Why would you have to switch? Does Nikon have all the lenses you need, or just the wildlife ones? Why not have both? I've seen plenty of photographers that use multiple systems.
Upvote
0
There will be “a lot” of new RF mount lenses from Canon between now and March 2024
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I think back to when I got the 70-300L, where the positions of the focus and zoom rings were reversed compared to all my other lenses. That was a PITA, and unless I had the tripod ring installed (an optional, separate purchase) that forced my fingertips to be under the zoom ring, I'd often grab the focus ring by mistake. It's better now, because for my RF lenses at least, all the black ones have the zoom ring closer to the mount and all the white ones have the zoom ring further from the mount.
As for running dual systems, for myself I imagine that going back and forth on ring and mount rotation directions from Canon to Nikon would drive me slowly insane.
Upvote
0
Long time reader. First post.
Tamron is supposed to announce a 17-50 f/4 full frame lens for Sony today. It would be nice if Canon (or Tamron, Sigma) would do the same for the R system. As a full frame, constant aperture, I guess it would need to be an L lens (based on Canon history), but likely it would be lighter, smaller and maybe less expensive than the RF 24-105 f/4.
Anyone interested? Yes, there's the very old EF 17-40, the various EF 16-35, the RF 14-35 and the RF15-35, but I think this would fill a void and, again, if Canon does not produce it, Tamron at least probably will. It would pair nicely with the RF 70-200 f/4 and the RF 16 f/2.8.
Tamron is supposed to announce a 17-50 f/4 full frame lens for Sony today. It would be nice if Canon (or Tamron, Sigma) would do the same for the R system. As a full frame, constant aperture, I guess it would need to be an L lens (based on Canon history), but likely it would be lighter, smaller and maybe less expensive than the RF 24-105 f/4.
Anyone interested? Yes, there's the very old EF 17-40, the various EF 16-35, the RF 14-35 and the RF15-35, but I think this would fill a void and, again, if Canon does not produce it, Tamron at least probably will. It would pair nicely with the RF 70-200 f/4 and the RF 16 f/2.8.
Upvote
0
I wouldn't say frustrated, more incredulous that people would buy into a camera and lens system knowing that it doesn't meet their needs, and then blame the manufacturer for it.You seem to be quite frustrated with the comments already in the post... you don't have to read them
I bought into the R system 3 years ago precisely for the mirrorless advantages including new RF lenses and the ability to adapt my existing EF lenses (which I still do). There have been a lot of RF lenses released since I got my R5 but the key ones for me at the time was a lighter/smaller RF70-200/2.8 and the RF100-500mm.
In essence, the combined EF/RF and adapted 3rd party EF lenses suit most of my photographic wants. There will always be gaps though. We would like to think that Canon could fill those gaps especially as I anticipate further (complete?) discontinuation of EF lenses. We are only 5 years into a mount replacement so relatively early days but a couple of gaps seem to be obvious which Canon may or may not want to cover:
- RF50/1.4 => massive gap in price and optics between the RF50/1.2 and RF50/1.8. The Sigma EF50/1.4 Art is an option though
- No wide RF-S lenses => no APS-C body can do wide angle without adapting EF-S wide angle zooms. My EF-S 11-22mm was my second lens I bought for landscape with my 7D but until either a repackaged EF-M or EF-S lens is released then this is a gap
- Specialist RF replacements for TS-E, MP-E, long macro, fish-eye haven't arrived yet. Definitely niche products but discontinuing EF mount versions is intriguing if there is no replacement
- Niches that Canon has not tried to enter with EF lenses were covered with 3rd party eg fast/wide primes especially for astro landscape with low coma. This is a little strange as Canon has had multiple modified filter bodies for Ha sensitity available for a very long time but nothing since the discontinued Ra body.
Some people can justify or afford multiple systems (body / lens) for a specific purpose but there are downsides as well. Always best for the user if they can get everything in one system but we know that won't happen.
That's not the same as recognizing gaps in the lineup and hoping for Canon to address them. There are certainly lenses that I'd like to see, and would buy in a heartbeat if Canon made them. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying using what I have.
You obviously did a reasoned analysis and determined that the smaller size and weight of the RF 100-500 was more important to you than an extra 100 mm or 1/3 stop at the long end, like the Sigma 150-600 or Sony 200-600. But you knew and accepted that tradeoff.
What I was responding to in my earlier post was people who insult other forum users, demand specific features or they'll switch brands, or simply cease all brain activity and make animal noises.
Upvote
0
Welcome!
Agree it would definitely be an L lens. Does not sound like something Canon would allow a 3rd party to produce for RF (assuming they could prevent that), given the overlap with the current lineup.
I admit I'd probably be tempted. I have the range well covered with the EF 11-24/4L, RF 14-35/4L, RF 24-105/4L and RF 28-70/2. But a 17-50/4 could be an excellent travel lens (a 17-70/4L would be even better, maybe that will be the RF upgrade to the EF 24-70/4L).
Upvote
0
17-50?
