Very true, I forgot about them. They don’t add electrical contacts to their mirrorless lenses either so probably not an issue in terms of potential patent infringement.Laowa and Lensbaby also have RF mounts.
Upvote
0
Very true, I forgot about them. They don’t add electrical contacts to their mirrorless lenses either so probably not an issue in terms of potential patent infringement.Laowa and Lensbaby also have RF mounts.
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.
the very fact that the Samyang Rokinon RF 85mm AF lens existed, and was selling, with lots of happy purchasers and great reviews
I have been one of the people suggesting (including earlier in this thread) the lack of third party lenses might simply reflect the third party manufacturers not seeing a good business case to make RF lenses yet. However, the fact there are now two manufacturers (Samyang and more recently Viltrox) which have gone to the trouble of putting one or more RF lenses (with AF) on the market only to (it seems) stop supplying them has led me to believe that Canon is using intellectual property laws to prevent third parties from supplying/selling such lenses. No, I don't have any direct confirmation of that, but it just seems too unlikely that two manufacters would start supplying RF lenses and then stop simply for commercial reasons, and I cannot think of any good explanation other than Canon using IP laws to stop them. When Samyang originally removed their RF lenses from their website, the lenses were still listed on the Rokinon website so I assumed that for some reason they had decided to supply them only under the Rokinon name. However, the Samyang/Rokinon lenses don't seem to be in stock with retailers under either name, and just recently Viltrox seems to have removed their RF lenses from their website.Could just be low sales although your theory is also possible. I believe it was also reported that Sigma said they could have started making RF lenses already but just feel the ROI is not there yet. The fact that Canon made EF lenses work so well with the RF mount means Sigma is probably less incentivized to produce native RF lenses than they otherwise would be.
That fact and the fact that you may have liked or purchased the product and that other people did so as well is not sufficient to establish that a valid business case existed for the continued production of this product. Are you aware of any sales figures that Samyang has communicated highlighting whether sales matched their projections for this product? That's really the information we would need to know whether it was pulled simply for a business case reason or whether there were other legal factors involved as you have speculated.
It looks like every RF AF third party lens has been pulled off the market (Samyang, Viltrox, Yonguno), and no other third party is releasing any, which suggests that it's probably an IP matter in respect to how the AF works on the RF mount.Could just be low sales although your theory is also possible. I believe it was also reported that Sigma said they could have started making RF lenses already but just feel the ROI is not there yet. The fact that Canon made EF lenses work so well with the RF mount means Sigma is probably less incentivized to produce native RF lenses than they otherwise would be.
That fact and the fact that you may have liked or purchased the product and that other people did so as well is not sufficient to establish that a valid business case existed for the continued production of this product. Are you aware of any sales figures that Samyang has communicated highlighting whether sales matched their projections for this product? That's really the information we would need to know whether it was pulled simply for a business case reason or whether there were other legal factors involved as you have speculated.
We would also need to know if the same manufacturing lines or facilities were needed for more profitable or better selling products as well as whether or not they had a reliable supply chain for parts, etc.Could just be low sales although your theory is also possible…That fact and the fact that you may have liked or purchased the product and that other people did so as well is not sufficient to establish that a valid business case existed for the continued production of this product. Are you aware of any sales figures that Samyang has communicated highlighting whether sales matched their projections for this product? That's really the information we would need to know whether it was pulled simply for a business case reason or whether there were other legal factors involved as you have speculated.
We have an idea what the market for full frame cameras and lenses did last year, it grew!We would also need to know if the same manufacturing lines or facilities were needed for more profitable or better selling products as well as whether or not they had a reliable supply chain for parts, etc.
It looks like every RF AF third party lens has been pulled off the market (Samyang, Viltrox, Yonguno), and no other third party is releasing any, which suggests that it's probably an IP matter in respect to how the AF works on the RF mount.
On DPR one poster is claiming to have been told by a Sigma rep that the company position is that it's waiting for Canon to license the RF mount to them. "From what I was told by a Sigma UK rep in June, they are waiting on a license to make RF lenses". Fact or fiction, who knows? Sounds totally plausible.
To quote the same post, the CEO of Sigma has made public statements that they're considering making RF lenses, and see it as a viable market, which negates claims its not economically viable to make RF lenses.
