Did Canon See the Writing on the Wall with the RF Mount?

[Richard CR]

We've long believed Canon has been holding back the RF mount for profit, but what if that isn't the only reason? Did Canon look at the trends out of China's optical companies and realize that their greatest threat wasn't Sony, Nikon, or Panasonic, but the likes of Laowa, Sirui, and other Chinese manufacturers that were […]

See full article...

 

[Snapster]

This is why the 45mm 1.2 STM for $599 is an interesting lens. Is this Canon's answer to Viltrox &co killing it with value? Can they do it? The quality expectations have become very high, for both build and IQ.

 

[tomscott]

So the thing is everything is so much more expensive in life atm but the issue I have with Canon is that upgrading to the newest lenes is a significant cost increase over the EF line. Often a lot of these lenses perform similar to the EF lenses they replace. For example the RF 24-70 IS F2.8 actually performs worse than the EF24-70MKII it replaces, sun flare is awful. RF600 is a repackaged EF600MKIII etc etc but they are significantly more expensive. Yet the EF lenses perform incredibly well.

I am not one that wants to use 3rd party lenses but I havent adopted the RF lenses because honestly they are too expensive. I bought the RF24-70 2.8 IS as I use that a lot and the RF35 F2 for video. Instead of replacing the rest of my lenses im using adapting my old ones because in most cases they work better than on my DSLRs.

Im sure im not the only one.

 

[candyman]

but the issue I have with Canon is that upgrading to the newest lenes is a significant cost increase over the EF line.

Indeed, the RF lenses are expensive. I still use my 100-400 II, the 70-200 II f/4, the TS-E 24 II, and the 16-35 f/4. I did replace the 24-105 f/4 with the RF version and also bought the 10-20. I bought both lenses on the gray market, though. That saved me almost €1000. For my R8, I did buy the 16mm, 28mm, and 50mm. For now, I'm holding off on replacing my EF lenses. This is also because I prefer an internal zoom lens for both the 16-35 and the 70-200. I hope these will become available in the future.

 

[Del Paso]

I must say, I saw it coming...
The same occurred when the German optical industry started to face stiff competition from Asahi Pentax, Canon, Nikon and the likes. The ones who in the seventies still spoke of Japanese garbage were quickly taught a lesson...
I guess the same ones are nowadays stupidly speaking of those crappy Chinese cars.
I also keep wondering how many Sony cameras are fitted with Sony lenses. Could it be that Canon got it right and Sony all wrong? Time will tell. Fact is, licensing certainly brings far less profit than selling OEM lenses.
The market is shrinking while competition keeps growing. And tariffs don't help...

 

[DhlcadR6]

No mention of Yongnuo? They made their long way from reverse engineer NifftyFiffty to better price-performance ratio 50/85mm f1.8 than Canon/Sony /Nikon.

EF mount was never open officially like Sony E and Fuji X ever did. It was open because it was out more than 10 years. And times were slower back in the days.

Right now Canon needs to bring more affordable zooms. Cheap primes both Canon and Yongnuo provide adequate amount. And RF-S has Sigma covered.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I'm big into the automotive world, and when Jim Farley took over as CEO at Ford. He said their competition was no longer GM, Toyota.. VW. It was Chinese manufacturers. I can't go 2 minutes without seeing a BYD downtown.

This decision by Canon is some kind of long game that they aren't going to tell us about.

Canon had something like 45% of total lenses shipped in 2024. I think a lot of companies like to sell how amazing they're doing.... really, how many lenses does Sigma actually sell?

 

[Malm]

The price and the quality is one point, another point is the availability. I'm probably willing to pay a little bit more for original Canon lenses, but many lenses still doesn't exist with an RF mount! And without 3rd party lenses Canon will never be able to get a similar large amount of lenses for the RF cameras as we have for the EF mount. That effect will rather become visible on the long run when fever people will select the small Canon world.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

I think this is an interesting line of thought.

How much money may Sony not-be-making by having their mount open to third parties?

We know Canon makes a lot of money with cheap cameras and lenses. They get most beginners with very attractive and affordable entry level cameras, then sell them a cheap 50mm, to attach them to the system. If beginners can't buy anything else, in a way, it is what it is - most likely, they'll commit.
Additionally, we see Canon is clearly trying to tackle the desire for third party manufacturers, with cheaper lenses that perform very well, like the 28-70 f/2.8, 16-28 f/2.8, and possibly this upcoming 45mm f/1.2 so then, a beginner that's looking to upgrade, will have attractive lenses available with the logo of the brand he trusts the most, which may help mitigate the desire for third party glass.

