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

[EOS]

Are you aware of the RF 28-70mm f/2L, which was one of the first lenses announced for the mount? Yes, it's big and heavy (relatively speaking, it's a lot smaller and lighter than my 600/4 II). But for me it's like carrying around a bag of primes, since I usually shoot them at ~f/2 anyway, and unlike the EF 35/50/85L that benefit optically from being stopped down, the 28-70/2 is optically excellent wide open.

I’ve demoed it. Why the heck doesn’t that lens come with a tripod mount? It’s twice the weight of the 24-70 f/2.8 L II, which earned every bit of its nickname: “The Brick”.

The fact is, I’m a sucker for a 24mm focal length. It just suits my eye, always has. I’m really hoping the RF 24mm f1.4 L from todays rumor doesn’t have the aberration issues that the EF 24mm L lenses have had.

 

[Loswr]

I’ve demoed it. Why the heck doesn’t that lens come with a tripod mount? It’s twice the weight of the 24-70 f/2.8 L II, which earned every bit of its nickname: “The Brick”.

Yeah, it’s heavy! When I used it with my EOS R, it felt awkward and that’s an understatement. But with my R3, it balances nicely and is comfortable to use.

The fact is, I’m a sucker for a 24mm focal length. It just suits my eye, always has. I’m really hoping the RF 24mm f1.4 L from todays rumor doesn’t have the aberration issues that the EF 24mm L lenses have had.

I had the EF 24-105/4, then the 24-70/2.8 II, and I now have the RF 24-105/4 and 28-70/2.

I like 24mm outdoors and for travel, but looking at my EF shots from the settings where I’d use the 28-70 (indoor/events) I found that even when the EXIF showed shots at 24-28mm, I had almost always cropped them to an AoV of 30-35mm. So I went ahead and bought the f/2 beast. No regrets.

 

[GoranS]

They could license the RF-S mount to Sigma and keep FF lenses native-only for 2-3 more years. In that way they could fill the lineup for crop lenses quickly and still keep quality concerns at bay.

 

[Loswr]

They could license the RF-S mount to Sigma and keep FF lenses native-only for 2-3 more years. In that way they could fill the lineup for crop lenses quickly and still keep quality concerns at bay.

Except there’s no such thing as an RF-S mount. There are RF-S lenses, but those simply project a smaller image circle through the same RF mount used by full frame lenses.

 

[illadvisedhammer]

Except there’s no such thing as an RF-S mount. There are RF-S lenses, but those simply project a smaller image circle through the same RF mount used by full frame lenses.

Sure, but the electronic communication in a licensed product could tell the ff cameras to crop to APS-c, protecting the high end profits while building the cropped base that can grow into ff. As you like to remind us just thinking of something or wanting it doesn't make it happen or likely, but this sounds like a great compromise that would check some boxes for protection and growth. I know its an unresolved debate how many crop users move to ff, but if that path exists this would help it along.

 

[GoranS]

Except there’s no such thing as an RF-S mount. There are RF-S lenses, but those simply project a smaller image circle through the same RF mount used by full frame lenses.

Exactly, I know that. Under license you can make only the lenses you are allowed to. Sigma has great crop zooms and primes - probably Canon would port the 32mm over from the m-mount but still. That still leaves 16, 30, 56 and 18-50 to fill the gaps.

 

[josephandrews222]

Tony made the video to get views... The end.

It is simply laughable that there are still people that take anything said by Tony seriously at this point. The slow death of that channel has been a sight to behold as he states more and more rubbish. It looks pretty clear that Canon as well as many other manufacturers have cut ties with the Northrups because of the clickbait videos they have been posting for the past few years in the same vain as the one you linked to.

The go to move for the desperate Camera review youtuber is to go after Canon and sit back and watch the Canon haters fill the comments with line after line about how Canon killed their puppy, eat all their food, and slept with their partners.


Enough about that...

My real motivation for replying to your post is to ask how can you imply that Canon defending their IP is a knee-jerk reaction?

I work for Motorola Solutions and we proudly kick the living crap out of any company that steals technology from us. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/motorola-msi-wins-patent-violation-141502492.html

Pretty safe to say Canon has thought this through and they will fight using every and all lawful means at their disposal to prevent the theft of their IP.

This will be my last post in this thread.

You wrote that I wrote that Canon defending their IP is/was a knee-jerk reaction.

I wrote no such thing...and do not believe that their decision here is/was a knee-jerk reaction.

Out.

 

[Jonathan Thill]

This will be my last post in this thread.

