So a lens costing $2900 is sharper than a lens costing $550. I'm shocked. Simply shocked. I get that many people want L-series performance at inexpensive prices. As me ol' Irish Da said, wish in one hand and sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first.
I regularly use both the RF 100-500mm and (2 copies of) the RF 100-400mm on my R5 and R7 and can tell you first hand that they do not differ like "night and day". The RF 100-500mm is better, but the RF 100-400mm is damn good and pretty close to the EF 100-400mm II. There is a thread here on it: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-rf-100-400mm-f-5-6-8-is-usm-first-impressions.40938/ Also look at these shots of Dragonflies in Flight: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/dragonflies-and-damselflies.35543/page-77#post-940673
According to TDP, the 24mm Sigma is absolutely comatose! TDP hasn't tested the 20mm yet, so to recommend it is risky at least, unless you rely on Youtube reviews or DPReview...which I certainly wouldn't
The reviews of both the 24mm and 20mm have been largely positive. The 20mm seems to be the better of the 2 from the reviews I have seen.
Yes it has some coma, it mentions in the digital picture review that while he hoped for better coma performance it wasn’t unusual for that class of lens. What level of coma that is acceptable is for individuals to decide for themselves. If someone wants a better lens for coma performance that means getting the 24mm f1.4 GM which is quite a bit more expensive. Nice to have the choice though.
That's a fair point. Hopefully this is just Viltrox being sloppy and infringing on something they should not have. Hopefully we will see reverse engineered Sigma, Tamron, Tokina lenses. But this hits home because Sony will license their mount to you and has a rapidly growing 3rd party catalog, while RF is a desert of 3rd party options.
Back in June a Sigma UK rep told me that they are waiting on licenses from both Canon and Nikon so that they can release lenses on those platforms. Recent events point to that not only being a good move but also potentially mandatory. Sigma, Tamron and Cosina will know what has happened to Samyang, Viltrox and Yongnuo and have no doubt already researched if reverse engineering is possible from a technical standpoint to which the answer is almost certainly yes but then might have already discovered or been told by outright by Canon that legally it’s prohibited.
You should really tell Canon. Be sure to mention that one person switched over this issue, like an iceberg that is 90% underwater, there must be at least 9 more people switching over this travesty. Maybe they've never even considered licensing their mounts.
Sorry to hurt your feelings.
I doubt, Yongnuo is 100% Chinese, has nothing to lose.
Wisdom is seen in hindsight but I don't think that it is correct today. Canon is more likely to lose long term by licensing the mount now than keeping it proprietary and forcing 3rd party lens manufacturers to use their reverse engineered EF mount. For all we know, Canon may currently be actively selling a license but at a cost that the 3rd parties are not willing to buy at.
