The state of third-party lenses for the RF mount, Canon may be involved

[bergstrom]

Canon and greed. Sad mix

 

[neuroanatomist]

On another thread I compared this scenario to when a new drug comes to market. The developer of the drug has a 6 year exclusivity window to sell their product before generic drugs can be sold by others. The reason for that window is obvious, it's there so the maker of the drug can recoup their R&d costs. Otherwise, why would any drug company develop a new drug?

I missed the prior comment, but usually the exclusivity for new drugs is much longer. You're talking about regulatory exclusivity, meaning the FDA won't approve a generic replacement for at least 6 years (and for some indications longer, as a further incentive). Patent exclusivity is for 20 years – even though a chunk of that patent life is burned during the drug development process, in general new, branded drugs have 12-14 years on the market before generic competition begins.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon and greed. Sad mix

Sad for you, perhaps. Did you miss the point that Canon is a for-profit company, not a charity?

Consider that if they consistently fail to make a profit, they disappear. That would be sad for me, as I'm quite pleased with the Canon gear I use in my hobby.

 

[SNJ Ops]

I don't blame Canon at all for wanting control over the mount, as there can be compatibility problems with 3rd party lenses, and these incompatibilities will become more frequent and more troublesome as the electronic interactions between bodies and lenses become more complex.

Canon has already worked hard to ensure that there are plenty of lenses available for the budget RF market, as well as for the exotica L glass, and we can expect more specialised lenses to appear in the next year or two.

But as I've said before, the gap between these extremes is IMO too wide, and I believe there's a lot of demand for a limited range of third tier optics.

Meanwhile if they can screw a RF licensing fee and in exchange provide the full RF protocol to licensees, that has to be good for Canon and their customers, and also helps third party manufacturers to avoid incompatibility issues.

That is why Sony issued licenses to 3rd parties so they aren’t compatibility issues so pros/enthusiasts can rely on their gear.

Even Samyang who do reverse engineer emount have improved the AF performance of their lenses and where issues do arise they are good at issuing firmware to resolve them. Again the real issue is choice.

Whether or not all of this discussion will affect Canon’s operations going forward remains to be seen but make no mistake this is horrendous for their reputation and has gone down extremely badly for many if not most.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Whether or not all of this discussion will affect Canon’s operations going forward remains to be seen but make no mistake this is horrendous for their reputation and has gone down extremely badly for many if not most.

I missed the announcement of you being appointed spokesperson for the photography market. A hearty, belated congratulations!

I rather suspect most buyers don't really care all that much about 3rd party lenses. Particularly now, when the bottom end of the market has dropped off (and the market that remains for low-cost, entry-level gear seems to still be buying DSLRs since they represent about 1/3 of the cameras shipped so far this year).

Although 3rd party lenses EF were made by many manufacturers, Canon never licensed their lens protocols to 3rd parties. Both Sony and Nikon did so, for their DSLRs and MILCs. Canon has led the ILC market for 20 years, and dominates it today with ~50% market share. That shows the lack of importance of officially supported 3rd party lenses, at least as far as what people actually buy.

A handful of people on the internet are complaining. I doubt Canon cares.

 

[Del Paso]

That is why Sony issued licenses to 3rd parties so they aren’t compatibility issues so pros/enthusiasts can rely on their gear.

Even Samyang who do reverse engineer emount have improved the AF performance of their lenses and where issues do arise they are good at issuing firmware to resolve them. Again the real issue is choice.

Whether or not all of this discussion will affect Canon’s operations going forward remains to be seen but make no mistake this is horrendous for their reputation and has gone down extremely badly for many if not most.

Are you saying this in earnest?
Canon's reputation tarnished because they are not silly enough to let Sig & Tam take advantage of their R&D costs, and, generously, provide competition with all the necessary algorithms, thus losing lens sales? Better keep looking for Mother Teresa Optical Co.
Or is it simply because you want them to copy Sony? Just funny.
As Neuroanatomist just wrote, Canon is - fortunately - a well-managed profit company.

