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

[dlee13]

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

A handful are complaining, the rest are selling their gear and swapping to a brand that does allow them to use modern third party lenses lol

 

[jam05]

I think this is likely. But I think it is a bit more like, Canon needs 1st crack on any sale of RF lenses. Nobody here knows or seems to consider how much R&D money went into developing the RF mount and the new RF lenses. So nobody knows how many cameras and especially lenses Canon needs to sell before they recoup that money. A year's worth? 3 years? 5 years? I have no idea, but from a business point of view, Canon would be stupid if they if they allowed competitors to make profits on RF lenses when they were the ones who spent all the R&D money.

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've been in that situation of having to spend $700 a month for a drug while waiting for the generic version to come to market. Luckily I had health insurance that kicked in after my $1800 deductible. Many aren't so lucky.

But the point is, nobody has to buy the Canon RF lenses - either because they find the higher end versions to be too expensive or because they find the consumer grade lenses lacking in some way. Nobody. Not one person. Want cheaper alternatives? There is an entire lineup of EF lenses, made by numerous companies. The used market is overflowing with very affordable EF lenses. All you need is a $99 adapter.

I understand people want cheaper alternatives. I understand people who visit forums like this are even more impatient because they want the latest gear.
You can of course express your anger and your frustration on forums like this. Better yet, you can express your anger and frustration by not buying RF lenses, or even buying cameras and lenses from other brands. Or you can be patient and wait to see what happens. Unlike with generic drugs, nobody will suffer serious consequences by not being able to buy a third party RF lens. Nobody needs to buy an RF lens at all.

Did my own research. This is from a coppied post from DPReview. Not even legitimate. B&H Photo in the USA is and will continue to sell its 3rd party Viltrox Canon lenses and have more on their way.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A handful are complaining, the rest are selling their gear and swapping to a brand that does allow them to use modern third party lenses lol

That’s been happening for years, as people routinely claim here. Yet somehow, Canon keeps on dominating the market lol

 

[jam05]

I'm certain that somebody from Canon's marketing research team checks in here from time to time. We're certainly not important but "irrelevant" is probably overstating the case. The people on this forum are gear heads and almost certainly spend much more on equipment than the average buyer. Of course, we're a very small sample, one of many samples, and there are a lot more average buyers.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Canon had the reputation for regarding third party lens manufacturers as parasites. I see no reason to believe that they feel differently now.

The problem with stating opinions about why Canon is acting the way they do is that there are dozens of possible reasons and everybody here is just guessing.

And the information posted was actually copied from a posted comment on DPReview. Country of origin unknown. B&H photo USA is still selling and receiving shipments from the said lens manufacturer.

 

[David - Sydney]

Canon never dropped support for EF mount lenses on their RF mount bodies.

The concern or clickbait is about 3rd parties not being able to sell 3rd party RF lenses today.

I get the angst but there is no real issue for Canon only that users can't get cheaper lenses in R mount.

 

[David - Sydney]

A handful are complaining, the rest are selling their gear and swapping to a brand that does allow them to use modern third party lenses lol

I see that you have a R/RF system... on what basis are you making your comment?
If you were switching then let us know and feel free to leave the forum.
If you any data to share about others then feel free to share it for us.

 

[antonio_s]

I think the background to this is around Canon looking for another paid income stream in licensing the software running the RF mount interface. Others have mentioned that Nikon and Sony have taken an 'open source' attitude to this type of mount software over the years (in contrast to Canon), but that probably reflects that those companies have business models that assume their lens line-ups will be filled out (and updated) by 3rd parties. Canon is taking a different approach.

Personally, I'd rather have a lot more 3rd party options - I've had good experiences with smaller makers such as Samyang and Laowa in the past, and the ability of those (affordable and good) lenses to properly access AF (and EXIF data in Laowa's case!) would be great. But we live in a capitalist world, and a company such as Canon is as big as it is for a reason.

Sony charges fees to license their protocols. The difference is that Canon never licensed the EF protocols, as they've said (even for a fee). But Sigma reverse engineered them very well, especially with GV, where they got even in-camera corrections working!

 

[dolina]

I get the angst but there is no real issue for Canon only that users can't get cheaper lenses in R mount.

2nd best option would be RF body to EF lens adapter for any EF lens.

Give Canon & Nikon at least 6 years to recoup their investment.

Can't wait? Move to Sony

 

[Ozarker]

Well, third party might be an "ok" option. I know this: the Canon RF 50/85 f/1.2L lenses are tack sharp wide open. Not just a little bit sharp. I don't particularly appreciate lenses rated at f/1.8 that aren't sharp until f/2.8 or more. That's no bargain.

 

[unfocused]

So...to summarize:

No one knows anything.

Canon may be taking or threatening to take actions to protect their proprietary technology.

Has Canon ever licensed its technology to third-part competitors?

Have third parties ever been deterred by having to reverse engineer lens mount technology?

Is any Canon customer who already owns an R series camera selling that camera because they can't get cheap third-party lenses?

Is Canon likely to make a bad business decision that will hurt their sales?

If Canon determines that aggressive protection of their rights is hurting sales or causing them to lose market share, would they continue down an unprofitable road or would they revisit that strategy?

 

[SNJ Ops]

These forums have active membership numbering in the hundreds or low thousands. Canon sells millions of cameras and lenses a year. These ‘discussions’ are irrelevant.

Before you argue that polling samples only a small fraction of the relevant population, keep in mind that polling depends on random sampling of the relevant population. Photo forums, particularly gear-oriented ones like this, are not representative of the broader camera-buying population.

