different mount that I would "need" to be able to make a certain type of image

Click to expand...

But that’s not the “real question” I’m asking. My question is very simple, how long will this go on, not having the option of third party lenses at a more affordable cost. Heck, not necessarily third party lenses, but let’s include more affordable Canon lenses something like the 24 1.4 but more affordable, perhaps even a F2 version. I mean, is every single canon lens I want going to cost me $1600 +?

The Fujifilm 16mm 1.4 I had was one of THE best lenses I have ever used and it never let me down at every single event I did, and is less than $1k.

Click to expand...

You went with the 28-70. I went with the RF 24-105 F4L and love it at 24mm - I can do best in class NR with DXO PL

Batdude said:

Batdude said:

While this debate was going on, canon came out with quite a few lenses, and I managed to slowly switch from my EF kit to RF ones one by one. Not necessarily one for one replacements, because just like 3rd parties may make some unique lenses, canon has done the same with their RF line too, enough to tempt me

Click to expand...

And that’s totally fine and I’m glad and I do see Canon has a lot more RF lenses and now I own one of the lenses I fell in love with some years ago the RF 70-200 F4, but again, that’s not the point here.

Batdude said:

The end result is that at this stage I think I have everything I may need to do every type of photography I like to do. To me, worrying about what else is there isn't as much of a deal then what I can achieve with what I already have

I think you need to ask yourself, what exactly are you missing that is truly limiting you. Then it's a real question

Click to expand...

Again, more affordable third party options, again an example is a more affordable 24mm prime lens, even a F2 Canon version would be good enough for me for the type of low light photography I do.

Now, per other people’s responses maybe there is an EF version of a less expensive 24mm Canon lens to use with the AF adapter? I will continue doing more research but unfortunately I have to sleep now as I have to get up really early tomorrow so we’ll catch up.

Thank you everybody

Click to expand...

if it were me, I'd swap out the R3 for the R5II, then with the higher mpxl you get crop-ability and different Field's of views with your lenses

Well I think when Canon shut down Viltrox a while back it did kinda put a dampener on other manufacturers.

As someone from the Nikon side of things, having options is indeed nice. Like Tamron has the budget trinity G2 available in the Z mount now. Took a few years but it certainly got here eventually. If I'm recommending someone on the start and up, those are the kind of lenses I'll recommend over the Nikon's own expensive S line trinity.

IMO it's also matter of production capacity. Sigma also just said they have issues with producing the 300-600 E mount. The camera industry isn't the kind of growth industry that will justify frontloading production like phones. So I wouldn't put it past them to just slowly make until there's enough to go around after they see the E mount saturating.

I'm currently putting all of my Nikon stuff back inside it's boxes and will sell most of the system. I will keep the Z8 with the Tamron 35-150, the 20mm 1.8 and potentially add a Tamron 50-400. That's still a very capable setup when going on vacation or a quick trip and wanting to say "low profile" and for everything else Canon simply has the better solution.

The grass is often greener on the other side of the fence, but realistically: what can Nikon offer (outside of long glass) that Canon can't? They have excellent 1.8 primes but the market has evolved into 1.4 being the new "standard", most of their lenses are quite large and heavy and even the Tamron G2 Trinity is matched with the new 2.8 STM zooms (and the 70-200 F4). Now that Canon has those much discussed/hated VCMs I don't see any need for the excellent but not super snappy / large 1.8 Nikkor primes. Their 1.4 stuff is a joke and AF is sightly more consistent across the body lineup as well and they still don't have any high performing compact body.

Sony looks a bit more attractive right now with all of the latest lens releases, but here I would mainly be interested in equally expensive OEM stuff and maybe some Sigma exots (e.g. the 2.0 zooms). And then there is the issue of third party limitations by Sony and the absence of some faster mid range / prosumer bodies. I don't want to go back to mechanical shutter and slow continuous shooting. Granted, some of the chinese lenses look great (songraw 1.2, some of the Viltrox stuff, ..) but most of them have at least one flaw. Even the latest sigma 35 1.2 ii doesn't look that great in the bokeh department, even worse when stopped down and obviously sigma is not super affordable either. And while stuff like the new Viltrox EVO series is absolute fantastic value for the money, 1.8 or 2.0 primes lost quite some appeal, now that Sony shrank down their 2.0 standard zoom to its current level. If you can carry the still somewhat hefty weight "on cam" you will be immensively more flexible with just that one lens.

