Poll, R mount and 3ed party lenses

there is a lot of talk that with canon not allowing 3ed party R mont lenses, saying it will lose canon customers and it s not a good business model, so i wondered how many folks have left canon for this reason

i would like to point out that folk on this forum have been predicting  canons demise for as long as i can remember 1st it was sensors with poor DR then it was not innovating with MILC even though at the time MILC did not work as well as a DSLR with AF etc and now its because canon is not allowing 3ed party lenses

The most with yes answered question:  Are you not reading this poll because you already have left Canon?

As a consumer here is what I would like Canon to do. Do not make the RF mount "open", that is - no need to make the lens protocols available. However, at the same time do not actively block third parties from entering the market by updating firmwares or filing patent lawsuits. Just be agnostic. Let the third parties do what they can by reverse engineering. And also make it clear to your customer base that you will not be liable for any issues with third party lenses.

Also I expect mid level lenses from Canon at reasonable price points. Mid level lenses = not L quality RF lenses, but then not overly reliant on digital corrections.

PAntunes wrote:

KLO82 wrote:

As a consumer here is what I would like Canon to do. Do not make the RF mount "open", that is - no need to make the lens protocols available. However, at the same time do not actively block third parties from entering the market by updating firmwares or filing patent lawsuits. Just be agnostic. Let the third parties do what they can by reverse engineering. And also make it clear to your customer base that you will not be liable for any issues with third party lenses.

Also I expect mid level lenses from Canon at reasonable price points. Mid level lenses = not L quality RF lenses, but then not overly reliant on digital corrections.

So, as a consumer, you want reversed engineered lenses? So you don’t want lenses that you know will work perfectly?

From a consumer point of view, it makes no sense to want less options.

Personally I would love to get competitively priced mid level lenses from first party (Canon). But to get that from Canon, we need third parties in the market.

I've voted:

"are you staying with canon but are miffed there are no 3ed party lenses"

I went with Canon because of IQ for the buck with used third party EF offerings.  I'm sticking with Canon because of it's low light AF.  I'm not happy with the light weight prime offerings. The 35mm is probably o.k., but still expensive for what it is, and more important: it's not my focal length (that's not Canons fault of course, but beside this the 35mm is probably the only o.k. light weight RF prime imo). I think stm AF could be workable for 35mm, but for 50 and 85mm it's not fast enough for my use cases. I need small primes with fast AF and great IQ wide open. The 85mm delivers when it comes to IQ wide open, but the 50mm isn't good enough at portrait apertures for me. Of course contrast sliders can be used to mask a lot, and the same might be going on in lens corrections or even the jpg engine. However, contrast isn't detail. The stm is more a walk around scape lens. That's fine, but doesn't to anything for someone needing a fast focusing 50mm prime being also capable as a portrait lens. Now the 50mm f/1.2 is a great portrait lens, but it's still not a fast focusing option, and at the same time it's not suitable as a work around lens due to the weight. At f/5.6 the stm lens is also even a tad sharper by the way.

I would definitely prefer a 50mm being light weight enough for walk around purposes yet being sharp around f/1.8. And give it fast USM AF. IBIS would be nice, but it's not essential at this focal length. I think the Nikkor 50mm Z f/1.8 for Nikon Z mount perfectly shows what can be done with a lens weighting only 410 grams. I don't need it to weight less than that, while I would love 410 in stead of 950.

The 85mm is perfect, beside AF.  I don't have a problem so much with the max f/2.0. Bokeh isn't the best, but I can see this is a trade of giving benefits in return (good contrast in back lit  situations). For me the 0.5 times magnification is a bonus at this focal length, whereas for other focal lengths it's not a huge bonus due to the limiting working distance.

I think the 24mm isn't the best option either. A zoom needing a lot of corrections is justifyable, however, for a prime it's not a great design choice imo. It's a scape focal length, and also usable for architecture and such. You will need sharp corners so now and then at 24mm. With a classic non distorted design you can at least stop down to get your corners sharp. With a huge amount of distortion there will be always the limit of the corrections messing up sharpness there.  For street a bit faster AF would be nice, although at 24mm stm could be fast enough for most cases.  Size and weight and IS are very nice for video, but here is focus breathing messing it up to give us a great video lens too. Now there was a review stating this 24mm was as soft  as the RF cheap normal zooms. I don't believe it's that bad. If you want "just in case" improved 24mm in your bag next to a cheap zoom (or to go with primes only) it's a nice option, however, it's introduction price is a bit steep for a just in case lens. So this lens has some potential use cases making it a potential great option, but for every single potential use case there's also a draw back.

Now Canon has made a short zoom range zoom to get a larger max aperture: the 28-70mm f/2.0 L.  Personally I would love to see a short range zoom to allow for a smaller size in stead of a large aperture. 28-55 f/5.6 for instance, giving good sharpness wide open or even at f/7.1, the very borders and corners are allowed to be a tad softer, that's no problem for this lens. Just a walk around short range zoom where the range is traded for better IQ than say the 24-105mm stm provides, that would be great.

