Don’t expect any third-party autofocus lenses in the near future
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
The issue with that is, since the release of the RF mount Canon have continuously put their prices up, even on RF gear. If you compared Sony lens prices from pre-Covid to now, they’ve barely changed whereas Canon have greatly increased their lens prices, especially for EF mount.
If all manufacturers were increasing prices to the same level it would be one thing but here Canon is the main one doing it.
Upvote
0
Sony's E mount manufacturing started in 2010
Nikon & Canon started in 2018.
All EF & F mount lenses were designed & announced prior to 2018.
Changes to manufacturing process increases cost.
This gets magnified because of COVID-19
Have you seen the cost of fuel? Makes you wish you owned oil stocks!
Using BH Photo here are the comparison
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I looked at the EF100-400 and even second hand was still expensive but I couldn't use TCs on my RF70-200mm. When the RF100-500mm was on sale, I jumped at it and have not regretted my decision.
Adding a 1.4xTC for the EF100-400 is common but having it built in to the RF is just great.
I tend to use the lens at the longer end so not an issue with the 300mm limitation. Having the weight distribution closer to the body is a big benefit.
If you need a TC for the RF100-500mm then that would be equivalent to the 2xTC on the EF100-400 and that did have focus speed and image quality degradation.
Frankly, I am very glad that all the RF lenses have moved to plastic rather than metal. Besides the obvious weight reduction and size by having extending the lens body, there is the problem of white paint chips at the mount on the EF lenses which always looked poor!
Upvote
0
You only need native RF-S lenses for wide angle. Using RF lenses on the R7/10 will give you more "reach".
The RF100mm macro is expensive and has focus shift and the SA control is debatable. It sounds like the EF100mm L macro is the right lens/cost etc for you.
I think that a native 180mm macro is far down their priority list but I could be (and have been) wrong in the past
Upvote
0
If you want to see some active/open source reverse engineering then look to the Magic Lantern effort to replace the Canon's firmware. They haven't started on Digic X yet and I don't see the point so much as Canon has regularly released new features in their R6/5 etc and pushed thermal limits etc already.
Magic Lantern Supported cameras:
5D Mark II, 5D Mark III, 6D, 7D, 50D, 60D, 500D/T1i, 550D/T2i, 600D/T3i, 650D/T4i, 700D/T5i, 1100D/T3, EOS M.
In progress:
70D, 100D/SL1, 1200D/T5, 450D/XSi, EOS M2, EOS M50.
5D3 1.3.4, 7D 2.0.6, 550D 1.1.0, EOS M 2.0.3.
Porting started:
80D, 200D, 77D, 5D Mark IV, 7D Mark II, 5DS/R (Hello World)
1300D, 2000D, 4000D, 750D, 760D, 800D, 6D Mark II, EOS R, SX70, SX740 (ROM dumpers available)
Upvote
0
Canon is smart not to share profits in an already compacted market.
Quality glass is different then camera bodies, they are much longer lasting. I have no doubt my investment in RF glass will be with me for years after my R5, R6 and R3 are long gone. I have already retired the R and RP but still have the 15-35, 28-70, 70-200 that I bought as soon as they were available. I sold my EF glass as I replaced it with RF equivalents.
Quality glass is different then camera bodies, they are much longer lasting. I have no doubt my investment in RF glass will be with me for years after my R5, R6 and R3 are long gone. I have already retired the R and RP but still have the 15-35, 28-70, 70-200 that I bought as soon as they were available. I sold my EF glass as I replaced it with RF equivalents.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I already own EF 100mm L along with Venus 100mm and wont upgrade to that overpriced RF 100mm L(wont even buy it at $750 which is what I paid for EF 100mm L). For RF-S there needs to be a good tele zoom along with replacements for 60mm and 35mm Macros. Unfortunately 180mm Macro is not on priority for any lens manufacturer right now so I am stuck to borrowing either Sigma 180 2.8 or EF 180 when I need it.You only need native RF-S lenses for wide angle. Using RF lenses on the R7/10 will give you more "reach".
The RF100mm macro is expensive and has focus shift and the SA control is debatable. It sounds like the EF100mm L macro is the right lens/cost etc for you.
I think that a native 180mm macro is far down their priority list but I could be (and have been) wrong in the past
Upvote
0
I agree with your point.
Somewhat related Canon published a list EF lenses compatible to EOS R3 Max. Continuous shooting Speed
After a year it was discovered that lens announced prior to 2012 did not have the aperture mechanism to handle H+ of approx 30fps with electronic shutter or 12fps of mechanical shutter & electronic 1st curtain shutter.
As an owner of these affected lenses I do not mind the limitations as it would mean no uncessary increase of of wear & tear. Last thing I want is for a lens announced in 1999 breaking down prematurely because it wasn't designed for 30fps.
For those who need it it is an incentive for them to upgrade to RF lenses.
Upvote
0
I also won't upgrade to the RF100mm - at least until something fails on my EF100mm and even then I may not buy the RF one.
Using the 100mm L macro (RF or EF) with the R7/10 will get you better working distance for handheld macro though.
For R7/10, the RF100-400mm would be the obvious choice for good reach or RF100-500mm for those with deeper pockets.
Replacing EF-S macros is unlikely in my opinion. Too little volume in general although they served a good purpose in small/light macro setups.
Upvote
0
I've spoken to a CPS personnel in my country and they disclosed to me that they encountered some Magic lantern cameras that broke before of the firmware.
Canon wouldn't push their bodies beyond spec because they have a legal responsibility to fix them.
Magic Lantern's free so if you use it and breaks your body then buy a replacement.
Upvote
0
If a project covers the cost of possible replacement. Sure, go for it. If you're just an enthusiast that does not want to burn out their body prematurely... try at your own risk.
It also eats into the profit margins of Canon that in turn impacts the service center's viability & R&D budget.
Wouldn't ETTR be handled by exposure compensation settings?
Upvote
0
I am completely happy with Canon (nearly). My lenses are mostly EF-Glass, which is working exzellent, even the 100-400 with 1.4 Adapter is working well - at the right setting. And the RF 100 Macro is great. I do not need third party Lenses. And i do not understand the complaints of people who are longing for cheap alternatives. If they do not have the money, they should not use the expensive R-System or make compromises like me and use EF-Glass.
Go and switch to Sony or shoot with a smartphone ...
Go and switch to Sony or shoot with a smartphone ...
Upvote
0
You don't understand . . . People who want cheaper alternatives . . . To the expensive lenses on Canon's modern camera system? And you also claim that you, yourself, are making compromises (ostensibly for financial reasons) and that's why you use EF glass instead, even though it works well "at the right setting," in your case?
Bruddah, you have got to raise your standards lol. This sounds like Stockholm Syndrome!
Upvote
0
People should start changing systems now and selling their EF lenses so I can get a good price on the used market
I wonder if they will remove the "Release shutter w/o lens" feature to remove the unchipped lenses, I don't think they will go that far but it's a possibility.
I wonder if they will remove the "Release shutter w/o lens" feature to remove the unchipped lenses, I don't think they will go that far but it's a possibility.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
