Canon executives address third-party RF future

[Premetheus]

I think that part of the issue here is that Canon spent a ton on R&D to develop a new mount with communications, autofocus, etc, and I don't believe that they want some third party reverse-engineering and stealing that technology. Once Canon has filled out its lens lineup, then it will start letting third party entities share.

They could charge a license fee to cover their R&D expenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That trinity definitely has an impressive price and focal range but if someone needs and or wants an f2.8 trinity this is the cost here in the UK (inclusive of our local VAT)

Canon RF
15-38mm L = £2499
24-70mm L = £2519
70-200mm L = £2999
Total = £8017

E mount (Sigma and Tamron mix)
14-24mm DG DN Art = £1299
24-70mm DG DN Art = £1049
70-180mm Gen 1 = £1149
Total = £3497

Canon's horrible price gouging in the UK post-Brexit has been flogged like a deceased equine. Here in the US, the OEM Canon lenses are cheaper (the trinity comes in at US$7K), but still double the 3rd party setup. Of course, one could easily get a set of the EF f/2.8 zoom trinity used in 9+ condition for the same or lower total cost of the 3rd party trinity, if one needed or wanted an f/2.8 trinity. One could adapt an EF-mount 3rd party trinity for even less, and a used 3rd party EF mount trinity for probably less than that narrow-aperture $1650 RF consumer lens setup. Choice is good.

But as I said, IMO with these lenses Canon is mainly targeting well-heeled amateurs. The thing to keep in mind is that Canon's primary concern is operating profit. If they determine that pricing lenses high (with lower resulting unit sales) is more profitable, that's what they'll do. The same logic will be applied to licensing the RF mount to 3rd parties. So far, Canon has decided it's not in their best interests to do so.

 

[Talys]

Canon RF
15-38mm L = £2499
24-70mm L = £2519
70-200mm L = £2999
Total = £8017

Wow. These prices are astronomically different from Canada. Here are today's website prices from Henrys.com, a national retailer. You can actually do better on some local retailers in-store.

15-35/2.8 - $2800 CAD = £1620
24-70/2.8 - $3000 CAD = £1730
70-200/2.8 - $3400 CAD =£1970
Total price: £5320

That's a phenomenal difference of £2700

By the way, I prefer the 28-70/2.0 over the 24-70/2.8 IS

 

[Brikna]

I have to admit that I don't understand at all the dire need some people have for native RF lenses, especially not in the context we have now - Canon could, if they wanted to, almost completely disable the entire EF lens lineup with the switch to RF, but they decided to all EF lenses breathe new, high-quality life on the RF mount. We have as many as 3 different EF-EOS R adapters (I personally have all three of them) that provide fantastic possibilities, and all of which are very little talked about. All of my EF lenses, and I have nine of them, perform significantly better than ever before on any EF body I own (or once owned). The only RF lens I have is the 24-105 f/4L IS USM, although it's a great lens, I have no real desire to replace any existing EF with an equivalent RF right now. And even if I needed a new lens, I would definitely go for a well-preserved used EF lens rather than an RF. One V-ND filter covers all my EFs, one C-PL covers all my EFs, the back cover of the EF lens can be mounted on the lens in any way, while on the RFs I have to waste time carefully aiming the position of the mark on the rear cap with the mark on the mount, the ergonomics of many EFs are better to me than on comparable RFs... Basically, with such a quantity and range of extremely high-quality and affordable EF lenses (both Canon and from third-party manufacturers), I don't see any immediate need for Canon to open the RF mount to anyone.

 

[Snapster]

Only offering expensive bulky 1.2 or cheap plasticky non-weather sealed STM lenses for 24/35/50/85 mm simply doesn't cut it. What I'm supposed to splash 3k on a 50mm 1.2 and go shoot street with a massive 950g lens? Not happening. The 50mm 1.8 IQ, build or STM motor are just not good enough.

These focal lengths need midrange primes that are: lighter and smaller than the 1.2's but sturdier than the flimsy STM lenses, and weather sealed. Precisely what the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is for Sony.

If Canon can't make these lenses or upgrade their STM lineup for higher build and AF quality, license the mount to someone who can.

Also, stubbornly refusing to use old EF lenses. I bought into mirrorless for smaller lenses and better IQ with new tech. Not same old lenses plus adapter for an even heavier set up.

