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

[SNJ Ops]

I posted the same thing earlier on but some people are such strong Canon loyalists they would rather spend more for old inferior EF lenses over cheap and better third party options.

If Canon had a very full RF lineup with all the same options as third parties and had actual reasonable pricing it would be somewhat reasonable to block third parties, but sadly then don’t.

There are way more but just some of the third party options that could fill gaps in Canon’s lineup

Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DN Art
Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DN Art
Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8
Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DN Art
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DN Art
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DN Art (or Samyang version) or 35mm f/1.2 Art
Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 UMC II
SIgma 85mm f/1.4 DN Art or Samyang 85mm f/1.4 II
Sigma 70mm or 105mm DN Macro
Samyang AF 135mm f/1.8
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 or Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DN Art
Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8, 70-300mm and 150-500mm

I agree.. I own the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art for emount and while the new GM II equivalent beats it in every way its not to the point where I feel the need to upgrade. The key thing is that choice is available for me to make. If you want a native 24-70mm f2.8 on RF there’s one lens and thats it.

If someone only wants OEM glass that is their right and choice but some are denying this is an issue because its not an issue for them personally.

I don’t have an issue with Canon protecting their IP, they have a responsibility to do so. They can even choose to never to come to any agreements with 3rd parties but the idea that’s a good thing for everybody is false.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I haven’t said that my beliefs and opinions represent the majority. What I have said that the visible response to this news has been negative. You might disagree with that and that’s fine.

Yes, responses have been negative. I don’t disagree with that at all. What is disagree with is your conclusion that this will impact Canon’s bottom line. You claim that will happen, and you have no data to support that. Canon has been making business decisions since their inception, and over the past 20 years those decisions have overwhelmingly been correct.

I fully acknowledge that for many Canon shooters they couldn’t care less if 3rd party lenses are available on RF or not but many do. What proportion that is I don’t know.

Nor do I. But I believe that Canon has a very good idea of that proportion, with ample data to support decisions they make regarding 3rd party lenses. They didn't achieve market leadership and keep it for >20 years by making poor business decisions

Moreover, Viltrox isn’t the only 3rd party lens maker. Or even a major one. You may assume that Canon has taken action against others, but there’s no evidence for that. Why did Samyang stop making RF lenses? Maybe they just aren’t selling well, so they consolidated products at their subsidiary, Rokinon.

My issue is that many defending Canon seem to not understand that different people have different budgets, needs and desires.

If someone is cross shopping systems and they need/want an f2.8 holy trinity here are 3 possibilities

I think most people understand that cost is important. Here's a question for you...can you build a three zoom lens kit from Sony, Nikon or 3rd party lenses that covers 15mm to 400mm on a FF sensor and costs $1500?

RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 $550
RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 $400
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 $550

Pair that with an EOS RP and you have an excellent FF kit costing $2500.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don’t have an issue with Canon protecting their IP, they have a responsibility to do so. They can even choose to never to come to any agreements with 3rd parties but the idea that’s a good thing for everybody is false.

Who is saying it's good for everybody? Even as a strawman, that's asinine. It doesn't have to be good for anybody...except Canon. You keep arguing that it's a bad decision for Canon. Other than the fact that it seems to have pissed off you and a few other people, what evidence do you have to support the argument that it's bad for Canon?

As I indicated, Canon has lots of data on who has purchased what lenses from whom. If they have decided to lock out 3rd party AF lenses from Viltrox, why do you think that matters to any significant fraction of customers, or really any entity except Viltrox?

Here are RF Rokinon lenses, many of which have AF and are in stock at B&H/Adorama.

Canon RF

We make it easy to find the best Rokinon lenses online. Browse our entire collection of new Rokinon and XEEN lenses today.

rokinon.com

Is that consistent with your theory of Canon locking out all 3rd party lenses?

 

[BBarn]

I think most people understand that cost is important. Here's a question for you...can you build a three zoom lens kit from Sony, Nikon or 3rd party lenses that covers 15mm to 400mm on a FF sensor and costs $1500?

RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 $550
RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 $400
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 $550

Pair that with an EOS RP and you have an excellent FF kit costing $2500.

That's sorta where I find myself. The smaller/lighter/lower cost lenses suit me fine for most uses. Many of the faster 3rd party lenses with competitive prices and very good performance are great, but they're simply not something I want to lug around. For someone else, they are a great fit. So while their absence is disappointing to them, others may not miss them at all.

