SIGMA will address the RF mount in 2022 [CR3]

[SNJ Ops]

I have seen claims on the internet about Canon doing deals with third parties such as Sigma not to produce RF mount lenses for a certain period, but frankly I think that is unlikely to be true. Deals, especially between competitors (such as Canon and lens manufacturers such as Sigma / Tamron / Samyang), which prevent or limit one or more of the parties from competing tend to fall found of anti-competitve conduct (anti-trust) laws. Those laws are often complex, and the laws of multiple countries may be relevant here which could further complicate things, but I suspect any deal between Canon and third party lens manufacturers not to compete would be a dangerous game to play.

So, if there is no deal prevening third party lens manufacturers making RF mount lesnes, two obvious possibilities to explain the very limited range of third party RF mount lenses are:

1. Canon has designed the RF mount / R system such that it is very hard, or impossible, to make auto-focusing lenses which work without infringing Canon's intellectual property, ie presumably one or more of Canon's patents. (Given we have seen a number of manual focus lenses, it seems AF is probably the difficult issue). If that is the case, whether we see many third party RF mount lenses is likely to come down to whether Canon is willing to grant licenses to use its IP ... and I understand Canon doesn't have a history of doing that very often. However, if this is the situation, you would think Canon would be putting a stop to any third party lens which infringes Canon's IP, yet there are a few RF lenses out there with AF (the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 and the Yongnuo 85mm f/1.8 to name two). For all I know they are using the AF system/protocols from EF days and avoiding infringing Canon's newer IP that way (albeit that would mean they are not taking advantage of all the RF mount has to offer), but if that is the only way third party lens manufacturers can make RF lenses without infringing Canon's IP, why wouldn't they all just do that? After all, EF lenses seem to AF well on R camera bodies even if RF lenses can be better still.

2. The commercial reality is there just aren't enough RF mount bodies out there yet to make it worthwhile for a third party manufacturer to produce RF mount lenses, ie they are commercially better off spending their time and money producing lenses for other mounts. Reading a forum like CR it is easy to get the impression almost everyone has bought an RF camera, Canon talks a good game about the RF system, supply shortages tend to create an impression of high demand (even if it is possible they simply reflect supply problems meaning only very few products are being produced rather than high demand), and of course Canon's market share is strong at least in general terms. However, does anyone outside Canon know how many R bodies have actually sold? The RF system is obviously still relatively young, so perhaps there really just aren't RF bodies out there yet to convince third party lens manufacturers its worth spending too much time on RF mount lenses at this stage of the game? If that is the case, whether/when we start to see more third party RF mount lenses will presumably depend on whether/when there are a critical mass of RF mount bodies out there in the wild.

At this point, I'm going with the theory that there simply aren't enough R bodies out there to entice third party manufacturers to be very interested in making RF mount lenses, simply becasue the other possibilities I can think of seem to me to be even less likely.

Anyone want to suggest any other possibilities?

Going from what I have heard and been told directly in regards to Sigma; they are waiting on a license from both Canon and Nikon in order to make RF and Z mount glass and they they will not reverse engineer either mount.

- Being part of the L mount alliance they will of course been given access to specs/protocols by Leica.

- Sigma alongside side other companies signed agreements with Sony in order to make lenses for emount which is why AF performance with 3rd party lenses is so good.

- Fuji previously had a largely closed mount but they changed their policy and opened up xmount in 2020 - https://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm...line-continues-no-gfx-fixed-lens-camera-more/
Soon after Sigma, Tamron and others made lenses for that platform in full agreement with Fuji. Sigma had said publicly before this happened that they couldn’t make lenses for Fuji as the mount was closed.

So unless agreements are reached with Canon I don’t think there will be any lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina or Voigtländer on RF.

 

[LogicExtremist]

I have seen claims on the internet about Canon doing deals with third parties such as Sigma not to produce RF mount lenses for a certain period, but frankly I think that is unlikely to be true. Deals, especially between competitors (such as Canon and lens manufacturers such as Sigma / Tamron / Samyang), which prevent or limit one or more of the parties from competing tend to fall found of anti-competitve conduct (anti-trust) laws. Those laws are often complex, and the laws of multiple countries may be relevant here which could further complicate things, but I suspect any deal between Canon and third party lens manufacturers not to compete would be a dangerous game to play.

So, if there is no deal prevening third party lens manufacturers making RF mount lesnes, two obvious possibilities to explain the very limited range of third party RF mount lenses are:

1. Canon has designed the RF mount / R system such that it is very hard, or impossible, to make auto-focusing lenses which work without infringing Canon's intellectual property, ie presumably one or more of Canon's patents. (Given we have seen a number of manual focus lenses, it seems AF is probably the difficult issue). If that is the case, whether we see many third party RF mount lenses is likely to come down to whether Canon is willing to grant licenses to use its IP ... and I understand Canon doesn't have a history of doing that very often. However, if this is the situation, you would think Canon would be putting a stop to any third party lens which infringes Canon's IP, yet there are a few RF lenses out there with AF (the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 and the Yongnuo 85mm f/1.8 to name two). For all I know they are using the AF system/protocols from EF days and avoiding infringing Canon's newer IP that way (albeit that would mean they are not taking advantage of all the RF mount has to offer), but if that is the only way third party lens manufacturers can make RF lenses without infringing Canon's IP, why wouldn't they all just do that? After all, EF lenses seem to AF well on R camera bodies even if RF lenses can be better still.

