Will We Finally See Third-Party Autofocus for Full-Frame RF?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I lived through the era and experienced it first hand. I sent lenses for chip replacements. I had lenses age out and no longer be eligible for chip replacements and therefore not work on newer bodies. This was a real issue with every new camera release from Canon. Nikon did similar things but not quite to the same degree. These sorts of shenanigans are why Sony officially opening E mount was such a big deal. Sony doesn't even charge a licensing fee or a royalty.
Upvote
0
1) During the SLR era, Sigma and Tamron reverse engineered the mount protocols. Then Canon would intentionally break compatibility which forced the chip upgrades and lead to the eventual USB docks/ports. There was no guarantee from Canon but Canon was notoriously malicious about it.
2) Canon has licensed a very limited number of APS-C lenses that they clearly do not wish to make in house.
The licensing does mean that the few APS-C lenses should not experience the same problems that Canon inflicted during the DSLR days.
There is no indication that there will be any FF lenses. If there are, it will be highly restricted. You're never going to see a Sigma 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, or 70-200/2.8 lens on RF. You'll never see the Sigma 500/5.6, or the 300-600/4. Nor the 14/1.4. Probably none of the ART primes at all. Maybe a few entry level Contemporary zooms but none of the "i series" compact primes. There is a ton of amazing glass out there that will never land on RF, and that's a shame.
Upvote
0
These are just anecdotes, not evidence. The need to upgrade the chips in the lenses may just as well, or rather far more likely, been caused by incomplete or faulty re-engineering of the EF communication protocols by the third party lens manufacturers.
Sony opened the E-mount because they needed third party lenses.
Upvote
0
Perhaps you didn't notice that the Sony and Canon 100-500 lenses in that comparison are essentially the same size and weight? Canon's 200-800 is only 1/3 stop slower and covers the 200-400mm (4x vs 2x zoom range), but the brand new Sony lens is 3 cm longer and 20% (425 g) heavier. Kinda the opposite of your point, so yeah, thanks for the chuckle. Canon's new 70-200/2.8 Z is pretty much the same size as Sony's 70-200/2.8, but Canon also offers a version that's the same weight but the Sony lens is 30% (55 mm) longer, so it seems Canon cared about making a compact 70-200/2.8 but Sony did not. Canon has a 10-20mm f/4 and Sony...doesn't have anything that wide. But Canon's lens is the same weight and size as Sony's 12-24mm f/4, so...ok.
We could cherry pick examples all day, but the bottom line is that both manufacturers offer compact/light options and also sometimes prioritize other features, and what's really laughable here is your support of @t.linn's inane assertion that Canon doesn't care about making small/compact lenses and bodies.
Upvote
0
You might want to look up the definition of the word evidence. It clearly eludes you. You have claimed, twice, that Canon intentionally broke compatibility with 3rd party lenses. Prove it.
You might consider that Canon has broken compatibility with their own lenses on many occasions, too. Lenses that they still supported and presumably would have been easily able to test with new firmware releases. Was that intentional, too?
Sure, you can claim whatever you want before it actually happens. But if you can't substantiate your claims of past events with actual evidence, certainly you'll fail at substantiating claims of future events. That's worth a chuckle, indeed.
There is no indication there won't be, is there? I mean, the whole premise of this thread is that CR was told, "...full-frame [3rd party] RF mount lenses with autofocus are coming in the next year, and possibly sooner. Though the first ones won’t be from Sigma we’re told." That's an indication right there, yet you claim there's 'no indication'. You've exceeded chuckling, you're a regular laugh riot. Can you not read? Your statement that there's no indication is asinine. I'm not saying the rumor is true, just that it is consistent with the possibility.
Upvote
0
Anyone must be able to live, so it could be ok that other manufacturers can sell AF RF lens.
Although it's true that canon 28-70 F2.8 RF and canon 16-28 F2.8 RF are good lenses. By cost and by weight (about 500 gr), they are perhaps the best canon full-frame lens for travel. Before, I bought a canon 24-70 F2.8 RF and it's expensive and it weights a lot (900 gr) to take it on a trip.
Although it's true that canon 28-70 F2.8 RF and canon 16-28 F2.8 RF are good lenses. By cost and by weight (about 500 gr), they are perhaps the best canon full-frame lens for travel. Before, I bought a canon 24-70 F2.8 RF and it's expensive and it weights a lot (900 gr) to take it on a trip.