Then there is the L mount alliance that seems to struggle to sell their bodies and lenses (Leica aside), which is not good for someone like me who constantly buys and sells stuff and of course autofocus is not on par either.

Overall Canon has a solid system and I actually applaud them for their strategy, if keeping the RF mount closed helps them to move at a faster pace with their bodies and oem lens releases compared to some of the competition and offer fantastic deals. You should just not buy at retail prices, yesterday I bought a second R5 ii + 16-28 as a set at the fantastic price point of 4400€ total (vat included). Recently I already replaced my old R8 with a new one + 28-70 for a total of 1660€. When I bought the VCM set the lenses (20, 35, 50, 85) averaged out at roughly 1350€ each. A lot of money for sure, but will be good enough for some years to come as well. Yes, on paper Canon is very expensive, but by talking directly to your dealer or monitoring deal sites you can "save" a ton of money on top

Now let's hope for a 24-70 2.0 VCM and or 35-150 contender, a 105 1.6 VCM and maybe a slightly better performing entry tele and then I can finally freeze the system for a few years.

KevinRA said:

Cost aside, which lenses are still needed from Canon (or licensed 3rd parties)? I can't think of too many.

Cameras - the clear gap is the competitor to the OM-1 - e.g. an R7II with a stacked sensor and no rolling shutter.

Lenses (realistic), would be nice to have!

- 20-105 f/4, wider than the 24 offerings.

- 24-240 with improved IQ

- 300-600 f/4-f/5.6, not a 100-300 with built in TC. (IQ better than the 200-800 and OK with TC's too)

- 600 and 800 f/6.3's light but very sharp primes as per Nikons. (Not the dark f/11s)

- RF 1:1 macro with focal length less than 100mm.

Click to expand...

I really want another 20mm. That is more affordable compared to the VCM version.
20mm f/2 IS STM (in the same body as the 24 and 35 stm)

Batdude said:

For third party lenses.

Click to expand...

Although it's nice to have 3rd party options, my reason for leaving Canon is two fold really;

1)Price of their native lenses is becoming more and more out of touch, eg 70-200z is £3449 in the UK, vs £2,350? That's one heck of a premium for an equivalent 70-200?

I can give you other examples, Sony 200-600 5.6-6.3, £1560, how much will the new 300-600 be and the existing 100-500 although smaller/lighter is very slow at 500 in comparison and only 500, so the 200-600 really solves that solution best overall and with the 1.4x is comparable to the 200-800 too.

2)The lack of a high resolution, compact RF body is also frustrating and the a7c series seems to be the only option available currently. If I go with Sony's 24-50 2.8 or compact 28-60 and the Tamron 50-300 I'm pretty much covered, plus Sony have a very compact 70-200 f4 that takes 1.4x tc too. But even more compelling is the new 16 1.8 lens, at £900 with an aperture ring and outstanding optics its hard to not be impressed at its overall weight of just 300gr. So, not only are Sony offering 60mp in a 500gr body, they are also offering lenses that support that system too, both natively and with sensible 3rd party options too.

I've also got the Sigma 24-70 2.8 ii, which is a bit heavy compared to the Sony equivalent but what's my option for a standard 2.8 zoom on Canon, although I fully expect Canon to deliver a new 24-70 2.8 it just feels like you are forever waiting and then faced with a cost that is always "premium". Canon have become very greedy, they don't even include lens hoods with many of their "less" premium lenses, which lets be honest are not exactly cheap anyway.

Personally, the lens rollout is becoming labored, still no fast uwa, just the 20 1.4, no mid-tier primes with decent af motors and mid-tele's that accept tc's limited to very expensive high end of the range. I like the R5ii, but not at any price and the lack of an a7cr equivalent makes the system even less flexible for travel/hiking etc.

