Canon Germany addresses recent Viltrox RF mount lens demands, and it’s a case of patent infrigement

[dolina]

Guess people that buy expensive camera's today will do some research beforehand. If they can't afford the RF lenses, they will just go to Sony, Nikon, etc were 3rd party lenses are available. So Canon might be sacrificing market share in the long run and still go bankrupt...

If I was hard up I'd buy used dSLR bodies, lenses and accessories. The rush to mirrorless is forcing sales on a discount.

In 2011 Sony Discloses Basic Specifications of the "E-mount" for Interchangeable Single Lens Cameras without Fee

Sony Discloses Basic Specifications of the

Sony Corporation announced today it will disclose the basic specifications of its

www.sony.com

They did this to get 3rd party lens makers to build for their 10 month old mount.

 

[Chaitanya]

Canon really needs to clear that up, because otherwise many photographers - including me - will be hesitant to invest $6,000 into an RF body. It is very annoying when Tamron or Sigma announce new lenses for Nikon and Sony mirrorless cameras, but not for Canon. In the EF area the record breaking lens formulas for the EF mount mostly came from Tamron or Sigma. For example the fastest zooms in a specific range or the widest stabilized lenses. For the EF mount Canon NEVER developed an 24-70 f/2.8 with image stabilization. You has to either buy the non stabilized f/2.8 version or a stabilized f/4 version. The same was true for the 16-35, if I remember it right. Of course with the RF mount Canon finally offered at stabilized 24-70 f/2.8, but I am sure Tamron and Sigma would top that again with a stabilized 24-70 f/2 or 24-105 f/2.8. Sigma and Tamron always went a step futher than Canon. Also the idea of a Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-f/4 was great or the stabilized Tamron 45mm f/1.8. Both are EF lenses and I expect the RF version to even top that.

For most use cases glass is more important than the body. So any limit on third party glass limits what a photographer can do with his expensive Canon body.

Next month I will likely visit Germany's largest remaining photo fair "Photopia" (unfortunately Photokina is dead) and there Canon, Sigma and Tamron will all show their latest glass. I will ask the Tamron and Sigma people why there is not third party RF glass yet.

Sigma doesnt make lenses for Z mount nor have they announced any plans to support that mount. For now they are only making lenses for Sony E mount and L mount alliance for FF mirrorless along with handful(less than 5 lenses) of crop lenses for E, X, m43 and Ef-M mounts.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Guess people that buy expensive camera's today will do some research beforehand. If they can't afford the RF lenses, they will just go to Sony, Nikon, etc were 3rd party lenses are available. So Canon might be sacrificing market share in the long run and still go bankrupt...

Nikon and Sony have both at times had more compelling options than Canon. That has never stopped Canon from selling more of one of their bodies like the 5D II or III than the entire combined bodies sold by both Nikon and Sony combined.

Canon right now have the technology lead and their sub super tele options are all fantastic. They won’t change how they do things unless/until somehow half of their user base switches their buying habits to another brand.

I switched to Nikon for the most part. Not because Canon where bad or too expensive. I switched to have a change of pace and it turned out fantastic as I now have a 400 f/4.5 and 800 f/6.3 that I can’t get anywhere else. It is incredibly rare for someone to switch and Canon knows it. It was only logical for me as my main lenses where ageing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Guess people that buy expensive camera's today will do some research beforehand. If they can't afford the RF lenses, they will just go to Sony, Nikon, etc were 3rd party lenses are available. So Canon might be sacrificing market share in the long run and still go bankrupt...

YAPODFC. I coined that acronym here over a decade ago ago. It's still applies today.

For those newer than that, who perhaps have missed out on the myriad of similar predictions that turned out to be totally baseless as Canon continued to maintain and grow market share over the past 20+ years, it stands for Yet Another Prediction of D00m for Canon.

A few more letters than a simple BS, but effectively the same thing.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]
If you want the advantages of genuine Canon RF glass, you have a choice between state-of-art L exotica, or very affordable Canon "budget" glass [..]

Most of the RF 'budget' lenses are more expensive than the EF L lenses I have, so I'm having a hard time calling them "affordable". The RF15-30 is more expensive than the EF17-40L, EF24-105L and only slightly cheaper than the EF100L.

It feels like these RF lenses are twice the price of their EF counterparts, but that could be my rose tinted glasses and 2 decades of inflation.

 

[scyrene]

Guess people that buy expensive camera's today will do some research beforehand. If they can't afford the RF lenses, they will just go to Sony, Nikon, etc were 3rd party lenses are available. So Canon might be sacrificing market share in the long run and still go bankrupt...

LOL

Here we go again!

 

[koenkooi]

[..] For the EF mount Canon NEVER developed an 24-70 f/2.8 with image stabilization. You has to either buy the non stabilized f/2.8 version or a stabilized f/4 version. The same was true for the 16-35, if I remember it right. Of course with the RF mount Canon finally offered at stabilized 24-70 f/2.8, but I am sure Tamron and Sigma would top that again with a stabilized 24-70 f/2 or 24-105 f/2.8. Sigma and Tamron always went a step futher than Canon. Also the idea of a Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-f/4 was great or the stabilized Tamron 45mm f/1.8. Both are EF lenses and I expect the RF version to even top that.[..]

