No 3rd party RF Lenses...

[greeneyes_516]

This is a Deal Breaker for me. I am still using DSLR and it will still be a little while before I get a mirrorless camera because of budget. This news is going to make me look into getting Nikon or Sony, if when I go to a mirrorless camera, if I can't get 3rd party RF lenses for Canon. Since the beginning, I have been using Canon. From my first 35mm Film camera, then stepped up to DSLR with the Canon Rebel XTI. Few years later got the Canon 60D and then got the Canon 80D. When I got the 80D, I started to try to get better lenses. So I do have the Canon 24-70 L and got the Tamron 70-210 F4, I also have 2 Sigma lenses. I am on a limited budget. I finally stepped up to Full Frame with the Canon 6D Mark II. I will say that I am happy with all the photos that I have been able to get with my cameras over the years, but I am not a Fan Boy. For a matter of fact, I have recommended a friend to get a Nikon camera, because of what they were wanting to use it for and to stay with in their budget. I have used friends Nikon cameras in the past and was totally happy with those cameras. When people ask for a recommendation on a camera, I just tell them to stay with a Major brand so they have options in the future for expanding their equipment. In the future I will get a mirrorless camera and to start off with, I was going adapt my current lens to the Camera. But will be wanting to get mirrorless lenses when money allows. There is no way I can afford to get any L series Canon RF lenses, so this will be a deal breaker for me. This will make me sell off my Canon equipment, and go with Nikon or Sony, depending on which one has the options that I want at my price. A sad day for Canon.

[Tronhard]

Ah, thanks for that.  I wish this whole thing had not erupted, and I know it's wearisome to read - and for me also wearisome to respond to.  However, that sort of false news and speculation as fact is rampant in the world in so many ways right now, causing all sorts of angst and frustration.  I spent a chunk of my life monitoring the harm this stuff does to people and organizations and this was one example I could engage with.

I hope those who find it all too much will just move on to other, more positive topics... 🙂

[zoah666]

So I didn't think this was a huge deal at first (read up on it if you don't know already), because there's plenty of great EF glass out there and some solid adapters that even give some bonus functionality like NDs.

BUT, hearing some takes and thinking about how I got started, I'm a little anxious to make the jump from an EF to RF mount now because there won't be any third party lenses to make faster and more niche glass more affordable and even drive the market forward.

Like a lot of people I began my career on sigma lenses and loved exploring all sorts of third party EF lenses canon wasn't even making their own versions of.

I just think that we'll be way more heavily restricted to buying glass that could be way more approachable to freelancers and newcomers and Canon will be its own competition in the RF game, giving them 0 incentive to compete on quality vs price. The EF lenses are still great, but they're stuck as they are. As tech creeps forward, glass will get smaller, faster, lighter and sharper. We just won't see that progression if we plan to keep adapting the older lenses.

What do you guys think? And if you agree, what can we do to send a message that this isn't the right move?

[Tronhard]

There is a lot of click-bait on this subject, and it has been hyped up massively.  Canon have not stopped 3rd party manufacturers; they have held back licensing for creating 3rd party RF autofocus lenses for the time being. That has not been helped by Canon's rather muted response to the whole issue.  It is important to separate what we know from the hype here.

What we know is that two lens makers have been given a cease-and-desist instruction from Canon for impinging upon their patented R autofocus lens features.  In that respect Canon are perfectly correct and within their legal and ethical rights.  Actually, they could have been far more hostile and sued, but they didn't.   One of those makers, Viltrox, have published a statement to that effect and it was confirmed by a brief comment by Canon Germany.  I suspect that it is likely Viltrox did not actually reverse engineer Canon's IP but may have had access to it through licensing and then jumped the gun in releasing it before they should.  This is, to some degree, supported by the Viltrox statement that for the time being, these lenses are no longer offered.  If they had reverse engineered, they would almost certainly be required to delete any IP and the results from that.  

What we don't know:  What will happen in the future, but there are clues that one can assemble and they are worth exploring...

Historical Context: Back in the 90's I was around when Canon changed from the FD to the EF mount for their new range or EOS systems.  3rd party companies like Tamron had been producing mounts for makers - I had their lenses for my Nikon and Canon gear for about 12 years.  When the EF mount came out there was a delay between that being released and 3rd party lenses coming to market, and an article at the time explained why.