Canon knows how many bodies and lenses they’ve sold, and I’m certain they have an excellent estimate of the unit volumes of 3rd party lens makers. If Canon is choosing to block 3rd parties from making RF lenses, they aren’t doing so capriciously or out of spite. They are choosing to do so because their financial analysis indicates it will be more profitable for them than allowing such lenses to be made. The fact that you and a handful of other people aren’t happy about that is meaningless to Canon.

Yes, they could be wrong. But it’s far, far more likely that you’re wrong. Analysis by a global multibillion dollar corporation that dominates the market and has led it for two decades, or a few people whining on niche Internet forums. I know where to place my bet.

Its not irrelevant at all, the fact that this topic is even being discussed on Nikon Rumours and Nikon forums is significant.

While some have claimed to not care that 3rd party options are scarce on RF mount how many Canon shooters would complain if Tamron, Zeiss, Voigtländer, Sigma, Tokina and Samyang all announced that they are all going to release RF mount glass in agreement with Canon to ensure the best possible performance?

 

[dtaylor]

Canon makes nothing out of opening up the RF protocols for free. If they sold a license to a 3rd party then it would be very expensive as Canon would need to retain their R&D profits.

In a competitive market this is false. Opening the mount...or at least not interfering with 3rd party lenses produced via reverse engineering...will retain a certain number of users/sales, as well as capture a certain number of new users/sales. Preventing 3rd party lenses will lose a certain number in both categories.

Is there a 3rd party lens that is not available in EF which would be seen as a must-have for the R mount?

Is Canon moving to RF or not? If so, then "well it's on EF" won't last forever. Eventually Sigma, Tamron, etc. will stop making those lenses. And if they can't make them for RF, they will focus all of that engineering talent and manufacturing capacity on other mounts.

 

[SnowMiku]

Perhaps Canon want all of the third parties to pay a license fee to develop lenses for the RF mount? Unfortunately this would mean that the third parties will have to increase prices. I wonder if the third parties will be given the official code to run the RF protocol and information on firmware updates once paying the licensing fees? Or if they would still have to reverse engineer the code? I think buying a third party lens for RF would be quite risky at this stage due to the more frequent firmware updates.

Either that or Canon wants the third parties to stay away from RF so everyone buys the Canon lenses.

Does anyone here own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary Lens for EF-M? I was thinking of buying that so I was wondering if anyone has had any problems with it? It will be used on an M5. I have considered the Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM but I would rather save the money and get the Sigma.

 

[dtaylor]

And the information posted was actually copied from a posted comment on DPReview. Country of origin unknown. B&H photo USA is still selling and receiving shipments from the said lens manufacturer.

Viltrox has removed their RF lenses from their site and store.

 

[Jethro]

Perhaps Canon want all of the third parties to pay a license fee to develop lenses for the RF mount? Unfortunately this would mean that the third parties will have to increase prices. I wonder if the third parties will be given the official code to run the RF protocol and information on firmware updates once paying the licensing fees? Or if they would still have to reverse engineer the code? I think buying a third party lens for RF would be quite risky at this stage due to the more frequent firmware updates.

Either that or Canon wants the third parties to stay away from RF so everyone buys the Canon lenses.

Does anyone here own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary Lens for EF-M? I was thinking of buying that so I was wondering if anyone has had any problems with it? It will be used on an M5. I have considered the Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM but I would rather save the money and get the Sigma.

Licensing (and this is all speculation) would probably involve getting access to software allowing the lensmaker to (for eg) take advantage of the capabilities of all 12 connection pins in the RF mount (as opposed to rolling forward some of the 3rd party manufacturer's back-engineered software from 8 pin EF mounts). Others have mentioned the advantages of full access to IBIS integration, and in-camera image enhancement.

It would, absolutely, represent an additional cost to the 3rd party maker, BUT, they would then not have to back engineer anything (assuming that was even possible for the RF mount) which in itself is costly and time consuming. Plus, they would be able to produce a superior product which would justify a higher price.

 

[dlee13]

That’s been happening for years, as people routinely claim here. Yet somehow, Canon keeps on dominating the market lol

Canon sales have been staying strong but Nikon’s have been going down and Sony’s has been rising. Plus you’ll find photography forums have really died down in activity compared to maybe 5 years ago. Now people use stuff like IG and Reddit which I see a lot of swapping.

I see that you have a R/RF system... on what basis are you making your comment?
If you were switching then let us know and feel free to leave the forum.
If you any data to share about others then feel free to share it for us.

Actually had, just sold everything and swapped to Sony for the lenses 2 weeks ago I think the R6 is arguably a better body than the A7IV, but the lens pricing and range is too much to overlook.

 

[Chaitanya]

Novo Nordisk? If so, an admirable company.

I remember hearing phrase- Pharma companies exist to make profit from selling drugs and not to improve health of their consumers.

 

[koenkooi]

So...to summarize:

[..]
Has Canon ever licensed its technology to third-part competitors?
[..]

IIRC the Zeiss EF lenses had a proper license .

 

[Ozarker]

Its not irrelevant at all, the fact that this topic is even being discussed on Nikon Rumours and Nikon forums is significant.

While some have claimed to not care that 3rd party options are scarce on RF mount how many Canon shooters would complain if Tamron, Zeiss, Voigtländer, Sigma, Tokina and Samyang all announced that they are all going to release RF mount glass in agreement with Canon to ensure the best possible performance?

I don't think it matters whether we complain or not.

What's in it for Canon? Canon wants to sell Canon lenses. Giving a competitor the keys to the system is risky.

 

[Berowne]

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.

Seems to be so, neuro. Aripiprazol was developed by Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Phase III started 1995, it entered the Market in USA in 2002, US Patent expired in 2014 and the FDA anounced the first generic in 2015. At this time the anual sale was around $7 billion.