You wrote that I wrote that Canon defending their IP is/was a knee-jerk reaction.

I wrote no such thing...and do not believe that their decision here is/was a knee-jerk reaction.

Out.

My real motivation for replying to your post is to ask how can you imply that Canon defending their IP is a knee-jerk reaction?

Correction - I wrote that you "implied" Canon was making a knee-jerk reaction. If your were not attempting to tie Canon and their decisions into the discussion I am not sure what service the lines I quoted below provide to the discussion. Perhaps you were attempting to establish expertise

After re-reading your post a number of times I concede that if the entire body of your post ended before you linked to Tony's video I would have little to no grounds to imply you were linking Canon and or their decisions to a "knee-jerk" reaction.

Sadly having read the post in its entirety I could not help but link your earlier paragraph to the full body of the message. Which does not come across as supportive of Canon and their position.

Also starting a discussion by first labeling users as "fan-bois" weakens what you have to contribute IMO. Had you said "As a member of the Canon "fan-bois" club this is my take". By somewhat aligning to the group you become "one of us" and not just someone here to cast judgement.

Sometimes, in the enterprises I'm referring to, knee-jerk decisions are made in response to sentiments expressed in various public forums.

WIth the benefit of hindsight, some of those very decisions have not had the desired outcome...other than, at times, sort of changing the subject.

Anyway. thanks for taking the time to clear up things up.

Cheers

 

[Loswr]

Also starting a discussion by first labeling users as "fan-bois" weakens what you have to contribute IMO.

Perhaps it depends on the subject of the appellation. For example, I’m an unapologetic fanboi of facts and data, and the logical deductions which derive from them.

 

[melgross]

USA is not of relevance in this regard.
Camera business is a word wide business.

It us, of course. It’s a big percentage of sales. But that wasn’t the point I was making. I thought the point was obvious. I guess not.

 

[jd7]

I mentioned this before. While I’m not certain how it plays out in every country or region, here in the USA a company is allowed to reverse engineer a product to interface with another company’s product, even if it means breaking software encryption in order to do it. This was a decision made by the Librarian Of Congress a number of years ago, within whom the authority to make such decisions lies.

so Canon couldn’t forbid it here. Elsewhere, I don’t know.

Sorry, but you seem to misunderstand the situation (unless perhaps I misunderstand the point you were trying to make?).

Reverse engineering a product means, basically, to pull it apart and work out how it works. At least generally, reverse engineering is not a legal problem. However, just because you have reverse engineered something does not mean you can necessarily start making and selling a product which can operate in the same way as the product (or works with the product) you reverse-engineered without any problem. There can be various reasons for that, but in particular just because you have worked out how someone's intellectual property works doesn't mean you can use that intellectual property (particularly for commercial purposes) without infringing that intellectual property (eg infringing a patent or infringing copyright).

I think what you are thinking of is this:

1. In an effort to stop other people copying digital content (eg copying and distributing movies, etc), the people who make the content often use digital rights management software and/or hardware.
2. Generally speaking, in the US (and various other countries) the law prohibits anyone from circumventing digital rights management systems, at least where those systems concern copyright material. Obviously enought, that is prohibited because the intention is to stop people from copying copyright material when they are not supposed to.
3. There are some exceptions to the general rule that you cannot circumvent digitial rights management systems, and one of those exceptions is reverse engineering to achieve interopability between computer systems.

I am not a US lawyer but you mgiht want to look at this post (albeit it is old now) by a US law firm https://www.stoel.com/legal-insight...m-copyright-act-changing-the-digital-landscap

However, the critical point is what I have said above. Reverse engineering something allows you to work out how a product works, but just because you have done that doesn't necessarily mean you can make your own product without having legal problems. You will still need either a licence to use any relevant intellectual property, or you will have to come up with a way to make a product which doesn't use the relevant intellectual property but still does the job.

So, the bottom line is, if Canon has a relevant patent or owns relevant copyright material (or any other relevant form of intellectual property), it can stop other people selling products which use that IP, even in the USA. The fact it may not be able to stop people reverse engineering a product doesn't change that. And that may mean it is very difficult or even impossible for someone to be commercial making or selling an AF lens which uses the RF mount without infringing Canon's IP (unless Canon has granted the person a relevant licence, of course).

 

[martti]

Never mind. I Switched to Sony 4 years ago. Been using all kinds of lenses since, even Leitz-M and Jupiter-3.

 

[rawshooter]

RF-S line up is empty which needs good native options, also for RF there is still missing 180mm Macro and a 100mm Macro without SA control and focus shift.

