Poll, R mount and 3ed party lenses

I voted for this:

"you are looking for your 1st proper camera or a serious upgrade from an old DSLR but probably won't buy canon as no 3ed party lenses"

but then i saw an irresistible Black Friday deal for a Canon R5C so it turns out i wasn't telling the truth when i voted poll

but really it would be great if tamron and sigma made some nice fast zooms for the system as im stuck at the moment with the 24-105 f4-7.1is stm while i try and understand what options there are for the future. Hopefully Canon will release some more lenses soon (would be super pleased if they did what Nikon have done and release their own versions of the 28-75 f2.8 and the 17-28 f2.8 as i would snap those up as the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is too expensive)

MAC wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

MAC wrote:

yes the R7 + RF 100-400 is a value for reach (cheap is the wrong word) and hard to beat with other systems

I should have used "affordable"... "cheap" doesn't always mean good value IMO.

ok, forgiven

Thank you

I think Canon will build on the R6II which also will be hard to beat with other systems

In certain aspects, sure, but not as an all arounder IMO

e-shutter, BIF, pj's dream camera

your future A7R3 is now on sale for $2K, and a good landscape camera, but some users feel the ergonomics are just awful.

Again, not a better all arounder. If you don't need 20 FPS or 10 bit video not sure what the R6 does better. Even for BIF the A7R3's MPs help with reach.

your A7III (seems old in the tooth) and the lenses you have are really superior?

Body wise, sure my A7III and the A7R3 I want to replace it with are "old", but Canon RF has nothing that can replace either for the money.

R6II is just a tad more and blows both of those away

A7III, sure. A7R3, no.

Lens wise my lenses aren't amazing,

well, I have a few RF lenses I feel are amazing - my RF 24-105 F4L with nano focus and control ring set to ECC - best 24-105 ever made - I got mine 3 years ago for $899

I did like my RF 24-105 when I had it. My main gripe with it had nothing to do with the lens itself (I have learned over time that I like super zooms).

and I have the RF 85 F2 IS that can be had for $499.

I have the EF 100L which is amazing, and the RF 100L can be had for $999 and is even more amazing.

Dont see why you dont sell the RF 85 F2 IS & EF 100 for the RF100L; that seems to combine the best of both.

And for someone who wants a short tele that focuses faster than the RF 85/2 but can't afford the RF 100L.... go back to the 30 year old EF 85 1.8 I guess? Which loses some of the capabilities RF has to offer on something like an R6.

but again for the $3000 or so I'll be in for the A7R3 + current lenses, or $4000 or so for the A7R3, current lenses and an UWA, again RF doesn't have anything that matches on both the body + lens front.

In addition to my RF glass, I have great EF glass, so RF doesn't have to all be in place.

Weirdly I think Nikon has a comparable kit for the $$$ as well so Canon RF is kind of the odd man out for me.

EF supplements until the RF roadmap is mature

Its not so much about the roadmap maturing as much as there being some better choices in certain instances. For example Canon never made a decent EF 50mm outside of the macro. And even there updates were glacial. So RF 50 1.8 is probably their budget 50 for the next decade plus. They never updated the EF 85 1.8 (though admittedly they got that mostly right for the digital age). So the RF 85/2 IS is probably it for a budget RF 85.

So it's all good if you like what Canon has to offer but a lot of people don't.

sportyaccordy wrote:

MAC wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

MAC wrote:

yes the R7 + RF 100-400 is a value for reach (cheap is the wrong word) and hard to beat with other systems

I should have used "affordable"... "cheap" doesn't always mean good value IMO.

ok, forgiven

Thank you

I think Canon will build on the R6II which also will be hard to beat with other systems

In certain aspects, sure, but not as an all arounder IMO

e-shutter, BIF, pj's dream camera

your future A7R3 is now on sale for $2K, and a good landscape camera, but some users feel the ergonomics are just awful.

Again, not a better all arounder. If you don't need 20 FPS or 10 bit video not sure what the R6 does better. Even for BIF the A7R3's MPs help with reach.

it is the R6II, not the R6 - try 40 fps

try a focus system modeled after a world class R3 focus

your A7III (seems old in the tooth) and the lenses you have are really superior?

Body wise, sure my A7III and the A7R3 I want to replace it with are "old", but Canon RF has nothing that can replace either for the money.

R6II is just a tad more and blows both of those away

A7III, sure. A7R3, no.

slow to operate - it is ok for landscapes

Lens wise my lenses aren't amazing,

well, I have a few RF lenses I feel are amazing - my RF 24-105 F4L with nano focus and control ring set to ECC - best 24-105 ever made - I got mine 3 years ago for $899

I did like my RF 24-105 when I had it. My main gripe with it had nothing to do with the lens itself (I have learned over time that I like super zooms).

the RF 24-105 F4 L is likeable for sure

they also have the super zoom - RF24-240

and I have the RF 85 F2 IS that can be had for $499.

