DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses

Started 4 weeks ago | Discussions
Myles Baker
Myles Baker Regular Member • Posts: 176
Re: Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses

boldcolors wrote:

Robert Krawitz wrote:

John Photo wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

John Photo wrote:

"Canon is making constant firmware changes to RF lenses and bodies, good luck with your third party cheaper obsession"

Canon seems to use software (and firmware) "enhancements to their lenses rather than build lenses with good optics, as they did in the past. For a wide-zoom lens that I would occasionally use, I am not going to spend $1800 for decent IQ, nor am I likely to spend $600 on the RF15-30 f/4.5-6.3 with its poor IQ even after Canon tries to manipulate images with less than satisfactory software corrections. The weak optics in their $1000 lenses without their manipulation software could never stand on their own optics.

(I know; for instance, the RF100-400, which I own, produces good results, but again that is largely due to corrections rather than great optics).

I find that post processing corrections make very little difference to my results from this lens. What improvements do you find find coming from the software?

As mentioned, I do not have this lens, but reading numerous reviews (including The Digital Picture, Ken Rockwell, and more), if all possible corrections in-camera and/or DPP are turned off (distortion cannot be turned off at least in-camera for this lens), the actual results from the lenses optics are pretty poor. Nothing of which you are not already aware.

Is it the lens that matters, or the result? If computation can easily and transparently correct the result, especially in-camera (I use Linux and can't easily run DPP), then the question to me is why should I care about component performance vs. system performance?

IF the price reflects the optical performance straight from the glass, then you should not care. IMO the 16/2.8 for example should be dirt cheap. Otherwise Canon (and I am sure others will follow) will get fat&lazy in the lab, slam an algorithm on it in post and call it day.

But then again, Canons high-end glass is so darn expensive now so I guess this is the unavoidable work-around.

The RF 16 f2.8 is available on B&H today for USD279. I picked one up in Singapore late last year for a similar price.

What would you consider a reasonable price for it, and at that price what other options for an equivalent lens for any brand are available and do they also require software correction?

-- hide signature --

"Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry."
Terry Pratchett

 Myles Baker's gear list:Myles Baker's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +4 more
KevinRA Senior Member • Posts: 1,457
Re: Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses
1

boldcolors wrote:

Robert Krawitz wrote:

John Photo wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

John Photo wrote:

"Canon is making constant firmware changes to RF lenses and bodies, good luck with your third party cheaper obsession"

Canon seems to use software (and firmware) "enhancements to their lenses rather than build lenses with good optics, as they did in the past. For a wide-zoom lens that I would occasionally use, I am not going to spend $1800 for decent IQ, nor am I likely to spend $600 on the RF15-30 f/4.5-6.3 with its poor IQ even after Canon tries to manipulate images with less than satisfactory software corrections. The weak optics in their $1000 lenses without their manipulation software could never stand on their own optics.

(I know; for instance, the RF100-400, which I own, produces good results, but again that is largely due to corrections rather than great optics).

I find that post processing corrections make very little difference to my results from this lens. What improvements do you find find coming from the software?

As mentioned, I do not have this lens, but reading numerous reviews (including The Digital Picture, Ken Rockwell, and more), if all possible corrections in-camera and/or DPP are turned off (distortion cannot be turned off at least in-camera for this lens), the actual results from the lenses optics are pretty poor. Nothing of which you are not already aware.

Is it the lens that matters, or the result? If computation can easily and transparently correct the result, especially in-camera (I use Linux and can't easily run DPP), then the question to me is why should I care about component performance vs. system performance?

IF the price reflects the optical performance straight from the glass, then you should not care. IMO the 16/2.8 for example should be dirt cheap. Otherwise Canon (and I am sure others will follow) will get fat&lazy in the lab, slam an algorithm on it in post and call it day.

16mm f/2.8 is still to me a bit of a gem - so small and quite inexpensive plus makes a nice 18mm even if you reject the extreme corners as a little soft.  Also in some scenes like landscapes often  essential to fully correct

But then again, Canons high-end glass is so darn expensive now so I guess this is the unavoidable work-around.

Including the 14-35 which also relies on distortion correction as an expensive L !!

 KevinRA's gear list:KevinRA's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS R7 Canon EOS R10 Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM +14 more
OP boldcolors Senior Member • Posts: 1,730
Re: Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses

Myles Baker wrote:

boldcolors wrote:

Robert Krawitz wrote:

John Photo wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

John Photo wrote:

"Canon is making constant firmware changes to RF lenses and bodies, good luck with your third party cheaper obsession"

Canon seems to use software (and firmware) "enhancements to their lenses rather than build lenses with good optics, as they did in the past. For a wide-zoom lens that I would occasionally use, I am not going to spend $1800 for decent IQ, nor am I likely to spend $600 on the RF15-30 f/4.5-6.3 with its poor IQ even after Canon tries to manipulate images with less than satisfactory software corrections. The weak optics in their $1000 lenses without their manipulation software could never stand on their own optics.

