Dear Canon, you need to welcome 3rd party lenses into the RF mount

[MikeJ9116]

I don't think this means the end of Canon's imaging division at all. I don't think anyone has claimed this to be true. It could very well mean this decision will stunt the growth of the R system user base, or even shrink it, at a critical point in its existence. It could also bring some very negative, lasting PR to Canon from which it might take a long time to recover.

Canon introduced EF mount in 1987, it is still selling after 35 years.

RF mount was introduced in 2018.

Its patents may filed before 2018, (no later than early 2018) because once a product is introduced to the public, it becomes prior art, and is too late to file patent.

Patents expire 20 years after filing. After 20 years (around 2038 ), everybody can make RF lens according to information disclosed in the patent without paying a dime to Canon.

Canon probably has filed additional patents related to more advanced/improved features of RF mount after 2018, competitors cannot incorporate such features into their lens until those patents also expire though.

Assuming RF mount life is not shorter than EF mount, by 2038 RF mount may be just in its middle life - a boost with 3rd parties lens may be a good timing for Canon

The question is can, or will, Canon provide the variety of lenses users expect at the quality and price points they demand? I don't see where Canon can do this even if they are willing to do it. This will give Sony a huge advantage over them going forward, IMO.

It depends on what the average user wants. Canon alrady have the lenses I want at a price point that is reasonable in my eyes. That might not suit you, but can always move to another brand if you want to. FYI, I own the rf351.8, rf501.8, rf85f2, rf 24-195f4. I plan on buying the rf 16 f1.8 and the rf 100-400. I'm also interested in the rf 24f2.8 ang the rf600f11. But thats just my wants and is not necessarily reflective of what others want, in the same way as yoir wants are not refle tive of anyone elses.

I think in this regard the past predicts the future. Look at any mount and you can see how 3rd party lens makers offer certain lenses that provide what the OEM maker can't, or will not, provide. I can list lens after lens but a good example is the latest 3rd party lens review here on DPR.

Thats a nice lens but I'd rather have the Canon RF 100-400 for $500 than this for $1300. You pay for the extra 50mm and slightly faster apeture but I don't need those, but do like the smaller size of the Canon, which is roughly half the weight. If you compare it to the RF100-5000 then the Tamron is much cheaper but you lose the the extra 100mm in reach, which I think is more important than 50mm at the wide end.

Everyone has there own wants and needs and should choose the system that meets them. For me Canon meets those, for you if it doesn't, move on, switch systems, whatever, its your choice.

If you are price/value conscious then the lack of third party RF lenses should concern you. This Tamron lens fill a hole that Canon has not and likely never will. The same can be said for about every third party lens made. While I am critical of the Northrups on many occasions the video linked below made some excellent points about ramifications regarding what Canon is doing with third party lenses. Then I read through the comments under the video and most are very critical of Canon and not having third party RF lenses is a non starter for many, many of the commenters buying Canon gear going forward.

 

[Myles Baker]

Dear Canon, you need to welcome 3rd party lenses into the RF mount

• Maybe the real pros here can afford to have most lenses costing North of 2k
• But for the vast majority of users, pros or amateurs, the lack of variety of lenses at mid-range price point is now seriously showing.. which was the strength of the EF mount

A few posts discussing this topic here these last days... it's not only us nerds on DPR, but also pros and famous YouTubers.. A few examples

DPReview about the Viltrox story

viltrox-representative-reports-canon-told-them-to-stop-selling-all-rf-mount-products

Tony & Chelsea Northrup

Canon's making a huge mistake. Speak up.

Christopher Frost

A rare opinion piece: Tony & Chelsea right about Canon...& Nikon are getting the drop on them!

Sincerely hoope Canon hears us

From a longtime loyal Canon fan delaying a long awaited EF -> RF switch..... (Sony is dangerously tempting with a massive variety of lenses at different price points...)

Gaul

This from Canon's last quater financial report

"and significantly increased RF lens sales to post a double-digit increase in net sales overall."

Maybe Canon know there business better than Tony & Chelsea Northrup?

This is before they enacted the third party lens ban. Let's see what happens going forward. There are a lot of good photography oriented YouTube channels, website etc. If the majority of them are being critical of Canon over this then it will eventually impact them in a negative way.

They are being critical because it gives them clicks - The Northrups have been in steady decline for a while now and if you look at their recent top viewed videos most of them are being critical of Canon or pure click bait.

Going after the largest install base is smart. It fires up the fans of the brand and the people that hate Canon love to pile on.

I think Tony is a hack but I respect his ability to understand what creates views.

