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

[cayenne]

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

That's a bit different situation. They were illegally using Apple created software sold on those machines.

If they were selling ONLY the hardware without OSX, they'd be fine.

In modern times, my analogy was more like someone selling Capture One, 3rd party software that is not Apple but can be freely installed on an Apple computer.

Hope that helps clear things a bit.

cayenne

 

[neuroanatomist]

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?

New users will do what most Canon users have always done – buy Canon lenses, usually in a kit with the body they purchase.

I have now been told through a third party that Viltrox, a smaller manufacturer of lenses has been told by Canon...

Read that again. CRguy was told by someone not at Viltrox that Viltrox was told by Canon. Ummm, ok. Sounds like double-hearsay to me. Going to take that with a house-sized chunk of salt.

 

[navastronia]

That's a bit different situation. They were illegally using Apple created software sold on those machines.

If they were selling ONLY the hardware without OSX, they'd be fine.

In modern times, my analogy was more like someone selling Capture One, 3rd party software that is not Apple but can be freely installed on an Apple computer.

Hope that helps clear things a bit.

cayenne

I think the better analogy is that Apple maintains a closed environment in its iOS App Store, only allowing software it personally vets and allows on a platform (iOS) that could just as easily support other software it hasn't vetted. This is like Canon with the RF system.

 

[josephandrews222]

Viltrox Says Canon has Demanded They Stop Selling RF-Mount Lenses

There are no third party RF AF lenses on the market.

petapixel.com

 

[neuroanatomist]

Viltrox Says Canon has Demanded They Stop Selling RF-Mount Lenses

There are no third party RF AF lenses on the market.

petapixel.com

That's better than the double-hearsay in the main post, thanks! At least a bit better. Not sure about the authenticity, after all the information came from EJ Fudd.



Maybe Canon is the Wascally Wabbit in this scenario...

 

[AlanF]

I think the better analogy is that Apple maintains a closed environment in its iOS App Store, only allowing software it personally vets and allows on a platform (iOS) that could just as easily support other software it hasn't vetted. This is like Canon with the RF system.

In the earliest days of Apple, they kept strict control of software that it had to be up to their standards and used a uniform set of commands etc, which made it so intuitive and user friendly compared with other PCs. This is not like Canon with the RF system - they allow(ed) and encouraged non-Apple software as long as it was up to standard. The Apple Store iOS differs in that Apple takes a cut of the sale price etc.

 

[AlanF]

That's better than the double-hearsay in the main post, thanks! At least a bit better. Not sure about the authenticity, after all the information came from EJ Fudd.

View attachment 205383

Maybe Canon is the Wascally Wabbit in this scenario...

This has been quite extensively discussed and this evidence presented in the past few days on FM and dpr. We are coming in late here, and I think petapixel picked it up from dpr.

 

[jam05]

Continue reading...

Not believable

 

[jam05]

I don't believe any of this. Canon can not prevent a company from manufacturing lenses.

 

[antonio_s]

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 brand.

Sigma EF lenses already support in-body corrections on Canon cameras. These work as intended on the R5 in my experience. The Samyang RF (autofocus) ones do/did offer in-cameta corrections too.

The Viltrox lens identified itself as a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 (possibly using copied firmware, which may have been their issue). This led to corrections being applied but not ones appropriate for that actual lens.

 

[Del Paso]

Sigma EF lenses already support in-body corrections on Canon cameras. These work as intended on the R5 in my experience. The Samyang RF (autofocus) ones do/did offer in-cameta corrections too.

The Viltrox lens identified itself as a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 (possibly using copied firmware, which may have been their issue). This led to corrections being applied but not ones appropriate for that actual lens.

This could indeed have been the reason, seems logical.

 

[antonio_s]

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.

OK, but you can find people on forums saying anything. I saw people saying Canon would artificially cut off compatibility with EF lenses in one of these threads.

Average Joes who buy cameras will probably make the same decision as before. Working professionals will too.

Most people who choose Canon today do so because of the lenses available. The RF 85mm f/1.2 is a unique lens, for example. Lots of pros love Canon supertelephoto lenses. And so on. You also have seamless compatibility with the EF lens library, which is noticeably better than adapting EF to Sony cameras (and, frankly, EF lenses are better than ever on the R-series. I love using the Sigma 135 without having to think about microadjustments!).

There are definite merits to the Sony and Nikon systems. I can certainly imagine reasons to choose them. And they each have some glass you can't get on the other systems.

Canon has never been a fan of third-party glass, but I expect to see some come out and stay on the market within 2-3 years. I personally mainly look forward to Sigma doing this.

In the meantime, I'm not in a rush. I enjoy using my Sigma EF lenses. And my Canon RF lenses. I go and take pictures with them instead of worrying. I recommend that.

Those who prefer Sony or Nikon --- by all means I hope they enjoy using their stuff to get some great shots too.

 

[SNJ Ops]

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.


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.

The non-fake news that has sparked this discussion was posted on DPR. Someone has even asked Canon about this and their response was supposedly “We have no comment at this time”

It started off as just a forum post on 1 website. Within less than 2 days DP Review, PetaPixel and Canon Rumours addressed this with articles, its being discussed with the Canon Rumours forum, DPR forums and Fred Miranda forums and in the case of FM and DPR its being discussed on both the Canon AND Nikon boards. We are free to speculate how much or how little impact this will actually have but 1 thing is clear. This isn’t a positive PR for Canon whatsoever.