(I know; for instance, the RF100-400, which I own, produces good results, but again that is largely due to corrections rather than great optics).

I find that post processing corrections make very little difference to my results from this lens. What improvements do you find find coming from the software?

As mentioned, I do not have this lens, but reading numerous reviews (including The Digital Picture, Ken Rockwell, and more), if all possible corrections in-camera and/or DPP are turned off (distortion cannot be turned off at least in-camera for this lens), the actual results from the lenses optics are pretty poor. Nothing of which you are not already aware.

Is it the lens that matters, or the result? If computation can easily and transparently correct the result, especially in-camera (I use Linux and can't easily run DPP), then the question to me is why should I care about component performance vs. system performance?

IF the price reflects the optical performance straight from the glass, then you should not care. IMO the 16/2.8 for example should be dirt cheap. Otherwise Canon (and I am sure others will follow) will get fat&lazy in the lab, slam an algorithm on it in post and call it day.

But then again, Canons high-end glass is so darn expensive now so I guess this is the unavoidable work-around.

The RF 16 f2.8 is available on B&H today for USD279. I picked one up in Singapore late last year for a similar price.

What would you consider a reasonable price for it, and at that price what other options for an equivalent lens for any brand are available and do they also require software correction?

That is OK. But not more...

 boldcolors's gear list:boldcolors's gear list
Pentax K-3 II Canon EOS RP Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/50 +5 more
Sittatunga Veteran Member • Posts: 5,406
Re: Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses

boldcolors wrote:

The RF 16 f2.8 is available on B&H today for USD279. I picked one up in Singapore late last year for a similar price.

What would you consider a reasonable price for it, and at that price what other options for an equivalent lens for any brand are available and do they also require software correction?

That is OK. But not more...

The Sony 11mm f/1.8 covers the same angle with a very similar amount of distortion, but only covers APS-C, is half as big again and effectively half the speed. It's £500 rather than £300, but we can't have everything. Both lenstip.com and optical limits liked the Sony lens and thought it a bargain.

MILC man Senior Member • Posts: 6,077
Re: Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses
1

Alastair Norcross wrote:

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.

lenses with stepper motors have mediocre af, that's why tamron, nikon, sigma, etc. have all started using linear voice coil af motors.

where are the rf-mount lenses with linear voice coil af?

sony has to compete with sigma and tamron, and e-mount owners benefit from that, greatly.

I have seen many amazing results from the 800 F11 (lots of YouTube videos from great wildlife photographers).

yes, canon has a solid history of decent cheap entry glass, but where do you go from there to get improved p.q. and real focus motors?

100-500+1.4x: $3200 = 700mm f/10, but you can't use the wide end

200-600+1.4x: $2550 = 840mm f/9

canon has never made a 600mm superzoom with af.

the new sigma 60-600 looks like a great lens, with voice coil af, but i don't see how it will compete with the 200-600, which is unmatched in any brand or mount, so why did sigma make it? can't use a 1.4x with it on e-mount, and nikon promised their own 200-600 three years ago, so they won't allow it on z-mount, unless perhaps it's re-popped under the nikon name.

in the end, the market will decide for itself which approach is best.

milc lenses with af:
e-mount: 179
mft: 78
x-mount: 71
L-mount: 61
z-mount: 47
rf-mount: 40

John Photo Senior Member • Posts: 1,371
Re: Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses
1

Myles Baker wrote:

boldcolors wrote:

Robert Krawitz wrote:

John Photo wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

John Photo wrote:

"Canon is making constant firmware changes to RF lenses and bodies, good luck with your third party cheaper obsession"

Canon seems to use software (and firmware) "enhancements to their lenses rather than build lenses with good optics, as they did in the past. For a wide-zoom lens that I would occasionally use, I am not going to spend $1800 for decent IQ, nor am I likely to spend $600 on the RF15-30 f/4.5-6.3 with its poor IQ even after Canon tries to manipulate images with less than satisfactory software corrections. The weak optics in their $1000 lenses without their manipulation software could never stand on their own optics.

(I know; for instance, the RF100-400, which I own, produces good results, but again that is largely due to corrections rather than great optics).

I find that post processing corrections make very little difference to my results from this lens. What improvements do you find find coming from the software?

As mentioned, I do not have this lens, but reading numerous reviews (including The Digital Picture, Ken Rockwell, and more), if all possible corrections in-camera and/or DPP are turned off (distortion cannot be turned off at least in-camera for this lens), the actual results from the lenses optics are pretty poor. Nothing of which you are not already aware.

Is it the lens that matters, or the result? If computation can easily and transparently correct the result, especially in-camera (I use Linux and can't easily run DPP), then the question to me is why should I care about component performance vs. system performance?

