The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L IS USM II has been officially discontinued

[neuroanatomist]

…generally speaking all major manufacturers NOW licensed lens mounts except Canon, as noted at bottom of the article. Silence from Canon and 3rd parties is all we have.

Consider that something like 80% of ILCs in use today are Canon. Why should they license their mount and AF protocols to anyone else? Although the EF (and EF-M) mounts were reverse-engineered, it doesn’t seem that Canon licensed EF AF protocols to anyone, either. Again, why should they?

 

[TonyG]

Consider that something like 80% of ILCs in use today are Canon. Why should they license their mount and AF protocols to anyone else? Although the EF (and EF-M) mounts were reverse-engineered, it doesn’t seem that Canon licensed EF AF protocols to anyone, either. Again, why should they?

Why do you keep referring to invaluable data like 80% of ilc’s.
We are talking about the RF mount, not the EF, not the FD mount.
Give some facts on mirrorless bodies and then your view point can have some merit.

Your comment is like saying 60% or pick up trucks are from ford when we are all referring to electric pick up trucks.

 

[SNJ Ops]

Consider that something like 80% of ILCs in use today are Canon. Why should they license their mount and AF protocols to anyone else? Although the EF (and EF-M) mounts were reverse-engineered, it doesn’t seem that Canon licensed EF AF protocols to anyone, either. Again, why should they?

They don’t have to license to 3rd parties if that business model proves in time to be the correct one for them. There’s a rumour that has just come out today that Sigma will be releasing Z mount glass next year. That will be another system that will be an alternative for Canon shooters who want/need 3rd party options.

As for the 80% of ILC being Canon that includes DSLRS which are decreasing in use ,new sales and revenue. The mirrorless market looks very different and that is where the present and future is.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why do you keep referring to invaluable data like 80% of ilc’s.
We are talking about the RF mount, not the EF, not the FD mount.
Give some facts on mirrorless bodies and then your view point can have some merit.

Your comment is like saying 60% or pick up trucks are from ford when we are all referring to electric pick up trucks.

FD, really? Troll much?

Why is Canon’s installed base including EF lenses relevant?

• Because Canon has sold over 150 million EF and RF lenses, and most of them work on R bodies.
• Because people tend to buy the brand they already own, and most people already own Canon cameras.
• Because Canon’s domination of the DSLR market means if/when most of that market buys a FF MILC (and now APS-C as well), the one they buy will have an RF mount.
• Because Canon has ample data on how much of their user base owns 3rd party lenses, and the demographics (including income range) of those who buy such lenses relative to the demographics of those buying R bodies.

The bottom line is that there is a good business rationale for Canon to block third parties from infringing on their intellectual property regarding the RF mount AF protocols, and a good business rationale to not license the mount to third-party manufacturers.

If people don’t like that, or simply cannot understand it, that’s really not Canon’s problem.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As for the 80% of ILC being Canon that includes DSLRS which are decreasing in use ,new sales and revenue. The mirrorless market looks very different and that is where the present and future is.

In the present, Canon already leads the global MILC market. They have done so for the past four years. Where have you been?

Now you’re going to move the goalposts and say what you really mean is the full frame mirrorless market.

In 2012, the year Canon entered the MILC market with the launch of the EOS M, Sony led the MILC market, which was all APS-C at that point. It took Canon six years to achieve leadership the MILC segment. Canon entered the FF MILC market four years ago, and their FF MILC market share after three years was only 5% behind Sony. Sony launched the FF MILC market in 2012, the same year that Canon entered the APS-C MILC market...I suspect that wasn't a coincidence, but that Sony knew when the 800-lb gorilla steps into the room, you better find a new room. We’ll see what the future holds, but the trend is easy to see for those not wearing blinders.

Don’t worry, though. Sony looks like a lock to remain #1 among ILC brands starting with the letter ‘S’.

 

[TonyG]

FD, really? Troll much?

You specified General ILC Data, not SLR, DSLR or Mirrorless. Hence my point of irrelevant and invaluable data.
State Mirrorless ILC Data and then you can make your point.
A troll would only be someone who posts too much.