Batdude said:

Im complete new to the Canon world, and (so far) I think I’m okay with the lenses I have. I actually have not done any paid work since I purchased my new R3 several months ago, so I have put less than 1000 images to it, so if I wanted to resell it with the new lenses I got and go with a different brand I might not lose that much.
I’m not gonna lie, I keep seeing how other camera manufacturers keep coming out with awesome prime lenses and some wide aperture zooms as well, and that’s just awesome man, and I do ask myself if I’m going to be happy with Canon long term because of the lack of excitement due to the restrictions or limitations of not having the option of a wider selection of third party lenses. I mean, how long has it been since Canon came out with the RF mount and do you personally not mind not having the opportunity of using a wider lens selection at a more affordable cost?

Like I said, as of now I’m very happy with my R3, the camera is just beautiful, but, I’m obviously still restricted and that’s just not a cool feeling either you know what I’m saying?

Click to expand...

Though I'm currently satisfied with my current lens's--------

The Real Question is: In general, all else being equal, would you rather do business with a company that gives you more options, or one that gives you less options?

My guess is that if there was a poll of all Canon users, as to whether or not they would prefer that Canon allow 3rd Party lenses the vast majority would be unanimously in the allow group, and few if any would be against it.

Not very. I've always just used Canon lenses. I'm not going to repeat the same things others have said but if there is an issue you can send both the camera and lens to Canon for service. Canon will not look at 3rd party lenses. Even more critical these days because with mirrorless there is no microfocus adjustment to compensate. Even in the DSLR days if I had to MFA too much for my taste I'd still send the gear to Canon.

These days I buy at a local brick and mortar shop. If I have an issue I just drop the gear off and they ship it. Not my headache.

I've never compared and it is not important to me to do so. I suspect I get the best and fastest AF from Canon lenses. I'm not saying 3rd party can't achieve that or do better but there is one thing I hate. Second guessing any purchase. Takes all the fun out of shooting.

Leigh A said:

Though I'm currently satisfied with my current lens's--------

The Real Question is: In general, all else being equal, would you rather do business with a company that gives you more options, or one that gives you less options?

Click to expand...

That isn't a real question. It's hypothetical in the sense that all things aren't equal. In this sense, every company can give more and more and that would be best, all else being equal

Leigh A said:

My guess is that if there was a poll of all Canon users, as to whether or not they would prefer that Canon allow 3rd Party lenses the vast majority would be unanimously in the allow group.!

Click to expand...

Polls are one thing. But businesses aren't democracies. What people actually do when presented with a choice of products is what the real world looks like. And that is what the current demographic of canon is (or any other manufacturer for that matter). People do vote with their wallets, and not always based on what they would ideally want to have but rather what is most appealing of the available options

If there was a poll that all camera manufacturers should provide interoperability across their protocols, would we overwhelmingly not vote for that. Beyond that poll, how likely is that to happen?

Batdude said:

For third party lenses.

Im complete new to the Canon world, and (so far) I think I’m okay with the lenses I have. I actually have not done any paid work since I purchased my new R3 several months ago, so I have put less than 1000 images to it, so if I wanted to resell it with the new lenses I got and go with a different brand I might not lose that much.
I’m not gonna lie, I keep seeing how other camera manufacturers keep coming out with awesome prime lenses and some wide aperture zooms as well, and that’s just awesome man, and I do ask myself if I’m going to be happy with Canon long term because of the lack of excitement due to the restrictions or limitations of not having the option of a wider selection of third party lenses. I mean, how long has it been since Canon came out with the RF mount and do you personally not mind not having the opportunity of using a wider lens selection at a more affordable cost?

Like I said, as of now I’m very happy with my R3, the camera is just beautiful, but, I’m obviously still restricted and that’s just not a cool feeling either you know what I’m saying?

Click to expand...

I switched to Canon in the mid 90's. Over the years, I've had third party lenses become no longer compatible with newer Canon bodies. I've never had that happen with a Canon lens. For that reason I've basically stopped buying third party lenses. I'd rather buy a used Canon lens than a new third party equivalent.

