Watch the SIGMA live event

[photophil]

I have! Its quite depressing not to have access to any 3rd party AF lenses! When I entered the RF System, Canon had not put this in place yet! I sincerely hope the change their mind about this!

They may in time.

For now, the only options for those in the RF system are native RF lenses, legacy EF glass, or manual lenses (or bitching and moaning on this forum repeatedly )

 

[tomri]

I have! Its quite depressing not to have access to any 3rd party AF lenses! When I entered the RF System, Canon had not put this in place yet! I sincerely hope the change their mind about this!

That is why I will hold on with buying into a closed mount until all the lenses I need are available at a price point I am willing to pay. The problem is particularly prominent with portrait lenses in the RF mount where you currently have only two choices: an uber-expensive f1.2 and an underwhelming plasticy f2.0 with moving front element. Even the EF85/1.8 tops the latter by having internal focussing and being faster, smaller, and cheaper; released more than 30 years ago, in 1992....

 

[Maximilian]

... (or bitching and moaning on this forum repeatedly )

Without, this forum would be boring, wouldn't it?

 

[sailingstupid]

Canon should let Sigma and other third parties make RF lenses Canon does not plan on offering. I couldn't care less about another big, heavy and fast lens. I want a 40/2 Art from Sigma with the optical qualities of the 40 1.4 Art and the Size of the RF 35 1.8. Make it f/2.5 if they can't keep the size down. I don't need another big lens. My RF 50 1.2 is big enough. Thank you very much.

 

[heretakis]

That is why I will hold on with buying into a closed mount until all the lenses I need are available at a price point I am willing to pay. The problem is particularly prominent with portrait lenses in the RF mount where you currently have only two choices: an uber-expensive f1.2 and an underwhelming plasticy f2.0 with moving front element. Even the EF85/1.8 tops the latter by having internal focussing and being faster, smaller, and cheaper; released more than 30 years ago, in 1992....

I am just using my much loved EF glass for the moment! It produces beautiful results!

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I always wondered if Sigma would really need any new algorithms for the autofocus on the RF mount, as all old EF lenses work fine with an adapter. Does that adapter somehow contain new autofocus algorithms?

I would really be okay with the most basic autofocus when using a third party lens. Just good enough to focus on a large subject that is not moving.

 

[tomri]

Canon product management have really done a great job differentiating their product lines and closing their mount to third parties. So much that they are likely going to lose me as a customer. But nobody cares, I guess.

 

[Surab]

Canon product management have really done a great job differentiating their product lines and closing their mount to third parties. So much that they are likely going to lose me as a customer. But nobody cares, I guess.

Well they don't because enough people buy Canon and plenty of their users appear not care. I am yet to buy into a FF mount, but I wished I could combine R bodies (amazing AF, handling and controls) with Z lenses (24-120, 14-30, 1.8 primes, and pancakes are all more interesting to me than what basically any RF lens) with access to some of the Tamrons from the E mount. For now my hope is that the Z6 III somehow matches the original R6 in AF performance.

 

[AJ]

Apologies as I’m sure it has been discussed ad nauseam but can someone remind me why 3rd parties can’t make a RF mount lens that uses EF protocols? All the EF and 3rd party EF lenses work great with the adapter, can’t they just make an “ef” lens with a built in adapter or was that what the whole cease and desist order was about?

One issue would be the throat diameter. RF is wider than EF, so an EF design would restrict the optical design. That said, EF is wider than Sony E, so from a throat diameter perspective one should be able to use optical designs for Sony for an EF design.
The other bit is flange distance and mirror clearance. In theory, one should be able to create a lens with a physical EF mount that has elements close to the shutter curtains - so close that it doesn't clear the mirror of a DSLR. EF-S kinda worked this way - it fit on EF but had elements closer than the EF specification). However I could see some hesitation on the part of third-party manufacturers to create an EF-mount lens that could wreck a DSLR's mirror.
Then there is the bit about patents. It seems that the RF protocol is patented. But the physical mount seems to be okay since third-party manufacturers have been making EF-RF adapters, which have an RF mount.
But yes - I too wonder about the ability to have third-party lenses with mirrorless designs that use the EF protocol. There would be some compromises with the EF protocol, such as the ability to synch IBIS and lens stabilization, but you'd have a lens with aperture control and well-functioning AF. That's the 98% solution in my mind. It sucks to sit on the sidelines whenever new Tamron, Sigma, Zeiss, etc gear gets announced and there is no way to get it to fit on an RF mount body.

 

[photophil]

One issue would be the throat diameter. RF is wider than EF, so an EF design would restrict the optical design. That said, EF is wider than Sony E, so from a throat diameter perspective one should be able to use optical designs for Sony for an EF design.
The other bit is flange distance and mirror clearance. In theory, one should be able to create a lens with a physical EF mount that has elements close to the shutter curtains - so close that it doesn't clear the mirror of a DSLR. EF-S kinda worked this way - it fit on EF but had elements closer than the EF specification). However I could see some hesitation on the part of third-party manufacturers to create an EF-mount lens that could wreck a DSLR's mirror.
Then there is the bit about patents. It seems that the RF protocol is patented. But the physical mount seems to be okay since third-party manufacturers have been making EF-RF adapters, which have an RF mount.
But yes - I too wonder about the ability to have third-party lenses with mirrorless designs that use the EF protocol. There would be some compromises with the EF protocol, such as the ability to synch IBIS and lens stabilization, but you'd have a lens with aperture control and well-functioning AF. That's the 98% solution in my mind. It sucks to sit on the sidelines whenever new Tamron, Sigma, Zeiss, etc gear gets announced and there is no way to get it to fit on an RF mount body.

I think they were referring to a lens with an RF mount but with the EF autofocus protocol, the optical design and mount would be for an RF body exclusively.