 

[scyrene]

I posted the same thing earlier on but some people are such strong Canon loyalists they would rather spend more for old inferior EF lenses over cheap and better third party options.

If Canon had a very full RF lineup with all the same options as third parties and had actual reasonable pricing it would be somewhat reasonable to block third parties, but sadly then don’t.

There are way more but just some of the third party options that could fill gaps in Canon’s lineup

EF lenses work as well on RF bodies as they did on EF ones; indeed you get extra benefits with some. The only downside is the extra bulk of the adaptor. Why are they "inferior"? Third party lenses usually have some issues - such as dodgy AF. They are a great option for filling gaps missing in the lineup (for instance I love my Sigma 180mm macro because it has IS which the Canon equivalent lacks) and may be cheaper, but the idea they are intrinsically better is rather skewed. As for the lineup being insufficient - well it's still young, still developing, and they're releasing new lenses at a fair pace. But don't let facts get in the way of your rant... (Incidentally, I don't think anyone is saying they're glad if third parties are being locked out, just that it might make sense from Canon's perspective, and declaring it a bad business decision is likely unrealistic).

 

[SNJ Ops]

Yes, responses have been negative. I don’t disagree with that at all. What is disagree with is your conclusion that this will impact Canon’s bottom line. You claim that will happen, and you have no data to support that. Canon has been making business decisions since their inception, and over the past 20 years those decisions have overwhelmingly been correct.

I fully admit that I don’t know for sure if this will have any impact on Canon but I speculate that it will.

Nor do I. But I believe that Canon has a very good idea of that proportion, with ample data to support decisions they make regarding 3rd party lenses. They didn't achieve market leadership and keep it for >20 years by making poor business decisions

Moreover, Viltrox isn’t the only 3rd party lens maker. Or even a major one. You may assume that Canon has taken action against others, but there’s no evidence for that. Why did Samyang stop making RF lenses? Maybe they just aren’t selling well, so they consolidated products at their subsidiary, Rokinon.

In the screenshot that that started this whole discussion the Viltox rep clearly states that they weren’t the only ones to have been stopped from making RF glass. Samyang where quite vague when they pulled their lenses from the market but the speculation at the time was that Canon told them to stop. While there’s no evidence to confirm that, recent events make it very likely. Rokinon isn’t available in Europe, Samyang is but they don’t even mention RF lenses on their website anymore.

I think most people understand that cost is important. Here's a question for you...can you build a three zoom lens kit from Sony, Nikon or 3rd party lenses that covers 15mm to 400mm on a FF sensor and costs $1500?


RF 15-30mm f/3.5-5.6 $550
RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 $400
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 $550

Pair that with an EOS RP and you have an excellent FF kit costing $2500.

In my comparison I mentioned f2.8 glass which is what a lot of enthusiasts and professionals would want. That $1500 kit will be perfect for many users on small budgets. Again I ask what about those users who want native mount glass but can’t afford OEM prices?

 

[dlee13]

I agree.. I own the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art for emount and while the new GM II equivalent beats it in every way its not to the point where I feel the need to upgrade. The key thing is that choice is available for me to make. If you want a native 24-70mm f2.8 on RF there’s one lens and thats it.

If someone only wants OEM glass that is their right and choice but some are denying this is an issue because its not an issue for them personally.

I don’t have an issue with Canon protecting their IP, they have a responsibility to do so. They can even choose to never to come to any agreements with 3rd parties but the idea that’s a good thing for everybody is false.

Yeah it’s all about choices which Canon is lacking at this current point in time. The more options available, the more appealing that system is.

Funny enough I prefer OEM glass too but will go to third party options if they are better or nothing good/affordable is available. Canon have so many holes in their lineup which these third party lenses can fill. People who prefer OEM lenses could simply use them until Canon provides a reasonable priced alternative.

EF lenses work as well on RF bodies as they did on EF ones; indeed you get extra benefits with some. The only downside is the extra bulk of the adaptor. Why are they "inferior"? Third party lenses usually have some issues - such as dodgy AF. They are a great option for filling gaps missing in the lineup (for instance I love my Sigma 180mm macro because it has IS which the Canon equivalent lacks) and may be cheaper, but the idea they are intrinsically better is rather skewed. As for the lineup being insufficient - well it's still young, still developing, and they're releasing new lenses at a fair pace. But don't let facts get in the way of your rant... (Incidentally, I don't think anyone is saying they're glad if third parties are being locked out, just that it might make sense from Canon's perspective, and declaring it a bad business decision is likely unrealistic).

