The State of RF – 5 Years of Lenses

[AlanF]

Some people just want to convince themselves and others that the lenses they can't or don't want to afford are not better than the ones they buy.
Many categorical statements have no objective or proven basis.

The categorical statements it is sad to say tend to be just opinion rather than fact.

 

[roby17269]

I'm just wondering how long it is until someone mentions the RF 35mm f1.4 on this thread....oh...dang...i just did....

I won't mention that - since I will mention the 35mm f/1.2L
Where is my lens Canon?!?

Incidentally, on a happier note, I have received a surprise email from Adorama: my 10-20 f/4L IS is being shipped and I should get it in a couple of days

 

[roby17269]

i mentioned the second that all new optical designs, including their patent library had to be redone, and the first one isn't entirely true.

Do we seriously consider the big white exotic RF super tele primes as "new" optical designs?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

That might be true for telephoto lenses, but it certainly isn't true for wide angles. No Canon L wide angle lenses I have ever owned can hold a candle to Sigma Art lenses.

You obviously haven’t owned a lot of modern Canon wide angles lenses then! Here’s a few for you to mull over.
TS-e 17L, TS-e 24L, EF 16-35mm f4, EF 16-35mm f2.8 III L, EF 8-15mm f4 fisheye, EF 11-24mm f4 L, 35mm f1.4 II L.
I often read about inconsistent focussing with Sigma lens, especially in Servo AF, which has been my experience too.

 

[Del Paso]

Don't want, or need, to be proven either right or wrong I just freely express my personal opinion (which is actually, tbh, with more grounds then yours, as I have the 40 and the 85, and I had the 50, the 135 and the 24-105 in the past, so I got to see and use much more Sigma's then you).

I didn't say "you're wrong", I said "I don't agree with you", it's pretty different

And my personal opinion is that you are comparing apples to oranges...

 

[neuroanatomist]

Pedant: a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning

Yes. It was a pedantic comment. The negative connotation was intentional.

I disagree.
The word is "fewer" not "less".

 

[neuroanatomist]

Don't want, or need, to be proven either right or wrong I just freely express my personal opinion

Just as some people freely express the personal opinion that the Earth is flat.

 

[David - Sydney]

That might be true for telephoto lenses, but it certainly isn't true for wide angles. No Canon L wide angle lenses I have ever owned can hold a candle to Sigma Art lenses.

I'll be more specific... It seems that you haven't bought any decent Canon L wide angle lenses. Easy for you to fix this problem of yours at your local Canon retailer

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'll be more specific... It seems that you haven't bought any decent Canon L wide angle lenses. Easy for you to fix this problem of yours at your local Canon retailer

Are you suggesting the 17-40/4L isn’t decent?

 

[David - Sydney]

Don't want, or need, to be proven either right or wrong I just freely express my personal opinion (which is actually, tbh, with more grounds then yours, as I have the 40 and the 85, and I had the 50, the 135 and the 24-105 in the past, so I got to see and use much more Sigma's then you).

I didn't say "you're wrong", I said "I don't agree with you", it's pretty different

"Any Sigma Art is as good as the Canon counterpart, and they're built as good or often way better, at least in dslr mount"
was your original statement. Not a matter of personal opinion but presented as a fact so open to be challenged and perhaps change your perspective.

It is correct that I don't have a lot of experience with Art lenses beside the 20/1.4 but my experience coming from a predominately L lens ownership is that the Sigma Art is a pretty average lens quality-wise except for the focal length/aperture. The Art series was a serious step up in quality from Sigma but "as good or often way better" is a bold claim.

The EF50/1.2 and EF85ii/1.2 are from 2006, The EF24-105/4 from 2005 and version 2 in 2016. The 135/2 is from 1996! The EF40/2.8 is from 2012 and a pancake so I am not sure that you are comparing apples-to-apples
So the youngest one you compared is 7 years but most were released from 17-28 years ago.

Have you tried any of the RF lenses 50/85 @ f1.2, 135 @ f1.8 or even the current RF24-105/4? How do they stack up to the equivalent Art lens today?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Have you tried any of the RF lenses 50/85 @ f1.2, 135 @ f1.8 or even the current RF24-105/4? How do they stack up to the equivalent Art lens today?