I'm not saying I'd never buy a third party lens though, I'm more of a never say never person. If there was a compelling offering that would be useful to me with no Canon equivalent then I would definitely consider it.

Enuf already! Know what I'm sayin'?

Andy01 said:

Batdude said:

I have a shut disk in my low back spine, so size and weight does play a huge role for me and the bigger heavier EF lenses with an adapter would not help. I also travel often for photoshoots.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I am curious as to what type of shooting you do ?

You seem to have an interest in shorter prime lenses and lower weight, and yet you bought a R3, which at over 1000g is not exactly a lightweight camera, and perhaps not typically a camera associated with using shorter prime lenses - I have never used one, but my understanding is that R3 was aimed more at sports or wildlife photographers.

A R6 ii is 2/3rds of the weight (350g less) and R8 is another 200g lighter than that - all 3 are 24Mp cameras. The adapter weighs 100g.

Obviously if using a 600mm f4 lens an extra 350g or even 550g (camera weight) is not going to make a difference, but if using something like the above-mentioned RF 24 f1.8 the lens only weighs 280g, so the difference between R3 + this lens (1300g) and R8 + same lens (750g) is huge (weight only) with the R8 + RF 24 f1.8 being smaller and just only ¾ of the weight of R3 body only.

I am not trying to be difficult or smart here, it is just that when I think smaller & lighter, R3 would certainly not be my first choice

Unless, of course, you have a need for a battery grip style camera to switch between portrait & landscape seamlessly (and battery life is critical, though your shutter count would suggest otherwise).

Click to expand...

Yes I had two Nikon D4 bodies and I do need at least one camera with a built in grip which I love and prefer, and the extra battery life does indeed help. I also used the very small and compact 50mm 1.8 lenses on it and I had no issues with that whatsoever.

The R3 is a super feather light weight camera. IMHO.

Thomas Hegna said:

Batdude said:

PicPocket said:

I don't see any real sense in waiting for third party lenses. Whether a lens is third party or not is not a fundamental property of what I can shoot with it, so I really don't care

So, that boils down the real question to whether there is a lens available from a third party on a different mount that I would "need" to be able to make a certain type of image

Click to expand...

But that’s not the “real question” I’m asking. My question is very simple, how long will this go on, not having the option of third party lenses at a more affordable cost. Heck, not necessarily third party lenses, but let’s include more affordable Canon lenses something like the 24 1.4 but more affordable, perhaps even a F2 version. I mean, is every single canon lens I want going to cost me $1600 +?

The Fujifilm 16mm 1.4 I had was one of THE best lenses I have ever used and it never let me down at every single event I did, and is less than $1k.

Thomas Hegna said:

While this debate was going on, canon came out with quite a few lenses, and I managed to slowly switch from my EF kit to RF ones one by one. Not necessarily one for one replacements, because just like 3rd parties may make some unique lenses, canon has done the same with their RF line too, enough to tempt me

Click to expand...

And that’s totally fine and I’m glad and I do see Canon has a lot more RF lenses and now I own one of the lenses I fell in love with some years ago the RF 70-200 F4, but again, that’s not the point here.

Thomas Hegna said:

The end result is that at this stage I think I have everything I may need to do every type of photography I like to do. To me, worrying about what else is there isn't as much of a deal then what I can achieve with what I already have

I think you need to ask yourself, what exactly are you missing that is truly limiting you. Then it's a real question

Click to expand...

Again, more affordable third party options, again an example is a more affordable 24mm prime lens, even a F2 Canon version would be good enough for me for the type of low light photography I do.

Now, per other people’s responses maybe there is an EF version of a less expensive 24mm Canon lens to use with the AF adapter? I will continue doing more research but unfortunately I have to sleep now as I have to get up really early tomorrow so we’ll catch up.

Thank you everybody

Click to expand...

The canon RF 24mm f/1.8 already exists. What do you complain about??? This costs around 500 USD if I’m not mistaken.

Click to expand...