The same goes for the threads on here, CR, FM Forums and many others. They all generate a lot of opinions that drive traffic. \

Capitalism at it's finest\

Canon's debacle with the 6D/2

I know a few 6DII owners. They seem to like the camera. What was the 'debacle', exactly?

...and this is the problem. There are only a few because the negative hype kept it from selling on larger numbers.

So from the fact that I, one person, know "a few" 6DII owners you conclude that there are only a few? Wow! It seems I know them all. What are the odds?

is a good example of how something getting a lot of clicks can effect sales. It was roundly criticized here, and elsewhere, and it cost Canon a lot of 6D/2 sales.

Did it? Really?

It absolutely did cost them sales. This is undeniable.

OK, wait for it, wait for it... I deny it. But how did I just do that? It's supposed to be undeniable. Quite a conundrum.

Also, when a topic becomes click bait it affects the links a person is shown during a web search. If people are sent to sites that are critical of Canon's decision regarding 3rd party lenses then it will have a negative impact on them. Even Canon can't withstand such an onslaught of negative publicity over a long period of time. This is basically what happened in regard to the 6D/2.

Again, did it? Really? Or is this a conclusion drawn from the assumption that posters on sites such as these are truly representative of the market for cameras and lenses?

Once again, yes it did. The 6D/2 wasn't near the success of the 6D.

Why did Canon drop the price of the 6D/2 by $400 just a year after it launched? They did this because it was a hot seller?

It could have had nothing to do with the release of the better spec Sony A7iii at the same initial price point? Funny how market econmics works?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66525907

When the 6Dii was released Canon priced it at a point they felt the market would accept. For some such as yourself, the specs didn't warrant an upgrade for others it did and 12 months later a better spec competitor was released at the same price point. Canon duly dropped their price. 12 months after that Canon released the RP, essentially a mirrorless 6Dii, at a lower price point and again dropped the price of the 6Dii to match. Isn't that how market economics is meant to work?

And BTW no company gets pricing spot on everytime they release a product. Canon is no exception there, nor any of the other camera company for that matter.

 

[MikeJ9116]

Dear Canon, you need to welcome 3rd party lenses into the RF mount

• Maybe the real pros here can afford to have most lenses costing North of 2k
• But for the vast majority of users, pros or amateurs, the lack of variety of lenses at mid-range price point is now seriously showing.. which was the strength of the EF mount

A few posts discussing this topic here these last days... it's not only us nerds on DPR, but also pros and famous YouTubers.. A few examples

DPReview about the Viltrox story

viltrox-representative-reports-canon-told-them-to-stop-selling-all-rf-mount-products

Tony & Chelsea Northrup

Canon's making a huge mistake. Speak up.

Christopher Frost

A rare opinion piece: Tony & Chelsea right about Canon...& Nikon are getting the drop on them!

Sincerely hoope Canon hears us

From a longtime loyal Canon fan delaying a long awaited EF -> RF switch..... (Sony is dangerously tempting with a massive variety of lenses at different price points...)

Gaul

This from Canon's last quater financial report

"and significantly increased RF lens sales to post a double-digit increase in net sales overall."

Maybe Canon know there business better than Tony & Chelsea Northrup?

This is before they enacted the third party lens ban. Let's see what happens going forward. There are a lot of good photography oriented YouTube channels, website etc. If the majority of them are being critical of Canon over this then it will eventually impact them in a negative way.

They are being critical because it gives them clicks - The Northrups have been in steady decline for a while now and if you look at their recent top viewed videos most of them are being critical of Canon or pure click bait.

Going after the largest install base is smart. It fires up the fans of the brand and the people that hate Canon love to pile on.

I think Tony is a hack but I respect his ability to understand what creates views.

The same goes for the threads on here, CR, FM Forums and many others. They all generate a lot of opinions that drive traffic. \

Capitalism at it's finest\

Canon's debacle with the 6D/2

I know a few 6DII owners. They seem to like the camera. What was the 'debacle', exactly?

...and this is the problem. There are only a few because the negative hype kept it from selling on larger numbers.

So from the fact that I, one person, know "a few" 6DII owners you conclude that there are only a few? Wow! It seems I know them all. What are the odds?

is a good example of how something getting a lot of clicks can effect sales. It was roundly criticized here, and elsewhere, and it cost Canon a lot of 6D/2 sales.

Did it? Really?

It absolutely did cost them sales. This is undeniable.

OK, wait for it, wait for it... I deny it. But how did I just do that? It's supposed to be undeniable. Quite a conundrum.

Also, when a topic becomes click bait it affects the links a person is shown during a web search. If people are sent to sites that are critical of Canon's decision regarding 3rd party lenses then it will have a negative impact on them. Even Canon can't withstand such an onslaught of negative publicity over a long period of time. This is basically what happened in regard to the 6D/2.