So.... longing for less heavy lenses without trading other aspects so much, that would be nice.   That said, I might have became addicted to the IQ of the fat primes anyway.

KLO82 wrote:

Also I expect mid level lenses from Canon at reasonable price points. Mid level lenses = not L quality RF lenses,

Yes, that's what's missing.

but then not overly reliant on digital corrections.

I agree with this, although not 100%

Strangely enough Canon decided to make the 24mm rely heavily on digital corrections, where as the 85mm has almost no distortion (0.6%).  That is a very weird design choice imo, as 85mm has more use cases where distortion isn't a problem so much (can even be a small benefit), whereas at 24mm it's more often a problem.

The Sigma FE 85mm f/1.4 DN for instance has also a lot of distortion, however, for this lens I would happily accept that.

thunder storm wrote:

The most with yes answered question: Are you not reading this poll because you already have left Canon?

its never going to be a meaningful full poll  in the real world as probably 95%+ of the camera-buying public have never heard of DPR

we are enthusiasts that think differently from most ..the avrige cameras buyer only has 1.5 lenses

Hsd1965 wrote:

Another useless poll.

so what does that make your comment?

Just read all the other topics about the same subject.....

davev8 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The most with yes answered question: Are you not reading this poll because you already have left Canon?

its never going to be a meaningful full poll

yes

in the real world as probably 95%+ of the camera-buying public

that's another reason

have never heard of DPR

we are enthusiasts that think differently from most ..the avrige cameras buyer only has 1.5 lenses

Most focal range for the buck buyers, yes.

24-240mm + either 100-400mm or 15-30mm, with crazy high ISO values so the noise will raise to aps-c levels. Well, it's more enjoyable to shoot than a phone at least, and if it makes them happy there's nothing wrong with it really.  Phones have taught people to hold there camera still when making pictures in low light, so the improved IS is becoming more fruitful these days.  Choosing shutter speeds with moving subjects, that's where the trouble comes in. Phones don't compete here anyway, and if shutter speeds are generally wrong anyway that might explain why Canon has chosen to implement the most affordable AF in their primes in stead of the more beneficial AF with those larger than kit zoom apertures.

davev8 wrote:

Hsd1965 wrote:

Another useless poll.

so what does that make your comment?

well said

I'm getting a bit bored of this rhetoric now.

Look at Sony. When they launched FE, their in house lenses were absolute bobbins - the majority of which were simply DSLR designs shoehorned into mirrorless (some of which are still "current" designs now.

Without 3rd party support, FE mount would have been a car crash.

Putting the massive RF teles to one side, Canon has given us some brilliant "from the ground up" RF lenses. All alongside having full native support for that massive EF back catalogue, which in turn also works with 3rd party EF lenses.

Do you really think Sony's business model is sustainable? Fast forward 5 years when the vast majority of FE lens purchases are 3rd party - where is Sony's incentive to carry on?

We're in a diminishing market. If locking in RF revenue to Canon keeps them investing in the platform, then that's absolutely fine by me. Photography is a business after all.

PAntunes wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

I'm getting a bit bored of this rhetoric now.

Look at Sony. When they launched FE, their in house lenses were absolute bobbins - the majority of which were simply DSLR designs shoehorned into mirrorless (some of which are still "current" designs now.

Without 3rd party support, FE mount would have been a car crash.

Putting the massive RF teles to one side, Canon has given us some brilliant "from the ground up" RF lenses. All alongside having full native support for that massive EF back catalogue, which in turn also works with 3rd party EF lenses.

Do you really think Sony's business model is sustainable? Fast forward 5 years when the vast majority of FE lens purchases are 3rd party - where is Sony's incentive to carry on?

We're in a diminishing market. If locking in RF revenue to Canon keeps them investing in the platform, then that's absolutely fine by me. Photography is a business after all.

There have been a lot of third party offers for EF for decades. Even before the digital boom. And canon was still producing new lenses and it was still sustainable. So why won't it be in the future?

Canon never opened the EF protocol to 3rd parties - hence those lenses had to be reverse engineered to work on EF, and never performed quite the same way.

Sony has fully opened the FE mount, meaning 3rd party lenses can perform identically (or better) than native Sony glass.

My understanding is Canon have done exactly the same as the EF mount and said "here's our patents, if you want to try and work around them, fill your boots".

PAntunes wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

PAntunes wrote:

noggin2k1 wrote:

I'm getting a bit bored of this rhetoric now.

Look at Sony. When they launched FE, their in house lenses were absolute bobbins - the majority of which were simply DSLR designs shoehorned into mirrorless (some of which are still "current" designs now.

Without 3rd party support, FE mount would have been a car crash.