They may work well but they often cost more than third party options (especially here in Australia) and add bulk. Not everyone wants to adapt lenses, they want native ones which is where third party options come in.

Generally a newer lens will be better than an older one, especially for brands like Sigma and Tamron who have excellent quality products. Dodgy AF is something of the DSLR days, if you used a Sigma DN lens or Tamron one on a Sony body you would say they perform like native as they use the same AF protocols as Sony lenses. A lens that came out this year like the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 is light, faster and cheaper than the RF 16-35mm f/4L so I would call it an inferior lens. Same goes for many other focal lengths when you compare EF to DN or Tamron lenses.

It’s not so much a rant either, it’s stating facts that Canon are simply hurting their users by blocking third parties when even Fuji and Nikon have come around to open their mounts.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Again I ask what about those users who want native mount glass but can’t afford OEM prices?

Do you really believe that Canon has not considered that? That seems incredibly improbable. They’re a business, and an extremely successful one as far as the ILC market is considered. Again I ask, do you believe Canon is so stupid or incompetent that they have not considered the consequences of blocking 3rd parties from making RF-mount AF lenses? If you think so, you’re arguing with >20 years of history to the contrary.

If you acknowledge that they considered the consequences, and if it’s true that they have chosen to block 3rd parties from making RF-mount AF lenses, the obvious implication is that Canon believes the consequences of that decision will be either positive or at worst neutral for them. Will they lose customers over this? Quite likely, yes. But most likely they’ve determined, based on data from EF lens vs. 3rd party lens sales, that forcing most users to buy OEM lenses more than offsets the loss of customers due to a closed mount (for AF lenses, at least).

You believe they will suffer negative consequences, Canon does not. Your argument is therefore predicated on your belief that you know more about the ILC business than Canon. Again, hubris would be a kind description of that belief. Blatant foolishness would be closer to the truth.

The answer to your question, “What about those users who want native mount glass but can’t afford OEM prices?,” is basically too bad for them*. Sorry if you think that’s harsh. It’s not personal, it’s business. Something Canon obviously knows more about than you.

* Although, as I pointed out earlier, Canon actually has great RF lenses for users on a budget. A $550 OEM FF UWA zoom? Who else has that (and yes, that’s serious alphabet soup!)? An 800mm OEM prime for $900? Who else has that? Seems like you’re just upset because they don’t have the lenses you want at the prices you want. And the response to that is as above – too bad for you.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It’s not so much a rant either, it’s stating facts that Canon are simply hurting their users by blocking third parties when even Fuji and Nikon have come around to open their mounts.

The fact is that Canon cares about profits, not users. Ok, they care about users, but only as the means for them to profit. If hurting a few users will generate proportionately more profit from a larger group of users, that’s the smart business decision to make.

 

[Jethro]

The fact is that Canon cares about profits, not users. Ok, they care about users, but only as the means for them to profit. If hurting a few users will generate proportionately more profit from a larger group of users, that’s the smart business decision to make.

All of this assumes that Canon actually has made a decision to (somehow we don't understand) block 3rd party lens makers. If that is true, then I suspect their motive for doing so is to (i) maximise sales of their own RF lenses in the ST (and thereby recoup some more of the development costs more quickly), and (ii) shore up their negotiating position to move to some sort of paid licensing arrangement with 3rd parties for the LT (providing a nice ongoing income stream). Both of those make perfect business sense to me.

So, leaving aside hurt feelings over individuals not having immediate access to the particular 3rd party lens they want (in native RF mount as opposed to adapted EF mount), there are actual advantages to the scenario above: (i) Canon is more incentivised to release it's own RF lenses (as it expects to recoup it's fixed costs more quickly), and (ii) for those who can wait, fully licensed 3rd party RF lenses are likely to come - with full software and interface support, meaning they will actually be better than the limited back-engineered versions that we would otherwise have gotten.

 

[dlee13]

The fact is that Canon cares about profits, not users. Ok, they care about users, but only as the means for them to profit. If hurting a few users will generate proportionately more profit from a larger group of users, that’s the smart business decision to make.

Often in scenarios like this the impact will only be seen once they have lost a lot of traction. Once people swap to another brand they are unlikely to swap back for quite some time, if ever.