Again, did it? Really? Or is this a conclusion drawn from the assumption that posters on sites such as these are truly representative of the market for cameras and lenses?

Once again, yes it did. The 6D/2 wasn't near the success of the 6D.

Why did Canon drop the price of the 6D/2 by $400 just a year after it launched? They did this because it was a hot seller?

It could have had nothing to do with the release of the better spec Sony A7iii at the same initial price point? Funny how market econmics works?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66525907

When the 6Dii was released Canon priced it at a point they felt the market would accept. For some such as yourself, the specs didn't warrant an upgrade for others it did and 12 months later a better spec competitor was released at the same price point. Canon duly dropped their price. 12 months after that Canon released the RP, essentially a mirrorless 6Dii, at a lower price point and again dropped the price of the 6Dii to match. Isn't that how market economics is meant to work?

And BTW no company gets pricing spot on everytime they release a product. Canon is no exception there, nor any of the other camera company for that matter.

So all the negative press this camera got had nothing to do with the massive price drop after just one year?

 

[Myles Baker]

Dear Canon, you need to welcome 3rd party lenses into the RF mount

• Maybe the real pros here can afford to have most lenses costing North of 2k
• But for the vast majority of users, pros or amateurs, the lack of variety of lenses at mid-range price point is now seriously showing.. which was the strength of the EF mount

A few posts discussing this topic here these last days... it's not only us nerds on DPR, but also pros and famous YouTubers.. A few examples

DPReview about the Viltrox story

viltrox-representative-reports-canon-told-them-to-stop-selling-all-rf-mount-products

Tony & Chelsea Northrup

Canon's making a huge mistake. Speak up.

Christopher Frost

A rare opinion piece: Tony & Chelsea right about Canon...& Nikon are getting the drop on them!

Sincerely hoope Canon hears us

From a longtime loyal Canon fan delaying a long awaited EF -> RF switch..... (Sony is dangerously tempting with a massive variety of lenses at different price points...)

Gaul

This from Canon's last quater financial report

"and significantly increased RF lens sales to post a double-digit increase in net sales overall."

Maybe Canon know there business better than Tony & Chelsea Northrup?

This is before they enacted the third party lens ban. Let's see what happens going forward. There are a lot of good photography oriented YouTube channels, website etc. If the majority of them are being critical of Canon over this then it will eventually impact them in a negative way.

They are being critical because it gives them clicks - The Northrups have been in steady decline for a while now and if you look at their recent top viewed videos most of them are being critical of Canon or pure click bait.

Going after the largest install base is smart. It fires up the fans of the brand and the people that hate Canon love to pile on.

I think Tony is a hack but I respect his ability to understand what creates views.

The same goes for the threads on here, CR, FM Forums and many others. They all generate a lot of opinions that drive traffic. \

Capitalism at it's finest\

Canon's debacle with the 6D/2

I know a few 6DII owners. They seem to like the camera. What was the 'debacle', exactly?

...and this is the problem. There are only a few because the negative hype kept it from selling on larger numbers.

So from the fact that I, one person, know "a few" 6DII owners you conclude that there are only a few? Wow! It seems I know them all. What are the odds?

is a good example of how something getting a lot of clicks can effect sales. It was roundly criticized here, and elsewhere, and it cost Canon a lot of 6D/2 sales.

Did it? Really?

It absolutely did cost them sales. This is undeniable.

OK, wait for it, wait for it... I deny it. But how did I just do that? It's supposed to be undeniable. Quite a conundrum.

Also, when a topic becomes click bait it affects the links a person is shown during a web search. If people are sent to sites that are critical of Canon's decision regarding 3rd party lenses then it will have a negative impact on them. Even Canon can't withstand such an onslaught of negative publicity over a long period of time. This is basically what happened in regard to the 6D/2.

Again, did it? Really? Or is this a conclusion drawn from the assumption that posters on sites such as these are truly representative of the market for cameras and lenses?

Once again, yes it did. The 6D/2 wasn't near the success of the 6D.

Why did Canon drop the price of the 6D/2 by $400 just a year after it launched? They did this because it was a hot seller?

It could have had nothing to do with the release of the better spec Sony A7iii at the same initial price point? Funny how market econmics works?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66525907

When the 6Dii was released Canon priced it at a point they felt the market would accept. For some such as yourself, the specs didn't warrant an upgrade for others it did and 12 months later a better spec competitor was released at the same price point. Canon duly dropped their price. 12 months after that Canon released the RP, essentially a mirrorless 6Dii, at a lower price point and again dropped the price of the 6Dii to match. Isn't that how market economics is meant to work?