 

[Del Paso]

I have to admit that I don\'t understand at all the dire need some people have for native RF lenses, especially not in the context we have now - Canon could, if they wanted to, almost completely disable the entire EF lens lineup with the switch to RF, but they decided to all EF lenses breathe new, high-quality life on the RF mount. We have as many as 3 different EF-EOS R adapters (I personally have all three of them) that provide fantastic possibilities, and all of which are very little talked about. All of my EF lenses, and I have nine of them, perform significantly better than ever before on any EF body I own (or once owned). The only RF lens I have is the 24-105 f/4L IS USM, although it\'s a great lens, I have no real desire to replace any existing EF with an equivalent RF right now. And even if I needed a new lens, I would definitely go for a well-preserved used EF lens rather than an RF. One V-ND filter covers all my EFs, one C-PL covers all my EFs, the back cover of the EF lens can be mounted on the lens in any way, while on the RFs I have to waste time carefully aiming the position of the mark on the rear cap with the mark on the mount, the ergonomics of many EFs are better to me than on comparable RFs. Basically, with such a quantity and range of extremely high-quality and affordable EF lenses (both Canon and from third-party manufacturers), I don\'t see any immediate need for Canon to open the RF mount to anyone.

Same here. And I even sold the RF 24-105 L (but waiting for an f/2,8 implementation). I also own all the lenses I need as EFs. Therefore, I have absolutely no need for 3rd party lenses, even though I can understand many forum members miss them.
I'll certainly "plunge" more deeply into the R/RF ecosystem, but only after having replaced my EOS R with an R5 II or an R3. And then it will be the new RF lenses' turn (TS 14mm, 2,8/24-105, 180mm macro) provided they become reality.

 

[Berowne]

The RF glass is expensive, that is true. But one can easily have an RF-EF-Adapter and use EF-L-Lenses (as i do) or EF-third party glass. So what is the problem?

 

[Brikna]

Only offering expensive bulky 1.2 or cheap plasticky non-weather sealed STM lenses for 24/35/50/85 mm simply doesn't cut it. What I'm supposed to splash 3k on a 50mm 1.2 and go shoot street with a massive 950g lens? Not happening. The 50mm 1.8 IQ, build or STM motor are just not good enough.

These focal lengths need midrange primes that are: lighter and smaller than the 1.2's but sturdier than the flimsy STM lenses, and weather sealed. Precisely what the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is for Sony.

If Canon can't make these lenses or upgrade their STM lineup for higher build and AF quality, license the mount to someone who can.

Also, stubbornly refusing to use old EF lenses. I bought into mirrorless for smaller lenses and better IQ with new tech. Not same old lenses plus adapter for an even heavier set up.

I'm super happy and satisfied with how the EF Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art behaves on the R, R5... It's not the lightest lens, but optically it's extremely good, AF works perfectly on all RF bodies, the lens was extremely affordable to buy - what more can a man wish for!? The only thing to complain about is the fact that Canon does not offer every lens that someone somewhere on the planet could think of.

 

[Del Paso]

From my personal experience with anything with a "Sony" brand on it (audio, video, TV, camera) and also from what I've heard from friends, I can tell you that there will be only one reason for me to ever switch to Sony:

If it is the last and only brand selling cameras.

Any (!) other I'll prefer.

"If it is (Sony) the last and only brand selling cameras." : A troll's wet dream!

 

[neuroanatomist]

These focal lengths need midrange primes that are: lighter and smaller than the 1.2's but sturdier than the flimsy STM lenses, and weather sealed. Precisely what the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is for Sony.

If Canon can't make these lenses or upgrade their STM lineup for higher build and AF quality, license the mount to someone who can

Unfortunately, the fact that you personally need (or want) something doesn’t mean there is profit in it for Canon.

 

[Snapster]

I'm super happy and satisfied with how the EF Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art behaves on the R, R5... It's not the lightest lens, but optically it's extremely good, AF works perfectly on all RF bodies, the lens was extremely affordable to buy - what more can a man wish for!? The only thing to complain about is the fact that Canon does not offer every lens that someone somewhere on the planet could think of.

I did consider getting the older Sigma 50mm. But they have a new mirrorless version of it which is improved in every way and over 300g lighter, including the adapter. The only thing standing in the way is Canon.

 

[josephandrews222]

Those are serious questions I have for all the people that think blocking third-party lenses isn't an issue at all. I view it as a major hurdle for up-and-coming photographers. At this point, I have to tell my cousin that it's probably a good idea for him to switch systems. As much as we Canon fans love to trash on Sony, it's also pretty ignorant to do so. Sony's cameras and lenses are all pretty fantastic at this point and to ignore that is stubborn.

This.

I will not be switching. I love using Canon gear...and will continue to do so. It is unlikely I will switch to Sony. Ever.