It’s not like giving access to third parties would be pure loss, they’d sell more bodies and get a cut of each third party lens sold too if they are licensing out their AF algorithm so more win win than anything.

 

[unfocused]

All of this assumes that Canon actually has made a decision to (somehow we don't understand) block 3rd party lens makers. If that is true, then I suspect their motive for doing so is to (i) maximise sales of their own RF lenses in the ST (and thereby recoup some more of the development costs more quickly), and (ii) shore up their negotiating position to move to some sort of paid licensing arrangement with 3rd parties for the LT (providing a nice ongoing income stream). Both of those make perfect business sense to me.

So, leaving aside hurt feelings over individuals not having immediate access to the particular 3rd party lens they want (in native RF mount as opposed to adapted EF mount), there are actual advantages to the scenario above: (i) Canon is more incentivised to release it's own RF lenses (as it expects to recoup it's fixed costs more quickly), and (ii) for those who can wait, fully licensed 3rd party RF lenses are likely to come - with full software and interface support, meaning they will actually be better than the limited back-engineered versions that we would otherwise have gotten.

I think you might be too sensible for this forum.

There may be something else to consider, though. As far as I know, Canon has never licensed its proprietary designs to third-party lens makers. So, one has to ask: What has changed? Presumably, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina (The three major third-part lens makers) have always had to reverse engineer their designs in order not to violate Canon's patents and avoid lawsuits. What seems to have changed (Maybe???) is that third-party lens makers no longer what to invest in reverse engineering and now want to buy licenses. If true, then why are so many on this forum upset with Canon? Shouldn't they be upset with Sigma, Tamron and Tokina for not making the investment in reverse engineering? They seem to be the ones who have changed course, while Canon seems to be consistent in its approach.

In addition, why are people assuming that third-party lens makers will never reserve-engineer the RF mount? There are some alleged statements that they want to buy a license. But, we don't know if that is true and we don't know if they will refuse to reverse-engineer the RF mount if they cannot buy a license.

In short, there is a lot of hysteria on this forum over something that no one really has any real information about.

I do agree though that eventually this will all work itself out. If Canon can produce a sufficiently broad range of lenses to satisfy most (not all) users there will be no need for third-party lenses. If Canon finds they are losing business by taking an aggressive approach to protecting their proprietary designs, they will modify their course.

In the end, it will be the market that decides what happens, not Canon and not third-party lens makers.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]What seems to have changed (Maybe???) is that third-party lens makers no longer what to invest in reverse engineering and now want to buy licenses. If true, then why are so many on this forum upset with Canon? Shouldn't they be upset with Sigma, Tamron and Tokina for not making the investment in reverse engineering? They seem to be the ones who have changed course, while Canon seems to be consistent in its approach.[..]

I think it's a smart decision to only design from official specs, it avoids the lens misbehaving when the body gets a firmware update. What I wish is that Canon would license some parts, like the metadata needed for EXIF and iris control for an insignificant fee. They can keep AF, IS and DLO closed and protected by patents if they want to.

I just want Laowa to add (back) iris control to their Canon mount lenses

I don't like that Canon, allegedly, is using legal posturing to take 3rd party lenses off the market. I don't know how that will impact Canons bottom line, most people I encounter with cameras are, in the original sense of the word, amateurs, like me. Going on a workshop for deer and boars, you'll see mostly 150-600 3rd party lenses, but visiting the mating spot, you'll see a long line of moustachioed dentists with big whites

 

[SNJ Ops]

Do you really believe that Canon has not considered that? That seems incredibly improbable. They’re a business, and an extremely successful one as far as the ILC market is considered. Again I ask, do you believe Canon is so stupid or incompetent that they have not considered the consequences of blocking 3rd parties from making RF-mount AF lenses? If you think so, you’re arguing with >20 years of history to the contrary.

In that over 20 year history their EF mount had substantial 3rd party support. Many Canon users assumed that this would continue on RF but it seems that assumption was wrong. Canon may well have made a decision to actively block 3rd parties or the situation is that 3rd parties can not reverse engineer the mount without infringing Canon’s IP and currently they have not issued licenses to anyone. I haven’t said Canon is stupid or incompetent but in my opinion as a consumer I don’t like it and if someone asks me which system I recommend before this news I would have recommended RF but now I will mention it but also make it very clear the the situation regarding the lenses. Instead I would recommend Sony, Nikon or Fuji.