Putting the massive RF teles to one side, Canon has given us some brilliant "from the ground up" RF lenses. All alongside having full native support for that massive EF back catalogue, which in turn also works with 3rd party EF lenses.

Do you really think Sony's business model is sustainable? Fast forward 5 years when the vast majority of FE lens purchases are 3rd party - where is Sony's incentive to carry on?

We're in a diminishing market. If locking in RF revenue to Canon keeps them investing in the platform, then that's absolutely fine by me. Photography is a business after all.

There have been a lot of third party offers for EF for decades. Even before the digital boom. And canon was still producing new lenses and it was still sustainable. So why won't it be in the future?

Canon never opened the EF protocol to 3rd parties - hence those lenses had to be reverse engineered to work on EF, and never performed quite the same way.

Sony has fully opened the FE mount, meaning 3rd party lenses can perform identically (or better) than native Sony glass.

My understanding is Canon have done exactly the same as the EF mount and said "here's our patents, if you want to try and work around them, fill your boots".

Sorry but the sigma art and many recent tamron worked perfectly with the DSLR.

In my experience, they worked very well - but certainly not perfectly. From the 3rd party EF lenses I've owned and used, I'd never describe a single one as having "native AF performance".

thunder storm wrote:

I've voted:

"are you staying with canon but are miffed there are no 3ed party lenses"

I went with Canon because of IQ for the buck with used third party EF offerings. I'm sticking with Canon because of it's low light AF. I'm not happy with the light weight prime offerings. The 35mm is probably o.k., but still expensive for what it is, and more important: it's not my focal length (that's not Canons fault of course, but beside this the 35mm is probably the only o.k. light weight RF prime imo). I think stm AF could be workable for 35mm, but for 50 and 85mm it's not fast enough for my use cases. I need small primes with fast AF and great IQ wide open. The 85mm delivers when it comes to IQ wide open, but the 50mm isn't good enough at portrait apertures for me. Of course contrast sliders can be used to mask a lot, and the same might be going on in lens corrections or even the jpg engine. However, contrast isn't detail. The stm is more a walk around scape lens. That's fine, but doesn't to anything for someone needing a fast focusing 50mm prime being also capable as a portrait lens. Now the 50mm f/1.2 is a great portrait lens, but it's still not a fast focusing option, and at the same time it's not suitable as a work around lens due to the weight. At f/5.6 the stm lens is also even a tad sharper by the way.

I would definitely prefer a 50mm being light weight enough for walk around purposes yet being sharp around f/1.8. And give it fast USM AF. IBIS would be nice, but it's not essential at this focal length. I think the Nikkor 50mm Z f/1.8 for Nikon Z mount perfectly shows what can be done with a lens weighting only 410 grams. I don't need it to weight less than that, while I would love 410 in stead of 950.

The 85mm is perfect, beside AF. I don't have a problem so much with the max f/2.0. Bokeh isn't the best, but I can see this is a trade of giving benefits in return (good contrast in back lit situations). For me the 0.5 times magnification is a bonus at this focal length, whereas for other focal lengths it's not a huge bonus due to the limiting working distance.

I think the 24mm isn't the best option either. A zoom needing a lot of corrections is justifyable, however, for a prime it's not a great design choice imo. It's a scape focal length, and also usable for architecture and such. You will need sharp corners so now and then at 24mm. With a classic non distorted design you can at least stop down to get your corners sharp. With a huge amount of distortion there will be always the limit of the corrections messing up sharpness there. For street a bit faster AF would be nice, although at 24mm stm could be fast enough for most cases. Size and weight and IS are very nice for video, but here is focus breathing messing it up to give us a great video lens too. Now there was a review stating this 24mm was as soft as the RF cheap normal zooms. I don't believe it's that bad. If you want "just in case" improved 24mm in your bag next to a cheap zoom (or to go with primes only) it's a nice option, however, it's introduction price is a bit steep for a just in case lens. So this lens has some potential use cases making it a potential great option, but for every single potential use case there's also a draw back.

Now Canon has made a short zoom range zoom to get a larger max aperture: the 28-70mm f/2.0 L. Personally I would love to see a short range zoom to allow for a smaller size in stead of a large aperture. 28-55 f/5.6 for instance, giving good sharpness wide open or even at f/7.1, the very borders and corners are allowed to be a tad softer, that's no problem for this lens. Just a walk around short range zoom where the range is traded for better IQ than say the 24-105mm stm provides, that would be great.

So.... longing for less heavy lenses without trading other aspects so much, that would be nice. That said, I might have became addicted to the IQ of the fat primes anyway.

So, it sounds like you can get exactly what you want if you get an R7.  Put the RF35 1.8 on it, and you have a very light capable 50mm equivalent walk around set.  The 35 is a fine little lens, definitely an overachiever at it's price point, and it should work equally well (or slightly better) as an APS-C lens.