2. The commercial reality is there just aren't enough RF mount bodies out there yet to make it worthwhile for a third party manufacturer to produce RF mount lenses, ie they are commercially better off spending their time and money producing lenses for other mounts. Reading a forum like CR it is easy to get the impression almost everyone has bought an RF camera, Canon talks a good game about the RF system, supply shortages tend to create an impression of high demand (even if it is possible they simply reflect supply problems meaning only very few products are being produced rather than high demand), and of course Canon's market share is strong at least in general terms. However, does anyone outside Canon know how many R bodies have actually sold? The RF system is obviously still relatively young, so perhaps there really just aren't RF bodies out there yet to convince third party lens manufacturers its worth spending too much time on RF mount lenses at this stage of the game? If that is the case, whether/when we start to see more third party RF mount lenses will presumably depend on whether/when there are a critical mass of RF mount bodies out there in the wild.

At this point, I'm going with the theory that there simply aren't enough R bodies out there to entice third party manufacturers to be very interested in making RF mount lenses, simply becasue the other possibilities I can think of seem to me to be even less likely.

Anyone want to suggest any other possibilities?

There is no Samyang/Rokinon AF 85mm f/1.4 for RF mount anymore. That was an RF mount third party AF lens that was being sold in the retail market and just disappeared. Most likely Canon pulled some legal stunt related to IP to get them to take a popular lens that was selling well off the market, and even remove it from their own website.

It's not all bad though, Canon is happy to sell people some sort of consumer grade lens whatever the focal length, with darker aperture, possibly a crippled AF system or extreme optical distortion, for more money. "Less for more" is Canon's new marketing mantra! People do have the option to spend four times the money for the top-end professional grade lens which works properly if they like! It's all about choice!

 

[jd7]

There is no Samyang/Rokinon AF 85mm f/1.4 for RF mount anymore. That was an RF mount third party AF lens that was being sold in the retail market and just disappeared. Most likely Canon pulled some legal stunt related to IP to get them to take a popular lens that was selling well off the market, and even remove it from their own website.

It's not all bad though, Canon is happy to sell people some sort of consumer grade lens whatever the focal length, with darker aperture, possibly a crippled AF system or extreme optical distortion, for more money. "Less for more" is Canon's new marketing mantra! People do have the option to spend four times the money for the top-end professional grade lens which works properly if they like! It's all about choice!

Well, Rokinon still advertises the AF 85mm f/1.4 for RF mount on its website, as well as the AF 14mm f/2.8 for RF mount.

85mm F1.4 AF High Speed Full Frame Telephoto (Canon RF)

Buy 85mm F1.4 AF High Speed Full Frame Telephoto (Canon RF) at Rokinon Lenses! The ROKINON® AF 85mm F1.4 Full Frame Telephoto for Canon RF mount is arguably the best value, high performance and affordable AF portrait prime available, superbly suited for both amateurs and professionals.This...

rokinon.com

14mm F2.8 AF Full Frame Ultra Wide Angle (Canon RF)

Buy 14mm F2.8 AF Full Frame Ultra Wide Angle (Canon RF) at Rokinon Lenses! The Rokinon IO14AF-RF was specifically designed for Canon RF mount. Its 113.9 degree ultra-wide angle view at this writing the widest available for any autofocus prime lens available for Canon R series mirrorless cameras...

rokinon.com

That said, I did a search just now and struggled to find anyone actually selling either of those lenses. I only found them on one online store (becextech.com.au) and that is not a store I know much about (I believe it has existed for some years, and sends products from Hong Kong to Australia, but I may be wrong).

I did find a shop I know well selling a Viltrox 85mm AF lens for RF mount though.

Viltrox AF 85mm F1.8 Lens - Canon EOS R

If you're looking for a simple, budget-friendly way to take your portrait photography to the next level, look no further than this Viltrox AF 85mm f1.8 lens. This prime lens is designed for use on full-frame mirrorless bodies and its high-quality optical design assures that it is up to the task...

www.teds.com.au

I believe there is a Yongnuo 85mm AF lens for RF mount around too.

So, is Canon really using legal means to keep third party RF mount lenses off the market? I wish I knew.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Well, Rokinon still advertises the AF 85mm f/1.4 for RF mount on its website, as well as the AF 14mm f/2.8 for RF mount.