 

[Juangrande]

The problem is that with mirrorless cameras, Canon has much more power over third party lenses, because the third party manufacturers need the support of Canon in order for lens corrections applied directly in the EVF. If only Canon lenses are corrected and Sigma lenses are not, Sigma lenses will look very bad against Canon lenses unless Sigma makes their lenses so good that they hardly need any correction. The Canon RF 14-35 f/4 for example has quite an extreme distortion, although it costs $1,800. However that distortion is hidden from the user because it already is corrected in the EVF. Sigma and Tamron have it much harder. I hope that competition authorities will force Canon to open the system for others.

I wonder if third party manufacturers also need Canon support in order for the IBIS to work well with those lenses. It would be easy for Canon to make third party lenses look even worse by making sure that IBIS performs poorly with them. Especially when a third party lens is already stabilized. I wonder how well existing third party EF lenses work on an RF body. I for example own the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 and love that lens very much. I would like to continue using it with an RF camera instead of spending $2,800 on a Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8. Only when it comes to longer focal ranges, Canon is still leading. For everything below 100mm, third party manufacturers usually have a much better and cheaper option. Also Sigma offers mount conversion for $100 or so. That might be very helpful if you switch to another camera

Do you mean mount conversion from
Say Nikon to Canon EF? I don’t see how they could convert EF to RF.
I own a Sigma 135 Art lens adapted to the R5 with the EF to RF adapter and my Sigma has never had any updates either (I don’t have the necessary dock) and it seems to work quite well, I think the performance is the same as it was on my 5D mark 4.

 

[kaihp]

Patent exclusivity is for 20 years – even though a chunk of that patent life is burned during the drug development process, in general new, branded drugs have 12-14 years on the market before generic competition begins.

20 years from filing.

When I worked for a pharma company (making insulin), they said that in reality, it was 5-7 years of effective market protection as the time to do all the phase 1/2/3 studies etc took so long to complete and get approved.

As insulin molecules are much larger and more complex than most drug molecules, this may be a factor.

 

[SNJ Ops]

Are you saying this in earnest?
Canon's reputation tarnished because they are not silly enough to let Sig & Tam take advantage of their R&D costs, and, generously, provide competition with all the necessary algorithms, thus losing lens sales? Better keep looking for Mother Teresa Optical Co.
Or is it simply because you want them to copy Sony? Just funny.
As Neuroanatomist just wrote, Canon is - fortunately - a well-managed profit company.

I’m discussing this issue on here, DP Review and over at Fred Miranda forums and I have seen a fair few comments where people have either; said they will switch away from Canon, advise others to choose a different system and are very disappointed with Canon. Yes Canon’s reputation is taking a hit in the eyes of many. Whether it’s significant enough to affect sales or change Canon’s plans is another matter.
Tamron’s announcement that their 1st Z mount lens is on the way hasn’t helped either.

As for 3rd parties taking advantage of Canon’s R&D costs, this were businesses can negotiate terms and conditions that are acceptable to all parties. If Canon choose not enter such negotiations that is their right. Customers have the right to complain and or vote with their wallets accordingly.

 

[AlanF]

20 years from filing.

When I worked for a pharma company (making insulin), they said that in reality, it was 5-7 years of effective market protection as the time to do all the phase 1/2/3 studies etc took so long to complete and get approved.

As insulin molecules are much larger and more complex than most drug molecules, this may be a factor.

Novo Nordisk? If so, an admirable company.

 

[neuroanatomist]

20 years from filing.

When I worked for a pharma company (making insulin), they said that in reality, it was 5-7 years of effective market protection as the time to do all the phase 1/2/3 studies etc took so long to complete and get approved.

As insulin molecules are much larger and more complex than most drug molecules, this may be a factor.

Most of my experience is with small molecules, but across the industry timelines are getting shorter to the extent possible, as a way to stretch the revenue-generating portion of that 20 year period. The current average from NDA to patent expiry is 10-12 years. For biologics the regulatory exclusivity in the US is 12 years, much longer than for small molecules.

 

[BBarn]

Good performance with the current mirrorless camera technology requires coordination between body and lens. Achieving and maintaining that coordination requires effort and money on both the lens design side and the body design side. At this point, Canon seems to be addressing those issues in a manner different than other camera makers. That could change.