But the well-written and thoughtful LSX comment here (like many of his posts, IMHO) is gold.

 

[Brikna]

I did consider getting the older Sigma 50mm. But they have a new mirrorless version of it which is improved in every way and over 300g lighter, including the adapter. The only thing standing in the way is Canon.

I always vote for a lighter and improved lens... But there is nothing that the existing range of adapted 1.4 50s cannot do superbly. The only limit is usually my creativity, and almost never the fact that the lens could be native or 300g lighter.

 

[Brikna]

I'm very fortunate that I can own exactly the lenses that I need for work and want to have for fun. But I look at someone like my cousin who is 10 years younger than me and trying to get his feet wet in photography (still not making that much on the side with it) and he's hit a fork in the road. He has all the lenses he can afford and then he looks over at Sony and sees that he can sell all of his current lenses and camera bodies to get a much better full f/2.8 system. I don't blame him and I wont discourage him. He looks at the Tamron and Sigma options for Sony and can't get over their value.

This is a hill I will die on. Not allowing for affordable options will prevent amateur photographers from entering the Canon system. I didn't always have a bag full of L-series lenses - I had to work my way up to that over the past 20 years. No, I started with a mixture of Canon and Sigma lenses. Eventually, I wound up with nothing but Canon L-series glass and I'm very happy. However, would I have been able to get here without the help of Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 when I was laid off of my magazine job and had to buy a new lens? Would I have been able to shoot all those low light events/weddings back in the day without the Sigma Art lenses that allowed me to get some really awesome shallow DOF images that looked great in my portfolio? I couldn't buy the EF 50mm f/1.2 or EF 35mm f/1.4 back then....

Those are serious questions I have for all the people that think blocking third-party lenses isn't an issue at all. I view it as a major hurdle for up-and-coming photographers. At this point, I have to tell my cousin that it's probably a good idea for him to switch systems. As much as we Canon fans love to trash on Sony, it's also pretty ignorant to do so. Sony's cameras and lenses are all pretty fantastic at this point and to ignore that is stubborn.

Do your nephew a favor and teach him how to use an incredible selection of EF lenses on an RF body using the extremely reliable and affordable EF-EOS R adapter. There is almost no EF lens that doesn't work fantastically on R bodies. In addition, and especially since your nephew is a beginner, he will save a lot of money along the way.

 

[SNJ Ops]

I have to admit that I don't understand at all the dire need some people have for native RF lenses, especially not in the context we have now - Canon could, if they wanted to, almost completely disable the entire EF lens lineup with the switch to RF, but they decided to all EF lenses breathe new, high-quality life on the RF mount. We have as many as 3 different EF-EOS R adapters (I personally have all three of them) that provide fantastic possibilities, and all of which are very little talked about. All of my EF lenses, and I have nine of them, perform significantly better than ever before on any EF body I own (or once owned). The only RF lens I have is the 24-105 f/4L IS USM, although it's a great lens, I have no real desire to replace any existing EF with an equivalent RF right now. And even if I needed a new lens, I would definitely go for a well-preserved used EF lens rather than an RF. One V-ND filter covers all my EFs, one C-PL covers all my EFs, the back cover of the EF lens can be mounted on the lens in any way, while on the RFs I have to waste time carefully aiming the position of the mark on the rear cap with the mark on the mount, the ergonomics of many EFs are better to me than on comparable RFs... Basically, with such a quantity and range of extremely high-quality and affordable EF lenses (both Canon and from third-party manufacturers), I don't see any immediate need for Canon to open the RF mount to anyone.

Sigma have been busy making mirrorless versions of their Art series that are smaller, lighter, improved optically, improved AF performance and for roughly the same price. They also have a line of lenses that are even smaller, lighter, cheaper than their Art line which are ideal for those who would prefer an f2 or slower prime. Tamron have a great line of zooms that for the most part are not available on DSLR to be adapted. When Sony first came out with e mount they touted adapting glass as a solution to a lack of native options and they were criticised for it, years later Canon is a somewhat similar position.

Some people are perfectly happy using EF glass and that is their right, but many want native options and Canon should address that in some way. An RF 50mm f1.4 L would be a great place to start.

 

[Snapster]

I always vote for a lighter and improved lens... But there is nothing that the existing range of adapted 1.4 50s cannot do superbly. The only limit is usually my creativity, and almost never the fact that the lens could be native or 300g lighter.

That's a healthy attitude Canon wishes everyone had. =)

 

[neuroanatomist]

Those are serious questions I have for all the people that think blocking third-party lenses isn't an issue at all. I view it as a major hurdle for up-and-coming photographers. At this point, I have to tell my cousin that it's probably a good idea for him to switch systems. As much as we Canon fans love to trash on Sony, it's also pretty ignorant to do so.