Oh damn!! Mr. Hegna thank you so much for pointing this out and for posting the link on top of that. I sincerely apologize for mentioning this lens as it does indeed exist

Thank you for the info this 24mm 1.8 lens is going to be my very next purchase

Thomas Hegna said:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...pMAAORFub9nqldI2kDWN1ehxpi5aatPxoCMdEQAvD_BwE

Thomas Hegna said:

Thomas Hegna said:

--
PicPocket

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MAC said:

Batdude said:

PicPocket said:

I don't see any real sense in waiting for third party lenses. Whether a lens is third party or not is not a fundamental property of what I can shoot with it, so I really don't care

So, that boils down the real question to whether there is a lens available from a third party on a different mount that I would "need" to be able to make a certain type of image

Click to expand...

But that’s not the “real question” I’m asking. My question is very simple, how long will this go on, not having the option of third party lenses at a more affordable cost. Heck, not necessarily third party lenses, but let’s include more affordable Canon lenses something like the 24 1.4 but more affordable, perhaps even a F2 version. I mean, is every single canon lens I want going to cost me $1600 +?

The Fujifilm 16mm 1.4 I had was one of THE best lenses I have ever used and it never let me down at every single event I did, and is less than $1k.

Click to expand...

You went with the 28-70. I went with the RF 24-105 F4L and love it at 24mm - I can do best in class NR with DXO PL

MAC said:

MAC said:

While this debate was going on, canon came out with quite a few lenses, and I managed to slowly switch from my EF kit to RF ones one by one. Not necessarily one for one replacements, because just like 3rd parties may make some unique lenses, canon has done the same with their RF line too, enough to tempt me

Click to expand...

And that’s totally fine and I’m glad and I do see Canon has a lot more RF lenses and now I own one of the lenses I fell in love with some years ago the RF 70-200 F4, but again, that’s not the point here.

MAC said:

The end result is that at this stage I think I have everything I may need to do every type of photography I like to do. To me, worrying about what else is there isn't as much of a deal then what I can achieve with what I already have

I think you need to ask yourself, what exactly are you missing that is truly limiting you. Then it's a real question

Click to expand...

Again, more affordable third party options, again an example is a more affordable 24mm prime lens, even a F2 Canon version would be good enough for me for the type of low light photography I do.

Now, per other people’s responses maybe there is an EF version of a less expensive 24mm Canon lens to use with the AF adapter? I will continue doing more research but unfortunately I have to sleep now as I have to get up really early tomorrow so we’ll catch up.

Thank you everybody

Click to expand...

if it were me, I'd swap out the R3 for the R5II, then with the higher mpxl you get crop-ability and different Field's of views with your lenses

Click to expand...

I really appreciate your input but at the moment I’m not interested in a high MP camera. The R5 resolution is overkill for me, but perhaps in the near future.

Batdude said:

MAC said:

Batdude said:

PicPocket said:

I don't see any real sense in waiting for third party lenses. Whether a lens is third party or not is not a fundamental property of what I can shoot with it, so I really don't care

So, that boils down the real question to whether there is a lens available from a third party on a different mount that I would "need" to be able to make a certain type of image

Click to expand...

But that’s not the “real question” I’m asking. My question is very simple, how long will this go on, not having the option of third party lenses at a more affordable cost. Heck, not necessarily third party lenses, but let’s include more affordable Canon lenses something like the 24 1.4 but more affordable, perhaps even a F2 version. I mean, is every single canon lens I want going to cost me $1600 +?

The Fujifilm 16mm 1.4 I had was one of THE best lenses I have ever used and it never let me down at every single event I did, and is less than $1k.

Click to expand...

You went with the 28-70. I went with the RF 24-105 F4L and love it at 24mm - I can do best in class NR with DXO PL

Batdude said:

Batdude said:

While this debate was going on, canon came out with quite a few lenses, and I managed to slowly switch from my EF kit to RF ones one by one. Not necessarily one for one replacements, because just like 3rd parties may make some unique lenses, canon has done the same with their RF line too, enough to tempt me

Click to expand...

And that’s totally fine and I’m glad and I do see Canon has a lot more RF lenses and now I own one of the lenses I fell in love with some years ago the RF 70-200 F4, but again, that’s not the point here.

