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

[Avenger20]

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.

Doubt indeed we will see much quality glass for RF-S. Certainly smaller and more crap (high f-stop) kit lenses to sell with their RF-S bodies. Then they need to buy some full-frame RF glass and in the end hopefully push them into buying a full-frame R body.

 

[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.

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

Canon has the low end and high end covered. What reason is there to think they won't eventually cover the mid-range as well? They did so with EF and already have low, mid and high end wide angle RF zooms (14-35 f4, 15-35 f2.8 & 14-30 f4.5-6.3). I understand if you don't want to wait for them or if you don't believe they will cover these areas, lucky for you other brands can meet your needs.

 

[Sittatunga]

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"

Interesting ten year old article about this here; https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/canon-illumination-correction-and-third-party-lenses/

The original EF lens patents would have expired by then, and Sigma, Tamron and Tokina have leaned a lot since then.

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

 

[Sittatunga]

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.

Weather sealing isn't the norm in EF mount, even for the L lenses, and none of the ultrasonic and STM EF and EF-S lenses were sealed. And that RF 100-400mm focusses pretty fast, even if it is slow.

 

[Avenger20]

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.

Weather sealing isn't the norm in EF mount, even for the L lenses, and none of the ultrasonic and STM EF and EF-S lenses were sealed. And that RF 100-400mm focusses pretty fast, even if it is slow.

Yes that is true, but all my Tamron lenses were weather sealed without needing to pay a premium price. It's just frustrating that this option has been taken away and forces me to go to Sony/Nikon in the future as I don't have the budget to buy $2k -$3k lenses to shoot a few weddings a year.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

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.

Yes - I still have the EF-S 10-22 and 60 Macro, bought many years ago when I only had crop bodies. Very decent lenses, both of them.

But in all the years that the 7D, then 7D2, then R7 have been sold - in part on their build quality and weatherproofing - there has never been an L-class, weatherproof standard zoom for crop. Contrast that with the OM-1 I bought last month, bundled with the 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO II (24-80 mm equivalent) which is fully weatherproof. And unlike any Canon lens it has a proper rating, of IP53, not just a vague promise.

 

[Sittatunga]

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.

Weather sealing isn't the norm in EF mount, even for the L lenses, and none of the ultrasonic and STM EF and EF-S lenses were sealed. And that RF 100-400mm focusses pretty fast, even if it is slow.

Yes that is true, but all my Tamron lenses were weather sealed without needing to pay a premium price. It's just frustrating that this option has been taken away and forces me to go to Sony/Nikon in the future as I don't have the budget to buy $2k -$3k lenses to shoot a few weddings a year.

So why don't you just put them on the (weather sealed) mount adapter and carry on using them? My EF lenses are a little quicker to use on my EOS R than on my 5Ds, and more fun. And, while they're not weather sealed, they're more tolerant of rain than the average wedding guest.

 

[Myles Baker]

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.

Yes - I still have the EF-S 10-22 and 60 Macro, bought many years ago when I only had crop bodies. Very decent lenses, both of them.

But in all the years that the 7D, then 7D2, then R7 have been sold - in part on their build quality and weatherproofing - there has never been an L-class, weatherproof standard zoom for crop. Contrast that with the OM-1 I bought last month, bundled with the 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO II (24-80 mm equivalent) which is fully weatherproof. And unlike any Canon lens it has a proper rating, of IP53, not just a vague promise.