Canon bans Viltrox lens

NanoCam wrote:

I just read that Canon has forbidden Viltrox from producing a lens (85/1.8 and maybe others?)

From what I've read, it sounds like they are issuing cease and desist to all 3rd party lens manufacturers as Tamron has also announced they will not be releasing RF mount lenses.

MitchAlsup wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

NanoCam wrote:

I just read that Canon has forbidden Viltrox from producing a lens (85/1.8 and maybe others?)

I assume you read this:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/3875526045/viltrox-representative-reports-canon-told-them-to-stop-selling-all-rf-mount-products

I don't think it's possible for camera companies to 'ban' an entity from making lenses. Nothing restricts anyone from making products that are compatible with the physical mounts.

You see, there are these things called patents.

You get one, and you have exclusive used of that material for "a while"

I am sure one or more parts of RF are patented. Thus Canon has say on who can mount to what.

What makes you so sure they have patents on the physical mount? Canon hasn’t taken action against third party EF to RF adapters. What patentable inventions might there be in the physical mount itself? It seems more likely that they are not allowing use of their RF protocols. They have taken no action against third party EF mount lenses.

Just one more reason to stay away from mirrorless (where the patents won't run out for decades.)

You will have to stay away from a lot of things if you are waiting for patents to expire, not just mirrorless cameras.

MitchAlsup wrote:

I am sure one or more parts of RF are patented. Thus Canon has say on who can mount to what.

I'd love to know what "new" and "unique" technology Canon has discovered for the RF mount.

sybersitizen wrote:

Yes. Have you read the patent application for Canon's RF mount? I have. It's focused on the specific communication protocols rather than the physical design of the mount, which is just a minor variation of the twist/lock method used throughout the industry.

What's the number of this patent? I tried searching but I only found their patents for RF lenses.

NanoCam wrote:

I just read that Canon has forbidden Viltrox from producing a lens (85/1.8 and maybe others?) in Canon RF mount. In this case who cares? There are lots of 85mm lenses including Canons’ great 85/2 macro.

I also know there has been an astounding Samyang/Rokinon 10mm f3.5 rectilinear 130° lens around since 2018 available In Canon EF mount. Now I ask what Canon EF user really needs it with the 11-24 zoom?

The 10mm f3.5 remains unavailable in Nikon F mount. So something similar is going on with Nikon. No one including B&H knows and the manufacturer wont answer. Nikon makes no 10 mm in F or Z mount, so it is much needed for surreal fx shooters. One can get a Voigtlander 10mm clumsily manually adapted to the Z, Canon RF, and Voigtlander makes it for Sony and Leica. but 14mm remains the Nikon wide limit.
I’ve been an ultrawide user since Nikons’ glory days 15mm f5.6, so for me 14mm is not new

Why are they preventing this?
Whether Nikon or Samyang/ Rokinon, they’re only hurting themselves!

I’m sick and tired of these limitations! This is one important reason if & when I decide to go to mirrorless I will probably skip Nikon and go to Canon which is more innovative and likely to produce more new lenses like a new smaller 11-24 or wider. And Sony already makes a 12-24/2.8.

Sigma with their Art series made Canon lose a lot of revenue in their EF system. They aren’t probably worried about Viltrox, but about Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and Voigtlander, that can significantly hurt the sales of Canon RF lenses.

I think this will reduce Canon body sales, for people that could afford the body, but not also the exorbitant price of high quality Canon RF lenses.

Sony opted to open their FE system to third party manufacturers, so those manufacturers AF works at the same level as native lenses. It doesn’t seem to have significantly hurt Sony’s sales, the company is confident they can make better lenses to justify the premium. And it helped Sony gain momentum when their lens catalog was reduced.

Nikon already has Voigtlander making lenses for the Z-system. Not sure if reverse engineering will be required for AF lenses, potentially reducing their performance.

Igor Sotelo wrote

Sigma with their Art series made Canon lose a lot of revenue in their EF system. They aren’t probably worried about Viltrox, but about Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and Voigtlander, that can significantly hurt the sales of Canon RF lenses.

I think this will reduce Canon body sales, for people that could afford the body, but not also the exorbitant price of high quality Canon RF lenses

Canon has always made a range of bodies as well as a range of lenses, and with RF the are making affordable high quality lenses at price points they previously didn’t occupy. In short, they are competing. Seems to be working so far, even if some folks get all teary eyed about Sigma primes.

Sony opted to open their FE system to third party manufacturers, so those manufacturers AF works at the same level as native lenses. It doesn’t seem to have significantly hurt Sony’s sales, the company is confident they can make better lenses to justify the premium. And it helped Sony gain momentum when their lens catalog was reduced.

Looks to some like Sony has lost momentum.

Nikon already has Voigtlander making lenses for the Z-system. Not sure if reverse engineering will be required for AF lenses, potentially reducing their performance.