Batdude said:

The end result is that at this stage I think I have everything I may need to do every type of photography I like to do. To me, worrying about what else is there isn't as much of a deal then what I can achieve with what I already have

I think you need to ask yourself, what exactly are you missing that is truly limiting you. Then it's a real question

Click to expand...

Again, more affordable third party options, again an example is a more affordable 24mm prime lens, even a F2 Canon version would be good enough for me for the type of low light photography I do.

Now, per other people’s responses maybe there is an EF version of a less expensive 24mm Canon lens to use with the AF adapter? I will continue doing more research but unfortunately I have to sleep now as I have to get up really early tomorrow so we’ll catch up.

Thank you everybody

Click to expand...

if it were me, I'd swap out the R3 for the R5II, then with the higher mpxl you get crop-ability and different Field's of views with your lenses

Click to expand...

I really appreciate your input but at the moment I’m not interested in a high MP camera. The R5 resolution is overkill for me, but perhaps in the near future.

Click to expand...

sounds good, and enjoy that 24 mm and let us know how it goes.

to emphasize what Lisa was saying, I’ve had 4 third party lenses in 25 years with Canon and All 4 got hosed with technology updates by Canon down the road. And today more than EVER, the new bodies and new RF lenses are receiving continual firmware updates from Canon. I’ve never had an issue with any Canon lens I’ve owned. So no way am I buying another 3rd party lenses that gets hosed one, two or three body or firmware iterations down the road.

the new RF 50 F1.4 and RF 85 F1.4 are incredible light weight fast portrait lenses if you do that type of photography

best wishes,

MAC

Laqup said:

I'm currently putting all of my Nikon stuff back inside it's boxes and will sell most of the system. I will keep the Z8 with the Tamron 35-150, the 20mm 1.8 and potentially add a Tamron 50-400. That's still a very capable setup when going on vacation or a quick trip and wanting to say "low profile" and for everything else Canon simply has the better solution.

The grass is often greener on the other side of the fence, but realistically: what can Nikon offer (outside of long glass) that Canon can't? They have excellent 1.8 primes but the market has evolved into 1.4 being the new "standard", most of their lenses are quite large and heavy and even the Tamron G2 Trinity is matched with the new 2.8 STM zooms (and the 70-200 F4). Now that Canon has those much discussed/hated VCMs I don't see any need for the excellent but not super snappy / large 1.8 Nikkor primes. Their 1.4 stuff is a joke and AF is sightly more consistent across the body lineup as well and they still don't have any high performing compact body.

Sony looks a bit more attractive right now with all of the latest lens releases, but here I would mainly be interested in equally expensive OEM stuff and maybe some Sigma exots (e.g. the 2.0 zooms). And then there is the issue of third party limitations by Sony and the absence of some faster mid range / prosumer bodies. I don't want to go back to mechanical shutter and slow continuous shooting. Granted, some of the chinese lenses look great (songraw 1.2, some of the Viltrox stuff, ..) but most of them have at least one flaw. Even the latest sigma 35 1.2 ii doesn't look that great in the bokeh department, even worse when stopped down and obviously sigma is not super affordable either. And while stuff like the new Viltrox EVO series is absolute fantastic value for the money, 1.8 or 2.0 primes lost quite some appeal, now that Sony shrank down their 2.0 standard zoom to its current level. If you can carry the still somewhat hefty weight "on cam" you will be immensively more flexible with just that one lens.

Then there is the L mount alliance that seems to struggle to sell their bodies and lenses (Leica aside), which is not good for someone like me who constantly buys and sells stuff and of course autofocus is not on par either.

Overall Canon has a solid system and I actually applaud them for their strategy, if keeping the RF mount closed helps them to move at a faster pace with their bodies and oem lens releases compared to some of the competition and offer fantastic deals. You should just not buy at retail prices, yesterday I bought a second R5 ii + 16-28 as a set at the fantastic price point of 4400€ total (vat included). Recently I already replaced my old R8 with a new one + 28-70 for a total of 1660€. When I bought the VCM set the lenses (20, 35, 50, 85) averaged out at roughly 1350€ each. A lot of money for sure, but will be good enough for some years to come as well. Yes, on paper Canon is very expensive, but by talking directly to your dealer or monitoring deal sites you can "save" a ton of money on top

Click to expand...