Sony is not that attractive to unknowing beginners, so a significant part of the line of though I just wrote will not apply - let's be real, a true beginner may not detach the kit lens for years. They have some outdated beginner cameras, and a few that are updated, but much more expensive, like the a6700. Also, their cheapest models are significantly more expensive than Canon's offerings (R100, R50).

At the moment, several of the most spectacular lenses for Sony FE are NOT made by Sony. Most of their users are not beginners either, for the reasons mentioned above, so they're not that afraid of buying third party - in fact, many go Sony because of the existence of such offerings.
There's the Tamron 35-150mm, Sigma's 28-45mm f/1.8, 28-105mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.2 (two versions already!), 200mm f/2, 300-600mm f/4, and now the SongRAW 85mm f/1.2 and Laowa's 200mm f/2. There are probably a lot more awesome third party lenses I'm not aware of.
Sony has been repeatedly beaten on the race to groundbreaking lenses.

In an era where cameras are lasting longer and longer, due to slower improvements that can lead users to upgrade less often (hence camera brands pushing so hard on marketing for us to upgrade), and the use of electronic and, more recently, global shutters, if a brand with an open mount is not selling lenses, because there's so many decent third party options available, what will they sell then?

 

[BFG9000]

Tired of Canon's RF closed mount policy last week I bought a SONY A1 II along with a 50-150mm f/2 and a Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 Art.

I'm not switching systems, but I'm not going to renounce to unique lenses like the Sigma 15mm f/1.4 fisheye, Sigma 35mm f/1.2, Sigma 28-45 f/1.8, Sigma 135mm f/1.4, SONY 50-150mm f/2, Sigma 200mm f/2, Sigma 300-600mm f/4, etc., or cheap and nice chinese lenses like what Viltrox offers to play with.

For me, adding a SONY camera to my arsenal is adding a powerful toolkit to get the job done and differentiate myself from other photographers even more.

I don't believe in brand loyalty. Being married to a brand is so stupid.

 

[mb66energy]

I bought only two RF lenses while hoarding a staple of lower and medium class EF lenses. f/2 100mm is a great lens - this at 500 € maybe with IS would have drawn mit more into the RF world and maybe a 400€ RF 50 1.4 IS. But Canon has decided to go high quality/high price leaving lots of holes in the lower class high quality prime market.
I might profit because some more EF glass with AF (and IS?) might be released and it fits better in my current scheme using a ND filter adapter between EF glass and e.g. the great EOS R50 V ...

 

[David_B]

And what happens when a Chinese company brings out a MILC camera that is compatible with (say) the Sigma/Panasonic mount that's open and deliver similar IQ to the R5II but at half the price?

I think this story covers half the problem seen by Canon - they don't want Canon lenses being used on other bodies.also (is the other half of the equation.)

 

[justawriter]

No mention of Yongnuo? They made their long way from reverse engineer NifftyFiffty to better price-performance ratio 50/85mm f1.8 than Canon/Sony /Nikon.

EF mount was never open officially like Sony E and Fuji X ever did. It was open because it was out more than 10 years. And times were slower back in the days.

Right now Canon needs to bring more affordable zooms. Cheap primes both Canon and Yongnuo provide adequate amount. And RF-S has Sigma covered.

Canon is right to worry. I got the Yougnuo 85/1.8 AF before it was banned and it is my favorite walking around lens. A personal, not objective, opinion is that it is brighter and has better color rendition than my inexpensive Canon primes. Don't know if I could back that up with facts but that's what I see.

 

[Drazen]

I recently added a Fuji GFX 100 II to my bag and decided to gamble a bit and, along a set of native GF lenses, bought two Laowa shift lenses.

To my surprise, not only do they perform extremely well, some solutions actually outperform Canons EF tilt shift offerings (which I own and use extensively). For example, I find that Laowa's turn-the-ring-to-shift is miles better than Canon's fiddly gear knobs. Laowa also sells a very good native lens mount that can be used across multiple lenses.

Yes, the flare is not as well handled as with Canon and I do miss electronic control of aperture - if nothing, then to make sure I haven't inadvertently shifted the aperture ring. But the bottom line is that Laowa is selling excellent medium format lenses at half the price of Canon's full frame tilt shifts. I think that this comparison is very appropriate since both are manual focusing lenses and Laowa comes out on top - no doubt.