I’ll bet Sigma and Tamron are pretty protective of their own intellectual property.

bodeswell wrote:

Igor Sotelo wrote

Sigma with their Art series made Canon lose a lot of revenue in their EF system. They aren’t probably worried about Viltrox, but about Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and Voigtlander, that can significantly hurt the sales of Canon RF lenses.

I think this will reduce Canon body sales, for people that could afford the body, but not also the exorbitant price of high quality Canon RF lenses

Canon has always made a range of bodies as well as a range of lenses, and with RF the are making affordable high quality lenses at price points they previously didn’t occupy. In short, they are competing. Seems to be working so far, even if some folks get all teary eyed about Sigma primes.

Sony opted to open their FE system to third party manufacturers, so those manufacturers AF works at the same level as native lenses. It doesn’t seem to have significantly hurt Sony’s sales, the company is confident they can make better lenses to justify the premium. And it helped Sony gain momentum when their lens catalog was reduced.

Looks to some like Sony has lost momentum.

Nikon already has Voigtlander making lenses for the Z-system. Not sure if reverse engineering will be required for AF lenses, potentially reducing their performance.

I’ll bet Sigma and Tamron are pretty protective of their own intellectual property.

But it’s Canon whining and not competing, about Viltrox making lenses for the RF mount.

It depends much what you call quality. L lenses yes are quality, you have admit Art lenses are quality too, non-L lenses aren’t in the same league, optically and how are they built.

One weakness that I see in Canon’s line up, is that if you want IBIS and full frame 4K, Canon will ask for that at least $2.5K (R6 with slight 4K crop) which is a bit steep. Personally couldn’t care less about video, however IBIS is important. But many do also shot video. On the other hand, you can get IBIS and full frame 4K from Sony and Nikon for much less.

Native lenses are equally expensive, but with Sony you have more options, like let’s say the Tamron 70-180mm 2.8, the Sigma Art 40mm 1.4, the Zeiss Batís APO Sonnar 2.8/135 or the Voigtlander Macro APO Lanthar 110mm 2.5.

Not sure what sales figures show, though.

I think the laws in Japan allow a Japanese company to reverse engineer for designing AF lenses, but that isn’t allowed for foreign companies.

Sony’s FE-system is open, unlike Canon or Nikon systems that have to be reverse engineered, which affects AF performance.

Igor Sotelo wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

Igor Sotelo wrote

Sigma with their Art series made Canon lose a lot of revenue in their EF system. They aren’t probably worried about Viltrox, but about Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and Voigtlander, that can significantly hurt the sales of Canon RF lenses.

I think this will reduce Canon body sales, for people that could afford the body, but not also the exorbitant price of high quality Canon RF lenses

Canon has always made a range of bodies as well as a range of lenses, and with RF the are making affordable high quality lenses at price points they previously didn’t occupy. In short, they are competing. Seems to be working so far, even if some folks get all teary eyed about Sigma primes.

Sony opted to open their FE system to third party manufacturers, so those manufacturers AF works at the same level as native lenses. It doesn’t seem to have significantly hurt Sony’s sales, the company is confident they can make better lenses to justify the premium. And it helped Sony gain momentum when their lens catalog was reduced.

Looks to some like Sony has lost momentum.

Nikon already has Voigtlander making lenses for the Z-system. Not sure if reverse engineering will be required for AF lenses, potentially reducing their performance.

I’ll bet Sigma and Tamron are pretty protective of their own intellectual property.

But it’s Canon whining and not competing, about Viltrox making lenses for the RF mount.

They aren't "whining". Whining would be complaining but not doing anything about the infringement. Canon is taking legal action to stop the alleged infringement. That is a matter of ensuring that competition is fair. I'll bet Viltrox would protect its own intellectual property.

Canon is also competing by producing what I am sure they think is a better but still moderately priced RF 85mm f/1.8 half macro lens that works perfectly on all RF mount cameras.

It depends much what you call quality. L lenses yes are quality, you have admit Art lenses are quality too, non-L lenses aren’t in the same league, optically and how are they built.

That doesn't mean they aren't quality lenses. By the way, some might even suggest that the differences between L and non-L lenses are easily exaggerated.

One weakness that I see in Canon’s line up, is that if you want IBIS and full frame 4K, Canon will ask for that at least $2.5K (R6 with slight 4K crop) which is a bit steep. Personally couldn’t care less about video, however IBIS is important. But many do also shot video. On the other hand, you can get IBIS and full frame 4K from Sony and Nikon for much less.

Native lenses are equally expensive, but with Sony you have more options, like let’s say the Tamron 70-180mm 2.8, the Sigma Art 40mm 1.4, the Zeiss Batís APO Sonnar 2.8/135 or the Voigtlander Macro APO Lanthar 110mm 2.5.

Not sure what sales figures show, though.

I think the laws in Japan allow a Japanese company to reverse engineer for designing AF lenses, but that isn’t allowed for foreign companies.