IF the price reflects the optical performance straight from the glass, then you should not care. IMO the 16/2.8 for example should be dirt cheap. Otherwise Canon (and I am sure others will follow) will get fat&lazy in the lab, slam an algorithm on it in post and call it day.

But then again, Canons high-end glass is so darn expensive now so I guess this is the unavoidable work-around.

The RF 16 f2.8 is available on B&H today for USD279. I picked one up in Singapore late last year for a similar price.

What would you consider a reasonable price for it, and at that price what other options for an equivalent lens for any brand are available and do they also require software correction?

An example: IMO based on its level of quality, the 15-30 should be priced no higher than the 24-105 non-L ($399) and probably less. Even with "in-camera corrections, it isn't very spectacular across the frame.

BBR5 Regular Member • Posts: 212
Re: Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses

The $100 higher price of the 15-35 over the 24-105 is perhaps due to the lower sales volume and 2 UD lens elements in the 15-35.

John Photo Senior Member • Posts: 1,371
Re: Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses

Sittatunga wrote:

John Photo wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

John Photo wrote:

"Canon is making constant firmware changes to RF lenses and bodies, good luck with your third party cheaper obsession"

Canon seems to use software (and firmware) "enhancements to their lenses rather than build lenses with good optics, as they did in the past. For a wide-zoom lens that I would occasionally use, I am not going to spend $1800 for decent IQ, nor am I likely to spend $600 on the RF15-30 f/4.5-6.3 with its poor IQ even after Canon tries to manipulate images with less than satisfactory software corrections. The weak optics in their $1000 lenses without their manipulation software could never stand on their own optics.

(I know; for instance, the RF100-400, which I own, produces good results, but again that is largely due to corrections rather than great optics).

I find that post processing corrections make very little difference to my results from this lens. What improvements do you find find coming from the software?

As mentioned, I do not have this lens, but reading numerous reviews (including The Digital Picture, Ken Rockwell, and more), if all possible corrections in-camera and/or DPP are turned off (distortion cannot be turned off at least in-camera for this lens), the actual results from the lenses optics are pretty poor. Nothing of which you are not already aware.

You must be thinking of a completely different lens. It's obvious you do not have this lens, and you've forgotten R Ken's review which starts with "There is no lens made for mirrorless with this combination of sharpness, fast focus, small size and low price; this 100-400mm is a total winner". You can turn off distortion correction for it, as he notes in his review, not that that its moderate barrel distortion is going to be very noticeable at 100-400mm focal length.

You are completely confused. I clearly stated I own the 100-400 and like it for its low weight compared to my 150-600 and its good IQ. My comments therefore were logically referring to the 15-30.

John Photo Senior Member • Posts: 1,371
Re: Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses

BBR5 wrote:

The $100 higher price of the 15-35 over the 24-105 is perhaps due to the lower sales volume and 2 UD lens elements in the 15-35.

Maybe, but the quality is very similar. BTW, the price difference on BH is $150.

davel33 Senior Member • Posts: 2,974
Re: Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses
1

MILC man wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

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.

lenses with stepper motors have mediocre af, that's why tamron, nikon, sigma, etc. have all started using linear voice coil af motors.

no that's not correct.  You should try the RF 24-105 STM yes it's a stepper drive and guess what it's very fast, silent and dead on every time.  But Batman how did that happen?

WOW maybe you should try one some day, you have no idea what you are talking about 

where are the rf-mount lenses with linear voice coil af?

From the RF 24-240 up have Nano focus, its a form of voice coil but better, hmm.

It seems you did NO research at all before telling us all about Canon focus

sony has to compete with sigma and tamron, and e-mount owners benefit from that, greatly.

I have seen many amazing results from the 800 F11 (lots of YouTube videos from great wildlife photographers).

yes, canon has a solid history of decent cheap entry glass, but where do you go from there to get improved p.q. and real focus motors?

100-500+1.4x: $3200 = 700mm f/10, but you can't use the wide end

200-600+1.4x: $2550 = 840mm f/9

canon has never made a 600mm superzoom with af.

the new sigma 60-600 looks like a great lens, with voice coil af, but i don't see how it will compete with the 200-600, which is unmatched in any brand or mount, so why did sigma make it? can't use a 1.4x with it on e-mount, and nikon promised their own 200-600 three years ago, so they won't allow it on z-mount, unless perhaps it's re-popped under the nikon name.

in the end, the market will decide for itself which approach is best.

milc lenses with af:
e-mount: 179
mft: 78
x-mount: 71
L-mount: 61
z-mount: 47
rf-mount: 40

-- hide signature --

"Just one more Lens, I promise....."
Dave

 davel33's gear list:davel33's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R6 Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 Canon RF 85mm F2 Macro IS STM +29 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads