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

[2 cents]

For me, Canon cameras and lenses are my work gear and literally every previous third-party lens I've owned presented some sort of issue at one point or another that rendered the lens useless for a period of time or it had some strange issue develop. My Sigma Art primes are still terrific lenses and because I only have my remaining "niche" primes of 24mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 that I don't use as often as my 50mm and 85mm, they're not going anywhere. But I certainly can't afford to have a lens in my bag that could be rendered useless overnight because of a firmware update - that has been the case with some Tamron and Sigma lenses I've owned.

With all that said, this is a truly unfortunate blunder from Canon. Third party lens options are one of the primary elements that helped the success of the EF mount. I know when I was an up-and-coming teenager I could only afford a few Canon lenses and filled in what I could with Sigma stuff. I would eventually only rely on Canon lenses in my work kit, but that took a long time to fully be able to afford. This is very bad news for the countless thousands of aspiring photographers that want to shoot Canon are will have to either adapt an out of production EF lens, or use one of the many JUNK cheap-o RF lens options on the market right now. And yes, I said JUNK because for the prices they're selling for, you could have a Tamron or Sigma f/2.8 zoom that crushes it and Canon knows that.

I am the same. Been a very satisfied Canon user for over 30 years, and pro photographer for over 20 years. I only buy and use, and rely on Canon gear for my work. Yet I also agree that this is a major blunder. But then.... I'm not particularly thrilled with the R system, and its lenses. I bought an R5, but still use the 5D mk4 for work as I find it better in many ways for the work I do. I use the R5 for my personal hobby stuff, like nature and birds. I don't like any of the RF lenses for birds - either way too expensive and heavy, or too slow, or a zoom when I prefer a prime. Nikon make a relatively inexpensive fast 500mm, Sony make a great long zoom - and so do Tamron - and I'd buy one if it was available in RF mount. If Canon won't let them make one, I will not be happy. No, I wont jump ship to Nikon tomorrow, but can't keep excluding that ever happening either. I satisfaction with Canon is waning.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And what is your prediction based on? Canon has been #1 for a while so surely that can never change? That's a fallacy in case you did not know.

Never is a long time, and Canon has led the ILC market for >20 years. That's strong evidence that they make good business decisions. You disagree with this one, that's fine. But suggesting Canon will lose market share over this is not supported by any evidence. Believing your opinion is fact is also a fallacy in case you didn't know.

You are basing your prediction on a handful of statements on the internet. Canon sells millions of cameras a year. Do you honestly believe this forum and others are industry bellwethers? If so, you're willfully ignoring years of evidence to the contrary. Not that I find that surprising, some people still believe the earth is flat, which just goes to show there are plenty of idiots out there.

#2 spot isn't d00m, but's probably also not where Canon executives and shareholders want them to be.

Canon has ~50% of the ILC market share. Sony is in the #2 spot with ~25% of the ILC market. Millions of users need to switch from Canon to Sony to change the ranking. Do you honestly see that happening, and if so, do you honestly think it can happen in just a year or two? And can you honestly say that a lack of 3rd party RF mount lenses will be the reason? If you do, well, maybe you also believe the earth is flat.

The M line sells so well because it fills the gap left by the death of the P&S market. That's why it also doesn't need very many lenses to sell well. It is not a proper point of comparison. What is happening in the prosumer/professional FF market?

Even with the shifts in the market, FF comprise the small minority of ILCs sold (<20%). Yes, FF gear generates more unit revenue, which is why Canon continues to invest there. The fact that their FF MILC market share is only 5% less than Sony is significant.

Think about what you're saying: when Sony started they had practically zero of the FF market. As the market is transitioning from DSLRs to mirrorless Canon has failed to retain the #1 spot. Can Canon get it back by locking out 3rd party lenses? Kinda doubtful.

You can segment the market as much as you like. I recall when Sony did a press release that they were #1 in FF cameras. In one country. For one month. Yay!

