No News for Third Party Full Frame Canon RF Lenses

[melgross]

I would think that Canon could simply say; We are opening up licensing of lenses to various manufacturers. We can’t yet say to whom these licenses will be issued, or for which lenses. As the issues of licensing are finalized, we, and they, will have more to say.

That should cover it.

 

[CharlesB]

Before buying the EF 180 macro, better test it also at infinity.
Mine was a tack -sharp macro lens, but really poor at infinity. Corners were absolutely mushy, even at f/11, certainly a case of bad luck.
I also missed the optical stabilization (minor drawback!)

Thanks for the heads up! I'm not sure if I'm going to get it, at least anytime soon. I have so many lenses already and a lot of them aren't put to work.

A lot of that is from my work schedule, wearing me out. So I don't go out nearly as much as I'd love too.

If I do get it, I'll definitely be sure to check it out! I don't know how people feel about that Ken Rockwell site (I believe that's the name) but on there, they said it was one of the best lenses ever to come out. I have no clue if that was counting the new RF lenses or not.

I remember when I started with macro, I kind of dreamed of having that lens but never ended up getting it. The distance you could get 1:1 was very appealing, especially when my primary macro lens was/is the mp-65mm. I also love the Venus 15mm macro lens because the shots are so unique. That 15mm lens is probably the hardest lens to learn/use for me but when you nail a shot, it's pretty amazing. I actually left a review for it on Amazon with a few of the shots I took long ago.

Thanks again for the heads up, really appreciate it! That's one of the things I love about this forum, people can be so helpful and I learn a lot.

 

[Slappy_G]

I want/need options because Canon doesn't want to make the lenses that I want. I want the Tamron 35 to 150. I want to be able to carry that one lens to a shoot.

never get pissed enough that I would sell my existing Canon gear but I could see a ton of other people doing it because this is just nonsense already.

Yup, it's just the usual Canon protectionism at play. They know Sigma and others would eat their lunch, so instead of putting out competitive mid-range and lower-priced glass, they just keep them out. The excuses about contract negotiations taking YEARS is obviously wrong. This is really not that complicated - it's a simple license agreement with a given fee.

At least they finally opened up the APS-C lenses, since Canon historically thinks that APS-C is not a "pro" offering and treats it like a red-headed stepchild. Anyone doing focal-length limited work like wildlife is keenly aware that APS-C should be no less "pro" than 35mm size. Other manufacturers have gotten the memo, but Canon steadfastly refuses.

 

[Del Paso]

Thanks for the heads up! I'm not sure if I'm going to get it, at least anytime soon. I have so many lenses already and a lot of them aren't put to work.

A lot of that is from my work schedule, wearing me out. So I don't go out nearly as much as I'd love too.

If I do get it, I'll definitely be sure to check it out! I don't know how people feel about that Ken Rockwell site (I believe that's the name) but on there, they said it was one of the best lenses ever to come out. I have no clue if that was counting the new RF lenses or not.

I remember when I started with macro, I kind of dreamed of having that lens but never ended up getting it. The distance you could get 1:1 was very appealing, especially when my primary macro lens was/is the mp-65mm. I also love the Venus 15mm macro lens because the shots are so unique. That 15mm lens is probably the hardest lens to learn/use for me but when you nail a shot, it's pretty amazing. I actually left a review for it on Amazon with a few of the shots I took long ago.

Thanks again for the heads up, really appreciate it! That's one of the things I love about this forum, people can be so helpful and I learn a lot.

Ken Rockwell? Flee, as quickly as you can! (I would!)
If I remember well, he once wrote that the EF 100 f/2,8 macro was no lens for "the manly man", unlike the EF 180. I have no confidence in somebody writing such stupidities and his pictures also say a lot about him.
I pretty much dislike his patronizing ways. His "testing" is purely subjective, setting himself up as THE dispenser of Truth...
I far prefer The Digital Picture, Christopher Frost, OpticalLimits and Gordon Laing. My very personal opinion, feel free to disapprove...
By tha way, you are not the only one who learnt a lot thanks to this forum...

