Don’t expect any third-party autofocus lenses in the near future

[Stig Nygaard]

I don't know if this brings anything real new, but maybe a hint or confirmation that Sigma is trying to get RF lenses on the market. Depending on how you interprets the conversation....

Spanish site https://www.photolari.com/ did an interview with Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki. The interviewer speaks Spanish which I don't understand. But with help from automatic subtitling I think the dialog is something like the following...

Photolari (P) ask about the situation or likelihood to get Canon RF lenses from Sigma, Kazuto Yamaki (Sigma) answers:

Sigma: Sigma's mission is to deliver lenses to as many customers as possible. And I'm very aware that there is a strong demand from Canon mirrorless users. I really appreciate such interest from customers. I cannot tell about future planning, but I really want to deliver such products in the future.

P: When such lenses hasn't yet arrived, is it because of Sigma or is it because of Canon?

Sigma: [Smiling, surely knowing why he's asked a question like that] Sorry, but I cannot comment on it [both laughing]. But what I can tell you today is that Sigma is very interested to satisfy the Canon mirrorless users' demand.

 

[stabilus]

I know where that leaves me in terms of buying Canon glass: I won't until they open up their policy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I know where that leaves me in terms of buying Canon glass: I won't until they open up their policy.

I hope you have all the lenses you need, your wait may be a long one.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I hope you have all the lenses you need, your wait may be a long one.

How many years now that Canon has not licensed lens patents? Canon has a counter on their website.

They do license a lot of their technology, just not when the patent is effective at reducing competition.

 

[emc]

I hope you have all the lenses you need, your wait may be a long one.

I, too, am waiting. I was lucky enough to be able to buy the Samyang RF 85 mm AF F1.4 and I don't regret it. For telephoto lenses, I have the EF 100-400 II which also suits me. I don't think the RF mount does much for tele. It's mainly on the wide angles that I'm waiting. I have the Tamron 24-70 VC, not the G2, and I've discovered that, despite Tamron's list of RF incompatible lenses, it works very well with the RF single ring. It's with the ring with control ring that it doesn't work well. Otherwise in the meantime I'm happy with my 17-40 F4.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't think the RF mount does much for tele. It's mainly on the wide angles that I'm waiting. … Otherwise in the meantime I'm happy with my 17-40 F4.

For the high end lenses, not yet. I have no plans to swap my EF 600/4 II for the RF version, and if I still had an EF 100-400L I likely wouldn’t have bought the excellent 100-500L.

But for consumer telephoto lenses, RF is great. The RF 100-400 is half the weight and much smaller than the 100-500L, and delivers very good IQ and excellent magnification for a non-macro lens, and costs only $500 with the current discount (of which I took advantage when I ordered one a couple of hours ago). The 600/11 and 800/11 put long focal lengths within reach of shorter budgets.

RF wide zooms are also very good. The 14-35/4L delivers much better IQ than the old 17-40/4L, along with IS. I’m sure more wide, fast primes will be along eventually.

 

[emc]

For the high end lenses, not yet. I have no plans to swap my EF 600/4 II for the RF version, and if I still had an EF 100-400L I likely wouldn’t have bought the excellent 100-500L.

But for consumer telephoto lenses, RF is great. The RF 100-400 is half the weight and much smaller than the 100-500L, and delivers very good IQ and excellent magnification for a non-macro lens, and costs only $500 with the current discount (of which I took advantage when I ordered one a couple of hours ago). The 600/11 and 800/11 put long focal lengths within reach of shorter budgets.

RF wide zooms are also very good. The 14-35/4L delivers much better IQ than the old 17-40/4L, along with IS. I’m sure more wide, fast primes will be along eventually.

 

[AcaPixus]

I would really like to read Canons patents on the RF mount and scrutinize the claims - does anyone know the patent numbers?

In my opinion there can be no "patent height" in the physical mount, which means that that is not patentable.
The electronic protocol is obviously patentable, but may be best protected as a trade secret, as the patent application is also a publication and would have to describe the protocol in details to get granted.

I assume Viltrox were only making manual focus lenses? So they should not infringe the electronic protocol, only use the nonpatentable physical mount?

In any case, why not just make lenses with the RF physical mount but using the EF electronic protocol - they would work just an EF lens just with the adapter built in ...

Edit1: Just read on PetaPixel that it was in fact autofocus lenses: Link
“SHENZHEN JUEYING TECHNOLOGY CO.LTD, manufactures auto focus lenses for Canon RF mount under the brand name “Viltrox”. Canon believes that these products infringe their patent and design rights and has therefore requested the company to stop all activities that infringe Canon’s intellectual property rights.”

Edit2: I found one patent that may be the RF protocol - at first glance the claims does not seem to enable anyone skilled in the art to reproduce the protocol, which in principle should mean that it can not be granted. I will have to access and read the full patent :-(

JP2013160897A - Optical device - Google Patents

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide an optical device by which, when an interchangeable lens and a camera body communicate with each other in a different communication method for each imaging mode, both can communicate with each other with small memory capacity.SOLUTION: An optical device includes...

patents.google.com

 

[neuroanatomist]

The electronic protocol is obviously patentable, but may be best protected as a trade secret, as the patent application is also a publication and would have to describe the protocol in details to get granted.

Given that multiple companies reverse engineered the RF autofocus protocols, it would seem that protecting them as a trade secret was not the best option for Canon.

Have they done so, a cease-and-desist letter (or whatever similar strategy they used) would not have been an option for them.