I have the EF 100L which is amazing, and the RF 100L can be had for $999 and is even more amazing.

Dont see why you dont sell the RF 85 F2 IS & EF 100 for the RF100L; that seems to combine the best of both.

1) I use f2 for blur

2) I also use my 100L on m6II

And for someone who wants a short tele that focuses faster than the RF 85/2 but can't afford the RF 100L.... go back to the 30 year old EF 85 1.8 I guess? Which loses some of the capabilities RF has to offer on something like an R6.

my sports lens instead is the 70-200 L

but again for the $3000 or so I'll be in for the A7R3 + current lenses, or $4000 or so for the A7R3, current lenses and an UWA, again RF doesn't have anything that matches on both the body + lens front.

In addition to my RF glass, I have great EF glass, so RF doesn't have to all be in place.

Weirdly I think Nikon has a comparable kit for the $$$ as well so Canon RF is kind of the odd man out for me.

EF supplements until the RF roadmap is mature

Its not so much about the roadmap maturing as much as there being some better choices in certain instances. For example Canon never made a decent EF 50mm outside of the macro.

true - that is why I have the great m32 f1.4 on m6II

And even there updates were glacial. So RF 50 1.8 is probably their budget 50 for the next decade plus. They never updated the EF 85 1.8 (though admittedly they got that mostly right for the digital age). So the RF 85/2 IS is probably it for a budget RF 85.

true - but there are ef options

So it's all good if you like what Canon has to offer

I like what they have to offer so far and will continue to give them a chance to develop more

but a lot of people don't.

in a seriously shrinking market, losing lens sales to 3rd party becomes "serious"

we shall see who survives

MAC wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

MAC wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

MAC wrote:

yes the R7 + RF 100-400 is a value for reach (cheap is the wrong word) and hard to beat with other systems

I should have used "affordable"... "cheap" doesn't always mean good value IMO.

ok, forgiven

Thank you

I think Canon will build on the R6II which also will be hard to beat with other systems

In certain aspects, sure, but not as an all arounder IMO

e-shutter, BIF, pj's dream camera

your future A7R3 is now on sale for $2K, and a good landscape camera, but some users feel the ergonomics are just awful.

Again, not a better all arounder. If you don't need 20 FPS or 10 bit video not sure what the R6 does better. Even for BIF the A7R3's MPs help with reach.

it is the R6II, not the R6 - try 40 fps

try a focus system modeled after a world class R3 focus

your A7III (seems old in the tooth) and the lenses you have are really superior?

Body wise, sure my A7III and the A7R3 I want to replace it with are "old", but Canon RF has nothing that can replace either for the money.

R6II is just a tad more and blows both of those away

A7III, sure. A7R3, no.

slow to operate - it is ok for landscapes

Lens wise my lenses aren't amazing,

well, I have a few RF lenses I feel are amazing - my RF 24-105 F4L with nano focus and control ring set to ECC - best 24-105 ever made - I got mine 3 years ago for $899

I did like my RF 24-105 when I had it. My main gripe with it had nothing to do with the lens itself (I have learned over time that I like super zooms).

the RF 24-105 F4 L is likeable for sure

Excellent lens

24mm

105

they also have the super zoom - RF24-240

and I have the RF 85 F2 IS that can be had for $499.

I have the EF 100L which is amazing, and the RF 100L can be had for $999 and is even more amazing.

Dont see why you dont sell the RF 85 F2 IS & EF 100 for the RF100L; that seems to combine the best of both.

1) I use f2 for blur

2) I also use my 100L on m6II

And for someone who wants a short tele that focuses faster than the RF 85/2 but can't afford the RF 100L.... go back to the 30 year old EF 85 1.8 I guess? Which loses some of the capabilities RF has to offer on something like an R6.

my sports lens instead is the 70-200 L

but again for the $3000 or so I'll be in for the A7R3 + current lenses, or $4000 or so for the A7R3, current lenses and an UWA, again RF doesn't have anything that matches on both the body + lens front.

In addition to my RF glass, I have great EF glass, so RF doesn't have to all be in place.

Weirdly I think Nikon has a comparable kit for the $$$ as well so Canon RF is kind of the odd man out for me.