 

[Del Paso]

Here we go again, turning a rather trivial fact (no Viltrox for RF) into Big Drama.
Frankly, I don't care.

 

[robotfist]

I don't like this at all. The RF mount has been out since 2018 (when the EOS-R was released) and yet we still don't have a full set of matching, pro quality RF primes. The absence of third party glass has really become apparent with RF. It's fine if Canon wants to restrict the RF mount, it's their patent and they can do with it what they wish, but if you're going to keep others from manufacturing lenses for your cameras, then you should at least have a full set of lenses available for consumers to purchase. I can only imagine that the reason they're keeping 3rd parties from selling RF glass at this stage, is because Canon hasn't finished their full lens lineup yet and they don't want customers stocking up on 3rd party glass over Canon glass. People tend to invest in one brand and stick to it. So if new customers flock to Sigma for their RF needs, due to the lack of available Canon glass, they'll likely continue to purchase matching Sigma glass from that point on.

 

[navastronia]

Here we go again, turning a rather trivial fact (no Viltrox for RF) into Big Drama.
Frankly, I don't care.

Some of us do, which is why we're here in this thread.

If one of the biggest players in the professional camera market has decided to make it difficult for 3rd parties to get lenses onto the system, it's a big deal, and there's no sense in pretending it isn't just because you personally aren't interested.

 

[jam05]

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

Every rumor here has not been true. And 3rd party manufacturers make and sell apple parts and accessories.

 

[josephandrews222]

For a slight diversion....

I presume the data here are accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-M_lens_mount

===============================================================
So it is (apparently) true that there is exactly one auto-focus third-party zoom EF-M lens...the Tamron 18-200...introduced in 2014 (!).
===============================================================

One can imagine a number of reasons for the paucity of zoom AF EF-M lenses...but what should be fun to speculate about on a rumor site is whether or not this fact, for whatever reason, contributed to the demise of EF-M.

I don't know the answer to this 'question', but neither do most (all?!) of those who post here. But for sure corporate Canon has played a role in this sort of thing.

And I do find it interesting that, for years, commenters on this site and others have lamented the paucity of EF-M mount lenses!

Now there are posts here and elsewhere stating, basically, that they want a diversity of choices in their RF lens options...and some of these folks are posting that their whole 'decision' about the RF mount is dependent on this very thing!!!

I have no reason to disbelieve those who express these views...but as far as EF-M lenses are concerned...I always found Canon's options sufficient for the way that I (and my family) use M-mount cameras.

A necessary fact (no snark): in my family, we have acquired about 20K images with EF-M cameras and lenses--the format has played at least some role in our daughters' continued use of their Ms, along with the iPhones, when they travel.

But I'm inclined to lean slightly (55%-45%?) in the direction of those who think Canon is shooting themselves in the foot if in fact they are clamping down on third-party RF lenses.

And my view has always been that the EF-M format has always sort of been Canon's 'test bed' for mirrorless.

 

[jam05]

I don't like this at all. The RF mount has been out since 2018 (when the EOS-R was released) and yet we still don't have a full set of matching, pro quality RF primes. The absence of third party glass has really become apparent with RF. It's fine if Canon wants to restrict the RF mount, it's their patent and they can do with it what they wish, but if you're going to keep others from manufacturing lenses for your cameras, then you should at least have a full set of lenses available for consumers to purchase. I can only imagine that the reason they're keeping 3rd parties from selling RF glass at this stage, is because Canon hasn't finished their full lens lineup yet and they don't want customers stocking up on 3rd party glass over Canon glass. People tend to invest in one brand and stick to it. So if new customers flock to Sigma for their RF needs, due to the lack of available Canon glass, they'll likely continue to purchase matching Sigma glass from that point on.

Just because its posted doesnt make it valid. CR has been wrong many times. Its a rumor site

 

[jam05]

For a slight diversion....

I presume the data here are accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-M_lens_mount

===============================================================
So it is (apparently) true that there is exactly one auto-focus third-party zoom EF-M lens...the Tamron 18-200...introduced in 2014 (!).
===============================================================

One can imagine a number of reasons for the paucity of zoom AF EF-M lenses...but what should be fun to speculate about on a rumor site is whether or not this fact, for whatever reason, contributed to the demise of EF-M.

I don't know the answer to this 'question', but neither do most (all?!) of those who post here. But for sure corporate Canon has played a role in this sort of thing.

And I do find it interesting that, for years, commenters on this site and others have lamented the paucity of EF-M mount lenses!

Now there are posts here and elsewhere stating, basically, that they want a diversity of choices in their RF lens options...and some of these folks are posting that their whole 'decision' about the RF mount is dependent on this very thing!!!

I have no reason to disbelieve those who express these views...but as far as EF-M lenses are concerned...I always found Canon's options sufficient for the way that I (and my family) use M-mount cameras.

A necessary fact (no snark): in my family, we have acquired about 20K images with EF-M cameras and lenses--the format has played at least some role in our daughters' continued use of their Ms, along with the iPhones, when they travel.

But I'm inclined to lean slightly (55%-45%?) in the direction of those who think Canon is shooting themselves in the foot if in fact they are clamping down on third-party RF lenses.

And my view has always been that the EF-M format has always sort of been Canon's 'test bed' for mirrorless.

Dont believe everything you read. You posted one single manufacturer. There are Sigma, Zeiss, Rokinon, and other third party manufacturers of Canon lenses.