Upvote
0
No, no. We were clearly informed above, first by @t.linn then supported by @mimbu, that Canon does not care about making small/light lenses. So even though you think the Canon RF 28-70/2.8 is much smaller and lighter than the Sony 24-70/2.8 and the Canon RF 16-28/2.8 is very similar in size and weight to the Sony 16-25/2.8, those Canon lenses don't actually exist. Sorry.
Upvote
0
And ‘opened’ needs some qualifiers as well, afaik 3rd party lenses still have an fps cap on sony.
Upvote
0
Yes, there is a 15 fps restriction with continuous AF. But that is not a restriction by Sony, that is a “technical necessity” since Sony does not know if third party lenses will function at higher fps
.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
There hasn’t been an EF lens released for some time now but I don’t have a problem with an OEM doing so… especially as fast focusing is not a concern for Astro. Sigma released their 14/1.4 in E and L mount. Many would be happy if they did it in EF mount as well.
I am guessing that canon wouldn’t like them to do it though
Upvote
0
I'm so glad Tamron made this thinking possible across lens manufacturers. When Canon released their own versions which also turn out to be optically very good, I got excited.
Upvote
0
I guess the problem it's the flange distance; if the Sigma 14 1.4 (I'm not familiar with it) is a lens specifically designed for mirrorless, it's not so easy (or probably impossible) to adapt it to EF, so for a flange distance which is around double the length.
It's easy the other way around, when you have a lens made for (D)SLR, that is designed for a flange distance of say 44mm (Canon EF), when you have to adapt it on a 20mm flange (Canon RF) you just insert a "spacer" in between, as in the EF to RF Adapter.
But if you release that Sigma in EF mount, means you have to use it with the adapter, and so it has to sit at 44mm from the sensor, rather then the 18/20/22mm of its native design, and you can't do that; otherwise all the third party gang would have released all sort of ML lens in EF mount and avoid all together all Canon limitations.
That's why we need (or "some of us would love", so nobody feels offended lol) Canon to "open", "licence", call it whatever you want, the RF mount for full frame lenses, because it's the only way to have on the system third party lenses specifically designed for ML, that can't be ported to EF (or Nikon F) mount due to the totally incompatible flange distance. And this is especially true for the wideangles (and so for the Sigma you mention), where the reduced distance from sensor leads to optical schemes that weren't possible with the distance of a mirror box in between, while for tele lenses the shorter flange doesn't give special advantages.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This forum makes me sad. Canon has created a very attractive entry point into full frame mirrorless with the R8 ($1,300 new $1,089 used right now). The problem is the very, very expensive RF lenses. I created a spreadsheet to compare brands and the cheapest holy trinity of zoom lenses on Canon (STM except for the 70-200) will cost $4,650 versus Tamron FE mount will only cost $2,600 (or $2,100 used on MPB right now). Less than half the price. I know Sony camera bodies run a bit more than Canon, but these dollars still make Sony the cheaper choice by over $1,000. Then start adding to the kit fast glass over time... f1.4 primes for example... don't even get me started. Those alone are $1,000 more per lens over third party options on FE right now. Over time by choosing Sony over Canon could save tens of thousands of dollars. I love Canon but is it worth it?
Upvote
0
I suspect that most people considering an ‘entry point into FF mirrorless’ would not be looking at jumping in with an f/2.8 trinity. Take your FE system and put together a set of variable aperture FF zooms covering 15mm to 400mm. Can you beat the $1450 for the RF 15-30, 24-105 and 100-400?
Upvote
0
It is a great point. Variable aperture lensus often get overlooked. If we strictly listened to the You Tubers" then there would be an aweful lot of those kit lenses in the landfill. While they can perform quite well with sufficient daylight, on a tripod, or like so many new cameras coming out with IBIS, maybe no tripod required. Although IBIS happens to be one of the very few features lacking in the R8. I'm not sure I'm the best case scenario for a beginner though as I'm primarily shooting indoor video. Low aperture is indeed quite helpful. The new STM zooms Canon has coming out look quite impressive. I just wish they had been released 5 years ago so that they could be had a bit cheaper on the used market. The matching 70-200 STM (or perhaps 70-180 to shave some weight and cost) has not been released yet. This is probably the most important lens in the series for anybody, like me, that needs to reach across a fairly good size room. And with standard, fairly poor indoor lighting, the f4 does fall short.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
