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

[Eloniel]

Why? Just because you want such a lens?

No, because then Sony will be offering a full trinity of F2.0 zoom lens and if Canon doesn't want to loose high end marketshare they will have to release such a trinity too.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious.

 

[P-visie]

No, because then Sony will be offering a full trinity of F2.0 zoom lens and if Canon doesn't want to loose high end marketshare they will have to release such a trinity too.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious.

Doing the same things as the other manufacturers is not a very sound business strategy in the long term.

You want to use the lens for astrophotography, so you probably want it to be optically corrected, rather than rely on digital corrections. That means it will be big, heavy and expensive (optimistic guess between 3500 and 4500 USD/ €) and is not likely to sell in huge numbers. I.e. it would not have a significant impact on Canon’s marketshare, revenue and profit. Even if a few customers leave Canon for greener pastures elsewhere.

The list of lenses that Canon MUST make to avoid imminent doom, according to some users of this forum, is a very long list: tilt shift lenses, the (rumored) Sony f2 trinity, a light 300mm f2.8, Nikon’s “affordable” PF telelenses, “real” RF big white 400, 600, 800 and 1200mm lenses, “real” L-lenses instead of the VCM primes, RF big whites with built in converters, a whole list of Sigma and Tamron lenses, and I’ve probably missed a few.

How Canon should make these lenses and remain in business in a market that was shrinking until a few years ago and since then has not been growing very much, is usually lacking in these “Canon must make my dreamlens or they are doomed” posts.

Edit: Leaving aside why these posters think their knowledge of the camera market is better than that of the company that has been the market leader for a long time. A company still doing well after the collapse of the camera market and managing the transition from the EF and EF-M mount to the RF mount.

 

[Ozarker]

If Sony release one they will have to do it.

Nope

 

[Ozarker]

Doing the same things as the other manufacturers is not a very sound business strategy in the long term.

You want to use the lens for astrophotography, so you probably want it to be optically corrected, rather than rely on digital corrections. That means it will be big, heavy and expensive (optimistic guess between 3500 and 4500 USD/ €) and is not likely to sell in huge numbers. I.e. it would not have a significant impact on Canon’s marketshare, revenue and profit. Even if a few customers leave Canon for greener pastures elsewhere.

The list of lenses that Canon MUST make to avoid imminent doom, according to some users of this forum, is a very long list: tilt shift lenses, the (rumored) Sony f2 trinity, a light 300mm f2.8, Nikon’s “affordable” PF telelenses, “real” RF big white 400, 600, 800 and 1200mm lenses, “real” L-lenses instead of the VCM primes, RF big whites with built in converters, a whole list of Sigma and Tamron lenses, and I’ve probably missed a few.

How Canon should make these lenses and remain in business in a market that was shrinking until a few years ago and since then has not been growing very much, is usually lacking in these “Canon must make my dreamlens or they are doomed” posts.

Edit: Leaving aside why these posters think their knowledge of the camera market is better than that of the company that has been the market leader for a long time. A company still doing well after the collapse of the camera market and managing the transition from the EF and EF-M mount to the RF mount.

I keep struggling with why the VCM series is not real L? One commentor has called them blasphemous. I don't understand the hate. Is it the digital correctionns?

 

[P-visie]

I keep struggling with why the VCM series is not real L? One commentor has called them blasphemous. I don't understand the hate. Is it the digital correctionns?

It is the belief that optically corrected lenses are better than digitally corrected lenses.

 

[Ozarker]

It is the belief that optically corrected lenses are better than digitally corrected lenses.

When considering the end result, why? As far as I can tell nearly all lenses need some type of corrections or Photoshop wouldn't have all those profiles.

 

[P-visie]

When considering the end result, why? As far as I can tell nearly all lenses need some type of corrections or Photoshop wouldn't have all those profiles.

I’m not one of those “believers”. Yes I would like to have optically corrected lenses, but those have a cost, in price, size and weight. @neuroanatomist frequently challenged those who would state that optical corrections are superior to digital corrections, but AFAIK, no one could deliver the ‘evidence’.

I can only speak from experience of the EF 11-24mm f4 lens, optically corrected, and the RF 10-20mm f4, which relies on digital corrections a.o. to fill the corners of the frame from 10-13mm and correct distortion and vignetting. When you pixel peep at corners, it is hard to tell them apart. Corner image quality of the EF lens was not it’s strong point.
The EF lens weighs 1180 gram and is big, the RF 10-20mm weighs 570 gram and is compact. I frequently left the EF lens at home because of the weight and size (it would not fit into my 40 liter backpack when filled with 2 bodies and 3-4 other lenses and filters). I know which lens I prefer.

