The state of third-party lenses for the RF mount, Canon may be involved

[jam05]

However, Sigma CEO stated that Sigma is working on a Canon RF mount lens to be released this year or early 2023. Canon has no control of what Sigma does.

 

[jam05]

Tamron representatives have said Canon and Nikon lenses are on the way.

 

[jam05]

Tamron reps have said Canon and Nikon lenses are on their way. Supply chain issues are not unique to only Canon.

 

[unfocused]

The laziness of this site and every other site that purports to be covering the photo industry is beyond me.

This topic has been the subject of discussion for quite some time on another thread (https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/sigma-will-address-the-rf-mount-in-2022-cr3.40984/) and today we get a new thread that basically regurgitates what forum reader @LogicExtremist posted several days ago. It is now being reported on this new thread as though it were some big scoop, when it's really just a way to add some clickbait to up the revenue stream, without adding a single bit of new or reliable information.

Why is it that no one who runs these sites can be bothered to pick up a phone and, you know, actually spend a couple hours doing some real reporting?

 

[navastronia]

The laziness of this site and every other site that purports to be covering the photo industry is beyond me.

Why is it that no one who runs these sites can be bothered to pick up a phone and, you know, actually spend a couple hours doing some real reporting?

From the PetaPixel article written by Matt Growgoot 2 days ago:

"A Canon representative tells PetaPixel that it has 'no comment at this time.'"

 

[Del Paso]

Some of us do, which is why we're here in this thread.

If one of the biggest players in the professional camera market has decided to make it difficult for 3rd parties to get lenses onto the system, it's a big deal, and there's no sense in pretending it isn't just because you personally aren't interested.

Have Canon ever declared they don't let Sigma and Co. into the RF system, or is it just the usual internet conveyed belief?
I've never read such an official statement by Canon, but many by "knowing"forum members...
I still don't consider it to be a big deal if Viltrox is excluded, there are many more 3rd. party lens companies.
As to the "no comment at this time", only Canon know what this means. It's not a "no chance", so, let's beware of interpretations...

 

[WoodyWindy]

Canon has never licensed their mount interfaces to any 3rd party. Sigma, Tamron, etc... have all had to reverse-engineer the mount for their lenses to operate, and that hasn't always been 100% successful. I remember users having to send their lenses to Sigma to be "re-chipped" when Canon introduced a new body that was just incompatible enough with the reverse engineering to cause issues. It got to the point where Sigma's newest EF lenses have a base station available to reprogram them when Canon breaks something. I can see this being an even harder exercise with the RF mount.

 

[navastronia]

I've been around this forum for about 4 years and the one constant is that people irrationally attack as well as (somewhat more sadly) irrationally defend Canon and its decisions.

In response to these rumors and developments, we see people doing both in this thread.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The non-fake news that has sparked this discussion was posted on DPR. Someone has even asked Canon about this and their response was supposedly “We have no comment at this time”

It started off as just a forum post on 1 website. Within less than 2 days DP Review, PetaPixel and Canon Rumours addressed this with articles, its being discussed with the Canon Rumours forum, DPR forums and Fred Miranda forums and in the case of FM and DPR its being discussed on both the Canon AND Nikon boards. We are free to speculate how much or how little impact this will actually have but 1 thing is clear. This isn’t a positive PR for Canon whatsoever.

These forums have active membership numbering in the hundreds or low thousands. Canon sells millions of cameras and lenses a year. These ‘discussions’ are irrelevant.

Before you argue that polling samples only a small fraction of the relevant population, keep in mind that polling depends on random sampling of the relevant population. Photo forums, particularly gear-oriented ones like this, are not representative of the broader camera-buying population.

Canon knows how many bodies and lenses they’ve sold, and I’m certain they have an excellent estimate of the unit volumes of 3rd party lens makers. If Canon is choosing to block 3rd parties from making RF lenses, they aren’t doing so capriciously or out of spite. They are choosing to do so because their financial analysis indicates it will be more profitable for them than allowing such lenses to be made. The fact that you and a handful of other people aren’t happy about that is meaningless to Canon.

