Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses

Does anyone know if Canon officially claimed that they will not tolerate any 3rd party lenses for the RF mount? I mean...the R was released many years ago by now and we still have no native mount alternatives other than Canons own superexpensive glass. Or the cheapo kit-alternatives which seem to be mediocre at best.

This may sound weird but if this continues I might consider another system and I would hate that. I love what Canon is doing right now in the camera department but if they are going to charge $$$$ for the lenses and force me in that direction, I don't know. Furthermore, I happen to like the warmer rendering from Sigma and Tamron more than Canons own look so there is also that.

Of course there is the EF-RF adapter but both Sigma and Tamron have ditched the EF mount it seems so the options are getting slimmer each time they release a new lens for the other brands.

Cheers and enjoy your friday!

Assume no future.....

Base only on what Canon have today - or third party EF adapted.

Makes life simpler that way.

boldcolors wrote:

Does anyone know if Canon officially claimed that they will not tolerate any 3rd party lenses for the RF mount? I mean...the R was released many years ago by now and we still have no native mount alternatives other than Canons own superexpensive glass. Or the cheapo kit-alternatives which seem to be mediocre at best.

This may sound weird but if this continues I might consider another system and I would hate that. I love what Canon is doing right now in the camera department but if they are going to charge $$$$ for the lenses and force me in that direction, I don't know. Furthermore, I happen to like the warmer rendering from Sigma and Tamron more than Canons own look so there is also that.

Of course there is the EF-RF adapter but both Sigma and Tamron have ditched the EF mount it seems so the options are getting slimmer each time they release a new lens for the other brands.

Cheers and enjoy your friday!

You will be labeled and slaughtered and called bad names for asking this question in this forum.

My simple solution was to start dipping into the Sony FE mount system. For the first time in more than a decade, I am now shooting with two camera brands. And my last spend of $2000 was all on Sony (lenses).

boldcolors wrote:

Does anyone know if Canon officially claimed that they will not tolerate any 3rd party lenses for the RF mount? I mean...the R was released many years ago by now and we still have no native mount alternatives other than Canons own superexpensive glass. Or the cheapo kit-alternatives which seem to be mediocre at best.

You lost all credibility right there. None of the non-L primes is mediocre. The 35 and 85 are both excellent. The 50 is very good. The 16 is not only good, but also unique (check out the recent DPReview video on this site). The 100-400 is pretty much a reason in itself to switch from a different system to Canon. I say that from extensive experience of using those 5. Almost everyone who has the 24-240 says very good things about that too. I have seen many amazing results from the 800 F11 (lots of YouTube videos from great wildlife photographers).

This may sound weird but if this continues I might consider another system

and I would hate that. I love what Canon is doing right now in the camera department but if they are going to charge $$$$ for the lenses and force me in that direction, I don't know. Furthermore, I happen to like the warmer rendering from Sigma and Tamron more than Canons own look so there is also that.

Of course there is the EF-RF adapter but both Sigma and Tamron have ditched the EF mount it seems so the options are getting slimmer each time they release a new lens for the other brands.

Cheers and enjoy your friday!

Thanks for bringing this up. It’s been at least a day since someone made the laughably false claim that Canon only makes very expensive or mediocre RF lenses, and nothing in between.

CamerEyes wrote:

boldcolors wrote:

Does anyone know if Canon officially claimed that they will not tolerate any 3rd party lenses for the RF mount? I mean...the R was released many years ago by now and we still have no native mount alternatives other than Canons own superexpensive glass. Or the cheapo kit-alternatives which seem to be mediocre at best.

This may sound weird but if this continues I might consider another system and I would hate that. I love what Canon is doing right now in the camera department but if they are going to charge $$$$ for the lenses and force me in that direction, I don't know. Furthermore, I happen to like the warmer rendering from Sigma and Tamron more than Canons own look so there is also that.

Of course there is the EF-RF adapter but both Sigma and Tamron have ditched the EF mount it seems so the options are getting slimmer each time they release a new lens for the other brands.

Cheers and enjoy your friday!

You will be labeled and slaughtered and called bad names for asking this question in this forum.

No, just correctly criticized. But some people think that no-one should disagree with them.