My point is that locking out 3rd party lenses is not likely to have a significant impact on market share either way. Many FF DSLR users have not yet switched to MILC, and part of the reason for that is likely that the RF lineup is not fully fleshed out (though at 8 lenses/year, it's getting there pretty fast), and they don't want to switch brands.

You can bring up DSLR+mirrorless FF sales, but Canon has to retain those DSLR users as they transition. I don't see how locking out 3rd party lenses helps them do that.

From 2020 to 2021, Sony gained ~5% FF market share. Canon also gained ~5% FF market share. Seems that Canon is retaining their customer base. The loser here is Nikon. They've had some nice gear launch over the past year, so hopefully they can stem the tide of their dropping market share.

The trend right now is Sony landing at #1 in FF after all new sales are mirrorless. If Canon's position is no 3rd party RF glass, do you really think that will help or hurt the trend from their viewpoint? Be honest, don't just cheerlead.

I honestly don't think it will make much of a difference at all, either way.

I guarantee that Sony executives are happy about this dust up. They will do everything in their power to make sure the considerable talent and manufacturing at Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. are dedicated to E-mount.

They're probably happy that it's Thursday, too. This 'dust up' is probably about that significant.

You should also consider that Canon executives are satisfied with this decision, after all they're the ones that made it. Once again, you don't like their decision and so you label it a mistake. By doing so, you're ignoring that the decision was made by a company with a long history of making decisions that resulted in gaining a market-leading position and expanding that position to one of domination (having a greater market share than your next three competitors combined qualifies). Could they be wrong? Sure. But they didn't license the EF mount, either, and most likely there were cases where 3rd parties infringed on their IP and Canon took steps to stop it (which is a very common corporate practice, obviously). Quite obviously, that didn't stop them from dominating the ILC market.

 

[unfocused]

As far as I can tell, Canon didn't claw their way to the top of the market by making bad business decisions. If this is a bad business decision, as some people claim, then it can be changed. Only foolish companies lock themselves into a decision that costs them money. I don't think Canon is foolish. So if all the people claiming this will hurt Canon are right, then we will see them take another path. Everything else is just noise.

 

[koenkooi]

As far as I can tell, Canon didn't claw their way to the top of the market by making bad business decisions. If this is a bad business decision, as some people claim, then it can be changed. Only foolish companies lock themselves into a decision that costs them money. I don't think Canon is foolish. So if all the people claiming this will hurt Canon are right, then we will see them take another path. Everything else is just noise.

If you make a 100 decisions that each cost you 1% of revenue, you've lost almost two thirds of it in the end. And each decision in itself isn't bad enough to need to get reversed.

Anyway, I really hope there will be a lot of 3rd party RF lenses, with at least electronic aperture control. I don't care much about AF for specialist macro lenses. My favourite lens (MP-E 65mm) doesn't even have manual focus

 

[vangelismm]

Can you tell me where the "dead" comes from?
There is a gap in UWA RF-S lenses where adapted EF-S lenses is needed for instance but otherwise?

Fast primes for example.
Lets look at the EF-m, just the 22mm f/2 and 32mm 1.4.
EF-s is even more disappointing.

Sigma, Viltrox and Samyang got us corved with 12mm f/2, 16mm 1.4, 23mm 1.4, 30mm 1.4, 33mm 1.4, 56mm 1.4.

If you starting do buy L glass for aps-c, you are better of just buy a FF Body.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Fast primes for example.
Lets look at the EF-m, just the 22mm f/2 and 32mm 1.4.
EF-s is even more disappointing.

Sigma, Viltrox and Samyang got us corved with 12mm f/2, 16mm 1.4, 23mm 1.4, 30mm 1.4, 33mm 1.4, 56mm 1.4.

If you starting do buy L glass for aps-c, you are better of just buy a FF Body.

I never really understood the point of using a fast prime on APS-C*. Heck, if you want a fast prime the iPhone 13 Max has f/1.5 for wide and f/1.8 for ultrawide...and a small sensor to go with them.