 

[CharlesB]

Ken Rockwell? Flee, as quickly as you can! (I would!)
If I remember well, he once wrote that the EF 100 f/2,8 macro was no lens for "the manly man", unlike the EF 180. I have no confidence in somebody writing such stupidities and his pictures also say a lot about him.
I pretty much dislike his patronizing ways. His "testing" is purely subjective, setting himself up as THE dispenser of Truth...
I far prefer The Digital Picture, Christopher Frost, OpticalLimits and Gordon Laing. My very personal opinion, feel free to disapprove...
By tha way, you are not the only one who learnt a lot thanks to this forum...

Haha, thanks for that heads up as well!

I don't follow that guy or anything, he just had an article about it that was stating it's the BEST. I'm pretty sure in the article, there was tons of affiliate links as well, which I found odd. Normally people will have them at the front, middle or end and I think he had them EVERYWHERE, which is always a red flag to me. I don't mind people having them but overdoing it just feels very "used car salesman". I also never go off just one person's review on anything, I like to listen to a few people.

I'll take your word for it on his photos too! I'm not going back to look at them.

I personally like watching YouTube videos with people that are very direct and unbiased. That list pros and cons. Now, I have this forum too. I haven't even explored most of it yet. I think there's a section where people post their photos, which I'll need to check out. I love seeing other people's creations!

 

[Traveler]

The Canon speak? They are coming.

Why they aren't here yet? A mix of licensing fees, mount conversions and manufacturing capabilities of the third-party? I'm only guessing.

Obviously Canon is part of the equation, but I doubt they're the entire reason we don't have them yet.

I think it would be very frustrating to be a fly on the wall and listen to those conversations that may not lead anywhere I'd be very curious how firm their plans are. Have they decided to watch the APSC sales changes and then make the decision on April 20 2026 (I made that up) based on that? Or even the management still doesn't know and try to guess if this third-party game make enough customers upset?
Me personally, I don't find it as a big deal, I'm happy with the Canon options (both hobby and professional lines) and sometimes I can't even decide which Canon lens to bring with me (yes, I already have too many). But I think that the marketing is hitting them a bit. All those youtubers who keep bringing that "we need more options" without maybe really needing it? And beginners entering photography would just make a decision based on that because they don't know yet what they'll need. They just want more options just in case.
And Canon actually still has some useful lenses than no other manufacturer has.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But I think that the marketing is hitting them a bit. All those youtubers who keep bringing that "we need more options" without maybe really needing it? And beginners entering photography would just make a decision based on that because they don't know yet what they'll need. They just want more options just in case.

I suspect what most beginners see is this...

Sony entry level camera kits, current lineup

• a6100 + 16-50mm, $850 (released in 2019)
• a6400 + 16-50mm, $1000 (released in 2019)
• a6700 + 18-135mm, $1800 (released in 2023)

Canon entry level camera kits, current lineup

• R100 + 18-45mm, $600 (released in 2023)
• R50 + 18-45mm, $700 (released in 2023)
• R10 + 18-45mm, $1000 (released in 2022)
• R7 + 18-150mm, $1800 (released in 2022)

The Canon entry level lineup is significantly cheaper, and at the lower end Canon's lineup is much fresher.

 

[David - Sydney]

I suspect what most beginners see is this...

Sony entry level camera kits, current lineup

• a6100 + 16-50mm, $850 (released in 2019)
• a6400 + 16-50mm, $1000 (released in 2019)
• a6700 + 18-135mm, $1800 (released in 2023)

Canon entry level camera kits, current lineup

• R100 + 18-45mm, $600 (released in 2023)
• R50 + 18-45mm, $700 (released in 2023)
• R10 + 18-45mm, $1000 (released in 2022)
• R7 + 18-150mm, $1800 (released in 2022)

The Canon entry level lineup is significantly cheaper, and at the lower end Canon's lineup is much fresher.