Plus a 100 macro, a TSE and a 100-500, that's all I'd need for most trips
But optical quality should be on par with the RF 28-70
Anyway, no matter how good, not enough reasons to engage in an inter-naval activity...
Plus a 100 macro, a TSE and a 100-500, that's all I'd need for most trips
But optical quality should be on par with the RF 28-70
Anyway, no matter how good, not enough reasons to engage in an inter-naval activity...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
That lens is basically the dream! I'd prefer it at f/2.8 but it's already a bit big at f/4. Such a lens would allow me to skip a dedicated UWA lens in my travel kit. 14mm is considerably wider than 17mm, but as a compromise lens where I can only carry 2-3 lenses max, I'd gladly accept the tradeoff. But wouldn't Canon rather you buy bigger bags and carry multiple lenses and swap lenses more often, even if the functionality could be consolidated and convenience could be gained?
To be honest, with how carefully Canon seems to be milking its userbase, I can't imagine them making a lens that takes the place of 2 lenses. MAYBE in 6-10 years, when most people have already bought the lenses that this lens would replace. That being said, this is a lens I would have switched to RF for (if Canon made it), but I already switched because of the high quality L zooms. I don't think it would've gotten me to switch to Sony though as I have more doubts about usability, ergos, and Sony's own milking process.
It sucks knowing that Canon's strategy makes perfect business sense, but that in the end, I'm the one getting taken advantage of. I was going to say that the consumer loses, but I know some corporate apologists here will say that, AKSHUALLY, I'm winning, because Canon is gracious enough to make world class lenses available for purchase. I guess the kool-aid hasn't fully taken effect for me yet.
Upvote
0
Wait, first you wanted an 18-50mm f/2. Now you want a 17-50/2.8 but you'll settle for a 17-50/4 yet even that's too big. How can Canon make the lens you want just for you, if you don't even know what lens you want?
Upvote
0
I know what I want, but I'm flexible. The focal range is more important than the f-stop, as long as it's not slower than f/4. And I didn't say the 17-50/4 is too big, I just said it's "a bit big".Wait, first you wanted an 18-50mm f/2. Now you want a 17-50/2.8 but you'll settle for a 17-50/4 yet even that's too big. How can Canon make the lens you want just for you, if you don't even know what lens you want?
C'mon man, the common theme with RF lenses is settling, whether it's settling for adapting an EF lens, or having to carry an extra lens, or not having a lens option at all, or having to fork over gobs of dough for something more than what you need (like f/1.2 when you only care about f/1.4).
If Canon was ever so gracious to make a ~17-50mm L zoom, at ANY constant aperture, at ANY price, I would have no choice but to kiss their shoes and thank them.
Upvote
0
What
They'll just have to work with Harry and make a 8-1200mm f/0.95 out of secret exotic sub quantum particular which weigh 2.176434(24)×10−8 kg all for under $159.95! Canon will never do it, but Tamrigma will for your Nikony for you AZ9v5! Now that's what I call a WIN!!!Wait, first you wanted an 18-50mm f/2. Now you want a 17-50/2.8 but you'll settle for a 17-50/4 yet even that's too big. How can Canon make the lens you want just for you, if you don't even know what lens you want?
Upvote
0
Maybe for you, and if all you are doing is settling then maybe another system would be a better choice.
Personally, I got a 70-200/2.8 that's smaller and lighter than my EF MkII and delivers better IQ. I got an RF 14-35/4 that's 2mm wider than my EF 16-35/4 and means I sometimes don't need to bring the heavy EF 11-24, and the 14-35 takes the same 77mm filters as my RF 24-105/4 making it great for travel. When I do need to bring the heavy EF 11-24/4 and/or the TS-E 17, I got a drop-in filter adapter that means I don't need to carry and fiddle with the massive front filter setups for those lenses. I got an RF 28-70/2 for which there's no equivalent lens in EF or from another brand. I got an RF 100-500 that delivers excellent IQ in a small package when bringing my 600/4 is impractical. I got an RF 100-400 that delivers great IQ and is light enough to take along on a trip even I only plan to use it a couple of times, and cost only $500. I got an RF 100-300/2.8 that is ideal for indoor events. Those are are significant wins for me, no settling needed.
If a 17-50mm f/4 lens is your personal nirvana, why are you here? Buy a nice Sony body and wait for the Tamron lens to start shipping.
Upvote
0
You are the perfect customer! "This one is a tiny bit better than that one, and if that one isn't enough, I have this other one. Meanwhile I also have a couple that overlap but they are a little bit different. I love it; I have 12 different options to choose from and it only cost me the low low price of $15,000."
Until today's announcement of the Tamron 17-50/4, the closest thing in FF was the less-than-a-year-old Sony 20-70/4 which is also an awesome range. The Panasonic 10-25/1.7 for m4/3 has been around for a few years and showed me that a fast 20-50 equivalent could be possible, but I didn't want to switch to m4/3.