Reverse engineering is generally legal so long as it does not infringe by, say, copying or directly using someone else's intellectual property. Perhaps Canon has, inadvertently of course, made it hard to reverse engineer the RF protocol be adding so many new things to it (IBIS, fancy AF modes). But end users benefit from those new features.

Sony’s FE-system is open, unlike Canon or Nikon systems that have to be reverse engineered, which affects AF performance.

People may need to decide what they really want.

MitchAlsup wrote:

Igor Sotelo wrote:

NanoCam wrote:

I just read that Canon has forbidden Viltrox from producing a lens (85/1.8 and maybe others?) in Canon RF mount. In this case who cares? There are lots of 85mm lenses including Canons’ great 85/2 macro.

I also know there has been an astounding Samyang/Rokinon 10mm f3.5 rectilinear 130° lens around since 2018 available In Canon EF mount. Now I ask what Canon EF user really needs it with the 11-24 zoom?

The 10mm f3.5 remains unavailable in Nikon F mount. So something similar is going on with Nikon. No one including B&H knows and the manufacturer wont answer. Nikon makes no 10 mm in F or Z mount, so it is much needed for surreal fx shooters. One can get a Voigtlander 10mm clumsily manually adapted to the Z, Canon RF, and Voigtlander makes it for Sony and Leica. but 14mm remains the Nikon wide limit.
I’ve been an ultrawide user since Nikons’ glory days 15mm f5.6, so for me 14mm is not new

Why are they preventing this?
Whether Nikon or Samyang/ Rokinon, they’re only hurting themselves!

I’m sick and tired of these limitations! This is one important reason if & when I decide to go to mirrorless I will probably skip Nikon and go to Canon which is more innovative and likely to produce more new lenses like a new smaller 11-24 or wider. And Sony already makes a 12-24/2.8.

Sigma with their Art series made Canon lose a lot of revenue in their EF system. They aren’t probably worried about Viltrox, but about Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and Voigtlander, that can significantly hurt the sales of Canon RF lenses.

I think this will reduce Canon body sales, for people that could afford the body, but not also the exorbitant price of high quality Canon RF lenses.

My guess is that the people at Canon believe otherwise.

Canon haven't had any problems selling RF mount cameras over the last few years, and they would much  rather sell them to people who will buy their lenses rather than Sigma'a. It's been a corporate goal for many years to maximise Canon lenses sold per camera, and they've gor a new tool to do it. Canon aren't Sony and they aren't Nikon, and anyone who expects them to behave in the same way as Sony or Nikon simply doesn't understand the company. They didn't get to where they are by copying other companies, but by doing things a bit differently.

Canon purposely designed their EX 580 flash to jam the frequency used by Pocket Wizards, the most popular third party radio trigger at the time. That told me what Canon thought about third party products.

Scott Larson wrote:

Canon purposely designed their EX 580 flash to jam the frequency used by Pocket Wizards, the most popular third party radio trigger at the time. That told me what Canon thought about third party products.

More likely Canon simply ignores third party products when developing its own. Canon does not ask those third parties to develop product, and they don’t share their income or their plans with Canon.

sybersitizen wrote:

Scott Larson wrote:

What's the number of this patent? I tried searching but I only found their patents for RF lenses.

Japan Patent Application 2018-084713, as noted here:

https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-the-first-sniff-of-a-new-mount-for-canon

Great, they patented the size of a hole and bunch of connectors. Innovation!

bodeswell wrote:

Scott Larson wrote:

Canon purposely designed their EX 580 flash to jam the frequency used by Pocket Wizards, the most popular third party radio trigger at the time. That told me what Canon thought about third party products.

More likely Canon simply ignores third party products when developing its own. Canon does not ask those third parties to develop product, and they don’t share their income or their plans with Canon.

No, the EX 580 was shown to transmit a jamming signal right at the frequency that Pocket Wizards used. I sent my two EX 580s to another third party for a simple and inexpensive modification which stopped it so I wouldn't have to use Pocket Wizard's EMF socks on them.

Canon clearly knows a lot about third party products.

Scott Larson wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

Scott Larson wrote:

Canon purposely designed their EX 580 flash to jam the frequency used by Pocket Wizards, the most popular third party radio trigger at the time. That told me what Canon thought about third party products.

More likely Canon simply ignores third party products when developing its own. Canon does not ask those third parties to develop product, and they don’t share their income or their plans with Canon.

No, the EX 580 was shown to transmit a jamming signal right at the frequency that Pocket Wizards used. I sent my two EX 580s to another third party for a simple and inexpensive modification which stopped it so I wouldn't have to use Pocket Wizard's EMF socks on them.

Canon clearly knows a lot about third party products.

I did not speak to what Canon might know. I said that when they design their own products the spend no time worrying about how their design decisions might affect third party products. They ignore that. As they should.