, but that was an EF mount lens of course. I think that in the long run Canon may hurt themselves more with that policy than what they gain from keeping their RF ecosystem completely closed. To me, the policy of Nikon and Sony, to open up their mounts for 3rd party lens makers but keep some attractive features disclosed, seems to be much smarter. With the EF mount Canon followed the same policy, and I guess a lot of 3rd party lens users finally replaced all lenses for action at least with Canon lenses, because AF was much more reliable and precise (I did that). That's a smart approach to win customers by such a "gentle pressure" accompanied by giving them the freedom to select between different lens maker brands and their offerings.
I do not attach great weight to that statement:
Totally agree!
But presumably they didn't take the decision lightly, it was based on various figures and projections, and besides, if they discover it is in fact hurting their bottom line, it wouldn't take very long to nudge third party manufacturers to pump out some more RF lenses. So much of the criticism of this apparent policy has been from the perspective of frustrated customers dressed up as concern for the future of their business - essentially the same as we got with every previous issue. What people forget about "Canon is doomed" is the unsaid second part: "(if they don't do what I want)". This doesn't seem much different.Well, I used a 3rd party lens on my R5 II past weekend
Canon does not need to make compromises like Nikon and Sony, because they are in the comfortable position to be the leader of the market - this is their best world und therefor everything is - le mieux.
It is hard to predict Canon's moves in future, but based on their philosophy in the past I would expect them to watch the market, and if the pressure by customers (here I mean seriously engaged amateurs and pro's buying the expensive gear) is strong enough, I guess the will take a move and open up their RF mount. But that can happen tomorrow or in a few years.
Yes, and if their market share grows up to 90 % they might face stiff competition regulations, like Microsoft had to experience with the European Commision
Well, jokes aside, until that happens, Canon would have a lot of room to grow, and I guess the camera business is too small to be recognized by politics. There are much more tech issues pressing society, like the growing impact of AI on competition, jobs, etc. ...
I think that's the best approach, since Canon's EF-RF adapters work extremely well. I'll keep some of my EF lenses for a while, including a few 3rd party lenses.
Now that's a wide angle - with such an ultra-wide lens you don't need AF, even wide open.PS: I just got the AstrHori 6/2.8 to play with
People who compare the RF lens line up with Canon’s EF lens line up also tend to overlook the fact that the camera market has shrunk dramatically since the heydays of the EF mount. It is unrealistic to expect that Canon will produce an RF replacement for very EF lens.
Replacing some EF lenses wouldn't make sense these days, like the EF 200mm 2.8 or the 400 5.6 or maybe even the 500 F4. Also, many RF lenses never had an equivalent in EF, like the 16mm 2.8, 24-240 or 28-70 2.8 and F2.
The google translated text from phototrend is: “We are very pleased with the performance of the EOS R6 Mark II , which has been the number 1 selling camera in terms of value on the market since the beginning of 2025”.
