[repaap]

They have a great lens selection for wildlife. 1200mm F8, 800 F5.6, 600 F4, 400 F2.8 and 100-500 4.5-7.1 all are L glass. Then they have the 800 and 600 F11 and the 100-400 5.6-8 lenses that are all more affordable options plus the 1.4 and 2X teleconverters.

I completely agree with any brand that wants to keep their lens mount closed off to 3rd party lenses. Right now Canon and Nikon developed new mounts that they put a lot of money into and they want to earn that money back. Canon developed new features in the bodies and the lenses to get the best out of them working together, even some of the old EF lenses don't work as good as a new RF lenses.

The people who aren't going to move to an RF or Z mount body because no 3rd partly lenses aren't the customers Canon and Nikon are probably too concerned with anyway. They will buy a camera maybe every few years and that's it, they want customers who will buy a camera and then spend money building up a lens collection from them that's how they make their money and that's the main concern for every business.

People who want to use Sigma lenses can always buy a Sigma camera body they don't need to buy a Canon or Nikon.

This is how it is.


You want to have RF or Z then have them, as they were build. For that mount lenses. They do actually come half way to give possibility to have adapters and all that, but it should be clear already when you are buying those cameras how it goes.


I have R5C which I did buy for high end video purposes and possibility to have it as 'hybrid'camera. Also that RF 5.2 DualFE did push me to this camera instead of other options(I did try other cameras, panasonic S5 included, but it did not satisfy me). I do use my selected Pentax lenses with dummy adapter and one EF lens, so far. I know that there will be the need of RF lenses down the road. I'm thinking of buying some old and good Sigma and they should work well with my EF-RF adapter, which has VND in it. But to get the camera to work in it's maximum you want RF lenses.


I like my Pentax with Pentax lenses, because I have come to learn that they do work perfectly, DFA* or DFA, or latest DA* better than old DA or FA (eye af, af speed, ect with K-3III). Older lenses does get gain in precision and speed, but best result comes with best and newest lenses.


OTOH some of latest Sigma lenses seem to beat some older OEM lenses and/or they are very near. Same goes to Tamron. This is not possible for Pentax, unless you buy DFA 70-210, or so. I did look prices of new tier Sigma art. it is not actually that far off from equivalent RF lenses. Viltrox seems to be quite well received, and it is cheap too.

this is my opinion, not propably what every one thinks...

[Rondec]

You can get the Canon 600mm F11 for $700 now.

There is a difference between a 600 mm f6.3 and a 600mm fixed aperture f11 lens. I understand that you shoot Canon.

Pentaxians have dealt for ages with the fact that third parties (other than Samyang and Irix) don't really support the K mount. As was mentioned earlier, this was due to Pentax's small market share. This is a bit different, but it does come down to the same result. It reminds me of Apple's approach to their ecosystem. I guess you could say it worked for Apple it should work for Canon too.

[martin42mm]

There is a difference between a 600 mm f6.3 and a 600mm fixed aperture f11 lens. I understand that you shoot Canon.

Pentaxians have dealt for ages with the fact that third parties (other than Samyang and Irix) don't really support the K mount. As was mentioned earlier, this was due to Pentax's small market share. This is a bit different, but it does come down to the same result. It reminds me of Apple's approach to their ecosystem. I guess you could say it worked for Apple it should work for Canon too.

I don't think Canon have the cachet that Apple have striven to perfect.

[reh321]

I don't think Canon have the cachet that Apple have striven to perfect.

Canon {and their white lenses} have more respect than you realize

[KiloHotelphoto]

Canon {and their white lenses} have more respect than you realize

The L glass is very good and CPS is amazing and that's why you pay a premium. Third party lens manufacturers are not going to provide the same level of service.

[surfar]

The L glass is very good and CPS is amazing and that's why you pay a premium

The EF L glass is very good and the RF L glass goes to another level,I only own EF at this stage but from all reports RF L is what should go on a R series body to get the best results.

Third party lens manufacturers are not going to provide the same level of service.

Do they provide any?

---------- Post added 09-03-22 at 01:12 PM ----------

There is a difference between a 600 mm f6.3 and a 600mm fixed aperture f11 lens.

Its only light!...talking of how light, now thats a trade off.

The 150-600 ordinary trio(both tamRons(there was a spell check there) and Sigma C) are all around 2kgs with Sigma S at 3.25kgs...those 4 are all F6.something at 600.

The RF 600f11 is 930 gms ,the zooms provide flexibility in range and light and the prime is what it is(from all reports Ive seen worth the cost).

With the R system there is the RF 100-400 f5.6-8,its the cheapest lightest 100-400 available(no WR) it can be linked with a 24-105 and the 600f11 for a very versatile set of lenses.Those 3 combined weigh in around the 2kg mark.

[surfar]

- might leave their R10 dead in the water,

Chumps may think that but the buyers dont.

The fastest AF under 1000 bux,good level video only limited by card and battery.23fps stills with the option to slow down to 15.Good size buffer when using a fast card to take advantage of UHS2.

You might say there are only 2 lenses but Canon says the adapters provide access to 130million plus the third parties.

[surfar]

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[pinholecam]

Sony has been very successful also because of a largely open mount.
Whether 3rd party lenses really affect 1st party lens sales, I feel that it does not really.

The guy who can't/won't spend $800 on a lens, just won't buy one.
Or at most he will blow his budget for 1-2yrs and get one and then thats about it.
Most likely, he will just buy another system that has cheaper 3rd part lenses, and then.... over time, he also buys a few of the cheaper 1st party lenses.