85mm F1.4 AF High Speed Full Frame Telephoto (Canon RF)

Buy 85mm F1.4 AF High Speed Full Frame Telephoto (Canon RF) at Rokinon Lenses! The ROKINON® AF 85mm F1.4 Full Frame Telephoto for Canon RF mount is arguably the best value, high performance and affordable AF portrait prime available, superbly suited for both amateurs and professionals.This...

rokinon.com

14mm F2.8 AF Full Frame Ultra Wide Angle (Canon RF)

Buy 14mm F2.8 AF Full Frame Ultra Wide Angle (Canon RF) at Rokinon Lenses! The Rokinon IO14AF-RF was specifically designed for Canon RF mount. Its 113.9 degree ultra-wide angle view at this writing the widest available for any autofocus prime lens available for Canon R series mirrorless cameras...

rokinon.com

That said, I did a search just now and struggled to find anyone actually selling either of those lenses. I only found them on one online store (becextech.com.au) and that is not a store I know much about (I believe it has existed for some years, and sends products from Hong Kong to Australia, but I may be wrong).

I did find a shop I know well selling a Viltrox 85mm AF lens for RF mount though.

Viltrox AF 85mm F1.8 Lens - Canon EOS R

If you're looking for a simple, budget-friendly way to take your portrait photography to the next level, look no further than this Viltrox AF 85mm f1.8 lens. This prime lens is designed for use on full-frame mirrorless bodies and its high-quality optical design assures that it is up to the task...

www.teds.com.au

I believe there is a Yongnuo 85mm AF lens for RF mount around too.

So, is Canon really using legal means to keep third party RF mount lenses off the market? I wish I knew.

Chinese companies such as Viltrox, Yongnuo and Laowa are producing third-party RF mount lenses, unlike Sigma, Samyang/Rokininon or Tamron.

 

[jd7]

Chinese companies such as Viltrox, Yongnuo and Laowa are producing third-party RF mount lenses, unlike Sigma, Samyang/Rokininon or Tamron.

Point taken. However, one of the links in my previous post is to a Viltrox lens being sold by a well known Australia business which has a number of physical stores as well as selling online. If the issue is Canon has difficulties enforcing its IP in China, you would think Canon would still be able to enforce, and would be enforcing, its IP in a place like Australia. In other words, if the Viltrox lens infringes Canon's IP, I would not expect to see it on sale in an Australian shop even if it is possible Canon could have difficult preventing a Chinese company making lenses and shipping them direct to customers from China.

It all seems a little bit odd to me.

 

[AlanF]

Point taken. However, one of the links in my previous post is to a Viltrox lens being sold by a well known Australia business which has a number of physical stores as well as selling online. If the issue is Canon has difficulties enforcing its IP in China, you would think Canon would still be able to enforce, and would be enforcing, its IP in a place like Australia. In other words, if the Viltrox lens infringes Canon's IP, I would not expect to see it on sale in an Australian shop even if it is possible Canon could have difficult preventing a Chinese company making lenses and shipping them direct to customers from China.

It all seems a little bit odd to me.

It's basic patent law that: a) you have no rights to prevent others making devices to fit on your patented mount; b) it's legal to reverse engineer the code to get it to work. So, I don't know how Canon can use any IP to prevent 3rd party lenses.

 

[jd7]

It's basic patent law that: a) you have no rights to prevent others making devices to fit on your patented mount; b) it's legal to reverse engineer the code to get it to work. So, I don't know how Canon can use any IP to prevent 3rd party lenses.

In general terms, a patent is an IP right in respect of the "invention" of a method, process, substance, or device. It does not cover the practical result achieved by the invention though, essentially it covers the way in which that pracitcal result is achieved. To give a simple example, a pharmaceutical company which patents a drug which reduces inflammation is not able to stop another company producing a sufficiently different drug which similarly reduces inflammation. However, the patent will stop the other company simply copying the drug disclosed in the first company's patent.

To give an example in the photography world, not that many years ago Nikon sued Sigma for allegely infringing a Nikon patent conerning vibration reduction systems. Nikon sued over the VR system Sigma was using in six particular lenses, presumably because Nikon believed the VR systems in those lenses achieved their vibration reduction effect using a method which was essentially the same as the method of achieving that result disclosed in Nikon's patent. Here is a short report (for what it is worth) about the dispute: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1...nikon-14-5-million-for-vr-patent-infringement

So, if a third party can reverse engineer Canon's equipment so the third party understands how it works (and perhaps how it was built), that is a start. However, the third party still has to come up with a way of achieving necessary results, eg generating and sending the appropriate signals/messages from lens to camera body, which is sufficiently different from the way Canon does it (as disclosed in Canon's patent) to avoid infringing Canon's patent and any other relevant IP (eg copyright). I haven't thought too hard about how that might work in the context of making a lens which uses a particular mount, but I can imagine that if someone tried hard enough, it might be possible to include something in the way the mount works which makes it difficult for others to create a lens which uses that mount but nevertheless works in a sufficiently different way to avoid infringing on some IP owned by the mount-maker (for want of a better description!). This would also be consistent (I think) with the problem for third party manufactures wanting to make RF lenses being about creating a lens which auto-focuses. Making a lens which physicially fits the lens mount should be OK (I say should - perhaps there could be some sort of proprietary connection or locking system implemented which makes even that difficult without infringing a patent?"), and if the lens is manual focus query what else might be a problem? I assume(!) things like exposure settings are determined by the camera body without it needing any signal/message from the lens, so I assume the auto-exposure system is not going to be an issue. Another system which might raise patent or other IP issues is an IS/VR system (as Sigma no doubt will attest!), and perhaps that could relate to communication of relevant signals over the mount, creating potential IP infringement headaches implementing IS on a lens even if the way the IS system otherwise works sufficiently differently from anyone else's IS system. There may be others.

