Will We Finally See Third-Party Autofocus for Full-Frame RF?

[neuroanatomist]

Variable aperture lensus often get overlooked. … 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 think a lot of that depends on use cases and workflow. I routinely use ISO 6400-25600 (shooting RAW and converting with DxO PL). With ISO 25600, a lens that’s f/7.1 or f/8 doesn’t need ‘sufficient daylight’, it is fine in all but very dim lighting and/or when needing high shutter speeds. Note that IBIS isn’t all that helpful with moving subjects, nor is it as effective with longer lenses (it adds 2 stops to the 70-200/2.8, for example).

FWIW, I’m shooting at those ISOs not because of f/8 lenses but rather a need for action-stopping shutter speeds in poor lighting, with lenses like the 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8.

I'm not sure I'm the best case scenario for a beginner though as I'm primarily shooting indoor video.

I’d imagine that makes a difference. I use a high-end camcorder for video, not my ILCs.

 

[mimbu]

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.

Oh yeah, it was just total coincidence that every new Canon camera broke compatibility.

Next you'll tell me that Microsoft didn't intentionally break compatibility of Lotus 1-2-3 to push Excel.

Would you by chance be interested in purchasing a bridge?

 

[mimbu]

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.

You and I both know that Canon's 200-800 is a very weak lens, and that it does not resolve any additional detail beyond about 640mm. The Sony lens has drawbacks of size & weight but it runs circles around the Canon lens when it comes to optical performance. And to focusing speed, for that matter. All things being equal, smaller and lighter is great. But not when it comes with such a massive hit to image quality. Canon should have just made it a 200-600.

 

[mimbu]

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.

It happened with every single new Canon camera. I get that you love Canon and you don't want to think this about them, but Canon hates 3rd party glass and always has. If you don't care at all about 3rd party glass then this is a non-issue, but many people do want a wider lens selection. Personally I picked up a Tamron 28-200/2.8-5.6 recently for an absolute bargain, it's a brilliant general purpose travel lens, and it was well under $500 for me. Of course people want options like that.

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?

Nah, that's incompetence.

Defend Canon if it makes you feel better but personally I will never buy back into a closed system, or even a controlled system where only certain lenses are permitted. Far too restrictive. There's never been more incredible 3rd party glass around and I love to experiment with it. Picked up an AF 75/2 a while back for $170. Incredible performance, far beyond the price. So much stuff out there like that.

 

[mimbu]

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?

B&H lists those lenses at $699, $429, and $599 for a total of $1727. I'd personally have a very hard time recommending anyone buy a set of lenses that slow, but I guess that's the Canon way.

The Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD is $1099 at B&H as I write this and the Tamron 17-50mm f/4 Di III VXD is $549. That comes to $1648 and the optical performance will far exceed that Canon trinity while being a 2-lens set instead of 3. Both have magnetic linear drive motors too, lightning fast AF all the way from 17mm to 400mm. And much faster apertures throughout most of that range. Yes, the Tamrons are on sale but I suspect the Canons were on sale when you found the $1450 price.

(Here in Japan the Tamron pair is only $1300 and the Canon trio is $1410. Regular prices. Amazing how much cheaper things can be when manufacturer price controls aren't in place.)

 

[neuroanatomist]

It happened with every single new Canon camera.

Oh. First time I’ve heard that. But you clearly know what you know.

B&H lists those lenses at $699, $429, and $599 for a total of $1727.

Are you unaware of the tariff-induced price increases that just Canon just put into effect?

Defend Canon if it makes you feel better but personally I will never buy back into a closed system, or even a controlled system where only certain lenses are permitted. Far too restrictive.

Then it’s a good thing you have other options. Clearly, your viewpoint is not that of the majority of camera buyers since Canon continues to dominate the market that they’ve successfully led for over 20 years.

 

[P-visie]

Oh yeah, it was just total coincidence that every new Canon camera broke compatibility.

Next you'll tell me that Microsoft didn't intentionally break compatibility of Lotus 1-2-3 to push Excel.

Would you by chance be interested in purchasing a bridge?

You use a lot of words to hide that you have no evidence to backup your claims.

 

[MikeGalos]

Next you'll tell me that Microsoft didn't intentionally break compatibility of Lotus 1-2-3 to push Excel.

They may or may not but I will and since I was at Microsoft at the time I can state absolutely that not only did Microsoft not break compatibility of 1-2-3 but they bent over backwards to make sure 1-2-3 ran and ran cleanly even to the point of detecting the version being run and enabling emulation of old OS bugs that Lotus expected on those versions.

Those old conspiracy theories are, frankly, garbage.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Those old conspiracy theories are, frankly, garbage.

So is this new one by @mimbu and the fact that he cannot produce any evidence to back up his claim is telling. But some people like to attach their tinfoil hats to their heads with cyanoacrylates.