The person who can afford to buy many lenses (or at the least buy them over a course of a few years), he will buy both 1st and 3rd party ones and often duplicates in focal length.


Anyway, no love for C or N.... good luck to their strategy

[Rondec]

Sony has been very successful also because of a largely open mount.
Whether 3rd party lenses really affect 1st party lens sales, I feel that it does not really.

The guy who can't/won't spend $800 on a lens, just won't buy one.
Or at most he will blow his budget for 1-2yrs and get one and then thats about it.
Most likely, he will just buy another system that has cheaper 3rd part lenses, and then.... over time, he also buys a few of the cheaper 1st party lenses.

The person who can afford to buy many lenses (or at the least buy them over a course of a few years), he will buy both 1st and 3rd party ones and often duplicates in focal length.


Anyway, no love for C or N.... good luck to their strategy

For third party lenses to sell, they usually have to provide something that the first party doesn't. So, they may cover focal lengths that the brand doesn't cover, or have a cheaper price, or have a faster (or slower) aperture. Tamron has made producing super zooms a science -- they aren't necessarily great lenses, but I don't know that any of the brands offer an 18-400mm zoom.

Recently, it doesn't really seem like Sigma is going for the really cheap crowd anymore. Their 85mm f1.4 lens is 1200 dollars -- the Nikon 85mm f1.4G is 1500 dollars and Canon's 85mm f1.4 is 1600 dollars (EOS). Of course, the EOS RF 85mm f1.2 is 2700 dollars. Anyway, to me, the point of third parties is to provide more choice than the brands can. If the brand name lenses are better and priced decently, they will sell. I think Canon's problem is that their top end RF lenses are over 2000 dollars and that's a tough bite swallow for most hobby photographers.

[martin42mm]

Canon {and their white lenses} have more respect than you realize

Having stripped down a few of the white lenses, and owning a 300 f2.8 and 500 f4.5 I have adapted to PK and manual focus, I appreciate their optics, but not the way they construct their lenses, and in particular the way the elements are secured in some of these lenses . Where other maufacturers use screw-in rings, in some of their 'white' lenses, the elements are fixed with cut bits of wire that you might call circlips, but in reality are just nasty bits of wire that have NO plastic coating and sharply cut-off ends that damage the elements when they are removed. The first time I encountered this during a routine lens clean I was horrified, and I remain baffled as to why they do it. Any company that charges thousands for these lenses and leaves them near impossible to repair economically given the damage these clips cause when removing elements for cleaning is taking the mickey! I can understand the clips may make assembly quicker, and therefore cheaper, but I know of no other manufacturer that I have ever encountered over 40+ years of repairing and servicing camera gear who has done anything like this.

So they have my respect for their optical quality, but not their manufacturing short-cuts. And because of that, I would never buy into the Canon system, since servicing would be near-impossible and uneconomic. Which is why I have two 'white' lenses stripped of all electronics and with PK mounts-the pro-lens rental company wrote them off as uneconomic to repair.

[reh321]

Having stripped down a few of the white lenses, and owning a 300 f2.8 and 500 f4.5 I have adapted to PK and manual focus, I appreciate their optics, but not the way they construct their lenses, and in particular the way the elements are secured in some of these lenses . Where other maufacturers use screw-in rings, in some of their 'white' lenses, the elements are fixed with cut bits of wire that you might call circlips, but in reality are just nasty bits of wire that have NO plastic coating and sharply cut-off ends that damage the elements when they are removed. The first time I encountered this during a routine lens clean I was horrified, and I remain baffled as to why they do it. Any company that charges thousands for these lenses and leaves them near impossible to repair economically given the damage these clips cause when removing elements for cleaning is taking the mickey! I can understand the clips may make assembly quicker, and therefore cheaper, but I know of no other manufacturer that I have ever encountered over 40+ years of repairing and servicing camera gear who has done anything like this.

So they have my respect for their optical quality, but not their manufacturing short-cuts. And because of that, I would never buy into the Canon system, since servicing would be near-impossible and uneconomic. Which is why I have two 'white' lenses stripped of all electronics and with PK mounts-the pro-lens rental company wrote them off as uneconomic to repair.

The fact remains that you did find them worth adapting.

Canon has lots of sales, and now has decided to use their oligopoly power.
With my Q-7, I was getting sharper photos with an adapted Canon 50mm FD-mount than with a Takumar eight-element 50mm F/1.4.
Users here like to criticize Canon; Canon shrugs and continues to rake in the money.

[beholder3]

AFAIK, third parties simply use EF protocols, which are compatible with RF.
I mean, I guess Canon can start killing their own EF lenses, but that would be an even worse move.

I can only speak of the Viltrox 85mm and that (at a certain firmware version) is being displayed as "Viltrox 85mm" in the camera plus the vignetting is corrected in the EVF.

Both certainly is not something the old EF-protocol can provide. So Viltrox had at least partially access to RF protocol.

[Wheatfield]

No surprise here. I've been saying since the RE mount was introduced that Cano was going to be doing whatever they could to force users into the new lenses.
This is just an extension of that.
I suspect most of if not all the Chinese third party manufacturers are pirating compatability rather than actually paying for licensing, and with this in mind, Canon has intellectual property to protect as well as selling lenses.
Expect their cameras to brick if a non Canon lens is mounted in the future.

[Lord Lucan]

third party manufacturers are pirating compatability rather than actually paying for licensing, and with this in mind, Canon has intellectual property to protect

Maybe, but Canon should direct their attacks at those manufacturers and their retailers, not at their own end users.