Samyang appears to have ceased production of RF mount lenses

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Earlier this week I was made aware that Samyang had removed all RF lenses from their website. The responses from Samyang representatives on social media were ambiguous at best.

However, a more direct response was given to a DPReview forum member on the matter.

The reasons behind this are not yet known, but it should be noted that RF mount lenses still appear on the Rokinon website.  Rokinon is a brand owned by Samyang Optics. This could just...

Continue reading...

 

[jd7]

I really hope they will continue to make RF lenses under one brand or another. That Samyang/Rokinon AF 85mm f/1.4 for RF mount is certainly a lens I would be interested in if I ever move to the RF system.

 

[fastprime]

The RF system needs more third party lens manufacturers, not fewer. I have the Samyang RF 85mm 1.4 and it's fantastic for the price.

 

[Chaitanya]

The RF system needs more third party manufacturers, not fewer. I have the Samyang RF 85mm 1.4 and it's fantastic for the price.

I read somewhere that Canon is breaking compatibility with these Samyang lenses with each firmware update, so I suspect cost of reverse engineering and developing firmwares has gotten out of hand or time required for new firmwares might be causing support issues.

 

[amorse]

I read somewhere that Canon is breaking compatibility with these Samyang lenses with each firmware update, so I suspect cost of reverse engineering and developing firmwares has gotten out of hand or time required for new firmwares might be causing support issues.

That was my fear - the rapid firmware updates actually reducing performance for competitors on purpose. I really hope that isn't true, because it's not a great look from the consumer side of things. It's all hearsay for now I guess - that's a conclusion I really don't want to jump to.

 

[CanonFanBoy]

I almost bought this for the price when I had to sell off my Canon RF lenses. Glad I didn't, if it is a compatibility problem. I had real high hopes for this lens.

*Just a silly aside... for the U.S. market the branding should be Hemi, Thunderbird, or Biscuit. To my ear, neither Rokinon nor Samyang sound nice.

Hmmmm.... Thunderbird RF 85mm f/1.4

 

[InchMetric]

My first assumption was there may be a patent dispute. I'm unsure what patent would generally apply to RF lenses (that Canon won't prominently note in marketing). But the "Whack-a-mole" firmware update idea (as anti-consumer* and potentially illegal in some jurisdictions as it may be) seems plausible.

*I'm comfortable that as long as Canon has Nikon, Sony, and Fuji competing, they can make arguably bad decisions and the market will show them whether being more open source vs. proprietary makes more sense for them.

 

[dilbert]

Maybe the sales just aren't there yet because there aren't enough RF bodies around..

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

That was my fear - the rapid firmware updates actually reducing performance for competitors on purpose. I really hope that isn't true, because it's not a great look from the consumer side of things. It's all hearsay for now I guess - that's a conclusion I really don't want to jump to.

Canon doesn't purposely remove compatibility with third-party lenses and accessories. The flip side is that they have no responsibility to test for compatibility with third-party products if there isn't an official partnership, Atomos comes to mind.

 

[Dmcavoy]

I also suspect it's Canon clamping down on them using the mount.

Very likely the same reason we still don't have Sigma/Tamron RF mount lenses several years after its launch.

 

[genriquez]

I read somewhere that Canon is breaking compatibility with these Samyang lenses with each firmware update, so I suspect cost of reverse engineering and developing firmwares has gotten out of hand or time required for new firmwares might be causing support issues.

Is Samyang using the EF protocol and not the RF protocol on RF mount? I imagine they set it up so that the camera thinks it is an EF lens+adapter when really it isn't.

Can firmware updates block third party EF protocol on an RF mount?

I definitely see them being able to block third party RF lenses trying to use the RF protocol.

 

[jd7]

Canon doesn't purposely disable third-party lenses and accessories. The flip side is that they have no responsibility to test for compatibility with third-party products.

Canon may not have the responsibility to test thrid party products, but if Canon is aware there is third-party gear out there then, at least assuming it is not some really rare piece of gear, in my opinion it doesn't say much for Canon if they stick their heads in the sand so far as checking if what they are doing is breaking compatability with the third-party gear. I have no idea whether Canon does or doesn't worry about breaking compatability with third party gear, but if they don't, I blame Canon at least as much as the third-parties for the problem. I am convinced the existence of third-party gear helps attract buyers to a system. I know I won't move to RF unless and until we start seeing good third-party lens support (I'll move to another mirrorless system).

