Canon Releases New (Lacquerware) Lens Hoods

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,904
6,181
Now that I think about it I remember I have a 40mm stm (pancake) lens that has no hood. I forgot about that lens. I never felt like it needed one, probably because it has such a small front element and it’s recessed. I bought that lens new on sale for $99 and was actually quite impressed at the sharpness for the price. It was a perfect lens for casual photography when you wanted just one lens attached as a walk around. Unfortunately it’s looses that small form factor advantage with an RF adapter.
The 40/2.8 has a dedicated hood, but it must be bought separately as with most non-L lenses.


I agree that the form factor of that lens is great, I used it as a body cap for my 1D X, and it was great to put in a pocket when walking around with the 70-200, 70-300 or 100-400. I sold mine when transitioning to the R3, as you say adding the adapter obviates the pancake-ness of the lens.

Yes. I am looking forward to a real RF pancake lens.
Yeah, me too!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tiggy@mac.com

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
833
806
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
The 40/2.8 has a dedicated hood, but it must be bought separately as with most non-L lenses.


I agree that the form factor of that lens is great, I used it as a body cap for my 1D X, and it was great to put in a pocket when walking around with the 70-200, 70-300 or 100-400. I sold mine when transitioning to the R3, as you say adding the adapter obviates the pancake-ness of the lens.


Yeah, me too!

Yeah, I have it in my glovebox in my car. Although the R mount does make its pancakeness rather thick, I find it extremely useful there because I take my EF 600mm with me everywhere I go in the car, but occasionally I need a wide angle to get something. Just pop the glovebox, and I already have the adapter on my R5 from the EF 600.

It's a lens I've sold twice thinking I'd never need it, and then when a cheap used one comes around, I can't resist.

It's also one of the best picture quality/$ ratios of available lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,010
2,284
I thought I had made it clear: Canon can patent the RF mount on the camera side but it can't then patent the mount on the lens side. You can patent a Gizmo, but you cannot then patent everything that will obviously fit on the Gizmo.

Why couldn't they patent the RF lens flange and skip the camera side mount instead? (Assuming they can only patent one)
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,010
2,284
Seems like you should change your handle to IllogicExtremist. Patent infringement lawsuits (speculation) prevent Sigma and Tamron from making RF mount lenses because Canon didn't license the RF mount to them. You go on to say that Canon didn't license the EF mount to them, either. I guess that prevented Sigma and Tamron from making EF mount lenses, too. Oh, wait....

Is the world embracing the 'open source' concept? I guess successful companies like Apple, Amazon and Google missed the memo and are still operating as walled gardens. Better send Tim, Andy, and Sundar letters telling them they're too 'old school' to survive in the modern open source world.

The patent on the EF mount has long expired. More than a few informed industry observers noted over a decade ago that third party APS-C only lenses used the EF mount without the EF-S modifications at a time when the EF-S patent was still in force but the EF patents had been expired for quite a while.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,580
14,292
Why couldn't they patent the RF lens flange and skip the camera side mount instead? (Assuming they can only patent one)
They could have indeed patented a novel lens mount, and it would have allowed anyone to make cameras with a mount that fits the lens.