My simple solution was to start dipping into the Sony FE mount system. For the first time in more than a decade, I am now shooting with two camera brands. And my last spend of $2000 was all on Sony (lenses).

boldcolors wrote:

Does anyone know if Canon officially claimed that they will not tolerate any 3rd party lenses for the RF mount? I mean...the R was released many years ago by now and we still have no native mount alternatives other than Canons own superexpensive glass. Or the cheapo kit-alternatives which seem to be mediocre at best. [...]

The only thing Canon has officially said is that they will act against companies infringing on their patents and trademarks. No more, no less. That seems to have been enough to scare away companies making RF lenses with autofocus.

As for 'no native mount alternatives', Laowa has more than 20 different RF lenses and Cosina just announced a 50mm f/1.0 native RF lens. Nothing with autofocus, sadly.

boldcolors wrote:

Does anyone know if Canon officially claimed that they will not tolerate any 3rd party lenses for the RF mount? I mean...the R was released many years ago by now and we still have no native mount alternatives other than Canons own superexpensive glass. Or the cheapo kit-alternatives which seem to be mediocre at best.

I don't recall seeing any official statement saying that. And strictly speaking they couldn't claim that in the first place, the closest they could do would be to state that they do not tolerate anything infringing on their intellectual property / patents which is not quite the same.

You will be labeled and slaughtered and called bad names for asking this question in this forum.

Not for the question itself.  Only because it’s been discussed ad nauseam.  A quick scroll past the first page or so will come up with several other threads on the same topic.

Still, the misconceptions and misinformation floating around on the subject is mind boggling.  People think their EF Sigma lenses will suddenly stop working on their Canon DSLR’s.  I know someone switching to Nikon (old DSLR to old DSLR) because of this belief.  I don’t know them well enough to talk them out of it though.

For balance I came from Nikon D500 (although I have kept it and two lenses) to Canon mirrorless in the shape of the R7. Any misgivings I may have revolve mainly around getting used to the nuances of mirrorless after 50 years of SLR/DSLR which would have applied to any make. I like to do my wildlife shooting on a budget and I have found that the 100-400mm RF and 600mm f11 have proved to be better than anything else I have had including 3rd party lenses on my Nikon for under £1000. I have the possibility of the 100-500mm RF as a future upgrade. The new 16mm RF may or may not fit my minor Astro requirements, I don't know yet. But many chose the system for lightness and you certainly can't argue with that or beat it with Sony? So whilst I hope they change their policy (because who doesn't like speculating about other lenses?) it is not that hard to understand or live with, especially if they continue to produce a range of price and quality lenses.

JustUs7 wrote:

People think their EF Sigma lenses will suddenly stop working on their Canon DSLR’s.

Dave C 150 wrote:

JustUs7 wrote:

People think their EF Sigma lenses will suddenly stop working on their Canon DSLR’s.

Yep.  Sometimes it’s not worth talking someone out of things that don’t really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things.  Whatever helps them sleep at  night.

IMO, you have to buy into a system as it is, not how you think or hope it might be one day. I have seen way too many people make this mistake and get trapped as resale plummeted. I actually did this with Canon RF but was able to move on for minimal cost.... but it's not a gamble I'd recommend anyone else making.

sportyaccordy wrote:

IMO, you have to buy into a system as it is, not how you think or hope it might be one day.

While I agree, this is difficult with a system which needs still to evolve. When I started with RF there weren't that much lenses yet and Canon didn't publish a lens roadmap. But at the end Canon wants to be / become the market leader also in mirrorless and I think they only can reach this goal when they have enough lenses.

I have seen way too many people make this mistake and get trapped as resale plummeted. I actually did this with Canon RF but was able to move on for minimal cost.... but it's not a gamble I'd recommend anyone else making.

I too would like all 3rd party manufacturers to be able to produce RF lenses with AF builtin.

However, everything isn't all butterflies and rainbows for Sony or Nikon.

For Sony, 3rd party don't have access to "advanced" features like lens built-in IS + IBIS working together nor focus breathing compensation.

For Nikon, they only allows manufacturing of lenses that are not duplicates of what they already propose.

