>>3989204No, but 3rd party devs will reverse engineer them any way.
desu I'm surprised they aren't just using EF protocol in RF lenses. The RF bodies not only understand it, they use it with RF glass. RF protocol adds a high speed serial data line. RF lenses still use the old pins for AF/AE. The new serial data line supports lens stored corrections, and probably supports more sophisticated IBIS/OIS coordination. But RF bodies can still IBIS with old EF IS glass, just maybe not quite as effectively.
>>3989209Shit take. Sigma and Tamron have said they will address RF this year, which means they've reverse engineered RF, or are close to it. There's a huge market for their glass on RF. They'll figure out Z-mount and ship there too.
>>3989246Another shit take. I've got two Tamron lenses, the 45mm f/1.8 VC and 70-200 f/2.8 G2. 45mm destroys every Canon 50mm but the RF 50 f/1.2L.
The Canon 70-200 f/2.8's...both EF mark III and RF...are a little sharper than the Tamron center at 200mm. But the Tamron is sharper center at every other focal length. More importantly...and this is what sold me...the Tamron is sharper mid frame/edges at every focal length. There's practically no variance in performance from center across the frame, something you rarely see in any lens. I can position a model ANY WHERE in the frame with the Tamron and get tack sharp results at f/2.8. Tamron's OIS is also freaky good, better than Canon's.
And...I would grab the latest Tamron 90mm macro but they stopped making it. I will probably grab it used rather than pay through the nose for the Canon version.
>>3989256>There are plenty of L lenses that are BTFO by Sigma Art lenses.In fairness Sigma ART is mostly primes, and Canon mostly sat on their ass with their primes until RF. The 85mm f/1.4L IS, a recent design, is comparable to the ART (ART is a bit sharper wide open but the Canon is sharp and has IS). The RF f/1.2L's show what Canon can do when they redesign a lens.