And BTW no company gets pricing spot on everytime they release a product. Canon is no exception there, nor any of the other camera company for that matter.

So all the negative press this camera got had nothing to do with the massive price drop after just one year?

All of the reviews that I read on the 6Dii were on the lines of it being a solid camera with good image quality and better spec across the board than the 6D but nothing special compared to the competition. Lukewarm but not exactly negative. The fact that newer better competitors came out in the next 12 months at the same price point had far more to do with the price reduction than 'negative' reviews. I use the RP which similary to the 6Dii had a lukewarm response from reviewers, the difference with it and the 6Dii is that it was priced much more competively on release. Thats what Canon got wrong in my view, the initial price point.

 

[Myles Baker]

I don't think this means the end of Canon's imaging division at all. I don't think anyone has claimed this to be true. It could very well mean this decision will stunt the growth of the R system user base, or even shrink it, at a critical point in its existence. It could also bring some very negative, lasting PR to Canon from which it might take a long time to recover.

Canon introduced EF mount in 1987, it is still selling after 35 years.

RF mount was introduced in 2018.

Its patents may filed before 2018, (no later than early 2018) because once a product is introduced to the public, it becomes prior art, and is too late to file patent.

Patents expire 20 years after filing. After 20 years (around 2038 ), everybody can make RF lens according to information disclosed in the patent without paying a dime to Canon.

Canon probably has filed additional patents related to more advanced/improved features of RF mount after 2018, competitors cannot incorporate such features into their lens until those patents also expire though.

Assuming RF mount life is not shorter than EF mount, by 2038 RF mount may be just in its middle life - a boost with 3rd parties lens may be a good timing for Canon

The question is can, or will, Canon provide the variety of lenses users expect at the quality and price points they demand? I don't see where Canon can do this even if they are willing to do it. This will give Sony a huge advantage over them going forward, IMO.

It depends on what the average user wants. Canon alrady have the lenses I want at a price point that is reasonable in my eyes. That might not suit you, but can always move to another brand if you want to. FYI, I own the rf351.8, rf501.8, rf85f2, rf 24-195f4. I plan on buying the rf 16 f1.8 and the rf 100-400. I'm also interested in the rf 24f2.8 ang the rf600f11. But thats just my wants and is not necessarily reflective of what others want, in the same way as yoir wants are not refle tive of anyone elses.

I think in this regard the past predicts the future. Look at any mount and you can see how 3rd party lens makers offer certain lenses that provide what the OEM maker can't, or will not, provide. I can list lens after lens but a good example is the latest 3rd party lens review here on DPR.

Thats a nice lens but I'd rather have the Canon RF 100-400 for $500 than this for $1300. You pay for the extra 50mm and slightly faster apeture but I don't need those, but do like the smaller size of the Canon, which is roughly half the weight. If you compare it to the RF100-5000 then the Tamron is much cheaper but you lose the the extra 100mm in reach, which I think is more important than 50mm at the wide end.

Everyone has there own wants and needs and should choose the system that meets them. For me Canon meets those, for you if it doesn't, move on, switch systems, whatever, its your choice.

If you are price/value conscious then the lack of third party RF lenses should concern you. This Tamron lens fill a hole that Canon has not and likely never will. The same can be said for about every third party lens made. While I am critical of the Northrups on many occasions the video linked below made some excellent points about ramifications regarding what Canon is doing with third party lenses. Then I read through the comments under the video and most are very critical of Canon and not having third party RF lenses is a non starter for many, many of the commenters buying Canon gear going forward.

I'd welcome 3rd party lenses as an option but my purchase of a camera is not contingent on them. I'm more interested if the camera and available lenses meet my needs and my budget. The Canon RP with the 35 f1.8, 50 f1.8 & 85 f1.8 along with my 24-105 f4 does exactly that.

Worrying about lenses that may or may not be available in the future is a pointless exercise, especialy since I neither want nor need them. I do want the RF16 f2.8 and RF 100-400 though and even thpuvh I really dont't need it the RF600 f11.

 

[trungtran]

I am with Canon on this. (I suspect one of few!)

As much as I would like third party lenses (I have several in the EF mount), I really want continual advancement in camera and lens technology.

This will only happen if Canon (and Nikon, Sony etc.) can continue, to not only be profitable, but profitable enough to justify large R & D expenditure, that may take a long time to recover.

I suspect that Canon will eventually allow the third-party lenses but would like a few more years to recover their outlay.

What I am hoping is that some people actually leave Canon and go to another brand. We need more competition to really drive innovation. If Canon lost a 10% market share, it would force them to be more competitive on all fronts.

With 50% of the market, why would they want to lower prices or let the third party into their space? They will continue doing what they are doing as long as they maintain market share.