Yea when I'm going to buy a small RF-S cam (if Canon releases one) I'm not going to use RF or adapted lenses, because I want it to be a compact system.
If they want me to attach my RF 70-200 2.8 I can also just put my R5 on it..buying an additional RF 70-200 4 is still a waste of space since its made for fullframe.

 

[dolina]

Yea when I'm going to buy a small RF-S cam (if Canon releases one) I'm not going to use RF or adapted lenses, because I want it to be a compact system.
If they want me to attach my RF 70-200 2.8 I can also just put my R5 on it..buying an additional RF 70-200 4 is still a waste of space since its made for fullframe.

The first RF-S bodies came out in 2022. This is 4 years after RF system was introduced

- 2022 Canon EOS R7
- 2022 Canon EOS R10

RF-S lenses

- 2022 Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM
- 2022 Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM

 

[AlanF]

Yea when I'm going to buy a small RF-S cam (if Canon releases one) I'm not going to use RF or adapted lenses, because I want it to be a compact system.
If they want me to attach my RF 70-200 2.8 I can also just put my R5 on it..buying an additional RF 70-200 4 is still a waste of space since its made for fullframe.

Once you get into telephotos, they soon have to be the same size for crop and full frame. The RF-S 18-150 f/6.3 is beginning to get there and it is not exactly small for an f/6.3. The new Olympus 100-400mm f/6.3 micro 4/3 lens weighs twice the FF RF 100-400mm f/8 and is bigger.

 

[rawshooter]

Once you get into telephotos, they soon have to be the same size for crop and full frame. The RF-S 18-150 f/6.3 is beginning to get there and it is not exactly small for an f/6.3. The new Olympus 100-400mm f/6.3 micro 4/3 lens weighs twice the FF RF 100-400mm f/8 and is bigger.

Well in the M system everything is a lot smaller. So I'm hoping for something like this. Also are we talking crop adjusted focal length here? Of course it's similar size if it's full frame focal length, but that's not the plan.
And 18-150 is a bit much I think, that will cost quality, I don't need an all in one zoom lens.

 

[Loswr]

Also are we talking crop adjusted focal length here?

 

[LogicExtremist]

What is it with the incessant desire (by some) for a 1st party lens maker, like Canon, to give over trade secrets to the competition? You think Sony and Nikon should advertise that customers should buy third party? In case you've forgotten, they sell their own lenses too.

My gosh, maybe Ford should make their car engines hot swappable with Chevy. It's just weird thinking, man. Really weird. Do you think the camera body is so profitable that Canon can afford such suicide? That lens profits don't matter?

Well, they'll sell more cameras, you'd say. Maybe. They'd sell fewer lenses to. Hey! How about all these companies just toss it all in together and become a single entity, sharing all their secrets with each other? Forget competition, which drives innovation. This type of altruism sinks businesses. Micro 4/3 anyone?

The answer you're looking for is consumer choice.

Your car analogy unfortunately is a false equivalence fallacy argument. The real-world automotive equivalent is not being able to buy any third-party components (vs genuine OEM components) for your car. For your Ford in the example you made, you could only get new tyres from Ford, and only new wheel rims from Ford if you wanted to change the standard ones, because they patented the stud pattern on the wheel or something like that. Same as air filters, brake pads and other replaceable parts that are changed in a service. That car example argues the opposite of the case you were making, and there would be an uproar if a popular mainstream car company tried to do that.

 

[Bob Howland]

They could license the RF-S mount to Sigma and keep FF lenses native-only for 2-3 more years. In that way they could fill the lineup for crop lenses quickly and still keep quality concerns at bay.

What is important about the RF mount is the body-to-lens communications protocol, not the physical dimensions of the mount. Canon would have to reveal that for the RF-S mount.

 

[AlanF]

Well in the M system everything is a lot smaller. So I'm hoping for something like this. Also are we talking crop adjusted focal length here? Of course it's similar size if it's full frame focal length, but that's not the plan.
And 18-150 is a bit much I think, that will cost quality, I don't need an all in one zoom lens.

The smaller lenses you are talking about in the M system are the non-telephoto lenses, and the wider the angle, the smaller they are. This because for short focal length lenses, it is difficult to make their image circle to cover the sensor and so it is easier to build a short focal length lens to cover a smaller sensor. For telephoto lenses, the natural image circle is so large it more than covers the FF and crop sensors and you can't make a smaller lens for the crop. A 400mm lens for your iPhone would be of the same size as one for your R3. I am not talking about crop adjusted length.