Chinese manufacturers have made incredible leaps in less than a decade, not only in lenses, but other camera gear in general. I swear that Godox has some products that are better than the likes of Profoto or Broncolor.

 

[AccipiterQ]

So the thing is everything is so much more expensive in life atm but the issue I have with Canon is that upgrading to the newest lenes is a significant cost increase over the EF line. Often a lot of these lenses perform similar to the EF lenses they replace. For example the RF 24-70 IS F2.8 actually performs worse than the EF24-70MKII it replaces, sun flare is awful. RF600 is a repackaged EF600MKIII etc etc but they are significantly more expensive. Yet the EF lenses perform incredibly well.

I am not one that wants to use 3rd party lenses but I havent adopted the RF lenses because honestly they are too expensive. I bought the RF24-70 2.8 IS as I use that a lot and the RF35 F2 for video. Instead of replacing the rest of my lenses im using adapting my old ones because in most cases they work better than on my DSLRs.

Im sure im not the only one.

The "RF" 600 just being the EF with an adapter hard-mounted *really* irritated me. I didn't buy that one. I haven't gotten the 24-70 for the reasons you just mentioned; I already have the EF MKii. I love my R5, and I love the RF50 1.2L. I didn't have a comparable lens in EF. But even all these years later I feel like Canon still hasn't covered the full breadth of the "universe" with their RF options. There are holes in the lens lineup. The R7 was an embarrassment, unless you wanted a replacement for the 90D. I get that it takes time to build a whole ecosystem out, but the R mount was announced in 2018. I'm not saying Canon is doomed, but there have been, in my opinion, some missteps. It seems like upcoming announcements will patch over those holes, and I hope they do, but in the meantime I haven't gotten as much RF glass as I thought I would have by now.

 

[Bob Howland]

I've bought an R50V and five Sigma APS-C lenses in the last 2-3 years, plus had two Sigma primes converted from EF-M to RF. I'm using my R7 much more than my R6-2. The Sigma lenses are much better for video than 15-20 year old EF-L lenses.

 

[BFG9000]

The "RF" 600 just being the EF with an adapter hard-mounted *really* irritated me.

And they did the same to the RF 400mm f/2.8.

 

[mimbu]

The "RF" 600 just being the EF with an adapter hard-mounted *really* irritated me.

The 800/5.6 being the EF400/2.8+2xTC+adapter and the 1200/8 being the 600/4+2xTC+adapter are even worse. And Canon charges $19k and $23k for these lenses. Downright shameful. What happened to the innovative and fast-moving Canon of days gone by?

 

[mimbu]

And what happens when a Chinese company brings out a MILC camera that is compatible with (say) the Sigma/Panasonic mount that's open and deliver similar IQ to the R5II but at half the price?

I think this story covers half the problem seen by Canon - they don't want Canon lenses being used on other bodies.also (is the other half of the equation.)

This is what is coming. (Though "L" mount is originally from Leica with Panasonic and Sigma joining to create the alliance a few years later.)

DJI is likely to be first. They are already a member of L mount and have extensive experience with cameras. They also own Hasselblad which I've no doubt they have learned a truckload from.

Viltrox is probably not too far behind, another member of the L mount alliance who is very likely to bring L mount cameras to market.

Not only will these cameras be inexpensive but they will be incredibly feature rich. They have no high end cine products to protect. They have no R1/Z9/A1 level cameras to protect. They will throw everything including the kitchen sink into their cameras and are likely to bring out at least an R6/Z6/A7 competitor and a R5/Z8 competitor.

The very first iterations will probably have some issues. No doubt many firmware updates will follow and the products themselves will iterate generations fairly quickly at first.

But the Chinese are coming, and unless companies like Canon, Sony, and Nikon get their sh=t together PDQ, the Chinese are going to eat their lunch and take all their customers.

 

[Berowne]

Recently i obtained a used EF 400/2.8L IS Mk II and i must say, that in my impression AF and IS works better with my 5Ds than with the R6 plus adapter. This is also true for the EF 85/1.4L IS and the EF 100-400L IS Mk II. The cooperation between IBIS and IS seems to be not optimal in some adapted EF-Lenses. So i guess, this is the reason for the converted EF Versions.