 

[PicPocket]

First Canon has to update 2 premium lenses that are 3 years old to satisfy you, now they have to follow the business advice of "Famous Youtubers"? Are you serious, or just trolling people...?

Those "Famous YouTubers" have an impact. Especially as more time passes. Remember the 6D/2 debacle when Canon got hammered by the chattering class and it basically rendered it as a failure? Every time a new, good quality, value priced third party lens come out for other mounts the question will be asked as to why can't R system users take advantage of it too. I don't see how Canon's decision will age well because as time passes there will be more and more very good, value priced third party lenses that Canon users can't use. Many of these lenses will not have a counterpart in Canon's RF lens catalog. Most users don't care about Canon's profit margins. Especially when it impacts their ability to buy lenses that they want and/or need.

Those famous youtubers also don't tend to stick to one missions. As time passes, they stop talking about the same thing over and over and start to switch to other topics that may be the flavor of the day and give them the clicks they need. The way Canon is pricing stuff, I don't think their strategy is to appeal to the masses, at least not immediately. As they start to have more lens coverage, maybe they will. Time will tell who knows that is time enough for sigma to figure out a solution. And Canon can always change track when they see fit for their business. Basically, none of this peering into future has much value when Canon's only job is to keep up with their own market research and continuously make decisions based off that

The problem with Canon making this decision, which has not been done before by any camera maker, is a matter of trust going forward. Many people live by the old saying "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me." This move is the "Fool me once" part of this saying which will permanently turn many people away from considering Canon going forward.

You make it sound like Canon has gone back on some sort of commitment to you. Yes, it's a business decision and some may not like it, but it's foolish to think you are being fooled into it. Perhaps you were assuming things about Canon and your assumptions didn't quite turn out right, but that's pretty much it right now

Some won't buy Canon, some would. There is no trust issue here, just preferences

 

[PicPocket]

You seem up for it, so please work this out with Canon and let us all know.

There is no indication they do their messaging via dpreview, specially when it comes to being made aware of what youtube reviewers are saying about them.

It will take this decision affecting their bottom line to get them to reverse it. Time will tell if this happens.

What will take? Addressing a letter to Canon on dpreview forum?

No. It will take enough people not buying their products. Canon has to feel economic pain before they reverse their decision. Time will tell if they do feel the pain.

What decision should they reverse?

They have never licensed their tech before, so it wouldn’t be a recent decision.

Signa and company have not asked Canon for licensing, so it can’t be that Canon said no.

Why isn’t it the third parties fault? Either they don’t want to invest in reverse engineering or they don’t want to ask for licensing.

Either way, what happens when Canon reaps the benefits of its long standing position? It is hard to believe that a large number of people but a camera brand only because some other brand makes lenses for it.

Whether Canon's decision is right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is whether it is a good decision from an economic aspect. If they reverse this decision then we will know it was a bad choice from an economic aspect.

Or that they see better benefit in changing when they change it. They being strict right now does not prove them being less-strict in the past being a bad choice. Things change

 

[PicPocket]

You seem up for it, so please work this out with Canon and let us all know.

There is no indication they do their messaging via dpreview, specially when it comes to being made aware of what youtube reviewers are saying about them.

To be fair, dpreview is exactly the right place for an opinion piece.

Opinion piece, yes. Reaching to Canon, probably a weak one to start with. I don't think this thread is adding much to what is already out there from much more visible sources and venues

 

[Avenger20]

Third party lenses can already be used on the RF mount. You just need an EF-RF adapter to use them.

I can imagine that licensing the full RF mount would force Canon to share information about the RF mount that they rather keep to themselves.

What might be an acceptable solution for Canon, is to open the physical RF mount, but keep the electronics limited to what's available in the EF mount, so the body will see the lens as an EF lens mounted on an EF-RF adapter.

Most people want native mount third party lenses. Actually you are highlighting one of the reasons this is such a bad move by Canon. That is people have to use older third party lenses to be able to use them at all. There have been, and will be, design advancements and price advantages made by third party lens makers that Canon users will never be able to take advantage of because these new lenses will not be made with an EF or RF mount. Canon has really screwed over their user base with this move to ban third party lenses. And no, manual third party lenses are not what 99% of people want or need.

I'll be happy with new optics on EF protocol, as that is what was being suggested. Frankly, I see clear advantage of newer optics due to changes in flange distance, while I don't find the speed advantages of RF protocol as big of a deal breaker given so many EF lenses work so well on newer cameras. YMMV

That is what Viltrox was doing with their RF 85mm lens. It used the EF protocol but with RF mount & optics. Clearly not allowed by Canon. And I don't expect any company making new EF designs, since all design are for mirrorless now (with smaller flange distance).