On a separate note, I guess another possibilty is that Canon isn't using IP rights but simply using some system (eg encrypted signals) which means the third parties simply cannot (have not been able to) reverse engineer it. Clearly third parties have made RF mounts lenses (with AF) though, which gives some reason to doubt that. However, perhaps the third parties are using the EF protocols/system so the R camera ends up treating the third party lens as if it is an EF lens connected via adapter? Still, if that is the case, I come back to a point in one of earlier posts: why don't third party manufacturers just make RF mount lenses which use the EF protocols/system if they cannot use the new RF protocols/system? Are (most of) the third party manufacturer's simply saying they aren't going to make RF mount lenses if they cannot make lenses which take advantage of all that the RF system has to offer?

PS: Here is just one example link to a (limited) discussion about reverse engineering and patent law: https://peillaw.com/the-legalities-of-reverse-engineering/ (relating to US law, not the law where I am). However, note the statement "Inventions that are protected by patents offer a well-defined path for responding to efforts to commercially exploit the results of a reverse engineering effort."

 

[LogicExtremist]

Clearly third parties have made RF mounts lenses (with AF) though, which gives some reason to doubt that. However, perhaps the third parties are using the EF protocols/system so the R camera ends up treating the third party lens as if it is an EF lens connected via adapter? Still, if that is the case, I come back to a point in one of earlier posts: why don't third party manufacturers just make RF mount lenses which use the EF protocols/system if they cannot use the new RF protocols/system? Are (most of) the third party manufacturer's simply saying they aren't going to make RF mount lenses if they cannot make lenses which take advantage of all that the RF system has to offer?

Well, you've just explained it there yourself jd7, the very fact that the Samyang Rokinon RF 85mm AF lens existed, and was selling, with lots of happy purchasers and great reviews, but was taken off the market clearly tells us that it's not a technical or design problem stopping the production of third party RF lenses. It can be done and has been done... and undone (stopped). Therefore it's something else, and what that something else is will be a matter of speculation on our behalf.

Canon applying some legal pressure somehow, in my mind, would be the simplest and most probable reason why a company would pull a product overnight with no explanation, while Canon slowly releases lenses at their own pace with negligible competition. If anyone has a more plausible and logically cohesive explanation, it would be great to share it.

 

[jd7]

Well, you've just explained it there yourself jd7, the very fact that the Samyang Rokinon RF 85mm AF lens existed, and was selling, with lots of happy purchasers and great reviews, but was taken off the market clearly tells us that it's not a technical or design problem stopping the production of third party RF lenses. It can be done and has been done... and undone (stopped). Therefore it's something else, and what that something else is will be a matter of speculation on our behalf.

Canon applying some legal pressure somehow, in my mind, would be the simplest and most probable reason why a company would pull a product overnight with no explanation, while Canon slowly releases lenses at their own pace with negligible competition. If anyone has a more plausible and logically cohesive explanation, it would be great to share it.

I most certainly agree that it would be nice to know the explanation!

I do wonder though if it is possible it is as simple as third party manufacturers not bothering with RF mount lenses at this stage simply for commercial reasons. Imagine you are a third party manufacturer and your production capacity is already full so you would have to reduce production of something you are producing now to produce RF mount lenses. I speculate that the number of RF cameras sold so far may not be that great relative to the number of, say, Sony full frame mirrorless cameras out there. Further, I speculate that many of the people who have paid the price of entry into the RF system so far are likely to want first party lenses and be willing and able to pay relatively high prices for them. So, the prospect of third party RF lenses selling in large quantities may not be that high, at least until there is a much larger RF mount user base. Very much speculation on my part, but if there is anything in it, if you are a third party manufacturer, are you going to divert any of your resources and production capacity to RF lenses?

Perhaps I just want to believe that the explanation is not that Canon is locking out third party manufacturers and there are never going to be many third party RF lenses?

 

[unfocused]

I most certainly agree that it would be nice to know the explanation!

I do wonder though if it is possible it is as simple as third party manufacturers not bothering with RF mount lenses at this stage simply for commercial reasons. Imagine you are a third party manufacturer and your production capacity is already full so you would have to reduce production of something you are producing now to produce RF mount lenses. I speculate that the number of RF cameras sold so far may not be that great relative to the number of, say, Sony full frame mirrorless cameras out there. Further, I speculate that many of the people who have paid the price of entry into the RF system so far are likely to want first party lenses and be willing and able to pay relatively high prices for them. So, the prospect of third party RF lenses selling in large quantities may not be that high, at least until there is a much larger RF mount user base. Very much speculation on my part, but if there is anything in it, if you are a third party manufacturer, are you going to divert any of your resources and production capacity to RF lenses?