Compared to APS-C, a FF sensor gathers more light meaning less noise in low light, and gives shallower DoF for the same framing. If not for use in low light or achieving shallow DoF, what's the point of a fast lens? If those are your goals, a FF sensor is a better choice than APS-C.

Ok, so I get that APS-C is cheaper. That's why Canon doesn't bother with many fast primes for APS-C – the majority of the market for cheaper cameras doesn't want or need them.

*Ok, I exaggerate a bit. I have both the M22/2 and M32/1.4, and they are useful in low light when I am only bringing the M system because it's smaller and lighter. But those lenses are good enough for me, and I've not felt the need to get the 3rd party options (plus, I'm a bit lazy and prefer AF in general).

 

[dlee13]

I never really understood the point of using a fast prime on APS-C*. Heck, if you want a fast prime the iPhone 13 Max has f/1.5 for wide and f/1.8 for ultrawide...and a small sensor to go with them.

Compared to APS-C, a FF sensor gathers more light meaning less noise in low light, and gives shallower DoF for the same framing. If not for use in low light or achieving shallow DoF, what's the point of a fast lens? If those are your goals, a FF sensor is a better choice than APS-C.

Ok, so I get that APS-C is cheaper. That's why Canon doesn't bother with many fast primes for APS-C – the majority of the market for cheaper cameras doesn't want or need them.

*Ok, I exaggerate a bit. I have both the M22/2 and M32/1.4, and they are useful in low light when I am only bringing the M system because it's smaller and lighter. But those lenses are good enough for me, and I've not felt the need to get the 3rd party options (plus, I'm a bit lazy and prefer AF in general).

You can’t even compare a iPhone to APSC, the former is much better. Any mobile sensor falls apart with editing in RAW. Even Apple ProRAW is just them doing a big HDR and passing it off as a single RAW image which it isn’t.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You can’t even compare a iPhone to APSC, the former is much better. Any mobile sensor falls apart with editing in RAW. Even Apple ProRAW is just them doing a big HDR and passing it off as a single RAW image which it isn’t.

That was my point. If RAW image quality is important, FF is a better choice to pair with your fast prime than APS-C.

 

[stochasticmotions]

I guess this is good for Canon as long as they feel they can sell enough cameras and lenses. In some ways it is good for Sony and Nikon right now as it is a good reason for many people starting out to not choose Canon. Currently with the prices of Canon RF lenses I have been telling people go with Sony and try out some Tamron or Sigma lenses as they are almost as good as the Sony ones but significantly cheaper. Currently I have only 1 RF lens and have no plans to get more in the near future as my EF lenses are good enough (both Canon and Sigma). With the rising cost of gear in the last couple of years I can see many people not ever getting further than the kit lens unless they find an relatively inexpensive first jump into "more interesting" glass.

 

[SnowMiku]

I never really understood the point of using a fast prime on APS-C*. Heck, if you want a fast prime the iPhone 13 Max has f/1.5 for wide and f/1.8 for ultrawide...and a small sensor to go with them.

Compared to APS-C, a FF sensor gathers more light meaning less noise in low light, and gives shallower DoF for the same framing. If not for use in low light or achieving shallow DoF, what's the point of a fast lens? If those are your goals, a FF sensor is a better choice than APS-C.

Ok, so I get that APS-C is cheaper. That's why Canon doesn't bother with many fast primes for APS-C – the majority of the market for cheaper cameras doesn't want or need them.

*Ok, I exaggerate a bit. I have both the M22/2 and M32/1.4, and they are useful in low light when I am only bringing the M system because it's smaller and lighter. But those lenses are good enough for me, and I've not felt the need to get the 3rd party options (plus, I'm a bit lazy and prefer AF in general).

One point to use a fast prime on an APS-C is for extra equivalent reach for more pixels on bird (7D II, 90D, R7,) Another reason is APS-C bodies and lenses are more affordable. When I first got into photography lots of the advice was to buy a cheaper body and spend more on your lenses. Another reason is some APS-C bodies are faster then FF for the same price or cheaper and for what I do the faster FPS 90D is more suitable for me then the 6D II or RP. You still get the benefits of a shallow DoF and less ISO noise when using a fast prime compared to a slower lens on an APS-C.

