Viltrox Stops Selling Canon Lenses

[Tronhard]

I was interested to see A POST in DPREVIEW to the effect that Canon had told Viltrox to stop selling Canon RF mount lenses.   I went to the lens company's website HERE  and there is no listing for Canon RF lenses and, in fact, none for the EF-M mount either.

This information might be useful if someone asks about Viltrox lenses on Canon bodies, as it seems they have stopped producing product.

[Waddizzle]

Canon asked or told Viltrox to stop selling RF lenses and mount adapters.

I am not too surprised by this move by Canon.  There have been several posts from people encountering camera malfunctions and errors codes associated with using Viltrox EF-RF mount adapters.  Sometimes it has been a Viltrox lens causing malfunctions, drained batteries, and error codes and messages. 

Many users are angry when they send their camera to Canon, the camera gets returned with a clean bill of health, while the problems will persist just as they always have.  Viltrox was giving Canon a headache and a bad name.  Not to mention the extra load on their Support and Service departments.

It is my understanding that Canon also asked Samyang/Rokinon to stop producing for the RF mount, too.  I have not heard about as many issues with their gear as I have Viltrox.  In fact, I cannot think of any complaints or issues associated with the RF mount and their gear.

Will this stifle third party development for the RF mount?  Will Sigma and Tamron be the next targets?  I dunno.

[Tronhard]

Absolutely agree.  I see multiple posts from people wanting Canon to support the lenses from 3rd party makers.  They fail to realize that it is the responsibility of the lens manufacturer to make their lenses work properly with the Canon system.  Canon have neither the right, nor responsibility to make their gear work with other brands.  Yes, I see angry posts too - it seems the logic of the situation is not obvious to some folks...

[ebiggs1]

I doubt Canon or any company has any authority beyond "asking" or advising an off-brand maker to do anything.

"They fail to realize that it is the responsibility ..."

What they fail to see and it is almost a universal thing now, is personal responsibility. If you are going off brand you need to do your homework. That's on you. Maybe best is to buy from a place that accepts returns if the product does not perform. Some would rather complain and send it to Canon to make it work. It is always best to stick with Canon unless there is a compelling reason not to. But you need to make sure whatever works.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I doubt Canon or any company has any authority beyond "asking" or advising an off-brand maker to do anything.

---

Back when Apple Mac computers had expansion slots and a closed architecture Apple was able to stop third party manufacturers from producing hardware that could work in the expansion slots by including proprietary code in their firmware.

Basically, when the computer booted and interrogated explanation slots to see if anything was plugged in, the expansion board had to provide a specific response.  In order to provide that specific response you had to copy Apple’s firmware and incorporate into your own.

That is how Apple stopped third parties from producing and selling expansion boards for the Mac platform.

[Tronhard]

Ernie, any camera equipment requires significant investment to bring to market.  A change in the lens mount with the associated circuitry and firmware, and resulting impact on the other elements of the camera is a monumental step. 

I asked an associate who is an international patent lawyer at a practice I did some work for about the issue, and her answer was unequivocal.  Absolutely, Canon will have protected those investments with strong patents that cover the hardware, pinning configurations, and any firmware for anything associated with their new lenses and cameras.  ALL technology makers do, and will be protective of it until they have established their own markets. They can enforce those rights with punitive damages if the 3rd party causes damage either economically, or by reputation to their brand via the products they have sold. 

The problem, in part at least, is that there is a perception by consumers that 3rd parties have right to leverage the technology that a company invested in - that is absolutely not the case. 

Back in the late 80's after IBM introduced the PC, there were a series of litigations between them of companies that created IBM clones, as opposed to compatibles.  Compatibles were computers that could emulate the IBM systems enough to utilize some, but not all of the features of the IBM PC's.  Clones were illegal copies that had hi-jacked the firmware and were essentially IBM's with another brand - except IBM didn't get a benefit from that and were materially damaged.  In series of litigations, IBM successfully protected their technology.  One example was Panasonic, that had been contracted by IMB to produce BIOS and memory chips for their PCs.  Apparently, Panasonic ran of a bunch for their own computers and IBM sued them successfully, locking their computers out of the US and European markets for some years, and getting significant damages.

The answer is for 3rd parties to apply for licensing agreements with the OEM to produce certain products within specific limitations.  That likely will have been done, but the point (according to my source) is that it is fairly standard to include clauses that allow such an agreement to be terminated or paused if the OEM considers that it in some way the execution of that agreement has damaged them.

Given the apparent number of issues that have been associated with non-native lenses and the misguided belief by some people that support for these units Canon's responsibility, it could be argued that Canon's reputation is being damaged.  That responsibility lies both with the maker of a product to specify clearly what it does and does not do on the box, and the consumer to make sure they read that information and accept its limitations.

Given the complaints to Canon regarding certain makers, they have 'asked' to stop producing their lenses - that could be followed by a big stick if not complied with.  It is possible that the agreement will be reactivated when Canon considers the situation has been resolved.

[ebiggs1]

"... Apple was able to stop third party manufacturers from producing hardware that could work in the expansion slots by including proprietary code in their firmware."

This is perhaps a possibility but beyond "asking" Canon has no right to stop another company from making a product.  If Canon feels like a patent infringement has been breached then court is their answer. Citing totally unrelated cases means and proves nothing. There are certain things that are patentable and there are things that are not. Just as there is in copyright laws. Not everything is copyrightable.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... Apple was able to stop third party manufacturers from producing hardware that could work in the expansion slots by including proprietary code in their firmware."

This is perhaps a possibility but beyond "asking" Canon has no right to stop another company from making a product.  ….   Not everything is copyrightable.

---

It is more than a possibility.  It is reality.  Software is an intellectual property that can be copyrighted.  It is how IBM stopped the flood of PC clones that could run PC-DOS back in the 1980s.  IBM put proprietary code in their bootstrap loader firmware.  

Unfortunately for IBM, their copyright hammer was neutered when Microsoft released MS-DOS.  MS-DOS contained a different bootstrap loader, which Microsoft released into the public domain.

[deebatman316]

Do you think other manufacturers will drop RF lenses and adapters. Do you think Canon will also tell 3rd parties to stop making EF-M lenses and adapters too.

-Demetrius

40D, 5D IV, EF 16-35mm F/2.8L III, EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II, EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM, EF 50 F/1.8 STM

430EX III-RT, 600EX II-RT

[Tronhard]

I don't know the answer to either of those.  If you go to the  VILTROX SITE , there are certainly no RF lenses on sale there, but there are some EF-M lenses.  I think it is best to wait and see.