No dual pixel AF goodness for 3rd party lenses?

[Pritzl]

OK, this has me a little alarmed:

Dual Pixel CMOS AF will work with 103 current and legacy EF-mount lenses, encompassing most of the company's modern lens family. The few lenses that can't take advantage of on-sensor phase-detect focusing will fall back to a legacy contrast AF system. You can't choose this system through the camera's menu; it will simply turn itself on when the camera detects an incompatible lens.

From here: http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/canon-eos-70d-first-impressions-review

Could Canon be trying to cripple 3rd party lenses? I really hope not!

 

[Jeff Peterman]

I think it may have problems with light hitting the sensor at extreme angles, so maybe it has problems with things like fish-eye lenses, or maybe problems with lenses longer than 600 mm.

That would be my guess - nothing to do with the lens brand.

 

[Pritzl]

Looking at the list of unsupported Canon lenses I could discern no obvious pattern, except them being older lenses for the most part. The bit that has me worried is that it seems it is up to the body to decide if a lens is supported or not and if they choose to either explicitly or implicitly lock it down to newer Canon lenses that would be a real shame... Not to mention grounds for an anticompetitive lawsuit.

 

[Doug J]

Pritzl wrote:

OK, this has me a little alarmed:

Dual Pixel CMOS AF will work with 103 current and legacy EF-mount lenses, encompassing most of the company's modern lens family. The few lenses that can't take advantage of on-sensor phase-detect focusing will fall back to a legacy contrast AF system. You can't choose this system through the camera's menu; it will simply turn itself on when the camera detects an incompatible lens.

From here: http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/canon-eos-70d-first-impressions-review

Could Canon be trying to cripple 3rd party lenses? I really hope not!

More likely they do not care to design in compatibility for all of the 3rd party lenses, assuming their optical designs would even work with this on-sensor AF. Typically the camera manufacturers evolve their systems and the 3rd party lens companies have to reverse engineer the designs and develop workarounds. Nothing new.

 

[sleibson]

Some 3rd-party lens vendors license Canon's EOS mount. Some are known to reverse engineer the EOS mount and the reverse engineering can't take into account future bodies that might invoke heretofore unused features designed into the mount. For example, this turned out to be a significant problem for Sigma's EOS-compatible lenses when Canon started building EOS digital SLRs. Lenses designed for EOS film cameras sometimes would not work with the newer bodies. The lenses that didn't work either needed to be "re-chipped" (if that was possible) or they simply didn't keep up. If the lens wasn't compatible, you got the generic "I don't feel good" Error 99 from the camera.

The EOS mount is not a published industry standard so Canon has no economic reason to ensure that reverse-engineered (unlicensed) lenses stay compatible but several reasons for ensuring that licensed lenses are compatible if at all possible.

--
Steve Leibson
www.sleibson.com
Shooting with Canons for 40 years

 

[Pritzl]

Actually what I'm fearing is something new, an explicit list of compatible lenses against which the camera checks before enabling the on-sensor phase detect AF. Such a scenario, if true, would go beyond not explicitly supporting 3rd party lenses into explicitly crippling them. I hope I'm terribly wrong and Canon's lawyers were smart enough to spot the legal risk of taking that direction.

 

[PC Wheeler]

Pritzl wrote:

Looking at the list of unsupported Canon lenses I could discern no obvious pattern,

Where did you find this list?

 

[sleibson]

It takes extra engineering work to make a camera incompatible, the list of designated incompatible lenses quickly goes out of date, and you tick off EOS camera body owners in the process. Benign neglect is far more reasonable to expect than active antipathy towards 3rd-party lens vendors. Otherwise, why wait for a new feature to bar an entire company's worth of lenses? Might as well put them on the no-fly list with your next firmware update.

 

[Pritzl]

sleibson wrote:

The EOS mount is not a published industry standard so Canon has no economic reason to ensure that reverse-engineered (unlicensed) lenses stay compatible but several reasons for ensuring that licensed lenses are compatible if at all possible.

That's a really good point. One of the attractions of the EOS line is the huge lens catalog available. Wiping all 3rd party options off that list would be a pretty dumb move. Then again we've seen dumber.