Why is Canon’s installed base including EF lenses relevant?

• Because Canon has sold over 150 million EF and RF lenses, and most of them work on R bodies.

Again, this thread is referring to Native RF and Mirrorless.
EF has nothing to do with it.
Just because I can adapt an old DeWalt 18V battery to one of their newer 20V tools with an adaptor does not mean I get the best performance that an actual 20V battery would give me.
It is an option and an excuse for the interim until the Native RF versions are released. Not a solution.

• Because people tend to buy the brand they already own, and most people already own Canon cameras.

Psychologically correct, but one flaw in your statement.
How many of them are beginners that need cheaper lens options in order to either pursue their career financially, or a hobbyist that could afford to buy more cheaper glass to incite them to spend money and lock them into an ecosystem. Especially when they want Native Glass.
Otherwise, why don't we see kit lenses being sold with EF glass on a mirrorless body if that is the ultimate solution?

• Because Canon’s domination of the DSLR market means if/when most of that market buys a FF MILC (and now APS-C as well), the one they buy will have an RF mount.

Agreed, especially when the menus are familiar and the feel, but only if the budget and options a user needs allow it.
Making a large jump from DSLR to Mirrorless would be the time someone could decide to change ecosystems for the technology they want.
For example, I might like Cadillac's, but if I decide to move up to a pick up truck, I might decide to go with a RAM or Ford over a GM.

• Because Canon has ample data on how much of their user base owns 3rd party lenses, and the demographics (including income range) of those who buy such lenses relative to the demographics of those buying R bodies.

LMAO!!
I forgot the last time I got a phone or email survey asking me what bodies and lenses I own....
I wonder if Henry's or Vistek in Canada is going to get a bad report from Canon for not asking me what my financial status and annual income was every time I buy a Canon product.

The bottom line is that there is a good business rationale for Canon to block third parties from infringing on their intellectual property regarding the RF mount AF protocols, and a good business rationale to not license the mount to third-party manufacturers.

If people don’t like that, or simply cannot understand it, that’s really not Canon’s problem.

That is your opinion, and it is up to Canon to decide what they want to legally allow third party manufactures to make and when they want to open the mount up.
Truth of the matter is, if they open the mount now, there will be a flood of cheap glass before Canon can make their own cheap glass.
Psychologically, new photographers, or hobbyists would prefer native branded products. It only makes sense that a product made by the same brand for your camera should work at its full protentional. That is what I believe Canon is banking and waiting to do before they allow 3rd party lens manufactures to license the mount.

With that being said, IF a new photographer, or a new hobbyist is interested in purchasing a camera, especially on a budget TODAY, what options do they have other than buying used EF glass (requiring a lot of research as there are a lot of options on good and bad glass), or another brand?
I understand why Canon is doing what it is doing, but I think the 2-year pandemic and chip shortages have thrown their timing off and that is where I think the mistake lies.
Fan boys (like you and I) will always be fan boys and will always tolerate the excuses, but for new customers that have no loyalties, there are a lot of other options than just Canon.
Especially when I can give my opinion as a dual Canon/Sony system owner.
There is a reason why I still use Canon while I patiently wait, but for someone who has never used a Canon, their opinions might be the first brand they see is the one they will stick with.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Consider that something like 80% of ILCs in use today are Canon. Why should they license their mount and AF protocols to anyone else? Although the EF (and EF-M) mounts were reverse-engineered, it doesn’t seem that Canon licensed EF AF protocols to anyone, either. Again, why should they?

AFAICT EF-M was licensed to third parties.
The patents had expired on the EF mount.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You specified General ILC Data, not SLR, DSLR or Mirrorless. Hence my point of irrelevant and invaluable data.
State Mirrorless ILC Data and then you can make your point.
A troll would only be someone who posts too much.

I stated current installed user base. You are the one who introduced a mount for which the last camera was launched 30 years ago.