He’s made it clear in prior posts that RF L lenses are too expensive for him. IMO, @Del Paso nailed it:

Some people just want to convince themselves and others that the lenses they can't or don't want to afford are not better than the ones they buy.

 

[David - Sydney]

Are you suggesting the 17-40/4L isn’t decent?

I would certainly suggest that that lens (released in 2003!) wasn't great quality... luckily it is discontinued so you can't buy it today
I think it was discontinued about the same time as the EF16-35/4 came out in 2014.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I would certainly suggest that that lens (released in 2003!) wasn't great quality... luckily it is discontinued so you can't buy it today

Really?



In addition to being available new today, Canon was selling them refurbished, though they ran out (at least at the $300 price) yesterday.

 

[David - Sydney]

wei

Really?

View attachment 213107

In addition to being available new today, Canon was selling them refurbished, though they ran out (at least at the $300 price) yesterday.

View attachment 213108

Weird... I did search B&H and it didn't show it
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?q=canon ef17-40&sts=ma
Putting a space between EF and 17-40mm did bring up the lens. I am guessing that they are end-of-sale as
https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/
doesn't list it and it is listed on the discontinued lens page
https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/
but.... to my original point => you can still buy it - at least from some retailers but I wouldn't recommend it

 

[DhlcadR6]

Canon is selling almost everything they can make if the the lens supply chain notices says anything. Is it really a problem for canon not to price match a 3rd party lens trinity?

Let’s say that canon reduces their lens prices…. Would it mean selling more bodies but lower margins on lenses? I would imagine that most people who seriously look at a f2.8 trinity will have price as only one of a number of factors when choosing a camera system and generally already have a preferred ecosystem

If the pricing of RF f4L trinity is only 100USD more than SigTam 16-28+28-75G3+70-180G2 equivalent. Going for f4L is more effective than f2.8. The IS on Canon is more effective than Sony; optically better; AF is top notch and no firmware nerf(Sony did it to 3rd party lenses). Products will reduce margins over the product cycle. Canon is pricing them to ensure it's still profitable at the product sales-cycle end stage. With the general trend of Canon's "inferior" 24MP FSI can push 1 ~2stops better than Sony-produced 24/33MP BSI CMOS. The one stop f-number difference is insignificant.

I see nothing wrong with reducing margins but much better sales for a company. Sony did this and paid off well. Nikkon fights back into the market share with this method.

 

[David - Sydney]

If the pricing of RF f4L trinity is only 100USD more than SigTam 16-28+28-75G3+70-180G2 equivalent. Going for f4L is more effective than f2.8. The IS on Canon is more effective than Sony; optically better; AF is top notch and no firmware nerf(Sony did it to 3rd party lenses). Products will reduce margins over the product cycle. Canon is pricing them to ensure it's still profitable at the product sales-cycle end stage. With the general trend of Canon's "inferior" 24MP FSI can push 1 ~2stops better than Sony-produced 24/33MP BSI CMOS. The one stop f-number difference is insignificant.

You are demonstrating a level of technical knowledge that would be unusual for someone choosing an ecosystem from the beginning. Once you are in an ecosystem then migrating is a lot more expensive. Users certainly switch systems but it costs them. A f2.8 trinity is also an unusual first purchase of lenses.

If you were recommending to someone which system to buy then that would be a different question I think and we will always be biased to some degree by what we have and are used to using.

"Products will reduce margins over the product cycle. Canon is pricing them to ensure it's still profitable at the product sales-cycle end stage"
That is not necessarily true.
Higher initial price for early adopters and to have ROI on initial R&D means lower margins at a product level at the beginning. Once R&D has been amortised then there is a higher product profit margin ie later in the product lifecycle during their cashcow phase. There can be price decreases over time for marketing specials and price competition but that would be a deliberate decision and not taken lightly. Apple products don't (or rarely) discount and luxury products don't either.... it depends on the product and market.
I've seen the lowest prices for the R5 for the black Friday sales but they will go back up next week. 3.5 years after release and widely anticipated version 2 to be released probably within 6 months

I see nothing wrong with reducing margins but much better sales for a company. Sony did this and paid off well. Nikkon fights back into the market share with this method.