Yes, they could be wrong. But it’s far, far more likely that you’re wrong. Analysis by a global multibillion dollar corporation that dominates the market and has led it for two decades, or a few people whining on niche Internet forums. I know where to place my bet.

 

[dtaylor]

However, Sigma CEO stated that Sigma is working on a Canon RF mount lens to be released this year or early 2023.

It's possible that Canon asked Viltrox to stop making their RF lenses for a specific reason and that this does not indicate Canon will interfere with properly reverse engineered lenses in the future. ("Properly" meaning both legally clean and functionally correct.) I sincerely hope that's the case. But if that's the case, Canon should clear the air about this incident ASAP.

Canon has no control of what Sigma does.

I haven't reviewed the patents to try and determine if Canon is trying to lock out 3rd parties via patent law. Or if they are 'legit' in the sense that Canon needs to protect IP from Sony/Nikon/etc, regardless of the impact on reverse engineering.

It's true that if Sigma properly reverse engineers the protocol then Canon cannot win in court. Canon could still try though, and that would cost Sigma money and raise uncertainty because courts are not perfect. Same for everyone else.

It's a ridiculous position that never works out well for a manufacturer in a competitive market. Canon would be better off to license the mount and welcome 3rd parties.

 

[Jethro]

Canon has never licensed their mount interfaces to any 3rd party. Sigma, Tamron, etc... have all had to reverse-engineer the mount for their lenses to operate, and that hasn't always been 100% successful. I remember users having to send their lenses to Sigma to be "re-chipped" when Canon introduced a new body that was just incompatible enough with the reverse engineering to cause issues. It got to the point where Sigma's newest EF lenses have a base station available to reprogram them when Canon breaks something. I can see this being an even harder exercise with the RF mount.

The Sigma dock is used for all the different mounts (not just EF) to update firmware, and apply a variety of AF customisations. I don't think it's got anything to do with 'evil Canon'.

 

[Jethro]

I think the background to this is around Canon looking for another paid income stream in licensing the software running the RF mount interface. Others have mentioned that Nikon and Sony have taken an 'open source' attitude to this type of mount software over the years (in contrast to Canon), but that probably reflects that those companies have business models that assume their lens line-ups will be filled out (and updated) by 3rd parties. Canon is taking a different approach.

Personally, I'd rather have a lot more 3rd party options - I've had good experiences with smaller makers such as Samyang and Laowa in the past, and the ability of those (affordable and good) lenses to properly access AF (and EXIF data in Laowa's case!) would be great. But we live in a capitalist world, and a company such as Canon is as big as it is for a reason.

 

[LSXPhotog]

The problem is that with mirrorless cameras, Canon has much more power over third party lenses, because the third party manufacturers need the support of Canon in order for lens corrections applied directly in the EVF. If only Canon lenses are corrected and Sigma lenses are not, Sigma lenses will look very bad against Canon lenses unless Sigma makes their lenses so good that they hardly need any correction. The Canon RF 14-35 f/4 for example has quite an extreme distortion, although it costs $1,800. However that distortion is hidden from the user because it already is corrected in the EVF. Sigma and Tamron have it much harder. I hope that competition authorities will force Canon to open the system for others.

I wonder if third party manufacturers also need Canon support in order for the IBIS to work well with those lenses. It would be easy for Canon to make third party lenses look even worse by making sure that IBIS performs poorly with them. Especially when a third party lens is already stabilized. I wonder how well existing third party EF lenses work on an RF body. I for example own the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 and love that lens very much. I would like to continue using it with an RF camera instead of spending $2,800 on a Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8. Only when it comes to longer focal ranges, Canon is still leading. For everything below 100mm, third party manufacturers usually have a much better and cheaper option. Also Sigma offers mount conversion for $100 or so. That might be very helpful if you switch to another camera brand.