 

[Doug J]

Pritzl wrote:

Actually what I'm fearing is something new, an explicit list of compatible lenses against which the camera checks before enabling the on-sensor phase detect AF. Such a scenario, if true, would go beyond not explicitly supporting 3rd party lenses into explicitly crippling them. I hope I'm terribly wrong and Canon's lawyers were smart enough to spot the legal risk of taking that direction.

In addition to the re-chipping Sigma had to do when the 10D was introduced (sleibson's post), Canon introduced a feature some years ago that would not work on certain legacy lenses. These were fairly old lenses, so not a big deal it seemed.

The way Canon implemented this was via a lens look up table in the camera for Canon lenses. The lens would identify itself to the camera and the feature was enabled if it was in the table, so it was disabled for all others, including 3rd party lenses by default.

Enter the re-chip approach, some 3rd party manufacturers re-chipped lenses so they told the camera they were Canon lenses that were in the look up table. More than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Lemming51]

PC Wheeler wrote:

Pritzl wrote:

Looking at the list of unsupported Canon lenses I could discern no obvious pattern,

Where did you find this list?

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/standard_display/daf_benefits_01

click on "Compatible Lenses"

 

[Lemming51]

Pritzl wrote:

Looking at the list of unsupported Canon lenses I could discern no obvious pattern, except them being older lenses for the most part. The bit that has me worried is that it seems it is up to the body to decide if a lens is supported or not and if they choose to either explicitly or implicitly lock it down to newer Canon lenses that would be a real shame... Not to mention grounds for an anticompetitive lawsuit.

Good luck with that. No camera maker has any obligation to accomodate other makers' accessories. E.g. DPP's lens corrections and DLO works only with Canon lenses.

If third parties want their lenses to utilize the new AF system, they'll have to figure it out. Just like they do to get their f/xx-6.3 lens to AF when Canon otherwise shuts it down for less than f/5.6.

--
Unapologetic Canon Apologist

 

[PC Wheeler]

Lemming51 wrote:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/standard_display/daf_benefits_01

click on "Compatible Lenses"

Thanks! Scanning that list there are some pretty old Canon lenses on it.

While I agree that Canon is under no obligation to support 3rd party lenses, I wonder if there's any technical reason why equivalent 3rd party lenses would not work with this system (e.g., the Canon 18-200 IS is compatible so I'd expect such as the Sigma 18-250 OS to also be compatible)? Many of the lenses listed as compatible pre-date the practice putting CPUs in lenses.

 

[Pritzl]

It might be easier to refer to the list of incompatible lenses: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=7260

 

[rrccad]

Pritzl wrote:

It might be easier to refer to the list of incompatible lenses: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=7260

wth .. The 1200/5.6L isn't supported

Damn you canon!

the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro is a bummer though .. that one is still a darn good lens

 

[PC Wheeler]

Pritzl wrote:

It might be easier to refer to the list of incompatible lenses: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=7260

Interesting that the lenses on this list are *all* EF mount and none are EF-s mount.

 

[Pritzl]

I actually hadn't noticed that. I guess because EF-S are newer in general?

 

[rdspear]

Over the years, 3rd party lens makers having to "update" the lenses for developments in the EOS system has been common. You send your lens into Sigma, Tokina, etc., they flash an upgrade, and send it back. Canon doesn't typically do this with old lenses, which I suspect is what is happening here. But instead of "they just don't work anymore", they have the opportunity to use a legacy solution, so they coded that in.

You will likely have to send some lenses back to be updated - I would be shocked if they are obsoleted.

I haven't followed closely, but isn't this only for Live View use, not standard viewfinder/phase detect focus?

 

[altair8800]

Jeff Peterman wrote:

I think it may have problems with light hitting the sensor at extreme angles, so maybe it has problems with things like fish-eye lenses, or maybe problems with lenses longer than 600 mm.

The 800mm f/5.6L is on the list.

That would be my guess - nothing to do with the lens brand.

 

[Pritzl]

rdspear wrote:

Over the years, 3rd party lens makers having to "update" the lenses for developments in the EOS system has been common. You send your lens into Sigma, Tokina, etc., they flash an upgrade, and send it back.

In that case Sigma are one step ahead with their USB dock on their new Global Vision line.

I haven't followed closely, but isn't this only for Live View use, not standard viewfinder/phase detect focus?

Yes. You can even still focus in live view but primarily via contrast AF.

Funny how antiquated that seems now.