Sony had to reduce their margins because they invited 3rd parties lens manufacturers to compete directly with them. That isn't the case with Canon - or at least not yet. The question is whether Canon would increase sales if they did reduce their prices... the publicly listed lenses on backorder would indicate that they couldn't increase volume to match any increased demand for those lenses.
I would love to buy a new Toyota/Lexus but with local leadtimes of 12-18 months, it is just silly to wait. Second hand vehicles are selling for more than new car prices in some cases.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Lack of patience no doubt attributed to the social media frenzy nowadays. We live in the 10 second attention span society where everything should have been done/introduced yesterday.

Good things are worth waiting for; and when a need truly arises, one will buy the best tool for the job right then and there (case and point my friend truly needed something small and light yet has range for a job, so she ended up getting a RX10 IV, not even a MILC).

Anything else is a want and not a true need and can either wait till the lens is introduced or add/switch systems to one's liking (honestly, Fuji is rather tempting for the way I tend to shoot nowadays).

As I've said before. The social media is full of the Sony evil capitalism+consumerism marketing money truck. Even though the current market has enough solutions for everyone and majority of the products from last 5 years are super-capable

So…. How long was it after the ef mount was available that the first 3rd party ef lens with af was released??

It was around 10 years right? EOS 650 introduced in 1987, and in 1998 Sigma has 28-70mm F2.8 EX ASPHERICAL. There's little info if there's other 3rd party.

I agree David. Canon are constantly looking for innovations and features that justify theur super-expensive and lofty pricing. When I compare Canon lenses to the competition (3rd party), their lenses aren't as sharp, have flare issues, isn't built to the same standard, their AF isn't as accurrate and their IS systems are way behind. Canon are consistenly top of the pile and priced accordingly.
Canon rarely make a mistake with their lenses. When I look back at their EF 24-70mm f2.8 mkI, which they got so much right first time around and then compare how many iterations Sigma had with their constant re-working.
The current Canon Mirrorless cameras are really pushing the resolution needs upwards well beyond what 35mm slide could resolve. Which I belive was around the 20-22mp point. As an upshot we now need mkII EF glass or the newer RF glass to keep up with our 45mp sensors. A lot of the 3rd party lenses are cheaper because they aren't that new and are still resolving for 20mp sensors.

I remember many people hate/bash Canon for not bringing IS onto the mark II/III of 24-70 & 16-35. Sigma&Tamron offering was attractive but BIIIGGGGG

I think they will.
There is definitely less of a need for RF-S primes than there was for EF-M primes but they could still use a few smaller and cheaper ones.
I would also like to see RF-S f/4 and f/2.8 zoom lenses but I am less sure about those.

I still think Canon native RF-S zooms can be shit like now but allows 3rd party to take care. Primes wise the 16/24/28/35/50/85 is already enough. Maybe a wider RF-S prime like Sony 11/1.8 or 15/1.4G, but I doubt as Canon aren't purposely making their full-frame cameras suffer crop in 4K like Sony Sigma-18-50, Tamron 11-20, 15G, 11/1.8 are loved by a7iv videographers.

On the other end of the spectrum, Canon also offers very good lenses at affordable prices. The RF 15-30, RF 100-400, and RF 800/11 are examples of lenses less expensive than what’s available from others, ayet delivering very good IQ.

It’s certainly true that it’s possible to get a 3rd party f/2.8 trinity for cheaper than with Canon (especially if you’re unfortunate enough to live in the UK), and for some that’s important. But there’s no free lunch. If you pay half the price for a similarly spec’d lens, you’re not getting the same performance.

shhhhh....f-numbers smaller than f4 is a sin and death penalty for the internet community. Canon needs to burn in hell for having dim lenses regardless of optical/digital correction results

Those days are gone and they are not coming back.
EF was the standard autofocus lens for video.
Now everyone has their own mirrorless mount.
RF is only Canon and RED.
If anything Canon discontinued EF lenses too soon.

With adapters and manual focus being the majority for videographers. Using which mount isn't a concern. E-mount AF lenses are for small-studios/1-man-army.

