The state of third-party lenses for the RF mount, Canon may be involved
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
It’s really hard to believe this way of business!
First Samyang... now Viltrox!
To good that I bought the 85 f1.8... before 1-2 months.
This is a really bad politic move of Canon to stop those alternatives to lenses where nearly no one is by Canon (600€ 85 2.0 vs Viltrox 300€ 85 1.8... and the ~600-800€ Samyang 85 f1.4)
I was told by a Sigma employee that they won’t build anything until it’s allowed and supported by Canon itself... with algorithms etc.! Because they don’t want to re-engineer again (like for EF).
It feels like Canon is aiming their “Canon” to others which are trying to walk through their garden/market....
First Samyang... now Viltrox!
To good that I bought the 85 f1.8... before 1-2 months.
This is a really bad politic move of Canon to stop those alternatives to lenses where nearly no one is by Canon (600€ 85 2.0 vs Viltrox 300€ 85 1.8... and the ~600-800€ Samyang 85 f1.4)
I was told by a Sigma employee that they won’t build anything until it’s allowed and supported by Canon itself... with algorithms etc.! Because they don’t want to re-engineer again (like for EF).
It feels like Canon is aiming their “Canon” to others which are trying to walk through their garden/market....
Upvote
0
For me, Canon cameras and lenses are my work gear and literally every previous third-party lens I've owned presented some sort of issue at one point or another that rendered the lens useless for a period of time or it had some strange issue develop. My Sigma Art primes are still terrific lenses and because I only have my remaining "niche" primes of 24mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 that I don't use as often as my 50mm and 85mm, they're not going anywhere. But I certainly can't afford to have a lens in my bag that could be rendered useless overnight because of a firmware update - that has been the case with some Tamron and Sigma lenses I've owned.
With all that said, this is a truly unfortunate blunder from Canon. Third party lens options are one of the primary elements that helped the success of the EF mount. I know when I was an up-and-coming teenager I could only afford a few Canon lenses and filled in what I could with Sigma stuff. I would eventually only rely on Canon lenses in my work kit, but that took a long time to fully be able to afford. This is very bad news for the countless thousands of aspiring photographers that want to shoot Canon are will have to either adapt an out of production EF lens, or use one of the many JUNK cheap-o RF lens options on the market right now. And yes, I said JUNK because for the prices they're selling for, you could have a Tamron or Sigma f/2.8 zoom that crushes it and Canon knows that.
With all that said, this is a truly unfortunate blunder from Canon. Third party lens options are one of the primary elements that helped the success of the EF mount. I know when I was an up-and-coming teenager I could only afford a few Canon lenses and filled in what I could with Sigma stuff. I would eventually only rely on Canon lenses in my work kit, but that took a long time to fully be able to afford. This is very bad news for the countless thousands of aspiring photographers that want to shoot Canon are will have to either adapt an out of production EF lens, or use one of the many JUNK cheap-o RF lens options on the market right now. And yes, I said JUNK because for the prices they're selling for, you could have a Tamron or Sigma f/2.8 zoom that crushes it and Canon knows that.
Upvote
0
Canon locked up as much of the RF mount lens interface as possible with patents and are apparently enforceing them. I noticed the detail and careful way they were writing the patents for the RF interface in the years before it was released. There are possibly some behind the scenes features that are protected by laws from being duplicated or decoded.
The decision to open a interface to 3rd parties seems to be one of $$$. RF lenses are a huge profit item for Canon, they've mentioned that in their financial reports which underlines just how important it is to them to restrict poaching of any patents.
Nikon, on the other hand, does not appear to have the same leverage over their mirrorless lenses and 3rd parties are able to compete.
If Canon were a near monopoly, then laws would come into play that required opening up to competition. I don't think the governments see cameras as falling into a area needing more regulation.
The decision to open a interface to 3rd parties seems to be one of $$$. RF lenses are a huge profit item for Canon, they've mentioned that in their financial reports which underlines just how important it is to them to restrict poaching of any patents.
Nikon, on the other hand, does not appear to have the same leverage over their mirrorless lenses and 3rd parties are able to compete.
If Canon were a near monopoly, then laws would come into play that required opening up to competition. I don't think the governments see cameras as falling into a area needing more regulation.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
I always felt Canon where the Microsoft of cameras with their enormous market share and that there are more 5-series cameras out in the wild than even a all the models of Nikon and Sony combined. Nikon always felt like the Apple of cameras with the lower market share but emphasis on quality.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
This is very frustrating. I got into this as a hobby about 6 years ago. Canon seemed like a great option given the immense library of EF lenses, both first and third party (used and new). I'm too deep into it now to sell everything and switch, so I'm here for the duration. But if I was entering the space now, I would look at this and almost certainly choose Sony for the same reasons I chose Canon 6 years ago.
Upvote
0
Why did many of us buy and pay a significant premium for Canon EF lenses over third party ? Better build or better optics ? Or because the AF worked properly. With me it was (is) certainly the latter.
If third party RF lenses focus anything like adapted third party EF lenses on R bodies then all those AF accuracy worries are gone for the consumer, and begin for Canon.
So I can see why Canon are going to get twitchy over Tamron or Sigma lenses in the RF mount.
If third party RF lenses focus anything like adapted third party EF lenses on R bodies then all those AF accuracy worries are gone for the consumer, and begin for Canon.
So I can see why Canon are going to get twitchy over Tamron or Sigma lenses in the RF mount.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