EF supplements until the RF roadmap is mature

Its not so much about the roadmap maturing as much as there being some better choices in certain instances. For example Canon never made a decent EF 50mm outside of the macro.

true - that is why I have the great m32 f1.4 on m6II

And even there updates were glacial. So RF 50 1.8 is probably their budget 50 for the next decade plus. They never updated the EF 85 1.8 (though admittedly they got that mostly right for the digital age). So the RF 85/2 IS is probably it for a budget RF 85.

true - but there are ef options

So it's all good if you like what Canon has to offer

I like what they have to offer so far and will continue to give them a chance to develop more

but a lot of people don't.

in a seriously shrinking market, losing lens sales to 3rd party becomes "serious"

we shall see who survives

Zeee wrote:

MAC wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Lens wise my lenses aren't amazing,

well, I have a few RF lenses I feel are amazing - my RF 24-105 F4L with nano focus and control ring set to ECC - best 24-105 ever made - I got mine 3 years ago for $899

I did like my RF 24-105 when I had it. My main gripe with it had nothing to do with the lens itself (I have learned over time that I like super zooms).

the RF 24-105 F4 L is likeable for sure

Excellent lens

24mm

105

Very nice!

a few of mine:

MAC wrote:

Again, not a better all arounder. If you don't need 20 FPS or 10 bit video not sure what the R6 does better. Even for BIF the A7R3's MPs help with reach.

it is the R6II, not the R6 - try 40 fps

try a focus system modeled after a world class R3 focus

I would wager 40+MP is more useful than 40fps for most people. Most video isn't even recorded at 40fps.

your A7III (seems old in the tooth) and the lenses you have are really superior?

Body wise, sure my A7III and the A7R3 I want to replace it with are "old", but Canon RF has nothing that can replace either for the money.

R6II is just a tad more and blows both of those away

A7III, sure. A7R3, no.

slow to operate - it is ok for landscapes

10fps is slow? I don't even shoot at the full 10fps of my camera.

Lens wise my lenses aren't amazing,

well, I have a few RF lenses I feel are amazing - my RF 24-105 F4L with nano focus and control ring set to ECC - best 24-105 ever made - I got mine 3 years ago for $899

I did like my RF 24-105 when I had it. My main gripe with it had nothing to do with the lens itself (I have learned over time that I like super zooms).

the RF 24-105 F4 L is likeable for sure

they also have the super zoom - RF24-240

It's a little heavy and slow compared to my current super zoom.

and I have the RF 85 F2 IS that can be had for $499.

I have the EF 100L which is amazing, and the RF 100L can be had for $999 and is even more amazing.

Dont see why you dont sell the RF 85 F2 IS & EF 100 for the RF100L; that seems to combine the best of both.

1) I use f2 for blur

2) I also use my 100L on m6II

Fair enough.

And for someone who wants a short tele that focuses faster than the RF 85/2 but can't afford the RF 100L.... go back to the 30 year old EF 85 1.8 I guess? Which loses some of the capabilities RF has to offer on something like an R6.

my sports lens instead is the 70-200 L

but again for the $3000 or so I'll be in for the A7R3 + current lenses, or $4000 or so for the A7R3, current lenses and an UWA, again RF doesn't have anything that matches on both the body + lens front.

In addition to my RF glass, I have great EF glass, so RF doesn't have to all be in place.

Weirdly I think Nikon has a comparable kit for the $$$ as well so Canon RF is kind of the odd man out for me.

EF supplements until the RF roadmap is mature

Its not so much about the roadmap maturing as much as there being some better choices in certain instances. For example Canon never made a decent EF 50mm outside of the macro.

true - that is why I have the great m32 f1.4 on m6II

Having to carry lenses and bodies across 3 different systems speaks to my point......

And even there updates were glacial. So RF 50 1.8 is probably their budget 50 for the next decade plus. They never updated the EF 85 1.8 (though admittedly they got that mostly right for the digital age). So the RF 85/2 IS is probably it for a budget RF 85.

true - but there are ef options

So it's all good if you like what Canon has to offer

I like what they have to offer so far and will continue to give them a chance to develop more

but a lot of people don't.

in a seriously shrinking market, losing lens sales to 3rd party becomes "serious"

we shall see who survives

Indeed.

MAC wrote:

Zeee wrote:

MAC wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Lens wise my lenses aren't amazing,

well, I have a few RF lenses I feel are amazing - my RF 24-105 F4L with nano focus and control ring set to ECC - best 24-105 ever made - I got mine 3 years ago for $899

I did like my RF 24-105 when I had it. My main gripe with it had nothing to do with the lens itself (I have learned over time that I like super zooms).

the RF 24-105 F4 L is likeable for sure

Excellent lens

24mm

105

Very nice!

a few of mine:

Very nice as well

sportyaccordy wrote:

MAC wrote:

Again, not a better all arounder. If you don't need 20 FPS or 10 bit video not sure what the R6 does better. Even for BIF the A7R3's MPs help with reach.

it is the R6II, not the R6 - try 40 fps

try a focus system modeled after a world class R3 focus

I would wager 40+MP is more useful than 40fps for most people. Most video isn't even recorded at 40fps.