Using the EOS R at the moment with EF glass, but will not be further investing into the RF platform. Will be switching to Sony at some point and use my EF glass with them until I get the Tamron E-mount lenses.

 

[Swerky]

Quite correct. I’m tempted by the R7, but the lack of a better general zoom lens, no autofocus ultra wide angle lens make things harder to switch. Some would say manual focus is fine for ultra wide, still, having options is better.
Sometimes I say to myself the 18-150 would be quite good for general photography and travel, but I would like such a lens to start at 24mm equivalent, that way I don’t need to switch to an ultra wide angle that often. Don't mind if it stops at 120mm equivalent.
As for better and still affordable glass, that is available with the prime lenses.

hmm...but you can always use EF and 3rd party lenses (EF) mount lenses, they don't HAVE to RF lenses. get them while you can ;-) i know for fact i am not going to get one RF lens as i have a plethora of EF "L" lenses, when i get my R camera.

Thing is, my point of getting an R7 is to downsize and lighten my gear. An adapted EF-S lens won't be practical. Imagine a 15-85 for example adapted to an R7.

 

[PicPocket]

Third party lenses can already be used on the RF mount. You just need an EF-RF adapter to use them.

I can imagine that licensing the full RF mount would force Canon to share information about the RF mount that they rather keep to themselves.

What might be an acceptable solution for Canon, is to open the physical RF mount, but keep the electronics limited to what's available in the EF mount, so the body will see the lens as an EF lens mounted on an EF-RF adapter.

Most people want native mount third party lenses. Actually you are highlighting one of the reasons this is such a bad move by Canon. That is people have to use older third party lenses to be able to use them at all. There have been, and will be, design advancements and price advantages made by third party lens makers that Canon users will never be able to take advantage of because these new lenses will not be made with an EF or RF mount. Canon has really screwed over their user base with this move to ban third party lenses. And no, manual third party lenses are not what 99% of people want or need.

I'll be happy with new optics on EF protocol, as that is what was being suggested. Frankly, I see clear advantage of newer optics due to changes in flange distance, while I don't find the speed advantages of RF protocol as big of a deal breaker given so many EF lenses work so well on newer cameras. YMMV

Another problem is the EF mount is dying off and soon will be no longer supported by Canon.

Mount, yes. Protocol, maybe. I'm not sure the protocol death is imminent. If the EF lenses keep working on RF mount for a decade, I would see that as both feasible and likely

Any of these lenses are one firmware update away from not working. Who wants to trust Canon at this point to not do this in the future?

Always been the case. Sigma knows better than you or me. Fear has no real cure

Which is why third party lens makers will avoid the RF/EF mounts like the plague going forward. Even if Canon reverses course I wouldn't be surprised if they don't offer third party lenses for the RF mount because they won't trust Canon to not screw them again down the road.

Makers like Sigma don't work on the basis on trust and whims of Canon. Their confidence comes from their own product - whether it's clean room and whether their lawyers think it's not infringing. Once they have that, they can move forward. If they have a close enough implementation, its not easy to break protocol via firmware without breaking your own products. The confidence doesn't come from just chancing upon how to build a lens, they would have a repeatable reverse engineering process they can continue to use in case of any issues. That is how they have done things in past, and that is the main hurdle here, not some "permission" from Canon that they never had. Sigma has been sued in the past, patents and IP aren't new things

If I were a third party lens maker I would see the EF mount as a dead one that has no long term future or support. There efforts are better spent on mounts that allow them to make the most capable lenses at the best price points.

I can see that, and IMO that is probably why the likes of Sigma and Tamron haven't jumped onto quickly getting onto RF bandwagon with lenses with built in adapters. They probably will, but only when they are ready with native RF, whenever that makes business and practical sense for them

Until Canon stops actively preventing third party RF lens development, there will be no more AF lenses from them. It is far too easy for Canon to gimp these lenses on a whim and I have no trust that they won't do this.

No one knows what Canon has done or exactly objected to. No one has found a patent that can be actually used to prevent clean room reverse engineering of the RF mount. We don't know if Canon had to do much here or viltrox / samyang did something simple and silly to be asked to stop. If you are just going to assume there is no hope here, perhaps should accept that fact and move on - because I don't see the point otherwise. People either see this and will move to other manufacturers, or they will still have hope for best outcome with Canon system and stay on

First, you don't make my decisions. Second, it is anyone's right to express their opinions here. Being a very long time Canon user I have earned the right to be critical of Canon on any decision they make.

So have I, I don't see what point you are making here when we all have the same right. You can do whatever you like, but you haven't been arguing what you want to do. You have been rather spending time prophesizing what others might do and how Canon will hurt from that. Hipocracy somewhat?