Invaluable data? I agree, the data on Canon's installed ILC base are invaluable to a discussion of Canon's choices regarding 3d party lenses. Given the context of your posts, it'a apparent that you don't know what the word 'invaluable' means. This may help you. You also seem unaware that 'internet trolling' includes behaviors like posting irrelevant and digressive information, such as bringing a long-dead lens mount into a discussion of the current market. It's hard to make any points at all if you lack understanding of the words and phrases you are using.

Again, this thread is referring to Native RF and Mirrorless.
EF has nothing to do with it.

Let me refresh your memory of the title of this thread: "The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L IS USM II has been officially discontinued." This thread is specifically about an EF lens. So you lack both adequate vocabulary and the ability to comprehend what you read? It's like having a discussion with a fence post.

Now, if you mean 'this discussion', i.e. the tangent about Canon licensing the RF mount to 3rd parties, then given that both EF and 3rd party lenses can be easily adapted to RF lenses, with no loss of (and in many cases, improved) functionality with OEM lenses, then the proportion of users who already have such lenses is highly relevant. Canon probably doesn't see a need to urgently release an RF 24/1.4 if their data suggest most people likely to buy such a lens already have an EF 24/1.4L II, for example.

Just because I can adapt an old DeWalt 18V battery to one of their newer 20V tools with an adaptor does not mean I get the best performance that an actual 20V battery would give me.
It is an option and an excuse for the interim until the Native RF versions are released. Not a solution.

The fact that you apparently don't like using an adapter doesn't invalidate it as a solution. I have the EF 11-24/4L, and even if Canon comes out with an RF 10-24 I will keep using the EF version specifically because the adapters allows me to drop an ND or CPL behind the lens instead of using the massive front filters I'd need for such a lens (I am assuming the RF version will not have a drop in filter slot, of course). Same goes for my TS-E 17, for which I have the slightly less massive (145mm diameter) filters but the RF adapter drop in is vastly more convenient. Those two lenses perform better with the adapter than natively. The same could be said for any adapted EF lens used on the R5, which will deliver higher optical resolution than on any EF-mount body (the R5 sensor delivers higher resolution than the 5DsR, just as the 24 MP R3 sensor out-resolves the 30 MP sensor in the 5DIV/EOS R).

Psychologically correct, but one flaw in your statement.
How many of them are beginners that need cheaper lens options in order to either pursue their career financially, or a hobbyist that could afford to buy more cheaper glass to incite them to spend money and lock them into an ecosystem. Especially when they want Native Glass.
Otherwise, why don't we see kit lenses being sold with EF glass on a mirrorless body if that is the ultimate solution?

Canon offers a variety of non-L lenses, both zooms and primes, in the RF mount. Can you put together a 3-lens zoom kit running from 15mm to 400mm for less than the Canon RF mount set I could buy today for $1450?

If I were a beginner in search of a good FF system, I could go to the Best Buy that's 2 miles from my house and pick up an in-stock RP with 24-105 non-L kit for $1200. With a cursory look, I don't see a cheaper FF kit from anyone else (even the old Sony a7 II that is still sold new costs more for just the body; maybe I'm missing something, though). That's cheaper than the EOS R10 with the RF-S 18-150mm lens (even with the current $100 discount on that APS-C kit).

Agreed, especially when the menus are familiar and the feel, but only if the budget and options a user needs allow it.
Making a large jump from DSLR to Mirrorless would be the time someone could decide to change ecosystems for the technology they want.
For example, I might like Cadillac's, but if I decide to move up to a pick up truck, I might decide to go with a RAM or Ford over a GM.

They could. But so far, the available data suggest that they are not. A typical figure quoted for the industry is ~5 years as a useful life for an ILC. It took Canon 6 years from launching the EOS M to become the MILC market leader, most likely because as people replaced their Canon APS-C DLSR with a MILC, they bought a Canon MILC. Probably the same thing will be true for FF MILCs, though Canon has been offering them for only 4 years. As I stated, three years after entering the FF MILC market, Canon was #2 and only 5% behind the leader, Sony.

