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.