 

[neuroanatomist]

One point to use a fast prime on an APS-C is for extra equivalent reach for more pixels on bird (7D II, 90D, R7,)

Fast primes are generally considered to be in the f/1.2 to f/2 range. While f/4 is a wide aperture for a 600mm lens, I wouldn’t call my 600/4 a ‘fast prime’.

Another reason is APS-C bodies and lenses are more affordable. When I first got into photography lots of the advice was to buy a cheaper body and spend more on your lenses. Another reason is some APS-C bodies are faster then FF for the same price or cheaper and for what I do the faster FPS 90D is more suitable for me then the 6D II or RP. You still get the benefits of a shallow DoF and less ISO noise when using a fast prime compared to a slower lens on an APS-C.

Cost and kit size are the main reasons for using APS-C, IMO. But my point still stands – if you are shooting in low light or need shallow DoF, a larger sensor is the better choice.

Keep in mind that equivalence works both ways. A 24-105/4 on FF is wider, longer and effectively faster than an EF-S 17-55/2.8 on APS-C.

 

[AlanF]

Fast primes are generally considered to be in the f/1.2 to f/2 range. While f/4 is a wide aperture for a 600mm lens, I wouldn’t call my 600/4 a ‘fast prime’.


Cost and kit size are the main reasons for using APS-C, IMO. But my point still stands – if you are shooting in low light or need shallow DoF, a larger sensor is the better choice.

Keep in mind that equivalence works both ways. A 24-105/4 on FF is wider, longer and effectively faster than an EF-S 17-55/2.8 on APS-C.

Yes, you would need a 15-66/2.5 on APS-C to be equivalent to the 24-105/4 on FF. I would like an f/4 or faster telephoto prime for my R7 to take advantage of its tiny pixels for extra reach by giving less diffraction blur, but that's usually for me in the situation when both the APS-C and FF would be cropped to the same size in mm on the sensor and equivalence doesn't come in to the equation.

 

[2 cents]

Did you miss the point that Canon is a for-profit company

So is a drug dealer.

 

[MrVista]

It is difficult to fault the Canon RF glass except for the price of the L series which places them outside many amateur hobbyists range. The L series are aimed at professionals who, assuming that they are successful, can afford the best and wouldn't buy third party even if available. Canon are trying to make cheaper non L series RF glass for the average hobby photographer and maybe they can do that. They are broadening the body range in price and features so expensive lenses wont appeal to anyone who bought the cheapest Canon RF body, sadly the cheap lenses probably wont deliver. So far the lenses look ok but reviews that pit the L against the non L for sharpness are probably unfair. No weather sealing, no lens hoods, a lot of in camera corrections and general plastic fragility means used EF L with the adapter might be best for most on a budget.
It should be pointed out that the third party autofocus lenses were basically a slightly modified EF lens design and electronics with a mount adapter built in. The Samyang 85 F1.4 and 16 F2.8 had good optical properties with reasonable autofocus and weather sealing ... a fraction of the price anything canon produced in the L series. What are Canon missing ? The Prime lenses for wide aperture and wide angle are not used that much so the amateur can't justify the thousands of $ for a Canon L lens. I feel that Canon want to fill out the range for RF full frame and the APS-C for L and non L and sell enough before allowing third party competitors in. This could take many years so I wouldn't hold my breath. But for me I have halted buying RF lenses to fill niches and will likely sell all my Canon gear and switch to Sony or Nikon where I can buy third party lenses. Anyone else planning to do the same ?

 

[Antono Refa]

I suspect Viltrox's apparent method of reverse engineering a solution that reports their lens as a Canon EF lens led to Canon's actions. Deception isn't an acceptable approach.