LMAO!!
I forgot the last time I got a phone or email survey asking me what bodies and lenses I own....
I wonder if Henry's or Vistek in Canada is going to get a bad report from Canon for not asking me what my financial status and annual income was every time I buy a Canon product.

Laughter is not a substitute for comprehension. People still register their purchases on the internet. It doesn't take that many registrations for Canon to obtain a statistically-relevant sampling of their user base.

That is your opinion, and it is up to Canon to decide what they want to legally allow third party manufactures to make and when they want to open the mount up.
Truth of the matter is, if they open the mount now, there will be a flood of cheap glass before Canon can make their own cheap glass.
Psychologically, new photographers, or hobbyists would prefer native branded products. It only makes sense that a product made by the same brand for your camera should work at its full protentional. That is what I believe Canon is banking and waiting to do before they allow 3rd party lens manufactures to license the mount.

When did Canon decide to license the EF mount and it's associated AF protocols? That's a rhetorical question, they did not. 3rd parties reverse engineered the protocols, which is why 3rd party EF lenses 'spoof' the camera by using lens ID codes from older Canon lenses (which has caused problems with some 3rd party lenses). I doubt Canon will ever license the RF mount. Again, given their dominance of the market, why would they share revenue and profit?

With that being said, IF a new photographer, or a new hobbyist is interested in purchasing a camera, especially on a budget TODAY, what options do they have other than buying used EF glass (requiring a lot of research as there are a lot of options on good and bad glass), or another brand?

As I said, that new user can buy a FF Canon with a standard kit zoom for less money than from other manufacturers. Did you miss the fact that there are 30+ RF lenses at this point? If that new photographer is into landscapes, there's a $300 16/2.8 prime. If they are into birds, there is an 800mm prime for $900. There are four non-L zooms ranging from 15 to 400mm, and seven non-L primes ranging from 16 to 800mm, all costing under $1000 and most costing under $500.

I understand why Canon is doing what it is doing, but I think the 2-year pandemic and chip shortages have thrown their timing off and that is where I think the mistake lies.

Time will tell if they're making a mistake. History suggests they don't do the very often.

 

[SNJ Ops]

In the present, Canon already leads the global MILC market. They have done so for the past four years. Where have you been?

Now you’re going to move the goalposts and say what you really mean is the full frame mirrorless market.

In 2012, the year Canon entered the MILC market with the launch of the EOS M, Sony led the MILC market, which was all APS-C at that point. It took Canon six years to achieve leadership the MILC segment. Canon entered the FF MILC market four years ago, and their FF MILC market share after three years was only 5% behind Sony. Sony launched the FF MILC market in 2012, the same year that Canon entered the APS-C MILC market...I suspect that wasn't a coincidence, but that Sony knew when the 800-lb gorilla steps into the room, you better find a new room. We’ll see what the future holds, but the trend is easy to see for those not wearing blinders.

Don’t worry, though. Sony looks like a lock to remain #1 among ILC brands starting with the letter ‘S’.

Looking online at different sites the common theme seems to be that Canon has the largest overall market share but Sony leads in the mirrorless segment. What’s clear is that Sony and Canon are the top 2 and they very different strategies on how they go about things. Time will tell if either one ends truly dominating or they remain battling for the number 1 spot.

 

[neuroanatomist]

AFAICT EF-M was licensed to third parties.
The patents had expired on the EF mount.

Any evidence on the licensing of the EF-M protocols? Keep in mind that the infringement Canon used to block 3rd parties with the RF mount was based on communications protocols, not on the physical mount. The EF-M AF protocols are the same as those in EF lenses. There are minor differences in the pinouts of the EF vs. EF-M mounts, but those are trivial to reverse-engineer.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Looking online at different sites the common theme seems to be that Canon has the largest overall market share but Sony leads in the mirrorless segment. What’s clear is that Sony and Canon are the top 2 and they very different strategies on how they go about things. Time will tell if either one ends truly dominating or they remain battling for the number 1 spot.

Sony leads in the full frame mirrorless segment. Sony also leads the MILC market in Japan.

