RF-S Lenses - What We Know and What is Rumored

Sittatunga wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

EDWARD ARTISTE wrote:

55-200 has always been a starter lens. AFAIR the EFM version was a bit better than usual.
That said, good god RFS owners have the worst lens lineup imaginable. Hope your patience pays off. It didnt for EFS.

This is why I just can't move to the R system for APS-C while Canon has a ban on third party RF/RF-S mount lenses. We now have two mounts (EF-M and EF-S) that they have done the bare minimum regarding lenses. The only way we will get decent variety of RF-S, and to a lesser extent RF, lenses is through the support third party lens makers.

Since 1959 when they introduced the Canonflex, the nearest Canon have got to supporting third party* lenses was the mount adapters for Exakta, Nikon and Pentax screw lenses - even those had no provision for TTL meter coupling or diaphragm control. They didn't carry those mount adapters over to the EF mount either. Third party RF and RF-S lenses will come as soon as people work out how to make them work without infringing any patents, just as they did for EF and FD mounts, but anybody expecting exciting crop format lenses should stick to EOS M or move to Fuji.

* Apart from (in an effort in 1990 to keep the FD line going after it was eclipsed by the EOS cameras) getting Cosina to build the Canon T60 version of the Cosina CT-1 / Nikon FM10 / Olympus OM2000. But that was using a third party to build a camera to support Canon's own lenses.

Canon may not have supported third party lenses but they never actively prevented them through legal action like they are doing now. Canon's decision regarding 3rd party lenses is going to hurt them more and more the longer it stays in place. Sony is the biggest beneficiary of Canon's greed.

They've always taken legal action when their patents are abused, both with their lenses and their tone cartridges.

Not with their lenses in the EF era. They didn't make it easy for third party lens makers with the EF or EF-M mounts but they never did what they have done with the RF mount by sending cease and desist letters.

The only basis of cease and desist letters would be for infringement of patents. There is no basis for legal action otherwise. Taking patents out and not enforcing them is worse than a waste of time and effort, because it puts what would otherwise be trade secrets into the public domain. The EF lens patents will have been taken out more than forty five years ago - are you sure Canon weren't enforcing them in the 1980s and 90s? And they were certainly warning people off Sigma lenses six years ago, e.g.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/canon-sigma-incompatibility-lenses-corrections/

We don't know if Canon has a legitimate claim against 3rd party lens makers.  They can drag a small lens maker into court and bleed them dry from paying attorneys' fees.  For third party lens makers the juice isn't worth the squeeze to fight Canon.  Canon counts on this intimidation tactic to get their way.  The real losers are Canon users followed by Canon themselves in the long term.

The longer their ban goes on the more and more it will cost them in users. Canon needs third party lens support more than third party lens makers need to produce RF lenses.

That's your opinion, but it's evidently not Canon's.

I can't count the number of times I hear people in the media trash Canon for preventing third party RF lenses.  It is mentioned nearly every time when comparing whether going with Canon is a good decision.  This constant negative press will hurt Canon in the long term.  At some point in the future Canon will have to capitulate and reverse their decision.  It is just a matter of time.  In the mean time Sony and Fuji will be reaping the benefits of having robust support from third party lens makers.  The gap between Sony and Canon regarding FF MILC sales is small.  We will know within a few years if Canon pays a price for what they are doing by seeing who can take a substantial lead in FF MILC sales.

IMO, they did this because they know they will not be able to build the RF lens catalog soon enough, or at all, to keep third party lens makers from taking Canon users' money in droves. Either way this situation is not the least bit good for Canon users.