Why don't Canon make lenses for other mounts?

[Bennymiata]

Seeing that Sigma makes lenses for all mounts AND also makes its own cameras, why doesn't Canon sell at least some of its lenses in other mounts?

I reckon you could make a good business case for it, as many of the Canon lenses are so coveted by Nikon and Pentax users.
If Canon is being hammered in the sales of bodies (which I doubt), sales of all of these extra lenses would certainly help the bottom line.

 

[Jim Saunders]

I think if Canon had a business case for it they'd do it.

Jim

 

[Hector1970]

I'm sure it's because Canon want to lock users into buying their cameras.
A lot of users probably never go beyond the basic camera and kit lens.
But you've got to wonder that there is a huge market out there for Canon lenses.
I can only think of one Nikon lens that's desired by Canon users (the 14-24mm).
Nikon users would buy Canon lens. Especially D800 D810 users.
Maybe Canon feel the engineering involved isn't worth it for the volumes.
I'll be interested too to find out the real reason.

 

[privatebydesign]

They do.

They make lenses in the Arri PL mount, which is the fairly universal cine mount, as well as EF, EF-s and EF-m.

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm sure it's because Canon want to lock users into buying their cameras.
A lot of users probably never go beyond the basic camera and kit lens.
But you've got to wonder that there is a huge market out there for Canon lenses.
I can only think of one Nikon lens that's desired by Canon users (the 14-24mm).
Nikon users would buy Canon lens. Especially D800 D810 users.
Maybe Canon feel the engineering involved isn't worth it for the volumes.
I'll be interested too to find out the real reason.

Canon EF lenses have a very wide rear mount, it was a core engineering consideration at the outset of electronic function lenses, making stuff that is bigger work on compromise systems like the Nikon F mount that are much smaller is fraught with compatibility and legacy issues, he'll even Nikon messed up their own compatibility and their legacy issues are horrific. There is no way on earth I want to be paying for R&D that goes into some idiot demanding their EF lens works on a $100 Nikon body.

 

[davidson]

if they give away the ability to use their lenses, then users have no reason to buy their cameras, or flashes. or other crap they sell as accessories. you get arguably the best lenses to use with whatever other ecosystem you like..not very good business sense

 

[Bennymiata]

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the margins on lenses is much greater than it is on bodies, and I'm sure that Canon could overcome the technical problems too.

Take Fuji for example, they make lots of high-end cine lenses as well as making most of the new Hasselblad lenses.

It's probably that Canon is very jealous of its lenses and doesn't want Nikon, Pentax etc to take advantage of their excellent range.

 

[jdramirez]

Also, look at sigma and their issues with AF consistency. Canon doesn't give them their secret recipe, so Sigma reverse engineers it... and only somewhat effectively.

So if canon made lenses for Sony or Nikon or pentax, or even sigma... what happens if they don't share the Colonel's secret recipe... then the Canon brand is hurt as well as their reputation.

I have no issues with recommending either a Canon or a Nikon to a beginner... but it doesn't take much for someone to sour on a brand... because they heard a few bad things. I still haven't bought a Sigma lens even though I have had a boner for both the 35mm art and the 50 art... so there's that to consider.

 

[Don Haines]

Also, look at sigma and their issues with AF consistency. Canon doesn't give them their secret recipe, so Sigma reverse engineers it... and only somewhat effectively.

So if canon made lenses for Sony or Nikon or pentax, or even sigma... what happens if they don't share the Colonel's secret recipe... then the Canon brand is hurt as well as their reputation.

I have no issues with recommending either a Canon or a Nikon to a beginner... but it doesn't take much for someone to sour on a brand... because they heard a few bad things. I still haven't bought a Sigma lens even though I have had a boner for both the 35mm art and the 50 art... so there's that to consider.

When Canon adds a lens to their stable, they add characteristics of the lens to their firmware.

For example, let's say you are shooting with a 1DX and Canon comes out with a 200-600F5.6 lens. The lens would report itself as such to the body, and the body would say "I don't know you, but I will treat you like a 100-400" and the camera would focus the lens. Then Canon comes out with a firmware update for the 1DX and the focusing characteristics of the lens are in that firmware. Now the 1DX knows that if the AF sensor is X distance off that it has to drive the AF motor for time Y and it now focuses the lens faster with less hunting.

The problem with a Sigma (or Tamron) lens is that Canon does not put other manufacturer's characteristics into the Canon Firmware. Sigma (or Tamron) have to cheat and tell the camera body that their lens is whatever the closest Canon lens is to their characteristics. The AF can never be as good as a Canon Lens.

 

[jdramirez]

I read that through a scotch laden haze... but it made sense...

Also, look at sigma and their issues with AF consistency. Canon doesn't give them their secret recipe, so Sigma reverse engineers it... and only somewhat effectively.

So if canon made lenses for Sony or Nikon or pentax, or even sigma... what happens if they don't share the Colonel's secret recipe... then the Canon brand is hurt as well as their reputation.

I have no issues with recommending either a Canon or a Nikon to a beginner... but it doesn't take much for someone to sour on a brand... because they heard a few bad things. I still haven't bought a Sigma lens even though I have had a boner for both the 35mm art and the 50 art... so there's that to consider.

When Canon adds a lens to their stable, they add characteristics of the lens to their firmware.

For example, let's say you are shooting with a 1DX and Canon comes out with a 200-600F5.6 lens. The lens would report itself as such to the body, and the body would say "I don't know you, but I will treat you like a 100-400" and the camera would focus the lens. Then Canon comes out with a firmware update for the 1DX and the focusing characteristics of the lens are in that firmware. Now the 1DX knows that if the AF sensor is X distance off that it has to drive the AF motor for time Y and it now focuses the lens faster with less hunting.