"Sigma's CEO said in 2019:
"I have a great interest in the Canon R and Nikon Z systems because eventually they will have more and more customers. So we are now investigating these systems. But still it’s too early to make a statement about how we will respond."
In 2021 he said:
"I am aware that there’s a very strong demand from customers for Canon RF and Nikon Z. We believe, too, as a lens manufacturer, that it’s our mission to support as many mounts as possible. We would like to support those mounts, and we’re discussing and researching.""
The suggested reason that companies like Sigma would prefer to licence the RF protocol rather than reverse engineer it is because one of the uses of the extra pins for high speed communication is in the coordination between camera body IBIS and lens IS, and this increases technical complexity, potentially making reverse engineering less economical. You'd want new third-party stabilised lenses to work well on a Canon RF camera body, so I can understand the argument there.
With EVERY brand removing existing RF mount lenses, this could have been done via incentive "remove lenses and we'll give you a license in the future" or disincentive "cease and desists, your design violates RF mount patent x for technology y". Lack of a market fails to explain this point. In fact, the market is very hungry for more choices. The thing is, people will buy whatever Canon puts out, good or bad, then come to forums to validate their purchasing decisions. Canon is milking this monopoly situation all the way to the bank.
We could be potentially be looking at two factors at play here, RF protocol licensing and RF mount communication protocol patent/IP infringement.
Either way, simple fact is that there are NO third party lenses available on Canon's new RF mount or Nikon's new Z-mount. Coincidence? I don't think so...
It looks like every RF AF third party lens has been pulled off the market (Samyang, Viltrox, Yonguno)
If manufacturers have decided it isn't worth putting in the required investment to keep their lenses up to date to work with new firmware, that amounts to the manufacturers all realising there is no (good) business case to make lenses for the RF mount. And while firmware updates stopping third party lenses from working would be different from Canon threatening legal action for intellectual property infringement, the practical result would be the same: Canon would be keeping third party RF lenses off the market. Yes, Canon is free to develop whatever firmware it wants and it can choose to ignore the effects on third party equipment if that is what it wants to do. But equally, I'm sure Canon could develop firmware which at least minimises the difficulties for third party manufacturers (avoiding all problems altogether may be unrealistic). Canon has choice. No doubt Canon will do what it thinks is in the best interests of its business. However, a closed RF system (ie no native RF third party lenses) would be dissapointing to me, to put it mildly. When I bought into the EF system many years ago, one of the attractions was the wide range of lenses available, including lenses from third parties. In the mirrorless full frame arena, the only system which offers that with native lenses is the Sony system.Ok I was not aware that every third party manufacturer of AF lenses for the RF mount had ceased production. I still see the Viltrox AF 85 in stock at B&H. Anyway, if that is true, then I would agree that this would be additional evidence that there might be a common event which precipitated that, rather than every manufacturer simultaneously realizing there was no business case.
However, even if such a common event occurred, that does not mean it necessarily implies your chosen theory, that Canon threatened legal action or is on a mission to kill off all third party lenses. One possible example is that Canon simply released updated firmware, which may have interfered with some features these lenses were using. It's possible these manufacturers decided it wasn't worth the investment to continue to stay ahead of Canon's changes to keep the lenses working. It's even possible Canon did this without even intending to kill off such third party capability. If the existing AF lenses are relying on reverse engineering, it's possible Canon may not even know what steps they took to get the AF working.
In any case, there is still insufficient evidence to support your theory of legal threats as factual, and I suspect that will be the case until either:
1. Canon makes a more public statement on its position wrt third party RF lenses
2. One of the manufacturers makes a statement to the effect that it was interference from Canon that forced them to cease production
3. A journalist digs a bit deeper and finds out why these companies have stopped producing AF lenses for the RF mount
There's no evidence to support any theory in fact, only logical inferences that can be made from known facts, some being more logically sound than others, it's all speculation, this is CanonRumors after all!Ok I was not aware that every third party manufacturer of AF lenses for the RF mount had ceased production. I still see the Viltrox AF 85 in stock at B&H. Anyway, if that is true, then I would agree that this would be additional evidence that there might be a common event which precipitated that, rather than every manufacturer simultaneously realizing there was no business case.