I suspect Viltrox's apparent method of reverse engineering a solution that reports their lens as a Canon EF lens led to Canon's actions. Deception isn't an acceptable approach.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I’m discussing this issue on here, DP Review and over at Fred Miranda forums and I have seen a fair few comments where people have either; said they will switch away from Canon, advise others to choose a different system and are very disappointed with Canon. Yes Canon’s reputation is taking a hit in the eyes of many.

So you're talking about a handful of people on a few internet sites. Canon sold 680K ILCs last quarter and estimates they'll sell 2.8 million this year. Your 'many'...isn't. At all.

As for 3rd parties taking advantage of Canon’s R&D costs, this were businesses can negotiate terms and conditions that are acceptable to all parties. If Canon choose not enter such negotiations that is their right. Customers have the right to complain and or vote with their wallets accordingly.

They sure do. And as I stated, Canon holds ~50% of the global ILC market, a share that's risen over the last few years. Seems the vote isn't going your way, and you're making up some fake news that's easily disproven by available facts. I have a feeling I've seen something like that recently in a non-photography arena.

 

[kaihp]

Novo Nordisk? If so, an admirable company.

Yes, but in the Medical Device business. As with 95% of all their devices, it got canceled before it reached the market (this was a few years after I left them in '08).

 

[dtaylor]

I'm not going to pull any punches here: this is a rotten policy by Canon, and one which will financially hurt them in a market this competitive. Their main competitor, who desperately wants that #1 slot, has an open mount. And while not all competing mounts are open, nobody else seems to be taking steps to hinder 3rd party lens development.

I've dragged my feet on mirrorless for my primary kit because my current kit does everything I need with stunning IQ. But sooner or later I'm going to want or need to upgrade. And I'm not going to want to upgrade to a closed mount with no 3rd party lens options. Especially today with so many up-and-coming 3rd party lens manufacturers. If Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang/Rokinon, Viltrox, etc. are all going to throw their lens design expertise and manufacturing capability behind other mounts, then why would I want to be on the closed mount? And what am I supposed to say to new photographers? Why would I recommend Canon knowing it will limit their choices? I don't think I can.

This is the first time I've thought to myself that Sony will take the #1 sales spot. This is one of those stupid policies that sounds great to a boardroom full of people who are clueless about the existence of second order effects, but fails horribly in the marketplace.

All I can do is submit feedback (already have) telling Canon this is a dead end policy. And hope that so many people do the same that Canon reverses course before I decide to overhaul my kit.

 

[noncho]

I just bought RF 85 1.8 from Yongnuo and I have positive first impressions. Half price, less weight.
So positive, that I'm going to sell my RF 85 2.0. The only advantage is the 0.5x macro, but I have another dedicated macro lens.

Sorry Canon, but I want to use the best available lenses for MY needs.
And I like the new Tamron 50-400, Samyang 75 1.8, Sigma 85 1.4 DN, Tamron 35-150...
Oh, and maybe not F11 affordable supertelephotos.

 

[dtaylor]

They sure do. And as I stated, Canon holds ~50% of the global ILC market, a share that's risen over the last few years. Seems the vote isn't going your way, and you're making up some fake news that's easily disproven by available facts. I have a feeling I've seen something like that recently in a non-photography arena.

Up until now nobody thought Canon was going to outright block 3rd party lenses. Canon is going to hold onto that 50% share when Sony, Nikon, etc. have twice as many lens options as Canon? When new users are looking at an expensive Canon lens or a just-as-good Tamron on Sony for 2/3rds the price? I've shot Canon for two decades. If I had a B&H cart filled with RF equipment today, this news would be enough to make me stop and reconsider. What are new users going to do?

 

[cayenne]

Canon wants to be the Apple of cameras and lenses, pure and simple.

Apple doesn't attempt to sue people making 3rd party software or even hardware for an Apple computer....

 

[josephandrews222]

Apple doesn't attempt to sue people making 3rd party software or even hardware for an Apple computer....

Apple sues Mac clone maker Psystar

Apple is suing Psystar, the computer maker that has been selling Intel-based systems with Mac OS X pre-installed, accusing the company of copyright and software licensing violations.

www.computerworld.com

 

[cayenne]

I thought it was possible, and legal for companies to create 3rd party parts for just about ANYTHING out there, as long as they started with a clean room reverse engineer...?

cayenne