Perhaps I just want to believe that the explanation is not that Canon is locking out third party manufacturers and there are never going to be many third party RF lenses?

Interesting that you are logical, while the guy who claims to be. is a subscriber to conspiracy theories. I would add to your post the fact that all third-party lenses already work just fine with a simple and relatively inexpensive adapter. Why would Sigma or Tamron rush to produce specific RF mount lenses when their current crop of lenses work seamlessly on Canon R cameras?

I would add to your analysis that the economics for producing third-party RF lenses is not necessarily the same as the economics for producing third-party EF lenses. Sigma, for several years, has offered a mount replacement service that allows anyone purchasing one of their lenses to switch from one mount (Nikon for example) to another mount (Canon, as an example). The obvious conclusion is that there is no design difference between any of the lenses from one mount to another. It's possible that is no longer the case with the new mirrorless mounts. That would mean that instead of amortizing the development cost of a lens over multiple mounts and brands, there might need to be sufficient demand in one mount (Canon RF) to justify the development costs.

As you point out, it's very logical and likely that the return on investment just isn't there yet to justify developing RF mount only lenses. Additionally, Canon seems to be offering RF mount lenses in a range of prices that could also serve as a disincentive to competitors. A native mount 16mm f2.8 lens selling for $300 and a native mount RF 800mm lens selling for $900, to give just two examples, certainly has to have some impact on the market calculations of third party manufacturers.

 

[dlee13]

Chinese companies such as Viltrox, Yongnuo and Laowa are producing third-party RF mount lenses, unlike Sigma, Samyang/Rokininon or Tamron.

For Sigma/Tamron I would dare to believe that they are more concerned about quality than these companies who are making them.

Sigma and Tamron lenses on Sony honestly perform like native and for those brands they are viewed significantly better than they were back in the DSLR days when they reverse engineered everything. Because of this I’d believe they are waiting to license the AF algorithms from Canon and Nikon.

As someone above mentioned, Fuji gave in and let them license their AF in 2020 but we are only seeing the lenses now. This means if we see these lenses suddenly announced they made a quiet deal or if we get an official announcement about them opening up the mount then we can wait another 2 years from that.

For those who don’t play video games, third parties in the gaming industry are seen as Allie’s and not enemies. Sony/Microsoft will work with third parties and even make exclusive deals for those games to be released only on their platform. Clearly Sony adopted this to their camera philosophy too (plus them owning 12% of Tamron helps).

 

[Czardoom]

Interesting that you are logical, while the guy who claims to be. is a subscriber to conspiracy theories. I would add to your post the fact that all third-party lenses already work just fine with a simple and relatively inexpensive adapter. Why would Sigma or Tamron rush to produce specific RF mount lenses when their current crop of lenses work seamlessly on Canon R cameras?

I would add to your analysis that the economics for producing third-party RF lenses is not necessarily the same as the economics for producing third-party EF lenses. Sigma, for several years, has offered a mount replacement service that allows anyone purchasing one of their lenses to switch from one mount (Nikon for example) to another mount (Canon, as an example). The obvious conclusion is that there is no design difference between any of the lenses from one mount to another. It's possible that is no longer the case with the new mirrorless mounts. That would mean that instead of amortizing the development cost of a lens over multiple mounts and brands, there might need to be sufficient demand in one mount (Canon RF) to justify the development costs.

As you point out, it's very logical and likely that the return on investment just isn't there yet to justify developing RF mount only lenses. Additionally, Canon seems to be offering RF mount lenses in a range of prices that could also serve as a disincentive to competitors. A native mount 16mm f2.8 lens selling for $300 and a native mount RF 800mm lens selling for $900, to give just two examples, certainly has to have some impact on the market calculations of third party manufacturers.

Yes, but the entirely logical explanation that Sigma is waiting to have a licensing agreement, and that they are interested in the long game (waiting for the market to be large enough and the products to be developed with quality so they can sell them for the next 20 years) is far too boring for clever forum detectives and impatient internet crybababies! And the equally obvious explanation that Canon is in no hurry for others to make lenses, thus reducing their profits, until they have a mature RF product line available and have taken advantage of initial sales of each lens as it is released without competition, is too logical for some to accept, since, as we all know, Canon is BAD, and perhaps even EVIL in their suspicious little minds. The big profits for camera companies are in the lenses...not in in the cameras, so to give the profits away to 3rd party companies would be a foolish strategy in today's shrinking market.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Interesting that you are logical, while the guy who claims to be. is a subscriber to conspiracy theories. I would add to your post the fact that all third-party lenses already work just fine with a simple and relatively inexpensive adapter. Why would Sigma or Tamron rush to produce specific RF mount lenses when their current crop of lenses work seamlessly on Canon R cameras?