However, even if such a common event occurred, that does not mean it necessarily implies your chosen theory, that Canon threatened legal action or is on a mission to kill off all third party lenses. One possible example is that Canon simply released updated firmware, which may have interfered with some features these lenses were using. It's possible these manufacturers decided it wasn't worth the investment to continue to stay ahead of Canon's changes to keep the lenses working. It's even possible Canon did this without even intending to kill off such third party capability. If the existing AF lenses are relying on reverse engineering, it's possible Canon may not even know what steps they took to get the AF working.
In any case, there is still insufficient evidence to support your theory of legal threats as factual, and I suspect that will be the case until either:
1. Canon makes a more public statement on its position wrt third party RF lenses
2. One of the manufacturers makes a statement to the effect that it was interference from Canon that forced them to cease production
3. A journalist digs a bit deeper and finds out why these companies have stopped producing AF lenses for the RF mount
it's been done to achieve such a monopoly
The fact that Canon has a monopoly on autofocus RF mount lenses is exactly that, a fact. There's no need to infer it, it's clearly observable. There were three other third party companies making AF RF lenses and they 'stopped' making them without stating a reason, which is rather unusual to say the least. The big name third party manufacturers never even got started. The situation changed from one where there was some minor competition to one where there was no competition whatsoever, and that is what's called a monopoly. We can only make logical inferences at best about the cause/s of this situation, because there are no explanations, and if anything bordering on the questionable is going on, then you're guaranteed to get no public explanations.Yeah these are the kind of statements I don't think you can logically infer from the available evidence. We don't even know at this point what action(s) and by who precipitated these manufacturers exit from the RF lens market. Since we don't even know that, we certainly can't infer the intention on the part of the actors who took those actions.
If you fit into that category, then that does seem like a sensible option. However, judging by Canon's successful sales numbers, it looks like there are a lot of buyers out there that find Canon's offerings do meet their needs. And, if you buy what you need or want, then why would you have to "sell later at a greater loss?" Every time I've sold a Canon lens or camera I've gotten my money's worth out of the body or lens by the time I sold it and anything I got when I sold has been a bonus.... aren't to people's liking, maybe it might be a good idea to hold off on any unnecessary purchases (wants vs needs) so as to not support such a scenario, and perhaps wait till more choices are available for other manufacturers. If the current offerings don't meet specific needs, rather than buying new (and overpriced) RF lenses anyway, just because that's all that Canon's offering, and having to sell later at a greater loss, it could be a better stop-gap solution to simply buy second-hand EF glass until better suited RF lenses are released by whoever.
Ok, I'll bite lol!Clearly you don't know what a monopoly or a fact is.
Well, the successful Canon sales in RF is because there's virtually no other option, and generally people tend to let companies create the demand for them, hype something up, make them want it (want more often than need), and they'll buy whatever Canon throws out. The real need being fulfilled here is probably more gratification though spending than a real technical need, considering most enthusiasts don't need cameras, they want them for a hobby, which is fine!If you fit into that category, then that does seem like a sensible option. However, judging by Canon's successful sales numbers, it looks like there are a lot of buyers out there that find Canon's offerings do meet their needs. And, if you buy what you need or want, then why would you have to "sell later at a greater loss?" Every time I've sold a Canon lens or camera I've gotten my money's worth out of the body or lens by the time I sold it and anything I got when I sold has been a bonus.
A logical person wouldn't compare apples and oranges!So, Tamron just released a 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD lens for Sony E-mount for $1,300. Canon has a 100-400 RF f5.6-8 that retails for $600. A logical person might speculate that a similar Tamron lens for the R mount could be a hard sale at more than twice the price of the Canon lens, even though the Canon lens is slightly slower and has 50mm less at the short end.
A logical person might look at Canon's affordable RF lens lineup and question how much room there is for competition from third parties given the selection and aggressive pricing that Canon is offering.
From Canon's point of view, maximizing profits is what they are supposed to do. You somehow, totally illogically, then warp this obvious business truth, into a conspiracy, or an evil, dirty business maneuver that borders on illegal and unethical. And if someone points out that it is neither, then apparently we are guilty of some sort of Canon worship or love. Maybe we're just not willing to jump on your bandwagon of totally biased hate.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!
The situation changed from one where there was some minor competition to one where there was no competition whatsoever
Canon has a monopoly