I don’t know if you’ve posted this before, but I know I’ve seen it. It’s just not true. Sigma lenses are corrected just fine in the viewfinder on all 3 of my Canon RF-mount bodies. So this assumption is incorrect. My Adapted EF-mount Sigma lenses are corrected for distortion and peripheral illumination.

 

[Tom W]

Continue reading...

Has anybody actually asked Canon about this, and gotten a reply? I'd be interested in their take.

 

[WoodyWindy]

The Sigma dock is used for all the different mounts (not just EF) to update firmware, and apply a variety of AF customisations. I don't think it's got anything to do with 'evil Canon'.

First, I never said that this made Canon "evil". They are totally within their rights not to share their Intellectual Property, or to do so under any terms they so desire. I simply mentioned the rechipping as something Sigma had to deal with for many years.

Second, I don't deny that the dock can be used for lots of other things - but to your point about "update{ing} firmware", many (most?) firmware updates are to rectify compatibility issues of one kind or another. It is a whole lot easier to do this way than by sending the lens back for upgrades, regardless of the manufacturer.

Finally, all of this is purely conjecture - though highly educated conjecture. We can be sure that Canon runs their numbers, Nikon and Sony run theirs, Sigma and Tamron run theirs, and so on with the other vendors. If it makes financial sense for them to support one another, they will. If it doesn't, they won't.

I'll buy the camera system that I can afford, feels good in my hands, and gives me the lens options I need to take the pictures I want. Historically, that's been Canon. I've owned Canon lenses, Tamron lenses, and Sigma lenses. If they do the job, I'm happy. My next camera will probably be mirrorless. And probably Canon.

But I AM open to change.

 

[dolina]

That is why Sony issued licenses to 3rd parties so they aren’t compatibility issues so pros/enthusiasts can rely on their gear.

Even Samyang who do reverse engineer emount have improved the AF performance of their lenses and where issues do arise they are good at issuing firmware to resolve them. Again the real issue is choice.

Whether or not all of this discussion will affect Canon’s operations going forward remains to be seen but make no mistake this is horrendous for their reputation and has gone down extremely badly for many if not most.

Sony's long term strategy was to be 1st to market with their full frame mirrorless E-mount that first appeared in 2010. To attract more users and yet not invest R&D money on thin margin lenses they needed to license 3rd parties to develop on their platform a year later in 2011.

That strategy appeared to work as early as May 2019 Sony took the #2 spot away from Nikon.

For 2018 & 2019 Sony is #1 in full frame system cameras. I'm lazy to find data for 2020-2022 but on BH Photo Sony's full frame mirrorless SKUs number at 10. While Canon has 6 & Nikon just 5.

These camera makers are all competing in an ever shrinking digital still camera market that was eaten up by smartphones.

What is relatively unscathed would be full frame & highly specialized cameras.

Last 6 years worldwide shipments of digital still cameras.

Year	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022 forecast
Total Cameras	24,978,486	19,423,371	15,216,957	8,886,292	8,361,521	7,850,000
Point & Shoot	13,302,797	8,663,574	6,755,467	3,578,643	3,013,250	2,560,000
Total SLR & Mirrorless	11,675,689	10,759,797	8,461,490	5,307,649	5,348,271	5,290,000
SLR	7,595,708	6,620,999	4,504,987	2,374,569	2,241,772	-
Mirrorless	4,079,981	4,138,798	3,956,503	2,933,080	3,106,499	-

I would not be surprised that before 2029 total cameras shipped worldwide would drop to under 6.7 million annually.

By comparison In 1999 worldwide shipment of cameras was 5,088,207 with a worldwide population of 6 billion. This jumped to 10,342,084 in year 2000.

Year 2022 population is 8 billion.

About 6 years ago someone on FredMiranda forecasted that digital still camera sales will drop back to year 1999 levels. It sounded preposterous but today... not that unbelievable.

That's enthusiasts with extra $$$ for a dedicated still camera + working photogs who derive income for providing professional photo services.