I would add to your analysis that the economics for producing third-party RF lenses is not necessarily the same as the economics for producing third-party EF lenses. Sigma, for several years, has offered a mount replacement service that allows anyone purchasing one of their lenses to switch from one mount (Nikon for example) to another mount (Canon, as an example). The obvious conclusion is that there is no design difference between any of the lenses from one mount to another. It's possible that is no longer the case with the new mirrorless mounts. That would mean that instead of amortizing the development cost of a lens over multiple mounts and brands, there might need to be sufficient demand in one mount (Canon RF) to justify the development costs.

As you point out, it's very logical and likely that the return on investment just isn't there yet to justify developing RF mount only lenses. Additionally, Canon seems to be offering RF mount lenses in a range of prices that could also serve as a disincentive to competitors. A native mount 16mm f2.8 lens selling for $300 and a native mount RF 800mm lens selling for $900, to give just two examples, certainly has to have some impact on the market calculations of third party manufacturers.

Conspiracy theories hey, that's not a logical argument, that's just an ad hominem argument and an appeal to ridicule logical fallacy...
Using that term in ridicule is such a weak argument that suggests a head-in-the-sand way of dealing with the negative side of human nature which litters history and the news of the present day. It's not like individual humans or profit-based corporations are totally incapable of premeditated action to engage in unethical, selfish, wrongful or illegal conduct. Like that's never happened in this world before lol!!!

If you want to reason that "my favourite company always does the right thing without exception because I like their products", then be my guest, it's your prerogative and you're free to do so, but please express your unstated premises and assumptions beforehand for the sake of clarity. If you honestly believe that, you may want to rethink your assumptions:

Canon fined $29M as it loses court battle against EU over 2016 acquisition - EconoTimes

Canon went to court to challenge the EUs sanction related to its acquisition of Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation in 2016 but was defeated. With the decision, the European Unions General Court upheld the 28 million 28...

www.econotimes.com

Canon, Toshiba Fined Over Antitrust Violations - CFO

Canon and Toshiba have agreed to pay $2.5 million each to settle charges that they structured a deal so it would not be delayed by U.S. pre-merger notification laws. Toshiba sold its medical systems subsidiary to Canon for $6.1 billion in March 2016 amid a financial crisis caused by an...

www.cfo.com

Let's look more closely at what you've mentioned here.

"Why would Sigma or Tamron rush to produce specific RF mount lenses when their current crop of lenses work seamlessly on Canon R cameras?"
Let's reframe this question in a way that it answers itself - Why would anyone on this forum rush to buy specific RF mount lenses when the current crop of Canon, Sigma or Tamron EF lenses that work seamlessly on Canon R cameras? Why would a company not tap into that demand?

"it's very logical and likely that the return on investment just isn't there yet to justify developing RF mount only lenses. "
The elephant in the room here is the magically disappearing Samyang lens, retailing well one day, gone the next. This reasoning conveniently ignores this glaring fact. It may be true for Sigma and Tamron, we have no evidence either way to conform that, but we know for sure that this is false in the case of Samyang, because they had a product out, which they invested R&D and marketing money, and had a good product out there that was well received. Pulling a product without warning or explanation doesn't achieve a return on investment!

Something to think about, if Sigma is producing mirrorless lenses for Sony, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Panasonic, Sigma, and Fujifilm, then it's unlikely that there would be anything radically different with Canon RF lenses if they're just using EF protocols. To suggest so without evidence is the logical fallacy of special pleading, applying a certain set of criteria to one circumstances while exempting others from the same criteria. As far as I know there is nothing to differentiate the optics of Canon RF lenses from any other mirrorless lenses, and if anyone knows otherwise, I'm open to new information.

Others have mentioned the possibility of Canon doing a deal with the third parties, making them wait so they can then get permission/license to use the RF protocols. It's been suggested that would be anti-competitive corporate practice which would be illegal. This isn't an area I know about, any corporate lawyers out there?

If you're going to speculate on the reason why we're not seeing third-party lenses, it has to account for all cases we're observing, the inaction of Sigma and Tamron, and also the withdrawal of a product from the market by Samyang/Rokinon. If it fails to account for any one case, namely the latter company, then it stands that the speculative reasoning is partly incorrect at best.

Reasoning from unstated assumptions, especially emotive ones that assume Canon's unwavering benevolence and incapacity to err accidentally or intentionally is flawed as that rules our many possible and plausible explanations. If you just want to state an opinion that's not backed by reason, just say that's how you feel about the matter, that's also valid!

 

[LogicExtremist]

Yes, but the entirely logical explanation that Sigma is waiting to have a licensing agreement, and that they are interested in the long game (waiting for the market to be large enough and the products to be developed with quality so they can sell them for the next 20 years) is far too boring for clever forum detectives and impatient internet crybababies! And the equally obvious explanation that Canon is in no hurry for others to make lenses, thus reducing their profits, until they have a mature RF product line available and have taken advantage of initial sales of each lens as it is released without competition, is too logical for some to accept, since, as we all know, Canon is BAD, and perhaps even EVIL in their suspicious little minds. The big profits for camera companies are in the lenses...not in in the cameras, so to give the profits away to 3rd party companies would be a foolish strategy in today's shrinking market.