I doubt it will happen to any great extent. I’d guess even fewer offerings than for EF-M. It was different for the M line since the corresponding EF/EF-S lenses needed an adapter. With RF, they don’t.

Lenses like the 16/2.8, 28/2.8 and 50/1.8 are in the right price range, and the frequent discounts on the 24/1.8 and 35/1.8 put those into the right price range and cover the need for a macro lens (even though they aren’t 1:1).

Also consider that the R8 is relatively inexpensive, and the still-available RP is even cheaper. Canon wants people to move to FF, and these more affordable RF full frame bodies and lenses will likely facilitate that. Keeping RF-S offerings limited will probably help.

Yea. RP and Z5 is still the best for bang for starters. Great lenses to choose from and easily to get great results for v.affordable prices.

Any Sigma Art is as good as the Canon counterpart, and they're built as good or often way better, at least in dslr mount (never had an e-mount Sigma in my hand); can't really agree with you, sorry

Bigma is always good on hardware but the software makes it one-step below the 1st party option. (Except L-mount

I looked a few.

• The Canon RF 24-70/2.8L is sharper than the Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art.
• The Canon 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L are similar to the Sigma Art lenses when you stop the Canon lenses down 1/2-stop to match the narrower f/1.4 max aperture of the Sigma primes.
• The Canon 70-200/2.8L…oh, wait, Sigma doesn’t make a 70-200 Art.
• The Canon 15-35/2.8L is not as sharp as the Sigma 14-24/2.8, but the former is a 2.3x zoom while the latter is only 1.7x.

So I’d say the evidence shows your statement is patently false. It’s more of a mixed bag, with the advantage to Canon (commensurate with the higher cost).

I believe you’ve also complained about breadth of lens selection. There are 19 Sigma Art lenses for DSLRs and 19 for MILCs, while there are far more Canon L lenses covering a much broader range focal lengths and apertures. So that’s a big win for Canon there, too.

New Sigma 70-200 E mount is out.....it's big enough to not consider it. RF one is soooooo compact.
15-35(or the 16-35/16-28/17-28) zooms is not in the same league as 14-24/2.8s. Canon is not know to introduce lenses in that spec. Canon would rather go for f4 but even wider like EF 11-24L and RF 10-20L. Tbh IRL using UWA wouldn't need f2.8 all the time except Astro. (Personally I use tripods for Astro anyway, one stop can be compensated by slower shutter)

In the FD and most of the EF area Canon wasn't good in fast wide primes. There is evidence this is no more the case:
- The only wide Canon L prime I own is the EF 35 1.4 II. I can't remember Sigma's 35 ART for DSLR to be any better.
But now we have a 35 ART for mirrorless and we are still waiting for Canon's to hit the market.
- In the meantime I do have exceptional fun with the RF28 pancake - an exceptional nice little but greatly performing biest.

+1. RF28 will be regarded as a GOAT soon....And Canon needs to make more of these excellent PMO lenses

Do we seriously consider the big white exotic RF super tele primes as "new" optical designs?

EF400L and EF600L mark 3 was introduced along with 1DX3, which is in the mirrorless era. It's modern enough despite RF equivalents are just embedded EF-RF adapters.

You obviously haven’t owned a lot of modern Canon wide angles lenses then! Here’s a few for you to mull over.
TS-e 17L, TS-e 24L, EF 16-35mm f4, EF 16-35mm f2.8 III L, EF 8-15mm f4 fisheye, EF 11-24mm f4 L, 35mm f1.4 II L.
I often read about inconsistent focussing with Sigma lens, especially in Servo AF, which has been my experience too.

Pretty much all 3rd party EF lenses are not as good in AI Servo unless you limit the focus area or assign to lock on specific subjects(R6ii/R8).

At least on EF M the Sigma 56 f1.4 was way sharper than the non-existant Canon alternative

The Sigma 56/1.4 is unmatched. I don't think there'll be a competitor for that lens.

 

[sanj]

I still am holding out hope for an RF 24-70 f/4 IS.

Yes, light compact lens.

 

[Richard CR]

wow. i go to sleep and wake up and see what y'all changed this into

 

[Richard CR]

Are you suggesting the 17-40/4L isn’t decent?

decent door stop.