The problem with a Sigma (or Tamron) lens is that Canon does not put other manufacturer's characteristics into the Canon Firmware. Sigma (or Tamron) have to cheat and tell the camera body that their lens is whatever the closest Canon lens is to their characteristics. The AF can never be as good as a Canon Lens.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the margins on lenses is much greater than it is on bodies, and I'm sure that Canon could overcome the technical problems too.

Take Fuji for example, they make lots of high-end cine lenses as well as making most of the new Hasselblad lenses.

It's probably that Canon is very jealous of its lenses and doesn't want Nikon, Pentax etc to take advantage of their excellent range.

I agree on the $$$ margin. I destroyed a 10-22mm and sent it to CPS. Got it back in 3 business days and only paid $59.00 for the repair! All was new except the front elements. The mount was still on the 7D, but the guts of the lens were ripped out. Makes you wonder what the "real production cost" of a new one is.

 

[Don Haines]

I read that through a scotch laden haze... but it made sense...

Also, look at sigma and their issues with AF consistency. Canon doesn't give them their secret recipe, so Sigma reverse engineers it... and only somewhat effectively.

So if canon made lenses for Sony or Nikon or pentax, or even sigma... what happens if they don't share the Colonel's secret recipe... then the Canon brand is hurt as well as their reputation.

I have no issues with recommending either a Canon or a Nikon to a beginner... but it doesn't take much for someone to sour on a brand... because they heard a few bad things. I still haven't bought a Sigma lens even though I have had a boner for both the 35mm art and the 50 art... so there's that to consider.

When Canon adds a lens to their stable, they add characteristics of the lens to their firmware.

For example, let's say you are shooting with a 1DX and Canon comes out with a 200-600F5.6 lens. The lens would report itself as such to the body, and the body would say "I don't know you, but I will treat you like a 100-400" and the camera would focus the lens. Then Canon comes out with a firmware update for the 1DX and the focusing characteristics of the lens are in that firmware. Now the 1DX knows that if the AF sensor is X distance off that it has to drive the AF motor for time Y and it now focuses the lens faster with less hunting.

The problem with a Sigma (or Tamron) lens is that Canon does not put other manufacturer's characteristics into the Canon Firmware. Sigma (or Tamron) have to cheat and tell the camera body that their lens is whatever the closest Canon lens is to their characteristics. The AF can never be as good as a Canon Lens.

I thought Scotch only helped make things clearer

To focus a lens as fast as possible, you accelerate the focusing elements in the direction that they need to be moved until you get to a point where if you "slam on the brakes" the focusing elements will come to rest in the focused position. If you know how far you need to go, what the acceleration rate is, and what the braking rate is, you can calculate the time required to drive each step. Canon knows these values for their lenses and (presumably) they use those values in the bodies to make the focusing as fast as practical.

They have negative reason to put in other companies data. Say they put in data for a Tamron 24-70F2.8 lens... and now the Tamron lens focuses as quickly and as accurately as the Canon lens... that takes away one of the reasons to buy the more expensive Canon lens, and will financially hurt Canon. Why would they go to extra work to cost themselves money?

As to using Canon lenses on other mounts, we are dealing with the exact same problem, but now from the other side... Why would Nikon or Sony put in the firmware to enable top performance out of a Canon lens when it will cost them sales of their own lenses.

So much for the electronics, now on to the mechanicals...

Many of us who have been shooting for a long time will remember the Tamron Adapt-all mount. You would buy the Tamron Lens, buy the adaptor for your body, snap them together, and off to the races. (I still have my Tamron 90mm macro lens with it's Olympus OM mount and it's Canon EF mount) Slap in some simple electronics, and you could do the same thing with digital cameras. I seem to recall something about either Sigma or Tamron starting up a program where on certain lenses you could send them back for a mount change at a reasonable price.... same thing...

 

[PureClassA]

Don, spot on. However (at least in my experience) I have had great results with the new ART primes. Obviously primes AF is far easier to account for than a zoom, so I'd guess Sig zooms suffer more from of this. Anyone with a newer Sig zoom have a thought here? Ive been considering the 24-105 for vacations and general BS

 

[Canon1]

Sigma makes camera bodies??

 

[NancyP]

Yes, Sigma makes camera bodies, and software. The camera bodies and software are not as polished as the latest lens offerings. Sigma Foveon sensors are interesting specialist sensors particularly good for landscape photographers and others who dwell at base ISO all the time. Sadly, the software, Sigma Photo Pro, has many many bugs and incomprehensible lacks (no cropping!?!) as well as a pretty decent RAW converter. I love my little Sigma Merrill compacts (APS-C , focal lengths 19, 30, 50mm) but no question, aside from the stellar IQ at base ISO, the operability of the cameras is wretched. So I think of them as very tiny view cameras .

 

[Halfrack]

Why doesn't Chevy make interior accessories for Fords... Why doesn't BMW make rims that will fit on a Kia...

These are all stupid questions, the OP seems to misunderstand what roles companies have. Canon makes PL lenses and PL mount cameras because the movie industry requires it - and they're in the movie business. There is no reason for Canon to make lenses for any other form factor.

Sigma has their own mount, and their own camera. Sigma's profits are based on making glass that works with other manufacturers camera bodies at a discount. Canon sells a camera system - with components that work amazingly together, at a premium. Two completely different business models.

Oh, and Fuji makes the Hasselblad HC lenses because they designed the GX645 - aka the H body.