If you acknowledge that they considered the consequences, and if it’s true that they have chosen to block 3rd parties from making RF-mount AF lenses, the obvious implication is that Canon believes the consequences of that decision will be either positive or at worst neutral for them. Will they lose customers over this? Quite likely, yes. But most likely they’ve determined, based on data from EF lens vs. 3rd party lens sales, that forcing most users to buy OEM lenses more than offsets the loss of customers due to a closed mount (for AF lenses, at least).

You believe they will suffer negative consequences, Canon does not. Your argument is therefore predicated on your belief that you know more about the ILC business than Canon. Again, hubris would be a kind description of that belief. Blatant foolishness would be closer to the truth.

I’m just 1 person, not foolish or full of hubris as you have claimed about me but rather thinking of fellow shooters and what this potentially means for the industry as a whole.

The answer to your question, “What about those users who want native mount glass but can’t afford OEM prices?,” is basically too bad for them*. Sorry if you think that’s harsh. It’s not personal, it’s business. Something Canon obviously knows more about than you.

Business works both ways, if a company makes a decision that some customers don’t like they’ll vote by spending their money elsewhere. I fully acknowledge that this might end not meaning much at all but we don’t know that yet. Time will tell.

* Although, as I pointed out earlier, Canon actually has great RF lenses for users on a budget. A $550 OEM FF UWA zoom? Who else has that (and yes, that’s serious alphabet soup!)? An 800mm OEM prime for $900? Who else has that? Seems like you’re just upset because they don’t have the lenses you want at the prices you want. And the response to that is as above – too bad for you.

Those are great options for those on very tight budgets but again those lenses will not suit everyone. You know full well that a lot of enthusiasts and pros won’t be interested in a variable aperture UWA lens. As for that 800m prime its an F11. If I where to take that to my local nature reserve my ISO would be very high even in daylight and I would have reduced subject isolation in my images which is not acceptable for the images I want to create and others will feel the same.

As for not having the lenses I want at the prices I want I shoot Sony and own mainly OEM glass. My 24-70mm f2.8 however is the Sigma Art because at the time it was the better lens than Sony’s equivalent. Its been bettered by the GM II but not by enough for me that I feel the need to upgrade.

 

[AlanF]

As for that 800m prime its an F11. If I where to take that to my local nature reserve my ISO would be very high even in daylight and I would have reduced subject isolation in my images which is not acceptable for the images I want to create and others will feel the same.

The noise in your image due to low light is not caused by the iso number but the noise in the amount of light. If you are taking a photo of a duck in your local nature reserve, there will be as many photons hitting the duck at the same shutter speed with an 800mm f/11, 400mm f/5.6 and 200mm f/2.8. So, an 800mm f/11 at iso 1600, 400mm f/5.6 at iso 800 and a 200mm f/2.8 at iso 400 will all have the same shutter speed and the same signal/noise in the image of the duck. Not many complain that 70-200mm f/2.8 or a 100-400 f/5.6 is unacceptable. Those who complain about the isos with the 800mm f/11 are too high to be usable tend to be those who have never actually tried out the lens. Here's a thread with some images going up to very high isos with the RF 100-500mm with the RF 2x at 1000mm and f/14.

Extenders and high iso with the R5

Concerns are frequently expressed about lenses like the RF 100-500mm with f/7.1 being narrow and so the images must surely be noisy because high isos are necessary in dim light? Some claim the 400mm f/5.6 is superior in low light because it is 2/3 of a stop faster (or a 1/3rd faster than the...

www.canonrumors.com

And here are some images taken last month with the 800mm f/11 on the R7 at a distance of 60-120m or so of Bee-eaters, as close as you could get to an extremely rare visit of these small birds to the UK. They are at the limit of resolution, but noisy they are not, and subject isolation was irrelevant at that distance and backgound. The 800mm f/11 is much, much more useful than an 800mm f/5.6 to a vast number of nature shooters who could never afford that lens and those who do have the money but could not carry it.

Ye Bee-eaters of Merrie England

Now, for those who thought it was a typo and were hoping to see photos of those guardians of the Tower of London, I am afraid you will be disappointed. The European Bee-eater is an extremely rare visitor to the UK but this summer a flock of 8 has taken up residence in Norfolk and are breeding in...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[SNJ Ops]

I think you might be too sensible for this forum.