 

[Swerky]

I’m tempted by the R7, but the lack of a better general zoom lens, no autofocus ultra wide angle lens make things harder to switch. Some would say manual focus is fine for ultra wide, still, having options is better.
Sometimes I say to myself the 18-150 would be quite good for general photography and travel, but I would like such a lens to start at 24mm equivalent, that way I don’t need to switch to an ultra wide angle that often. Don't mind if it stops at 120mm equivalent.

Yep. EF-S had the 15-85 which is 24-136 equivalent. It was a decent lens too. It should be even easier to create a 15-85 for RF-S, with its much smaller registration distance.

That's what I'm afraid of. Canon have released better lenses in the early days of EF-S, like the 15-85, 10-22 and 60 macro, and then they mostly stuck to kit lens quality. Would be surprised to see from Canon better quality lenses for RF-S.

 

[PicPocket]

Third party lenses can already be used on the RF mount. You just need an EF-RF adapter to use them.

I can imagine that licensing the full RF mount would force Canon to share information about the RF mount that they rather keep to themselves.

What might be an acceptable solution for Canon, is to open the physical RF mount, but keep the electronics limited to what's available in the EF mount, so the body will see the lens as an EF lens mounted on an EF-RF adapter.

Most people want native mount third party lenses. Actually you are highlighting one of the reasons this is such a bad move by Canon. That is people have to use older third party lenses to be able to use them at all. There have been, and will be, design advancements and price advantages made by third party lens makers that Canon users will never be able to take advantage of because these new lenses will not be made with an EF or RF mount. Canon has really screwed over their user base with this move to ban third party lenses. And no, manual third party lenses are not what 99% of people want or need.

I'll be happy with new optics on EF protocol, as that is what was being suggested. Frankly, I see clear advantage of newer optics due to changes in flange distance, while I don't find the speed advantages of RF protocol as big of a deal breaker given so many EF lenses work so well on newer cameras. YMMV

That is what Viltrox was doing with their RF 85mm lens. It used the EF protocol but with RF mount & optics. Clearly not allowed by Canon. And I don't expect any company making new EF designs, since all design are for mirrorless now (with smaller flange distance).

We don't know what the real issue was. What IP would that infringe on? Canon may not like it, but no one has been able to point to a patent that they can enforce here. If on the other hand, viltrox had a stolen firmware, or was mimicking Canon trademarks in their lens communication, it would be a different story. Canon saying not allowed only matters when they have specific IP to protect, and the whole model of clean room reverse engineering works on the basis of doing things without infringing on IP. It's not as simple as - let's copy what Canon did, which is why it takes time and expertise. Sigma did win the case in past setting precedent that it is allowed as long as they have a clean room solution

 

[Avenger20]

You seem up for it, so please work this out with Canon and let us all know.

There is no indication they do their messaging via dpreview, specially when it comes to being made aware of what youtube reviewers are saying about them.

It will take this decision affecting their bottom line to get them to reverse it. Time will tell if this happens.

What will take? Addressing a letter to Canon on dpreview forum?

No. It will take enough people not buying their products. Canon has to feel economic pain before they reverse their decision. Time will tell if they do feel the pain.

Indeed, but somehow I think before they decide that it will already be too late and Canon will be behind Sony/Nikon in market share. At that point 3rd party lens makers might not even be interested anymore (just like M43 has almost no 3rd party lenses).

 

[mstMuc]

Dear Canon, you need to welcome 3rd party lenses into the RF mount

• Maybe the real pros here can afford to have most lenses costing North of 2k
• But for the vast majority of users, pros or amateurs, the lack of variety of lenses at mid-range price point is now seriously showing.. which was the strength of the EF mount

canons response: Dear Gaul - if you think, users can’t afford buying Rf lenses then feel free to support them … if you don’t want to do so, why do you ask us to support competitors?

if someone need cheaper lenses on their R cameras then there‘s a huge second hand market with full supported EF lenses …

Btw: R cameras sells very well - so there‘s more a shortage of R cameras then cheap RF lenses …

 

[Myles Baker]

Third party lenses can already be used on the RF mount. You just need an EF-RF adapter to use them.

I can imagine that licensing the full RF mount would force Canon to share information about the RF mount that they rather keep to themselves.

What might be an acceptable solution for Canon, is to open the physical RF mount, but keep the electronics limited to what's available in the EF mount, so the body will see the lens as an EF lens mounted on an EF-RF adapter.