But when speaking of the global MILC market, Canon is the leader. In 2021, Sony's share of the total ILC market was 22% and they sell only MILCs. In 2021, 16% of all ILCs sold globally were EOS M cameras and 11% of all ILCs sold globally were EOS R-series cameras, meaning Canon's MILC sales represent 28% of the total ILC market. 28% > 22%. Canon leads the mirrorless market.

Both globally and in Japan from 2020 to 2021, Canon's growth in both the total ILC market and the MILC segment outpaced Sony.

 

[shadow]

Consider that something like 80% of ILCs in use today are Canon. Why should they license their mount and AF protocols to anyone else? Although the EF (and EF-M) mounts were reverse-engineered, it doesn’t seem that Canon licensed EF AF protocols to anyone, either. Again, why should they?

Business wise, we agree. Marketing strategy wise I believe it makes no sense to discontinue supporting the M and EF lines to keep muddying the waters weekly with announcements of discontinuing these legacy products before announcing replacements. So why should anyone buy a $995 R10 to buy a $2000.-$3000. prime lens on it? Like buying a Corolla with a Ferrari engine?. Bad analogy but you get the point. Sure as you posted that Aladdin meme earlier, I should stop squawking, maybe join the Sony forum if you think I am crazy. You should see comments on Canon's forum, lots of upset people and I didn't buy into the R system and will wait I think.

The APSC lens cheaper glass issue is being addressed by Nikon with Tamron OEM'ed private labeled. Right? Fuji, Sony, OM all use 3rd party lens partnerships to bring their bodies into acceptance and consume some market share away from Canon. Sitting on the top of the hill doing little to attack/compete your "enemies" (competitors) can only last so long until you run out of ammunition (correct products) and your loyal troops defect to the other side. This market is becoming fast paced, not the same as 25-30 years ago. Look at the charts and smartphone sales replacing a dwindling market. I mean why rumor or even introduce the R10 or R50, or R1000 without proper cheap lens or do as Sony with open license the mount?

My semi informed perception is Canon only cares about the high end, which is higher margin and more profitable. Can't blame them to forget about content creators- with one exception as you pointed out earlier that 1.4 lens per customer are sold- so based on your calculation perhaps R10 customers, M50-R50 etc are high volume low margin best selling customers will rarely buy anymore lenses, so why bother just make people like myself who are cheapskates but not neophytes happy?

One more thing, spoke to Sigma and they reacted quite apprehensive and mentioned that a lawsuit was filed on one of their competitors for creating R AF products. So, clarifies news release somewhat, so doesnt appear any Sigma RF anytime soon.

 

[RexxReviews]

Even I can no longer make excuses for the missing wide-angle L primes for the RF mount. It's a bit silly at this point.

If it's related to world events, it's time to release a roadmap of some kind.

A map? LOL I think Canon is driving this car with their eyes closed! Who needs a map!

 

[neuroanatomist]

A map? LOL I think Canon is driving this car with their eyes closed! Who needs a map!

Yeah, and somehow they keep managing to stay far ahead of all the other cars on the track.

 

[fresh_melbourne]

One of my favourite lenses ... even with an adapter on the R5.

 

[Ozarker]

It is fairly annoying that Canon discontinues EF lenses before introducing the RF counterparts.

I don't let it bother me. Even if I wanted one, there will probably be some on the shelf for some time. So unless there was something I really want and can't find anymore, I'm good.

 

[Ozarker]

I'm sorry that you are not having a good day
I sold my Canon EF50/1.4 as it wasn't great.

Mine sucked too.

 

[Ozarker]

Wasn't there a guy on here years ago who would always talk about a 50 1.4? I forget what his name was.

Yes! I thought the same thing. Maybe changed the screen name?

 

[koenkooi]

Yes! I thought the same thing. Maybe changed the screen name?

You need to say "50 1.4" 3 times to summon @ahsanford.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You need to say "50 1.4" 3 times to summon @ahsanford.

I don’t know who you’ll summon with that. But if you want to summon @ahsanford you must chant “50 1.4 IS”.