An indicator of how desperate digital still camera makers are to create new/expand markets is their introduction of bird & animal specific autofocus modes.

- Canon
- Nikon
- Sony

None of these companies did that prior to the last 2 years.

 

[David - Sydney]

Am I missing the issue here?
Canon must retain EF compatibility for their users' installed base of lenses. Junking our current EF lenses would be a major strategic error.

All EF/EF-S lenses ( including 3rd parties) work as well or better on R mount than EF.

RF lenses (in general and yes there are exceptions) bring something additional to their closest EF counterparts offering a premium product line, a more affordable EF option and then EF 3rd party lenses.

Canon makes nothing out of opening up the RF protocols for free. If they sold a license to a 3rd party then it would be very expensive as Canon would need to retain their R&D profits.

Sony ff mirrorless had no option but to open up their protocols. They had zero lenses for their mirrorless and needed metabones adapters etc for Canon EF lenses. These had all sorts of issues but mostly worked. They needed compatibility to encourage switchers. Their strategy worked.
The EF-R mount adapter has none of these issues and is cheap.

Is there a 3rd party lens that is not available in EF which would be seen as a must-have for the R mount?

 

[dolina]

Am I missing the issue here?
Canon must retain EF compatibility for their users' installed base of lenses. Junking our current EF lenses would be a major strategic error.

All EF/EF-S lenses ( including 3rd parties) work as well or better on R mount than EF.

RF lenses (in general and yes there are exceptions) bring something additional to their closest EF counterparts offering a premium product line, a more affordable EF option and then EF 3rd party lenses.

Canon makes nothing out of opening up the RF protocols for free. If they sold a license to a 3rd party then it would be very expensive as Canon would need to retain their R&D profits.

Sony ff mirrorless had no option but to open up their protocols. They had zero lenses for their mirrorless and needed metabones adapters etc for Canon EF lenses. These had all sorts of issues but mostly worked. They needed compatibility to encourage switchers. Their strategy worked.
The EF-R mount adapter has none of these issues and is cheap.

Is there a 3rd party lens that is not available in EF which would be seen as a must-have for the R mount?

Canon never dropped support for EF mount lenses on their RF mount bodies.

The concern or clickbait is about 3rd parties not being able to sell 3rd party RF lenses today.

 

[BBarn]

David,
I think you get it. Canon should offer all the benefits that RF lenses bring for the same price as EF, and provide for little or no cost whatever 3rd parties need to sell their lenses as well.

 

[Bob Howland]

These forums have active membership numbering in the hundreds or low thousands. Canon sells millions of cameras and lenses a year. These ‘discussions’ are irrelevant.

Before you argue that polling samples only a small fraction of the relevant population, keep in mind that polling depends on random sampling of the relevant population. Photo forums, particularly gear-oriented ones like this, are not representative of the broader camera-buying population.

Canon knows how many bodies and lenses they’ve sold, and I’m certain they have an excellent estimate of the unit volumes of 3rd party lens makers. If Canon is choosing to block 3rd parties from making RF lenses, they aren’t doing so capriciously or out of spite. They are choosing to do so because their financial analysis indicates it will be more profitable for them than allowing such lenses to be made. The fact that you and a handful of other people aren’t happy about that is meaningless to Canon.

Yes, they could be wrong. But it’s far, far more likely that you’re wrong. Analysis by a global multibillion dollar corporation that dominates the market and has led it for two decades, or a few people whining on niche Internet forums. I know where to place my bet.

I'm certain that somebody from Canon's marketing research team checks in here from time to time. We're certainly not important but "irrelevant" is probably overstating the case. The people on this forum are gear heads and almost certainly spend much more on equipment than the average buyer. Of course, we're a very small sample, one of many samples, and there are a lot more average buyers.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Canon had the reputation for regarding third party lens manufacturers as parasites. I see no reason to believe that they feel differently now.

The problem with stating opinions about why Canon is acting the way they do is that there are dozens of possible reasons and everybody here is just guessing.