 

[cayenne]

Something Canon users will be missing out on.

Edit: these modern 50mm lenses are ridiculously big, just otherday I was using my old SMC Pentax-A 50mm 1.4(reversed) and its such a small lens compared to these modern 50mm lenses.

Well, if you take out all the auto-focusing Motors, etc....you can get the lens pretty darned small.
You can run some tiny, but still VERY good older vintage glass on a Canon RF with an adapter....sometimes almost comical such small lenses on the huge RF bodies....but you still get good results.

C

 

[mxwphoto]

https://petapixel.com/2023/02/07/ca...azon-listings-and-suing-printer-toner-makers/

It appears lenses aren't the only things being restricted to 1st party. You spend a bunch of resources on developing lenses and want to keep system first party, grumble grumble fine, whatever.

But restricting a consumable like toner is like saying you cannot use any memory card in camera other than Canon branded ones. Hope Canon doesn't fall into the deep end of being a lawsuit troll as the toner verification chips do nothing other than trying to keep others out.

 

[Docofthewild]

I think they were referring to a lens with an RF mount but with the EF autofocus protocol, the optical design and mount would be for an RF body exclusively.

Exactly! Honestly, they could even make it with an ef mount and a 1/4” ef-rf adapter that would just stay on the lens. It wouldn’t function on an actual ef camera so I do wonder if they would open themselves up to liability as they would be clearly making a rf less through a work around.

Even if the courts agreed that Canon was being ridiculous, the cost of the litigation to get there may very wipe out the profit they would make from such a lens.

I wonder if 10 years ago when the 3rd parties were smaller companies if the reward would have outweighed the risk that it clearly it does not currently.

 

[AJ]

But restricting a consumable like toner is like saying you cannot use any memory card in camera other than Canon branded ones. Hope Canon doesn't fall into the deep end of being a lawsuit troll as the toner verification chips do nothing other than trying to keep others out.

Only Canon-branded memory cards - Yikes! Don't give them any ideas... This would actually be really easy to implement, like chipped batteries.

 

[koenkooi]

Only Canon-branded memory cards - Yikes! Don't give them any ideas... This would actually be really easy to implement, like chipped batteries.

RED does exactly that

 

[jd7]

One issue would be the throat diameter. RF is wider than EF, so an EF design would restrict the optical design. That said, EF is wider than Sony E, so from a throat diameter perspective one should be able to use optical designs for Sony for an EF design.

RF and EF mounts have the same diameter. It is 54mm in both cases.

EOS R | EOS R SYSTEM

 

[jd7]

I don't think it's the RF *mount* that is the issue - otherwise Venus Optics (Laowa) would presumably also have been barred from producing their (Manual focus, non-electronic) RF lenses.

The issue, allegedly, is that the RF autofocus protocols would be impinged on. But, as @Docofthewild suggests, it should still be possible for third parties to produce AF lenses using the EF protocols, as they've done for many years, and to simply extend the barrel and incorporate a RF mount. This would effectively be the same as using a third party EF lens via a EF-RF adaptor.

Equally, they could adapt their existing more compact MILC lens designs to fit the RF mount, but use EF protocols, ignoring the extra RF pins. That way, the AF protocols of RF would not be impinged on, and no RF intellectual property would be stolen.

It may simply be that Sigma and Tamron are uncertain of the legalities, and don't want to risk a damaging conflict with the Big Bad Giant, so they'd rather wait until Canon gives their "kind permission".

Meanwhile, they can design a whole range of lenses for Sony and L mount, knowing that if/when Canon releases the protocols and grants licences, they can easily adapt those lenses by updating their firmware and wiring to the appropriate RF pins.

I have not tried to investigate exactly what IP Canon is using to block third party lens manufacturers. If it was just something involving the physical RF mount, presumably we wouldn't see third party RF mount manual focus lenses (unless perhaps Canon doesn't care about competition from manual focus lenses and given the OK, I guess). However, if it was just the auto focus protocol for RF, presumably third parties could make RF mount lenses which use EF mount AF protocols and essentially include an EF/RF adapter within the lens. There were reports that's what at least one of Samyang's RF lenses did, but Canon seems to have blocked sale of that lens. So, it seems to be a combination of the RF mount and AF which results in the IP problem for third parties. (I guess another possibility is the reports about the Samyang RF lens being just an EF lens with an adapter built into it were wrong, and third parties could build RF mount lenses that way bit they are choosing not to because, as I understand it, they would be missing out some benefits of the RF mount if they did that, or perhaps they think they lenses would be too large (allthough presumably the adapter would not need to deal with flange distance since the lens would be designed for RF, and if the adapter was just dealing with AF presumably it would not add much to the size or weight of the lens). Given how well EF mount lenses perform on the RF system, neither of those possibilities seems very likely to me.)

 

[jd7]

Sigma could just release those lenses for Canon without autofocus and then "hackers" (who are secretly supported by Sigma) could publish a lens firmware that supports autofocus. Then Sigma would not be liable for the copyright breach unless Canon could prove that they are behind it.

You have to wonder if Sigma selling manual focus lenses which just happen to have all of the AF hardware in them (but inactive) could possibly make people a tiny bit suspicious of Sigma's role in your scheme

 

[David - Sydney]

Then there is the bit about patents. It seems that the RF protocol is patented. But the physical mount seems to be okay since third-party manufacturers have been making EF-RF adapters, which have an RF mount.

I am guessing that the protocols are encrypted. Would be simple to do and avoids any reverse engineering which is how the 3rd parties got around the EF protocols.
Are they patented? That would assume that the patent has been released. Can you point to it?

 

[David - Sydney]

I haven't watched the video but do we know what mounts the new Sigma lenses will support? The 16mm/1.4 could be interesting if in EF and coma is low.