I wonder how that pricing translates in UK/EU though with the Canon markups there?

Pricing is one thing but recommendations from sales people (in the remaining bricks/mortar stores) and reviewers/etc may have more influence.
Or (as I have been taught by my 20-30 year old kids) that friends will have an oversized influence on buying decisions and google/etc reviews. The latter is interesting as they don't add their reviews but are highly influenced by others who have left reviews.

 

[koenkooi]

I suspect what most beginners see is this...

Sony entry level camera kits, current lineup

• a6100 + 16-50mm, $850 (released in 2019)
• a6400 + 16-50mm, $1000 (released in 2019)
• a6700 + 18-135mm, $1800 (released in 2023)

Canon entry level camera kits, current lineup

• R100 + 18-45mm, $600 (released in 2023)
• R50 + 18-45mm, $700 (released in 2023)
• R10 + 18-45mm, $1000 (released in 2022)
• R7 + 18-150mm, $1800 (released in 2022)

The Canon entry level lineup is significantly cheaper, and at the lower end Canon's lineup is much fresher.

You’re forgetting about the ZV series, that is slightly fresher and by the looks of it, cheaper than the a6000 series. Sony also keeps the previous models for sale, which doesn’t make them fresh, but it does make them €100 cheaper than their successors.

I don’t know how set first time buyers are on interchangeable lenses, I started with an Ixus 400, over 20 years ago

 

[kten]

Well many of us simply want better versions of our EF mount lenses. All I wanted was a new version of the 50 1.4 which is my most used lens over the last decade and still works great as long as I use it at f2.5 or higher. There isn't an RF equivalent of my EF lenses that I need to buy aside from that 50 and I can't talk about the latest Canon attempt without cursing and raging.

I want/need options because Canon doesn't want to make the lenses that I want. I want the Tamron 35 to 150. I want to be able to carry that one lens to a shoot.

Canon and their bed buddies Apple feel like they're offerings are so good you would have to put yourself through punishment in order to get options from other manufacturers. Thankfully many photographers did that already and simply went to Sony or even nikons latest stuff. it's honestly the only reason Canon has been making so many offensive moves the last 5 years because Sony has been kicking them in the teeth and it's been great to watch but still sad to watch.

I know Panasonic's AF isn't the best but I'm going to L mount. My R5 AF is not as accurate as I would like it to be, Canon Tech told me that my r62 can focus better if I use apertures of 4.5 or 5.6, and the 50 mm situation makes me mad so I'm just going to add another amount to my kit. That's money that could go to Canon but they don't care because quote unquote business reasons.

I never get pissed enough that I would sell my existing Canon gear but I could see a ton of other people doing it because this is just nonsense already.

I presume you mean the RF 50 1.4 vcm, out of interest what do you find rage inducing about it? I personally find it a decent lens for the size and weight, to the point I will often pack it when on multiday hikes where i usually just take 1 lens (15-35 on R5ii usually) due to trying to keep the weight down especially in winter with the added weight of 4season tent, ice axe, crampons and extra layers which add up fast.

 

[Toni]

Without dubt, Canon R10, R7... are good cameras, but the fact that best canon aps-c lens are old Canon 17-55 F2.8 EF-S it's a big disappointment.

And for full-frame RF... The market that Canon has lost by not allowing third-party lenses will never be recovered. I guess they are aware of that.

 

[Del Paso]

Without dubt, Canon R10, R7... are good cameras, but the fact that best canon aps-c lens are old Canon 17-55 F2.8 EF-S it's a big disappointment.

And for full-frame RF... The market that Canon has lost by not allowing third-party lenses will never be recovered. I guess they are aware of that.

Which market do you think they lost????
What makes more sense, selling own lenses or letting Sigma-Tamron etc... get rich?