Uses cases where optical corrections can be superior:

• Astrophotography where ‘stretching’ the image corners to fill the frame might result in distorted stars. The RF20mm f1.4 VCM shows that digital corrections without distortions are possible (see this thread by @neuroanatomist).
• Stitching panorama’s and focus stacking.
• Severe lens vignetting (3-4 stops) needs a lot ‘burning’ ‘dodging’ to lighten the image corners. This causes noise in the corners of the image. When you need to lift the shadows of the image by 1 -2 stops, you would get 4-6 stops of brightness correction in the corners of the image. This would have a visible negative impact on image quality.

To be exact: It is Adobe Camera RAW that has the lens profiles, not Photoshop (sorry couldn’t resist ).

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

I bought a Yongnuo 35mm f/2 a while back. I used it maybe four times taking a total of less than 100 frames. For a sub $100 lens, the images weren't too bad if stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower, but f/2 was horrible.

Then the aperture quit working. It will not stop down. Period. So now it's a $99 paperweight.

 

[Michael Clark]

And I am still on the fence for a reasonably priced pre-owned 2.8/120-300mm SPORTS.

I had one for a while. It's only one copy, so it's anecdotal. I bought it used from map camera in Japan.

It wasn't a whole lot better from 200-300mm than just using my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and cropping.

This was with a Canon 7D Mark II and exhaustive use of the Sigma dock to adjust/test/adjust/test/ad nauseum the lens to the specific camera body at the distances I used it for field sports. And it weighed as much as a bowling ball. I sold it after I stopped doing field sports in 2023.

Admittedly, I either have the sharpest EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II around or I use better technique than anyone else who shoots with that lens whose full resolution files I have access to. I highly doubt it is the latter. It seems to be even slightly sharper now, after Canon replaced the IS unit in 2019, than when it was new in 2010. Maybe the pixel density of the 20 MP APS-C 7D Mark II (about the same pixel density as the 50 MP EOD 5Ds/5Ds R) has something to do with it?

 

[Michael Clark]

It seems like the options up for discussion are (1) open mount, or (2) completely closed mount.
But there is a third option: license. Canon could make a profit on each Yuongno, Meike, Samyang, 7artisans, and whatnot, RF lens sold.
Maybe people would buy a third-party lens, get fed up with it, and then buy the Canon equivalent. Canon would profit twice.
I really don't understand why they haven't gone after licensing more, aside a few piddly Sigma RF-S lenses.
In business, there is value in keeping the competition on a short leash. I used to be in the oil and gas business. If your competition has a gas well and you own the pipeline to market, then you have control. You don't shut out that well - you profit from it through transportation fees.

Licensing to Chinese companies is the same thing as making it an open mount. That's because China does not, for the most part, enforce intellectual property laws for IP held by non-Chinese entities. Give one Chinese company the technology and license them to produce 50,000 copies of a lens, and the next thing you know there are 18 Chinese companies pumping out 100,000 copies. Each.

 

[Michael Clark]

If your competition has a gas well and you own the pipeline to market, then you have control. You don't shut out that well - you profit from it through transportation fees.

If your pipeline traverses another country and the government of that country seizes it, then what do you have?

 

[Michael Clark]

If Sony release one they will have to do it.

Sony can't break the laws of optics any more than Canon can.

If you want a good wide angle astro lens you have to give up smooth out of focus areas to have flat field performance with little to no coma. If you want smooth out of focus areas for your portrait lens, you have to give up some of that flat field correction and accept some coma for in focus point sources near the edges and corners. Some of the use cases you list have design requirements which are diametrically opposed to some of the other use cases you listed.

 

[Michael Clark]

I’m not one of those “believers”. Yes I would like to have optically corrected lenses, but those have a cost, in price, size and weight. @neuroanatomist frequently challenged those who would state that optical corrections are superior to digital corrections, but AFAIK, no one could deliver the ‘evidence’.

I can only speak from experience of the EF 11-24mm f4 lens, optically corrected, and the RF 10-20mm f4, which relies on digital corrections a.o. to fill the corners of the frame from 10-13mm and correct distortion and vignetting. When you pixel peep at corners, it is hard to tell them apart. Corner image quality of the EF lens was not it’s strong point.
The EF lens weighs 1180 gram and is big, the RF 10-20mm weighs 570 gram and is compact. I frequently left the EF lens at home because of the weight and size (it would not fit into my 40 liter backpack when filled with 2 bodies and 3-4 other lenses and filters). I know which lens I prefer.