There may be something else to consider, though. As far as I know, Canon has never licensed its proprietary designs to third-party lens makers. So, one has to ask: What has changed? Presumably, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina (The three major third-part lens makers) have always had to reverse engineer their designs in order not to violate Canon's patents and avoid lawsuits. What seems to have changed (Maybe???) is that third-party lens makers no longer what to invest in reverse engineering and now want to buy licenses. If true, then why are so many on this forum upset with Canon? Shouldn't they be upset with Sigma, Tamron and Tokina for not making the investment in reverse engineering? They seem to be the ones who have changed course, while Canon seems to be consistent in its approach.

In addition, why are people assuming that third-party lens makers will never reserve-engineer the RF mount? There are some alleged statements that they want to buy a license. But, we don't know if that is true and we don't know if they will refuse to reverse-engineer the RF mount if they cannot buy a license.

In short, there is a lot of hysteria on this forum over something that no one really has any real information about.

I do agree though that eventually this will all work itself out. If Canon can produce a sufficiently broad range of lenses to satisfy most (not all) users there will be no need for third-party lenses. If Canon finds they are losing business by taking an aggressive approach to protecting their proprietary designs, they will modify their course.

In the end, it will be the market that decides what happens, not Canon and not third-party lens makers.

Sony is what has changed.. Sony has an official process where you can apply to make lenses for emount. So Sigma, Tokina, Zeiss and Tamron do not reverse engineer their lenses for Sony bodies which is why there are no compatibility issues. Samyang, Viltrox, Yongnuo and others do reverse engineer as I understand it but again there have been very very few issues with those lenses.

As for 3rd parties waiting for licenses I was told by a Sigma UK rep in June that they are doing just that. Why would they risk reverse engineering a lens if they know that Canon telling other companies to stop. Also consider that reverse engineering RF may infringe on Canon’s IP somehow so it becomes a legal issue rather than a technical one. Even if the legal issue was removed and Canon permitted reverse engineering but it meant that RF versions of lenses didn’t perform as well as their E mount equivalents no one would be happy with that scenario at all.

 

[jd7]

I think you might be too sensible for this forum.

There may be something else to consider, though. As far as I know, Canon has never licensed its proprietary designs to third-party lens makers. So, one has to ask: What has changed? Presumably, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina (The three major third-part lens makers) have always had to reverse engineer their designs in order not to violate Canon's patents and avoid lawsuits. What seems to have changed (Maybe???) is that third-party lens makers no longer what to invest in reverse engineering and now want to buy licenses. If true, then why are so many on this forum upset with Canon? Shouldn't they be upset with Sigma, Tamron and Tokina for not making the investment in reverse engineering? They seem to be the ones who have changed course, while Canon seems to be consistent in its approach.

In addition, why are people assuming that third-party lens makers will never reserve-engineer the RF mount? There are some alleged statements that they want to buy a license. But, we don't know if that is true and we don't know if they will refuse to reverse-engineer the RF mount if they cannot buy a license.

In short, there is a lot of hysteria on this forum over something that no one really has any real information about.

I do agree though that eventually this will all work itself out. If Canon can produce a sufficiently broad range of lenses to satisfy most (not all) users there will be no need for third-party lenses. If Canon finds they are losing business by taking an aggressive approach to protecting their proprietary designs, they will modify their course.

In the end, it will be the market that decides what happens, not Canon and not third-party lens makers.

I really should stay out of this ... but ... Canon has never licensed its intellectual property to third party lens manufacturers ... and two third party lens manufacturers (Samyang/Rokinon and Viltrox) have released RF mount lenses with AF only for the lenses to disappear off the Samyang and Viltrox websites and to have disappeared from the market in the case of Samyang/Rokinon and be disappearing from the market in the case of Viltrox ... and only one other third party lens manufacturer has released an RF mount lens with AF (Yongnuo) and those lenses are not appearing in stores at least in my neck of the woods ... and you think the evidence is pointing towards third party lens manufacturers changing their approach? On your interpretation of events that means multiple relatively small third party lens manufacturers have been able to reverse engineer an RF mount lens and develop a lens with AF which works without infringing Canon's IP and, despite having spent the time and money to do that they have simply taken, or apparently are taking, their lenses off the market. Does that really seem more likely than that Canon has said it is going to sue them for IP infringement and settled the matter without ever commencing court proceedings (eg Canon could even just have said if you stop now we won't sue and if the other side was concerned it would be found liable if it got sued it might take an offer like that very quickly) and made it a term of settlement that the other side keeps quiet?