This.

I will not be switching. I love using Canon gear...and will continue to do so. It is unlikely I will switch to Sony. Ever.

But the well-written and thoughtful LSX comment here (like many of his posts, IMHO) is gold.

It’s a reasonable comment, but the point ignored is the question, ‘for whom is it an issue?’. Certainly there are some individuals who have no desire for 3rd party RF lenses (I’m among them), for whom Canon blocking them isn’t an issue. Certainly there are other people who want RF-mount lenses that Canon doesn’t offer, or lenses equivalent to RF but cheaper.

It’s evident that blocking 3rd party lenses is a big issue to whom it matters most…Canon, who has so far decided to actively prevent 3rd party AF RF-mount lenses from being sold.

Some claim Canon is making a mistake by doing so. Time will tell. What time has told so far is that Canon has steadily gained MILC market share, first becoming #1 in the APS-C MILC market a few years ago, and last year taking the #1 overall MILC rank away from Sony in Japan (and possibly globally, those data aren’t yet available). People are welcome to hold the opinion that Canon has chosen a poor strategy, but the data refute that belief.

 

[Brikna]

Sigma have been busy making mirrorless versions of their Art series that are smaller, lighter, improved optically, improved AF performance and for roughly the same price. They also have a line of lenses that are even smaller, lighter, cheaper than their Art line which are ideal for those who would prefer an f2 or slower prime. Tamron have a great line of zooms that for the most part are not available on DSLR to be adapted. When Sony first came out with e mount they touted adapting glass as a solution to a lack of native options and they were criticised for it, years later Canon is a somewhat similar position.

Some people are perfectly happy using EF glass and that is their right, but many want native options and Canon should address that in some way. An RF 50mm f1.4 L would be a great place to start.

I'm sure Canon will cover the needs of many, but it can't happen quickly - it takes some time for them to do so. What Canon has done is not "forced" anyone to switch to RF but quite the opposite - made the transition to RF very acceptable, at least from my point of view. If something doesn't exist in RF, and I want/need it, I just need to be patient and I'm sure that my desire/need will be covered in the future. Although I'm sure and saddened by the fact that they will never release the RF 50mm f/1.4 version.

 

[another_mikey]

I have so far been able to buy top quality RF glass for the kind of scenic shooting I like to do, with one exception. I want a top quality nightscape lens with the latest features. Sigma has made some nice primes for this. The original one I wanted was the Sigma 14mm f/1.8, only available in EF mount of course. At that time it wasn't yet obvious that an RF version was not going to come out shortly so I waited. Now there are a couple of newly designed Sigma mirrorless optimized UWA lenses that have specific nightscape features, like locking manual focus and a dew heater restriction flange on the front of the lens to keep the strap in place. They also have even better performance on stars with less aberrations than any other lenses out there. But due to spin down of Canon's EF lens family and the restrictions on 3rd party AF capable RF lens manufacture, these are only available in Sony or L mount styles. And there is as of yet no 14-20mm Canon RF or even EF prime with respectable aberration performance on stars. So I am officially frustrated. It is strange to me that a company that has shown a willingness to come out with multiple bodies with modified filtering optimized to be used for astrophotography (even though obviously a niche market) has not seen any need to put out any lenses that would also be optimized for that same usage. I am certainly not going to be leaving Canon over this, but I REALLY wish there was a decent alternative out there with the features shown in some of the latest Sigma lenses that could be used on my R5...

 

[Snapster]

I'm sure Canon will cover the needs of many, but it can't happen quickly - it takes some time for them to do so. What Canon has done is not "forced" anyone to switch to RF but quite the opposite - made the transition to RF very acceptable, at least from my point of view. If something doesn't exist in RF, and I want/need it, I just need to be patient and I'm sure that my desire/need will be covered in the future. Although I'm sure and saddened by the fact that they will never release the RF 50mm f/1.4 version.

This is what I thought when I originally chose the EOS R over Sony A7III. But it's disappointing 5 years into the RF mount there are still huge gaps in the lens lineup. New lenses are coming out at a very slow pace.

And I think Canon dropped the ball with their latest extra slow lenses like 15-30 f/4.5-6.3. My only adapted EF lens is the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 Di OSD, which wipes the floor with the 15-30 at a similar price point. For ultra-wide, I would also prefer what Sigma and Tamron have for Sony rather than the RF 14-35 f/4 L or it's bulkier 2.8 brother.