I'm on the same page as you are. But it seems that very few people are actually getting to the facts on this issue — that's both in the gear-blogging/YouTube world and (especially) on forums. I've actually considered writing an article myself to discuss some of the concrete facts (and things we don't know) to try to set the record straight (and I'd be happy to help do so for this site, if only to clear the air and actually ask the questions out in the open).
Personally, I have no impression and no indication that the Meike lens was in any way "approved" by Canon. So many people seem to be just assuming that it was, but without evidence, I can't really buy it, for a few reasons:
- I don't think that Meike (a cheap Chinese manufacturer that already makes MF lenses and accessories for the RF mount) is likely to be the first licensee for AF lenses. This would go against everything I know about Canon.
- Canon confirmed Cosina was a licensee, but not Meike, despite the announcements taking place at the same time.
- Meike never claimed to be authorized by Canon (and has no qualms about other products that aren't authorized).
I concur with you on both of your points about what it could not (or should not) be. Of course, the implication is that if Canon
did have a case against either of those categories of product, they'd go after them — and I think that seems at least somewhat reasonable as an assumption (though we don't
know that it's true).
By the way, although Viltrox
did delist all their RF-mount products (adapters, etc.), Samyang never did — they stopped (very slowly) selling them and still market their manual-focus RF lenses. (By the way, the
Rokinon website still does list the RF lenses with AF, albeit only on the product list and not on the shop site.)
By the way, speaking of Yongnuo, they're not just planning on coming out with lens. They in fact already apparently offer 35mm and 85mm RF lenses for sale (both are listed on B&H's site; the Yongnuo website seems to only list the 85mm on the main page, listing the 35mm as out of stock). Interestingly, Yongnuo calls these "YNEOSR" lenses. The mount list for Yonguo is, at present:
- Sony E
- Nikon Z
- Nikon F
- Canon EF
- YNEOSR
- Fujifilm X
- Micro Four Thirds
Interesting! This is kind of like how Voigtländer calls their M-mount lenses "VM-mount" and says that they are "compatible with" M-mount cameras.
Anyway, contrary to PetaPixel's Jaron Schneider's claims that Meike would be first company to "successfully sell" a third party RF lens (
https://petapixel.com/2023/04/17/me...e-first-3rd-party-autofocus-lens-for-canon-rf), it seems that Yongnuo is indeed doing exactly that right now — anyone with a few hundred dollars should feel free to verify that. And, as I can personally verify (having used one myself), Samyang
did sell AF lenses for RF. (Plenty of people could say the same about Viltrox.) Whether or not what Samyang and Viltrox did counts as "successful" is, I suppose, dependent on what "successful" means.
Some other major points worth bringing up:
- There was not a long wait before third-party EF lenses. There were third-party EF lenses since at least the 1980s. I have an early 1980s Sigma EF lens (it's not very good). Notably, these very early Sigma lenses (which have full autofocus and electronic aperture) had a bad implementation of the EF protocol and do not function properly (not stopping down) on later EF-mount cameras.
- At least according to Canon (https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/in...earch&viewlocale=en_US&searchid=1521051389589), these EF lenses were not "approved" and were based on reverse-engineering. That, however, is information from (apparently) the mid-2000s.
- There have been third-party EF-M lenses since at least 2014 (Tamron had one then) - see https://dustinabbott.net/2014/10/tamron-18-200mm-vc-review/
- Of course, Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox et al. make EF-M lenses. Worth noting that Viltrox, even though they did pull their EF-RF adapters and speed boosters [note: Metabones still sells their EF-RF speed boosters], never pulled their EF-M ones.
So, really, none of this makes much sense. I have yet to see anyone explain what Canon actually threatened. And that's presuming that the quote from an apparent Canon Germany press response to a magazine (the only word on this to seem to come from Canon) was even actually true (and that it was patent and not trademark at hand — who's up for some YNEOSR lenses?)
What comes to mind was that Canon may have said that, in order to participate in a future RF licensing scheme, the companies (Samyang and Viltrox) would have to pull their (AF) lenses for now --- but who knows.
I think that CR (or another site with a significant readership) should perhaps try to get to the bottom of this — or at the very least put these unanswered questions out there in the open.
***
Now, besides this, people on forums have had very weird responses to this issue. I've seen many people claim that it's within Canon's authority to "ban" third-party lenses from their cameras (with no evidence of that presented). Many people say it's "only right" in order to allow Canon to "recoup their investment," while others vehemently disagree. But I don't think that it makes sense to conclude that Canon really can ban third-party autofocus lenses from their cameras. (They of course don't need to assist third-party manufacturers, but they cannot prevent them from doing things when their IP rights aren't infringed — whether those are patents, copyrights (very limited, esp in light of the
Sega case) or trademarks.)
I've also seen some pretty off-the-wall conspiracy theories, including one on DPReview by a user who was certain that Canon was getting ready to disable support for
all EF lenses on their RF bodies! (I'm willing to bet against that one.)
There's also been much said about "open mounts," but it's worth mentioning that Sony still imposes arbitrary limits --- such as FPS limits when using third-party lenses (not the case with my RF cameras and third-party EF glass) --- and Nikon reportedly only allows for a small handful of third-party lenses to be made when they decide not to make them themselves! (Oh, and of course, Tamron is really a second-party on Sony, considering Sony owns part of Tamron --- and, of course, their zooms conspicuously avoid replicating Sony's more "traditional" ranges, if that means anything.)