The last video that was touching this specific point with a lot of details was: https://youtu.be/P4c4g-qIubo

In the end, if you look for the best tool for your trade, you still have to buy Sony to shoot on Sony or Nikon if you shoot on Nikon most of the time...

Liteo wrote:

I too would like all 3rd party manufacturers to be able to produce RF lenses with AF builtin.

However, everything isn't all butterflies and rainbows for Sony or Nikon.

For Sony, 3rd party don't have access to "advanced" features like lens built-in IS + IBIS working together nor focus breathing compensation.

I don't think this is true. According to DPR, for example, the Tamron 17-70 2.8's IS works with IBIS. I don't think I've ever heard of this being the case honestly.

For Nikon, they only allows manufacturing of lenses that are not duplicates of what they already propose.

Nikon does have tighter control over what 3rd party lenses they allow, but they do allow for redundancy. For example Viltrox makes FX 35, 50 and 85 1.8s that all undercut the Nikkor offerings in price.

So yea obviously neither system is perfect. But more choice is a good thing. Outside of super tele stuff I do think Nikon's Z lineup is more complete than Canon RF, despite them being launched essentially at the same time...... and a big part of that is Nikon allowing for 3rd party makers to enter the system.

The last video that was touching this specific point with a lot of details was: https://youtu.be/P4c4g-qIubo

In the end, if you look for the best tool for your trade, you still have to buy Sony to shoot on Sony or Nikon if you shoot on Nikon most of the time...

Alastair Norcross wrote:

boldcolors wrote:

Does anyone know if Canon officially claimed that they will not tolerate any 3rd party lenses for the RF mount? I mean...the R was released many years ago by now and we still have no native mount alternatives other than Canons own superexpensive glass. Or the cheapo kit-alternatives which seem to be mediocre at best.

You lost all credibility right there. None of the non-L primes is mediocre. The 35 and 85 are both excellent. The 50 is very good. The 16 is not only good, but also unique (check out the recent DPReview video on this site). The 100-400 is pretty much a reason in itself to switch from a different system to Canon. I say that from extensive experience of using those 5. Almost everyone who has the 24-240 says very good things about that too. I have seen many amazing results from the 800 F11 (lots of YouTube videos from great wildlife photographers).

This may sound weird but if this continues I might consider another system

and I would hate that. I love what Canon is doing right now in the camera department but if they are going to charge $$$$ for the lenses and force me in that direction, I don't know. Furthermore, I happen to like the warmer rendering from Sigma and Tamron more than Canons own look so there is also that.

Of course there is the EF-RF adapter but both Sigma and Tamron have ditched the EF mount it seems so the options are getting slimmer each time they release a new lens for the other brands.

Cheers and enjoy your friday!

Thanks for bringing this up. It’s been at least a day since someone made the laughably false claim that Canon only makes very expensive or mediocre RF lenses, and nothing in between.

To be fair, if you don't like the threads, you don't have to reply to every single one of them the way you seem eager to do.............

It's a recurring topic because it's an ongoing problem for certain shooters. If you don't want to discuss it nobody is forcing you to.................

My #.02

Sales of interchangeable lens cameras have dropped precipitously since their peak.  Camera makers have no choice but to adapt to that reality.  In the past the pie was big enough that the camera makers could "let" the third party lens makers have a piece of it and there was still enough for the camera maker to be healthy and profitable.

The pie is so much smaller now.  Even taking more of the pie, it's still a lot less than their share of the larger pie was.  I think that they 'need' those lens sales more now than they did in the not so distant past.

At the risk of sounding dramatic, if it came down to a choice of only  having Canon brand lenses available for my camera or not having Canon cameras available to buy, obviously I'd choose the former.  To put it another way, if the camera division doesn't make enough money, it will go away.  If blocking third party AF lenses is what it takes, that is an acceptable price, to me.

buellom wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

IMO, you have to buy into a system as it is, not how you think or hope it might be one day.

While I agree, this is difficult with a system which needs still to evolve. When I started with RF there weren't that much lenses yet and Canon didn't publish a lens roadmap. But at the end Canon wants to be / become the market leader also in mirrorless and I think they only can reach this goal when they have enough lenses.

If only I had choice of lenses for my RF body. Sadness.