Third party lens manufacturers have been doing this for years for EF mount, without any legal action from Canon. E.g. I'm attaching a screenshot of EXIF data presented by ExifTool of a photo I took with a 5DmkII and Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM. Note the data says it's a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM. Or a Sigma lens, probably because it has a focal range of 12-24mm. It is known well enough for DxO and Photoshop to correctly recognize with which lens this photo was taken and choose the appropriate profile, IIRC, for over a decade.

 

[Antono Refa]

That's a bit different situation. They were illegally using Apple created software sold on those machines.

If they were selling ONLY the hardware without OSX, they'd be fine.

In modern times, my analogy was more like someone selling Capture One, 3rd party software that is not Apple but can be freely installed on an Apple computer.

Hope that helps clear things a bit.

cayenne

When Apple released the ProDOS for the Apple II, it checked the computer's ROM for the string it displays during startup to see if it was an Apple or a clone. There's a trick here - if the clone did not display a message saying it's an Apple II, ProDOS wouldn't load. If it did, it was fraud. If anyone changed ProDOS to skip the test, it would be "dodging copy-protection technologies Apple uses to protect Mac OS X". Oops, ProDOS.

Which is my point - Apple's lawyers have engineered the situation so running OS X on clones would be illegal, in this by adding a clause to the OS X EULA forbidding third party installation.

 

[BBarn]

I'm attaching a screenshot of EXIF data presented by ExifTool of a photo I took with a 5DmkII and Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM. Note the data says it's a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM. Or a Sigma lens, probably because it has a focal range of 12-24mm. It is known well enough for DxO and Photoshop to correctly recognize with which lens this photo was taken and choose the appropriate profile, IIRC, for over a decade.

In Sigma's case the statement was true do to the "or Sigma lens" content of the reporting. Viltrox reported the lie that their RF lens was a Canon EF lens. At any rate, it appears Canon is pushing back against 3rd party AF lenses using the RF mount.

 

[Antono Refa]

In Sigma's case the statement was true do to the "or Sigma lens" content of the reporting. Viltrox reported the lie that their RF lens was a Canon EF lens. At any rate, it appears Canon is pushing back against 3rd party AF lenses using the RF mount.

The string "or Sigma lens" is not in the raw file. If you look at ExifTool source code, you'll see it has a translation table from a decimal codes in the raw file to strings describing the lens, which the developers came up with themselves. Sigma didn't have its 12-24mm report that it's a Sigma lens. It "reported the lie that their 12-24mm lens was a Canon EF 300mm f/4L".

[You could claim Sigma reported this via the mismatching min & max focal lengths. I'd consider it if you could show that one couldn't tell whether a photo was taken with a Viltrox lens or a Canon lens just by looking at the EXIF data. I doubt that's the case, as it would make it harder for third party photo editors to select the right profile.]

Yes, it does appear Canon is pushing back against 3rd party AF lenses. I doubt the legal basis for this is deception in the Viltrox lens telling the camera its a Canon lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The string "or Sigma lens" is not in the raw file. If you look at ExifTool source code, you'll see it has a translation table from a decimal codes in the raw file to strings describing the lens, which the developers came up with themselves. Sigma didn't have its 12-24mm report that it's a Sigma lens. It "reported the lie that their 12-24mm lens was a Canon EF 300mm f/4L".

3rd party lenses 'spoof' a Canon lens code. It has caused problems in the past, e.g.:

Dear Canon EOS 6D Mark II, EOS 77D, EOS Rebel T7i, EOS Rebel SL2 Users | SIGMA Corporation of America

SIGMA Corporation of America is a subsidiary of the Sigma Corporation, a Japanese based family owned manufacturer of DSLR cameras, camera lenses and camera accessories. Founded in 1961, Sigma Corporation prides itself on high quality and innovative photographic equipment.

www.sigmaphoto.com

 

[Tahoejr]

Sigma & Tamron make some unique multi-purpose lenses that appeal to hobbyists and those new to mirrorless that I doubt Canon will ever bother with. Such as the recent Tamron 50-400, 18-300 and more. Canon still captures the sale of the camera body with hope that the user can eventually move up to Canon glass.