24 mpxl of R6II is plenty - you, yourself have 24 mpxl

up to 40 fps - decisive moments when you need it

e-shutter - action shooting is quiet and rocks and doesn't degrade shutter life

your A7III (seems old in the tooth) and the lenses you have are really superior?

Body wise, sure my A7III and the A7R3 I want to replace it with are "old", but Canon RF has nothing that can replace either for the money.

R6II is just a tad more and blows both of those away

A7III, sure. A7R3, no.

slow to operate - it is ok for landscapes

10fps is slow? I don't even shoot at the full 10fps of my camera.

no, but

pro Canon shooters say it is the painful menus/buttons/ergonomics of this Sony that slows it down for pj shooting - A7IV seems to have the better ergonomics

Lens wise my lenses aren't amazing,

well, I have a few RF lenses I feel are amazing - my RF 24-105 F4L with nano focus and control ring set to ECC - best 24-105 ever made - I got mine 3 years ago for $899

I did like my RF 24-105 when I had it. My main gripe with it had nothing to do with the lens itself (I have learned over time that I like super zooms).

the RF 24-105 F4 L is likeable for sure

they also have the super zoom - RF24-240

It's a little heavy and slow compared to my current super zoom.

for me, I'll opt to carry RF 24-105 F4 L + RF 100-400 instead of one superzoom which only extends to 200 or 240 instead of 400

and I have the RF 85 F2 IS that can be had for $499.

I have the EF 100L which is amazing, and the RF 100L can be had for $999 and is even more amazing.

Dont see why you dont sell the RF 85 F2 IS & EF 100 for the RF100L; that seems to combine the best of both.

1) I use f2 for blur

2) I also use my 100L on m6II

Fair enough.

yep, my100L rocks on both my RP and my m6II and I only paid $700 for it

And for someone who wants a short tele that focuses faster than the RF 85/2 but can't afford the RF 100L.... go back to the 30 year old EF 85 1.8 I guess? Which loses some of the capabilities RF has to offer on something like an R6.

my sports lens instead is the 70-200 L

but again for the $3000 or so I'll be in for the A7R3 + current lenses, or $4000 or so for the A7R3, current lenses and an UWA, again RF doesn't have anything that matches on both the body + lens front.

In addition to my RF glass, I have great EF glass, so RF doesn't have to all be in place.

Weirdly I think Nikon has a comparable kit for the $$$ as well so Canon RF is kind of the odd man out for me.

EF supplements until the RF roadmap is mature

Its not so much about the roadmap maturing as much as there being some better choices in certain instances. For example Canon never made a decent EF 50mm outside of the macro.

true - that is why I have the great m32 f1.4 on m6II

Having to carry lenses and bodies across 3 different systems speaks to my point......

my RP and m6II share the same batteries, flash triggers, EF lenses

the m6II + 32 is small enough together it is like a rangefinder

And even there updates were glacial. So RF 50 1.8 is probably their budget 50 for the next decade plus. They never updated the EF 85 1.8 (though admittedly they got that mostly right for the digital age). So the RF 85/2 IS is probably it for a budget RF 85.

true - but there are ef options

So it's all good if you like what Canon has to offer

I like what they have to offer so far and will continue to give them a chance to develop more

but a lot of people don't.

in a seriously shrinking market, losing lens sales to 3rd party becomes "serious"

we shall see who survives

Indeed.

imo - the sony A7IV + tamy 35-150 f2/2.8 would be a substantial update for you to consider that Canon doesn't have

I am in the process of leaving behind my ef lenses. Don’t have an Rf body, but considered it last time around. Personally, I am not too excited about 3rd party lenses of the sigma type, however, the tamron lenses for Sony has really changed the calculus imo. Particularly the 28-200 and the 35-150. These are lenses that exceed oem offerings, and that is quite spectacular.

I think canons release cycle would benefit from 3rd party,

SafariBob wrote:

I am in the process of leaving behind my ef lenses. Don’t have an Rf body, but considered it last time around. Personally, I am not too excited about 3rd party lenses of the sigma type, however, the tamron lenses for Sony has really changed the calculus imo. Particularly the 28-200 and the 35-150. These are lenses that exceed oem offerings, and that is quite spectacular.

I think canons release cycle would benefit from 3rd party,

It hurt but I decided to get in the R train and sold all my EF gear. If I had several big expensive whites I may have chosen a different path. I also believe the extra 4 transmission pins are doing something for me. New flange design improves IQ. There is nothing wrong with an adapter and IQ is still  good but it moves the back element of the lens further from the sensor. The opposite of the intent of the new design which moves it closer to the sensor. I'm glad I did it.

-
Don't Look Up! The very fabric of captured light is noise.