I've wanted a "fast" ~20-50mm for several years, but have accepted that I very likely won't see it because it would make too many other options obsolete, so I haven't been holding my breath, and I won't be switching to a system with inferior ergos and shooting experience, and the same or worse level of disdain for its customer base.
Canon is making some really quality stuff, you just pretty much have to choose from lukewarm budget lenses, or heartburn pinnacle lenses. There is no sensible in-between because Canon doesn't want you to be sensible. They want you to buy more lenses.
Upvote
0
And if you don't want to buy more Canon lenses, there's always the possibility to buy a camera from a different brand . There are at least 3 interesting systems to choose from. But you'd better wait for some serious reviews, because presently, all we've got are this Tamron's optical data. What if it produces soft corners? What if it distorts heavily?17-50 sounds quite extreme, better be cautious...
PS: I once had a sony A7 ? with 2 lenses. Hated the ergonomics, the shutter shake. And sold the whole package to buy a 5 DIII, as easy as that, unless you own 15 EF L lenses, of course, and even then...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'd love to buy more lenses from Canon, I just don't want $2000 f/1.2 monsters, or lackluster $300 f/1.8 bait lenses. I want a line of f/1.4 primes for ~$1000 a piece, native to the RF system, and I want a unicorn lens that probably hasn't existed until recently (the ~20-50) because it's difficult to control aberrations - for this unicorn I'd be willing to pay more, but because it would solve multiple use cases, and likely be cheaper than buying 2 independent lenses that provide this range.
Sorry to be just the next guy wanting something that Canon doesn't have. It seems the standard response here is "don't like it? then leave". I get it though; too many unsatisfied shooters are prowling forums these days and Canon fanboys are sick of being reminded that their peers expect more, suggesting that maybe they should be unsatisfied as well. If you're cool with the decades-old trinity of 16-35/24-70/70-200, and halo primes that you've never been able to get milked for before, great, have at it. I don't. I want to see more optical innovation that Canon is clearly capable of (like the 28-70 and 14-35), and I also want to see sensible premium primes as previously noted, and I'm definitely not the only one in that boat.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
EF lenses in the United States are not very difficult to find. They are litterally everywhere or in most rental houses for rent or purchase. They may be "discontinued" on Canon's website, but will be available for decades. Many Cine cameras are EF mount. Don't see this changing in the near future or for quite awhile. A long while
Upvote
0
Thank you, though maybe you don't mean that as a compliment.
Regardless, I am fortunate to not be significantly limited by budget for my photo gear. Maybe there is no 'sensible in-between' because the market mainly comprises a low end where people buy a body and kit lens(es) and maybe buy an extra lens or two if they're cheap, and a high end where people have more than one body and several expensive lenses. Sure, there are going to be people in between, but it seems Canon doesn't think that's big enough market. If you ask, 'then why are SoNikon in that space and letting SigRon make lenses for it,' quite possibly it's because Canon isn't. IMO, that's why Sony first moved out of DSLRs, then prioritized FF MILCs over APS-C MILCs. If the 800-lb gorilla wants to eat the bamboo, the little mammals scurrying around the forest floor had better find another food source.
Upvote
0
I am with you on that!!! The middle of the line-up is missing at the moment. I‘m guessing/ hoping those needs will be addressed over the next few years. Canon has started just five years ago with the RF Mount and we all should be patient.
I think that „I’ll sell all my canon gear“ comments are just as useless as the opposing: „don’t like it, just leave canon and buy something else“ section… so I usually try not to reply to those… but I kind had the feeling you’d don’t actually won’t to leave canon and just wish for some lenses to be made. I think as an enthusiast who spends a lot of money on gear, that this is an understandable issue. On the other hand, there are a few here who always write in extremes: I’m going to leave canon if….“. I’m sick and tired of that and it makes it kind hard In this forum to voice and discuss wishes/ ideas without getting trashed afterwards or having your comment out in one category by others…
For what’s it is worth:
I made my choices and picked L glass where I wanted/ needed it (RF 14-35mm/ 24-105mm/ RF 100-500mm) and choose budget lenses for cases I just wanted to experience it, e.g. 85mm F2 (actually bought it as a refurbed on sale for 375 $). If canon doesn’t come out with affordable f1.4 primes I’ll just won’t buy another canon prime. If third parties come out, I’ll get those. If not, I’ll just stick to my options.
I also wish for canon to come out with more „innovative“ lenses concerning the focal lengths. So far, most lenses have had innovative improvements (RF 100-500mm with plus 100mm/ RF 14-35mm…). In addition, they’ve made innovative Glass (RF 600/800mm and 28-70mm) and I sure hope they continue doing so.
My biggest wishes/ ideas for new innovative glass would be:
RF 70-140mm F2
RF 1000mm F11
RF 250-750mm or 200-600mm
in the Style of the RF 100-400mm
17-50mm L (I’d sell the 14-35 and maybe the 24-105mm for this one)
Of course, F1.4 primes, but I wouldn’t call them „innovative“ because they already existed for EF.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