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Canon may not have the responsibility to test thrid party products, but if Canon is aware there is third-party gear out there then, at least assuming it is not some really rare piece of gear, in my opinion it doesn't say much for Canon if they stick their heads in the sand so far as checking if what they are doing is breaking compatability with the third-party gear. I have no idea whether Canon does or doesn't worry about breaking compatability with third party gear, but if they don't, I blame Canon at least as much as the third-parties for the problem. I am convinced the existence of third-party gear helps attract buyers to a system. I know I won't move to RF unless and until we start seeing good third-party lens support (I'll move to another mirrorless system).

That's like blaming an automaker for not testing if their vehicle works reliability with third-party modifications, that cost to the automaker would be massive. The same applies here with Canon. If compatibility is hurt, Canon has zero control over the software in a third party's product, why on earth should we expect Canon to spend time and money to prevent these issues from happening? If Canon wants to add improvements in their software, do you really want them forgoing those improvements if it makes a $500 Samyang fully compatible? This is one of the issues with reverse engineering, we see it across all sorts of industries.

If Canon sold an SDK, then yes, it would be partly Canon's responsibility to troubleshoot issues. There is zero real financial benefits for Canon in this situation and all of the third-party lenses that purchased and licensed Canon's tech would cost significantly more.

 

[JustAnotherCanonShooter]

That's very unfortunate if true, Samyang/Rokinon makes some fantastic astrophotography lenses. I was hoping they'd even make a RF 135mm F/2.

 

[fastprime]

Not great. I'd hate to have to tell my wife one day the lens she paid $700 for and gave to me as a gift is now a hunk of useless glass.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

That's very unfortunate if true, Samyang/Rokinon makes some fantastic astrophotography lenses. I was hoping they'd even make a RF 135mm F/2.

The Rokinon RF lenses are still listed. I'm thinking this is more of a branding and cost savings exercise. It never made much sense to sell the exact same lenses under two brands. There were also markets around the world that didn't sell both brands. I'm hoping this is just a streamlining of Samyang's business.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon may not have the responsibility to test thrid party products, but if Canon is aware there is third-party gear out there then, at least assuming it is not some really rare piece of gear, in my opinion it doesn't say much for Canon if they stick their heads in the sand so far as checking if what they are doing is breaking compatability with the third-party gear.

I disagree. Canon should not waste a second of their time testing third-party gear. It is up to the third party to keep pace with the current firmware. That is how Magic Lantern always worked and developers donate their own time keeping up.
On the other hand, the EF mount is second in popularity in cinema and ENG to PL. If Canon wants to replicate that with RF then they can't go it completely alone. They seem to be assisting RED with the Komodo but neither company has said anything publicly. There are a few cinema cameras that support Sony E-mount but those are complete dumb mounts.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That's like blaming an automaker for not testing if their vehicle works reliability with third-party modifications, that cost to the automaker would be massive. The same applies here with Canon. If compatibility is hurt, Canon has zero control over the software in a third party's product, why on earth should we expect Canon to spend time and money to prevent these issues from happening? If Canon wants to add improvements in their software, do you really want them forgoing those improvements if it makes a $500 Samyang fully compatible? This is one of the issues with reverse engineering, we see it across all sorts of industries.

If Canon sold an SDK, then yes, it would be partly Canon's responsibility to troubleshoot issues. There is zero real financial benefits for Canon in this situation and all of the third-party lenses that purchased and licensed Canon's tech would cost significantly more.

Not really.
Car companies rely on third parties to make compatible parts.
The way camera companies work is by constantly upgrading firmware and the only car company that works like that is Tesla.
Not surprisingly, replacing certain parts with on a Tesla with third party parts is risky.
More car companies are following the over-the-air update model of Tesla but I imagine Ford will be more accomodating to parts suppliers.

 

[fasterquieter]

Bought an RF 14mm 2.8 for $540 on Prime day. It is fantastic, but I am thinking I should send it back now.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Not really.
Car companies rely on third parties to make compatible parts.
The way camera companies work is by constantly upgrading firmware and the only car company that works like that is Tesla.
Not surprisingly, replacing certain parts with on a Tesla with third party parts is risky.
More car companies are following the over-the-air update model of Tesla but I imagine Ford will be more accomodating to parts suppliers.

Those are partnerships, built to a specific OEM spec. There is a whole industry of third-party parts makers that have no relationship with the automaker. I have built 4 cars in my day and it can be a trainwreck with the third parties. I'm not mad at Ford because Mishimoto has a product that doesn't play well with something made by BBK when attached to a Ford block....

At the end of the day, if you want your gear to operate as intended.... buy the Canon. It's really simple. If I want a high horsepower engine with no real issues, I'm free to buy the $20,000 crate engine from the automaker, instead of trying to pay half as much with third-party products.

As the cliche goes, you get what you pay for.