See my previous post re flawless ultra-ethical corporations, they must have rainbow coloured unicorns that sparkle in the dark as CEOs, but you've nailed it in terms of what would motivate companies such as Canon in your last sentence:

"The big profits for camera companies are in the lenses...not in in the cameras, so to give the profits away to 3rd party companies would be a foolish strategy in today's shrinking market."

Couldn't agree more, thanks for the clarity!

 

[unfocused]

Let's look more closely at what you've mentioned here.

"Why would Sigma or Tamron rush to produce specific RF mount lenses when their current crop of lenses work seamlessly on Canon R cameras?"
Let's reframe this question in a way that it answers itself - Why would anyone on this forum rush to buy specific RF mount lenses when the current crop of Canon, Sigma or Tamron EF lenses that work seamlessly on Canon R cameras? Why would a company not tap into that demand?

Possibly because the majority of R system owners prefer Canon-branded lenses. You have no access to market data from Sigma or Tamron that indicates whether or not their entrance into the RF system at this time would be profitable.

"it's very logical and likely that the return on investment just isn't there yet to justify developing RF mount only lenses. "
The elephant in the room here is the magically disappearing Samyang lens, retailing well one day, gone the next. This reasoning conveniently ignores this glaring fact. It may be true for Sigma and Tamron, we have no evidence either way to conform that, but we know for sure that this is false in the case of Samyang, because they had a product out, which they invested R&D and marketing money, and had a good product out there that was well received. Pulling a product without warning or explanation doesn't achieve a return on investment!

You keep talking about Samyang, like you know something. I'm not sure you do. The Samyang website lists four native-mount RF lenses with two listed as sold out. The Rokinon website lists four native-mount RF lenses with none listed as sold out. Neither says anything about discontinued. You've chosen to draw your own conclusions, but you know nothing. I'm willing to admit that I know nothing about the inner workings or marketing and supply decisions of a company. But, I do know that drawing broad conclusions from a single, isolated case (that may not even be correct) is not logical.

Something to think about, if Sigma is producing mirrorless lenses for Sony, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Panasonic, Sigma, and Fujifilm, then it's unlikely that there would be anything radically different with Canon RF lenses if they're just using EF protocols. To suggest so without evidence is the logical fallacy of special pleading, applying a certain set of criteria to one circumstances while exempting others from the same criteria. As far as I know there is nothing to differentiate the optics of Canon RF lenses from any other mirrorless lenses, and if anyone knows otherwise, I'm open to new information.

The operative phrase here is "As far as I know." You simply don't know. Yet you insist on speculating and assuming it's some kind of anti-competitive plot.

If you're going to speculate on the reason why we're not seeing third-party lenses, it has to account for all cases we're observing, the inaction of Sigma and Tamron, and also the withdrawal of a product from the market by Samyang/Rokinon. If it fails to account for any one case, namely the latter company, then it stands that the speculative reasoning is partly incorrect at best.

I am not the one doing the speculating. I am simply suggesting there are far too many variables and far too little solid information available to draw the conclusions that you are drawing.

Reasoning from unstated assumptions, especially emotive ones...

Exactly. That's why I'm not willing to buy into your conspiracy theory.

... that assume Canon's unwavering benevolence and incapacity to err accidentally or intentionally is flawed as that rules our many possible and plausible explanations...

Who ever said anything about Canon's benevolence or incapacity to err? You have assigned imagined, speculative causes to the lack of third-party lenses with zero evidence. You are the one making a moral judgment about Canon. They have a long-standing policy of not making it easy for third parties to siphon away their business. There is nothing evil or immoral about that. Indeed, they have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their interests and their stockholders' investment. Third party manufactures have never let that stand in their way before, so it's logical that they aren't going to let it stand in their way now. Instead, I've simply suggested that the same desire to maximize profits and assure a solid return on investment may be at play in the decision by Sigma and Tamron not to aggressively pursue the RF market thus far. The simple explanation is that they don't see it as good investment at this time. But, that's not nearly as fun as assuming Canon is somehow blocking them from the market.

If you just want to state an opinion that's not backed by reason, just say that's how you feel about the matter, that's also valid!

Yes. You have stated an opinion that is not backed by reason.

 

[SNJ Ops]

In regards to Samyang/Rokinon if you go to Samyang’s main website https://www.samyanglens.com/en/m/pr...type=&mount=&best_for=&selectTab=&mount[]=211 and search for RF lenses they list 0 products.

For Rokinon https://rokinon.com/collections/canon-rf?gf_307473=Canon RF both of the AF lenses are sold out with only cine lenses being available.

Rokinon isn’t available in Europe so in terms of those markets Samyang did indeed stop making RF lenses available completely. Why is open for debate.

Also Viltrox have removed RF lenses from their website as well https://viltroxstore.com/ However their 85mm f1.8 is still available to purchase from retailers.