Reverse engineering a product means, basically, to pull it apart and work out how it works. Just because you have done that doesn't mean you can start making and selling a product which can operate in the same system as the product you reverse-engineered without breaching the law, in particular intellectual property law. That is because by reverse engineering the product you might now understand how it works, but you still cannot use any relevant IP such as any patented invention, or any software code which is subject to copyright, which you have learned about. Canon could have made it very difficult, perhaps impossible, for someone to make an RF lens with AF which doesn't need to use some item of intellectual property which Canon owns (and given the lack of third party AF lenses except for manual lenses, my guess is Canon owns IP which is relevant to camera-lens communications which third party manufacturers are struggling to find a way around without infringing Canon's IP even once they have reverse engineered the mount). So, for the RF system, it may be that it is Canon that will decide what happens (although no doubt it would be influenced by the market), and third party manufacturers will be unable to sell RF mount lenses without making themselves liable for IP infringement unless and until Canon grants a licence, at least until such time as Canon's relevant intellectual property expires.

I do agree though we don't actually know what Canon is doing, although given what has happened to third party RF lenses with AF, Canon's silence about third party lenses, and the lack of RF lenses or even development announcements from Sigma and Tamron, I know where I think the evidence points. And if Canon is shutting out third party lens manufacturers, it's possible Canon is willing to blow off some customers and perhaps even reduce its sales volume to chase higher margins, and if so it is posisble that may be that is the best approach for Canon. And if that is what Canon is doing, it may be that, as you say, Canon thinks it will just change tack if and when it ever thinks it needs to (and potentially Canon is a sufficiently big dog that if it did change tack belatedly, third party manufacturers might still jump on board). In the end, there are lots of options for how this could all play out. I can say, though, that to me a Canon system without third party lenses is much less appealing than a Canon system with third party lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

All of this assumes that Canon actually has made a decision to (somehow we don't understand) block 3rd party lens makers. If that is true, then I suspect their motive for doing so is to (i) maximise sales of their own RF lenses in the ST (and thereby recoup some more of the development costs more quickly), and (ii) shore up their negotiating position to move to some sort of paid licensing arrangement with 3rd parties for the LT (providing a nice ongoing income stream). Both of those make perfect business sense to me.

Agree (and have stated) that locking out 3rd parties remains just an assumption based on one anecdote. This was a chat between a customer and a customer service rep, not a press release or an official statement from a corporate executive on either side of the issue. Customer service reps often say things that turn out to be wrong or complete BS.

I agree that it might make good business sense, but I’m not certain (ii) will happen. It never happened with the EF mount. Perhaps if RF lenses consistently fail to meet sales expectations (but of course, if that happens it would reduce the value of such a license to 3rd parties).

A company trying to expand a minority market share is likely to benefit more from opening its platform than a company that already dominates the market. Most of Canon’s RF buyers are EF owners. Canon knows what fraction of those EF owners also owned reverse-engineered 3rd party lenses, and of those what fraction has bought R bodies. Those are the kind of data Canon uses to make a decision like this, and obviously none of us have access to those data.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Your attack is utterly unjustified by his comments. Stop being such an asshole.

Thanks for sharing your opinion in such a puerile way. Hush now, the grown-ups are talking.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Often in scenarios like this the impact will only be seen once they have lost a lot of traction. Once people swap to another brand they are unlikely to swap back for quite some time, if ever.

That’s true. However, your comment is merely an echo of a common refrain on these forums.

“Canon is d00med because they’re doing X, so people will switch to SoNikon.”

“Canon dominates the market and knows how to run a business better than you.”

“Canon’s d00m is coming, doing X will alienate their users and so many will switch that Canon will suffer. It just takes some time. Remember Kodak. Remember Nokia.”

**a couple of years pass, during which Canon’s market share grows a bit more**

“So, it seems Canon knows more about the camera business than you, and doing X was the right decision.”

—silence—

Until…

“Canon is d00med because they’re doing Y, so people will switch to SoNikon.”

Rinse and repeat.

This has happened many times over the years. It always seems that X or Y, the issue that spells certain d00m for Canon, is an issue that the poster is has a strong personal desire to have. They assume that because it’s important to them, it’s important to a majority of users. I’m still not sure why it’s so hard for people to accept that Canon knows more about the ILC market than they do. But somehow they’re convinced their personal issue is the one that will break Canon. Lol.