Uses cases where optical corrections can be superior:

• Astrophotography where ‘stretching’ the image corners to fill the frame might result in distorted stars. The RF20mm f1.4 VCM shows that digital corrections without distortions are possible (see this thread by @neuroanatomist).
• Stitching panorama’s and focus stacking.
• Severe lens vignetting (3-4 stops) needs a lot ‘burning’ to lighten the image corners. This causes noise in the corners of the image. When you need to lift the shadows of the image by 1 -2 stops, you would get 4-6 stops of brightness correction in the corners of the image. This would have a visible negative impact on image quality.

To be exact: It is Adobe Camera RAW that has the lens profiles, not Photoshop (sorry couldn’t resist ).

Burning makes the resultant photo darker in the area that is burned. Dodging makes an area of the photo lighter. Photo sensitive paper develops darker the longer it is exposed to light from an enlarger.

 

[Eloniel]

Sony can't break the laws of optics any more than Canon can.

If you want a good wide angle astro lens you have to give up smooth out of focus areas to have flat field performance with little to no coma. If you want smooth out of focus areas for your portrait lens, you have to give up some of that flat field correction and accept some coma for in focus point sources near the edges and corners. Some of the use cases you list have design requirements which are diametrically opposed to some of the other use cases you listed.

I'm not saying it would be the best lens possible for these use cases. Of course prime lenses would be better individually but a 16-35 F2.0 could provide different use case in a single package and that could be enough for me.

There is rumor that Sony is working on a ultra wide f2.0 zoom, so we will see but that would complete their f2.0 trinity.

And I'm sure that if Sony release one trinity of f2.0 zoom Canon will have no other choice than release one too.

 

[P-visie]

Burning makes the resultant photo darker in the area that is burned. Dodging makes an area of the photo lighter. Photo sensitive paper develops darker the longer it is exposed to light from an enlarger.

Thanks, it’s been a long time since printing in the darkroom, I’ve corrected my post.

 

[scyrene]

And I'm sure that if Sony release one trinity of f2.0 zoom Canon will have no other choice than release one too.

Not every lens is replicated across each manufacturer's lineup.

 

[Eloniel]

Not every lens is replicated across each manufacturer's lineup.

Of course, I'm not saying the range will be exactly the same for the 3 lenses, but the concept of trinity zoom is so anchored into photography world, is so versatile to different kinds of photographers + can attract people to a brand instead of another one (halo lenses) that I can't see Canon shooting themselves in the foot by not competing against Sony.

We're not speaking about a big very expensive white zoom that Canon could somehow avoid like Sony is avoiding doing a 100-300 f2.8 (for now) to compete against the Canon one.

 

[Ozarker]

I’m not one of those “believers”. Yes I would like to have optically corrected lenses, but those have a cost, in price, size and weight. @neuroanatomist frequently challenged those who would state that optical corrections are superior to digital corrections, but AFAIK, no one could deliver the ‘evidence’.

I can only speak from experience of the EF 11-24mm f4 lens, optically corrected, and the RF 10-20mm f4, which relies on digital corrections a.o. to fill the corners of the frame from 10-13mm and correct distortion and vignetting. When you pixel peep at corners, it is hard to tell them apart. Corner image quality of the EF lens was not it’s strong point.
The EF lens weighs 1180 gram and is big, the RF 10-20mm weighs 570 gram and is compact. I frequently left the EF lens at home because of the weight and size (it would not fit into my 40 liter backpack when filled with 2 bodies and 3-4 other lenses and filters). I know which lens I prefer.

Uses cases where optical corrections can be superior:

• Astrophotography where ‘stretching’ the image corners to fill the frame might result in distorted stars. The RF20mm f1.4 VCM shows that digital corrections without distortions are possible (see this thread by @neuroanatomist).
• Stitching panorama’s and focus stacking.
• Severe lens vignetting (3-4 stops) needs a lot ‘burning’ ‘dodging’ to lighten the image corners. This causes noise in the corners of the image. When you need to lift the shadows of the image by 1 -2 stops, you would get 4-6 stops of brightness correction in the corners of the image. This would have a visible negative impact on image quality.

To be exact: It is Adobe Camera RAW that has the lens profiles, not Photoshop (sorry couldn’t resist ).

I can see how digital vs optical corrections is an issue for some. I guess, for me, it isn't. I mainly do portraits. I like a little vignette sometimes. I never peek at anything. Thank you.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm not saying it would be the best lens possible for these use cases. Of course prime lenses would be better individually but a 16-35 F2.0 could provide different use case in a single package and that could be enough for me.

There is rumor that Sony is working on a ultra wide f2.0 zoom, so we will see but that would complete their f2.0 trinity.

And I'm sure that if Sony release one trinity of f2.0 zoom Canon will have no other choice than release one too.

Even prime lenses can not do diametrically opposed things at the same time. Flat field? Or smooth bokeh?

 

[osakawayne]

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...