I agree with you and I did notice that, that’s why I made the jump to the R3 and a few lenses to start. Canon has become like Macy’s. When they have a sale it is a REALLY good sale

Laqup said:

Now let's hope for a 24-70 2.0 VCM and or 35-150 contender, a 105 1.6 VCM and maybe a slightly better performing entry tele and then I can finally freeze the system for a few years.

Click to expand...

I used a sigma think 150/600 at a horse show on weekend a photographic buddy said do you want to try this for a bit on my R5.

Suffice to say I went back to my 70/200 2.8 after about 15 minutes. Ultimately appears image quality was similar but IQ was lacking auto focus terrible even. non existent at times.

Will stick with my holy L series trinity 15/35 24/70 70/200

Devils advocate if people are aware of canons "closed loop" strategy when buying why complain down the track about non third party access buy something else to start with.

Batdude said:

Yes I had two Nikon D4 bodies and I do need at least one camera with a built in grip which I love and prefer, and the extra battery life does indeed help. I also used the very small and compact 50mm 1.8 lenses on it and I had no issues with that whatsoever.

The R3 is a super feather light weight camera. IMHO.

Click to expand...

Well, it is all relative I suppose. Both of my cameras (FF R8 & APS-C R10) are well under 500g, so R3 at 1015g is MASSIVE (weighs over 100g more than my two bodies combined) Even R5 ii is 350g lighter than R3 (more than the weight of RF 24 f1.8). Though compared to a brick like the 1340g of a Nikon D4 I suppose R3 might feel light, though ¾ of a brick is still heavy ;-)

I was just pointing out that it seems odd to a reader of this thread that you are concerned about the size and weight of short (and mostly lightweight) primes when you have Canon's second heaviest camera body (by a large margin to Number 3).

With your low shutter count of 1,000 shots over several months battery life seems unlikely to be an issue - unless you have a situation where your camera is set up and turned on for extended periods with only the occasional photograph taken - hence the question about what type of shooting you do.

However, if you need/want a gripped body, then R3 it is :-D

PicPocket said:

Leigh A said:

Though I'm currently satisfied with my current lens's--------

The Real Question is: In general, all else being equal, would you rather do business with a company that gives you more options, or one that gives you less options?

Click to expand...

That isn't a real question. It's hypothetical in the sense that all things aren't equal. In this sense, every company can give more and more and that would be best, all else being equal

PicPocket said:

My guess is that if there was a poll of all Canon users, as to whether or not they would prefer that Canon allow 3rd Party lenses the vast majority would be unanimously in the allow group.!

Click to expand...

Polls are one thing. But businesses aren't democracies. What people actually do when presented with a choice of products is what the real world looks like. And that is what the current demographic of canon is (or any other manufacturer for that matter). People do vote with their wallets, and not always based on what they would ideally want to have but rather what is most appealing of the available options

If there was a poll that all camera manufacturers should provide interoperability across their protocols, would we overwhelmingly not vote for that. Beyond that poll, how likely is that to happen?

Click to expand...

Canon Rumors has released a quite convincing article today which suggests why Canon is preventing third-party lens makers (especially Chinese ones which are getting much better at producing cheaper but quality lenses) being licensed to use the RF mount. Worth reading. It presents an argument, from Canon's perspective, why they are doing that.

Truthfully, Canon has enough glass for me to scrape by with (14-35, 28-70/2.8, 35/1.8 and I'd probably adapt a tele zoom). I would need the right body to switch back. If Canon put the R5's sensor + IBIS in an R8 body (bonus points for retro styling) Id be game.

Canon still needs a decent 50 that doesn't cost over a thousand dollars and it's crazy that they haven't been able to make one in nearly 40 years lmao. But that's more of a philosophical complaint as I don't really need one.