I'm having a hard time believing that Tamron and Sigma will be able to get the coordinated IS working on IBIS bodies. And keep it working when the bodies get firmware updates. I hope they do, I miss using my Sigma 150mm macro, on the R5 I get to pick between "actively harmful IS" and "no IS at all".

 

[scyrene]

FUCK CANON

I've shot nothing but Canon since 1995 (well, if you set aside a Leica M6 outfit, Mamiya 7, and Rollei SL66), and bought my first third-party lens ever last month, but yesterday for the first time I advised someone not to buy Canon because of this issue. I think Canon is a 100% excellent choice for wildlife, sports, and high-end reportage with trinity zooms. If you want to do street, budget, or art photography, go with someone else.

Well you definitely seem like a mature individual with a balanced outlook

 

[dolina]

Most of the RF 'budget' lenses are more expensive than the EF L lenses I have, so I'm having a hard time calling them "affordable". The RF15-30 is more expensive than the EF17-40L, EF24-105L and only slightly cheaper than the EF100L.

It feels like these RF lenses are twice the price of their EF counterparts, but that could be my rose tinted glasses and 2 decades of inflation.

The EF L lenses you listed are really old. So their street price is significantly different from their MSRP.

- 2003 Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
- 2005 Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
- 2009 Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM

 

[dolina]

LOL

Here we go again!

Not to offend but I notice the artists giving the FU to Canon while the business types give the business case why X is Y to achieve Z.

 

[UlfricStormcloak]

I will ask the Tamron and Sigma people why there is not third party RF glass yet.

Ef mount was introduced on 1987 and first sigma lens for that mount was introduced on 2000. I think I would asked them about relevance of such timeframe for the rf mount.

 

[dolina]

Ef mount was introduced on 1987 and first sigma lens for that mount was introduced on 2000. I think I would asked them about relevance of such timeframe for the rf mount.

IMHO that's a reasonable time frame for Canon to fully monetize their R&D investment.

 

[entoman]

Most of the RF 'budget' lenses are more expensive than the EF L lenses I have, so I'm having a hard time calling them "affordable". The RF15-30 is more expensive than the EF17-40L, EF24-105L and only slightly cheaper than the EF100L.

It feels like these RF lenses are twice the price of their EF counterparts, but that could be my rose tinted glasses and 2 decades of inflation.

Yes, I was using the terms "budget" and "affordable" comparatively with RF L glass, much of which IMO is very overpriced.

I think the 16mm F2.8, RF 100-400mm, 600mm F11, 800mm F11 are *sufficiently* affordable to make them accessible to anyone who has purchased an RF mount camera, although they are of course inferior in specification and build quality to L glass.

They say you get what you pay for, but you are paying a premium for the Canon name and the L brand, and Canon are in any case actively moving upmarket price-wise. I think Nikon and Sony will also be forced to increase prices significantly, and specialise in high-end gear, as smartphones gradually take over the sub $1000 market, but Canon will always price themselves above their direct competitors.

 

[SNJ Ops]

I'm having a hard time believing that Tamron and Sigma will be able to get the coordinated IS working on IBIS bodies. And keep it working when the bodies get firmware updates. I hope they do, I miss using my Sigma 150mm macro, on the R5 I get to pick between "actively harmful IS" and "no IS at all".

Both Tamron and Sigma have IS that work on some of their telephoto zooms for E and L mount. Sigma don’t tend to add IS to their mirrorless primes.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And you'll note my proposed change

I must have missed your proposal. Oh wait, I found it!

FUCK CANON

 

[neuroanatomist]

And what if Canon brings cases against third parties on EF too?

On what grounds? Apparently you have no understanding of patent law, a key fact is that patents expire after a certain period of time, and the invention becomes available for anyone to use.

The EF mount and it’s associated transmission protocols were launched 35 years ago. Any intellectual property associated with that mount and those protocols has long since entered the public domain.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm surprised anyone listens to you, given what an asshole you are to other forum members.

Well, if you don’t like facts and data feel free to ignore my posts. if your understanding of those things is at the same level as your emotional maturity, that’s probably for the best because you won’t understand them anyway.

 

[dolina]

It's weird that you can only buy programs for your iPhone at the Apple Store and arguably it's grounds for anti-monopoly action against Apple too, and yet you can buy software from a huge number of non-Apple vendors there. You can buy PC software anywhere. You can buy Android apps anywhere. So no, it's not readily apparent that Canon is such a closed shop.

Were you buying software prior to the Apple App Store that was established in 2008?

Prior to that year software distribution was primary through physical disks like CDs, DVDs and floppies.

This was very very expensive as it meant physical movement of goods from manufacturing plant to domestic & overseas buyers.

The Apple App Store made digital distribution very cheap, reliable and instantaneous.

Imagine how life would be if you had to install apps on your smartphone using a CD or DVD?

For the past 5 years people whine about monopoly but Apple's popularization of 1 stop shop secured digital distribution of software made the smartphone revolution what it is today.

Canon's EF system is built on the strength of its 1st party bodies, lenses and accessories. Sony had to give away the specs of their E-mount for free to get people to buy into a new & untested system a dozen years ago

 

[dolina]

I'm surprised anyone listens to you, given what an asshole you are to other forum members.

Don't mind him. He's using online forums to vomit out his bedside manner. He cannot exactly do that to his patients or else no one would pay for his services.

 

[InchMetric]

Continue reading...

Reports about patents without giving the patent numbers are missing the most important facts.