Most people want native mount third party lenses. Actually you are highlighting one of the reasons this is such a bad move by Canon. That is people have to use older third party lenses to be able to use them at all. There have been, and will be, design advancements and price advantages made by third party lens makers that Canon users will never be able to take advantage of because these new lenses will not be made with an EF or RF mount. Canon has really screwed over their user base with this move to ban third party lenses. And no, manual third party lenses are not what 99% of people want or need.

I'll be happy with new optics on EF protocol, as that is what was being suggested. Frankly, I see clear advantage of newer optics due to changes in flange distance, while I don't find the speed advantages of RF protocol as big of a deal breaker given so many EF lenses work so well on newer cameras. YMMV

That is what Viltrox was doing with their RF 85mm lens. It used the EF protocol but with RF mount & optics. Clearly not allowed by Canon. And I don't expect any company making new EF designs, since all design are for mirrorless now (with smaller flange distance).

Using the EOS R at the moment with EF glass, but will not be further investing into the RF platform. Will be switching to Sony at some point and use my EF glass with them until I get the Tamron E-mount lenses.

The Viltrox lens was identifying as a Canon EF 85 f1.8 in the EXIF data. Thats not simply using the EF protocols. I'm not aware of any 3rd party EF lenses identifying as Canon lenses on the EF system or when using an adaptor on the RF system.

 

[Myles Baker]

You seem up for it, so please work this out with Canon and let us all know.

There is no indication they do their messaging via dpreview, specially when it comes to being made aware of what youtube reviewers are saying about them.

It will take this decision affecting their bottom line to get them to reverse it. Time will tell if this happens.

What will take? Addressing a letter to Canon on dpreview forum?

No. It will take enough people not buying their products. Canon has to feel economic pain before they reverse their decision. Time will tell if they do feel the pain.

Indeed, but somehow I think before they decide that it will already be too late and Canon will be behind Sony/Nikon in market share. At that point 3rd party lens makers might not even be interested anymore (just like M43 has almost no 3rd party lenses).

Then you will be able to say I told you so and Canon will look foolish for their decision. Until then, I'd assume that they are working from actual sales data and marketing research and not speculation, I could be wrong of course they might be basing their decsions on a magic 8 ball

 

[PicPocket]

The Viltrox lens was identifying as a Canon EF 85 f1.8 in the EXIF data. Thats not simply using the EF protocols. I'm not aware of any 3rd party EF lenses identifying as Canon lenses on the EF system or when using an adaptor on the RF system.

In that case, it would be clear infringement on multiple fronts

First, it's a trademark issue. The lens is pretending to be "Canon"

Then, if we think about why it may do so, there is a good chance it might be reusing some code from Canon's lens to power itself (perhaps that's the AF IP being pointed at). This part is speculative, but the TM issue is enough for a clear no-no.

Viltrox came out and said "Canon asked us to stop", but there is also the element of "we had to stop because we were not on solid footing to challenge that".

--
PicPocket
http://photography.ashishpandey.com

 

[Avenger20]

I don't think this means the end of Canon's imaging division at all. I don't think anyone has claimed this to be true. It could very well mean this decision will stunt the growth of the R system user base, or even shrink it, at a critical point in its existence. It could also bring some very negative, lasting PR to Canon from which it might take a long time to recover.

Canon introduced EF mount in 1987, it is still selling after 35 years.

RF mount was introduced in 2018.

Its patents may filed before 2018, (no later than early 2018) because once a product is introduced to the public, it becomes prior art, and is too late to file patent.

Patents expire 20 years after filing. After 20 years (around 2038 ), everybody can make RF lens according to information disclosed in the patent without paying a dime to Canon.

Canon probably has filed additional patents related to more advanced/improved features of RF mount after 2018, competitors cannot incorporate such features into their lens until those patents also expire though.

Assuming RF mount life is not shorter than EF mount, by 2038 RF mount may be just in its middle life - a boost with 3rd parties lens may be a good timing for Canon

The question is can, or will, Canon provide the variety of lenses users expect at the quality and price points they demand? I don't see where Canon can do this even if they are willing to do it. This will give Sony a huge advantage over them going forward, IMO.

It depends on what the average user wants. Canon alrady have the lenses I want at a price point that is reasonable in my eyes. That might not suit you, but can always move to another brand if you want to. FYI, I own the rf351.8, rf501.8, rf85f2, rf 24-195f4. I plan on buying the rf 16 f1.8 and the rf 100-400. I'm also interested in the rf 24f2.8 ang the rf600f11. But thats just my wants and is not necessarily reflective of what others want, in the same way as yoir wants are not refle tive of anyone elses.

Unfortunately those stm lenses are slow and not weather sealed. Maybe great for occasional amateur use, but professionally they are a no go. And not every pro or professional has the income/budget to buy $2k -$3k lenses. We need something in between that Canon likely will never provide.