 

[jd7]

In regards to Samyang/Rokinon if you go to Samyang’s main website https://www.samyanglens.com/en/m/product/product-srch.php?category=&camera_type=&sensor_size=&lens_type=&mount=&best_for=&selectTab=&mount[]=211 and search for RF lenses they list 0 products.

For Rokinon https://rokinon.com/collections/canon-rf?gf_307473=Canon RF both of the AF lenses are sold out with only cine lenses being available.

Rokinon isn’t available in Europe so in terms of those markets Samyang did indeed stop making RF lenses available completely. Why is open for debate.

Also Viltrox have removed RF lenses from their website as well https://viltroxstore.com/ However their 85mm f1.8 is still available to purchase from retailers.

The Viltrox RF 85mm AF lens is advertised at https://www.viltrox.store/product/v...erture-lens-for-canon-rf-mount-camera-lenses/

Noting the domain is viltrox.store rather than viltroxstore.com, is that an offical Viltrox webpage? If you try to buy lens from viltrox.store it takes you to aliexpress.com for the purchase, so perhaps it is not?

I am not a fan of conspiracty theories and I am on record in this thread suggesting that the lack of third party AF lenses may simply reflect third parties not thinking the RF market is large enough (yet) fot it to make commercial sense to make RF lenses. However, IF we now have Viltrox following Samyang/Rokinon having put RF mount AF lenses on the market only to stop supplying them, the idea that Samyang/Rokinon and Viltrox have both simply withdrawn auto-focus RF lenses from the market for commercial reasons is too much for me. And I have serious doubts it would reflect any sort of gentleman's agreement (as I've said earlier in this thread, I suspect any such agreement would likely be illegal anti-competitive conduct and therefore a very dangerous game to play). The only remaining explanation I can think of would be that Canon was exercising intellectual property laws to block them. So, I will be very interested to see whether Viltrox AF lenses for RF mount disappear from the market over the coming months.

 

[SNJ Ops]

The Viltrox RF 85mm AF lens is advertised at https://www.viltrox.store/product/v...erture-lens-for-canon-rf-mount-camera-lenses/

Noting the domain is viltrox.store rather than viltroxstore.com, is that an offical Viltrox webpage? If you try to buy lens from viltrox.store it takes you to aliexpress.com for the purchase, so perhaps it is not?

I am not a fan of conspiracty theories and I am on record in this thread suggesting that the lack of third party AF lenses may simply reflect third parties not thinking the RF market is large enough (yet) fot it to make commercial sense to make RF lenses. However, IF we now have Viltrox following Samyang/Rokinon having put RF mount AF lenses on the market only to stop supplying them, the idea that Samyang/Rokinon and Viltrox have both simply withdrawn auto-focus RF lenses from the market for commercial reasons is too much for me. And I have serious doubts it would reflect any sort of gentleman's agreement (as I've said earlier in this thread, I suspect any such agreement would likely be illegal anti-competitive conduct and therefore a very dangerous game to play). The only remaining explanation I can think of would be that Canon was exercising intellectual property laws to block them. So, I will be very interested to see whether Viltrox AF lenses for RF mount disappear from the market over the coming months.

I looked for another official Viltrox site and found their Chinese one https://www.viltrox.com/ProductInfoCategory?categoryId=512919,514962,514963&PageInfoId=0 when you look for full frame lenses there are only E and Z mount options are available, nothing for RF mount at all.

While the 85mm from Viltrox is still available to purchase I’m guessing that is the last of the available inventory and the lens is no longer in production. Fully admit this is nothing but speculation on my part but it seems that reverse engineering RF mount infringes Canon’s IP. If that is true, that in affect most likely completely locks out any 3rd party wanting to making lenses not just with AF but even manual focus lenses that pass exif data to the camera via electrical contacts.

The only 3rd party lenses I can find for Canon RF are from Meyer Optik Görlitz and Meike but in both cases neither include electrical contacts on their glass.

 

[AlanF]

I looked for another official Viltrox site and found their Chinese one https://www.viltrox.com/ProductInfoCategory?categoryId=512919,514962,514963&PageInfoId=0 when you look for full frame lenses there are only E and Z mount options are available, nothing for RF mount at all.

While the 85mm from Viltrox is still available to purchase I’m guessing that is the last of the available inventory and the lens is no longer in production. Fully admit this is nothing but speculation on my part but it seems that reverse engineering RF mount infringes Canon’s IP. If that is true, that in affect most likely completely locks out any 3rd party wanting to making lenses not just with AF but even manual focus lenses that pass exif data to the camera via electrical contacts.

The only 3rd party lenses I can find for Canon RF are from Meyer Optik Görlitz and Meike but in both cases neither include electrical contacts on their glass.

Laowa and Lensbaby also have RF mounts.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Laowa and Lensbaby also have RF mounts.

I just saw a video review where it was stated that the Viltrox RF 85mm f/1.8 is registered by the camera body as an EF 85mm f/1.8 USM lens, that's apparently how they got the AF to work on that lens, and it also gets in-camera lens corrections which third-partly lenses normally can't do. Maybe that has something to do with it? It seems that only the third-party AF lenses for the RF mount are progressively disappearing.