 

[Sporgon]

Switching between the RP and R5, the pictures done with the R5 had a much bigger motion blur (after downscaling to 26MP to match the RP) for the same settings and subject. There's something in the 'old' ILIS algos that hits a low performance band around 1/200s. Pretty much all Canon IS systems will amplify shuttershock when using MS at that speed, but even with EFCS the EF100L+R5 combo had motion smearing, where the RP didn't. Turning IS off on the lens made it better, but I didn't spend all that € on ILIS and IBIS to keep it disabled!

After switching to the RF100L all those issues went away. I don't know if it was just my copy, my way of handling or a combination there of, but I hated the EF100L on my R5.

That’s very interesting ! I have found exactly the same using my EF 24-70/4 IS L on an R6; when using combined IS the images are just ever so slightly less sharp than using no IS. However, this doesn’t happen with my other EF IS lenses, (including Tamron VC primes) where the combined IS and IBIS give a sharper image at low shutter speeds, but then I don’t have the EF 100/2.8 L macro.
Now did you know that the EF 24-70/4 IS L uses the same special macro image stabilisation as the EF 100/2.8 L Macro ? Looks like the combination of that type of IS plus IBIS isn’t such a great marriage.
It’s a pity Canon won’t / can’t let us use just the lens IS on these IBIS bodies.

 

[mimbu]

I suspect what most beginners see is this...

Sony entry level camera kits, current lineup

• a6100 + 16-50mm, $850 (released in 2019)
• a6400 + 16-50mm, $1000 (released in 2019)
• a6700 + 18-135mm, $1800 (released in 2023)

Canon entry level camera kits, current lineup

• R100 + 18-45mm, $600 (released in 2023)
• R50 + 18-45mm, $700 (released in 2023)
• R10 + 18-45mm, $1000 (released in 2022)
• R7 + 18-150mm, $1800 (released in 2022)

The Canon entry level lineup is significantly cheaper, and at the lower end Canon's lineup is much fresher.

The Sony 16-50 is a FF equiv of 24-75 while the Canon is 29-72. If Canon is going to insist on APS-C sensors being smaller than Sony's, they really do need wider kit lenses to match.

I also think that a smart consumer who is doing pre-purchase research will notice that one of those two brands has a fully built out APS-C ecosystem (with a lot of third party glass options, including a lot of ridiculously affordable AF lenses coming out of China now) while the other seems to treat APS-C as an afterthought they would really sooner not have to deal with.

That said, Sony does need to refresh the a6100 and a6400 to be based around the new 26mp BSI sensor used in the a6700/FX30, as well as give them the AF updates from newer Sony cameras. And a cheaper option that isn't purely vlogging-focused would be good too.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I also think that a smart consumer who is doing pre-purchase research will notice that one of those two brands has a fully built out APS-C ecosystem (with a lot of third party glass options, including a lot of ridiculously affordable AF lenses coming out of China now) while the other seems to treat APS-C as an afterthought they would really sooner not have to deal with.

Your clear implication is that a 'smart consumer who is doing pre-purchase research' would choose Sony...yet the market data show that far more consumers choose Canon. So either camera buyers are not smart consumers, or your speculation about their motivations is not applicable to a large segment of the market.

 

[Toni]

Which market do you think they lost????
What makes more sense, selling own lenses or letting Sigma-Tamron etc... get rich?

Canon have lost a lot of mirrorless full-frame market.
It makes more sense to sell lens because your lens are better than others, or sell your lens because other manufacturers can't sell them?

 

[Del Paso]

Canon have lost a lot of mirrorless full-frame market.
It makes more sense to sell lens because your lens are better than others, or sell your lens because other manufacturers can't sell them?

Are you kidding?
Where are your data to prove your inventions?

 

[Toni]

Are you kidding?
Where are your data to prove your inventions?

Can you prove otherwise?

 

[Del Paso]

Can you prove otherwise?

Ridiculous! What about entering politics?

 

[P-visie]

Can you prove otherwise?

You are the one making claims, so it is logical to ask you for the data to support your claims.

Maybe you should read this : https://www.canonrumors.com/the-dat...multiple-camera-and-lens-categories-for-2024/