Canon wanted to establish its brand as reliable and was still doing work to perfect the firmware in a controlled manner.  There are issues with autofocus and focus tracking at the moment that are being addressed, so it's still a work in progress.  Outsourcing that tech as is to 3rd parties was not considered a good idea for anyone, and then there was the obvious business decision to allow some time for EF lenses to be sold.  Given the millions Canon have invested in the mount and lenses for them, that is not unreasonable nor unique to them.  However, that period was relatively brief as a lot of lenses came on market from Canon in quick succession.   

Now fast forward to Canon's release of the RF mount in 2019.  It was definitely late to the MILC market and had to get some bodies out there, so it released the rather tepid R and RP bodies, along with a few lenses. Then something completely unplanned happened.  COVID hit. 

The impact was massive across the world and across many industries, especially those relying on Chinese manufacture - and Canon was one of those.  There were reports of empty factories, and closed production lines for lack of staff, lack of raw materials and as simple things as screws, without which parts could not be assembled. Because different manufacturers got their components from different sources, they were impacted in different ways.  That disruption is still being felt and it has had two impacts on Canon's processes.   

The design and development of new lenses and significant disruption to supplies for production.  We are seeing the same thing with the Nikon Z9, for example with massive backlogs of orders, so this is not unique to Canon.

Canon should have got more lenses out and would likely now be in a position to license their IP to other makers, but they are likely not - their lens road map is still not fully developed.  They have done great work via their adapters to allow legacy native and 3rd party lenses to work well with Canon R-series bodies, but the native R lenses are lagging, especially in the lower price bracket.  Things have got more complicated as people clamoured for more bodies, APS-C bodies and lenses to match - the market they have to fill has expanded significantly. 

However, 3rd party suppliers have also been impacted and the bigger names are likely also stressed for resources for both development and production for the same reasons.

Canon aren't stupid, they know that having 3rd party glass will enhance their market for those who, for one reason or another, do not use native Canon glass, so it's actually to their advantage to let that market develop. Sigma and Tamron have signalled that they will be developing glass 'in due course'.  I doubt that they will say that and risk criticism if that was not a practical possibility.

So, instead of committing to statements about abandoning Canon, or whatever, I am merely saying that there are many more factors to consider than the ones being touted to make Canon into a villain.  Canon is a business entity, and it is pragmatic in engaging with trusted suppliers.  However, given their behaviour, Viltrox may not be on the immediate list for early licensing.  I note that they are still selling EF and EF-M glass with no issues, and they have said they are stopping production of RF glass for the time being.

Further, I strongly recommend the video of an interview with Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki at his new facilities: HERE - he seems to be an awesome guy and has a great ethic for his product and his employees.  It is interesting to note that one of the reasons for his major facility expansion was the hiring of significant numbers of engineers " for the new camera mounts".  There are (to my knowledge) only two new mounts at present: Canon and Nikon, so that suggests to me that if they are confident enough to invest in new capacity for this, then they must believe that what they produce will come to market. Further, Sigma as an old business partner of Canon, is extremely unlikely to try to reverse-engineer anyone else's technology, so it suggests that they have a connection to at least some of Canon RF IP.

So, be patient - this situation is very, very new and let's wait until the dust settles.

[iruma77]

So I didn't think this was a huge deal at first (read up on it if you don't know already), because there's plenty of great EF glass out there and some solid adapters that even give some bonus functionality like NDs.

BUT, hearing some takes and thinking about how I got started, I'm a little anxious to make the jump from an EF to RF mount now because there won't be any third party lenses to make faster and more niche glass more affordable and even drive the market forward.

Like a lot of people I began my career on sigma lenses and loved exploring all sorts of third party EF lenses canon wasn't even making their own versions of.

I just think that we'll be way more heavily restricted to buying glass that could be way more approachable to freelancers and newcomers and Canon will be its own competition in the RF game, giving them 0 incentive to compete on quality vs price. The EF lenses are still great, but they're stuck as they are. As tech creeps forward, glass will get smaller, faster, lighter and sharper. We just won't see that progression if we plan to keep adapting the older lenses.

What do you guys think? And if you agree, what can we do to send a message that this isn't the right move?

[dantose]

Yeah, it's a very troubling move as it's probably going to hamstring lens selection for years. I know, you can always adapt the deep bench of EF glass to RF, but that doesn't help them much as you can also adapt it to E mount. If someone is looking to move to mirrorless, it's a hard sell when the offerings just significantly shrunk.

[Tronhard]

Did you read my response below?

[dantose]

Yes, but it's irrelevant to my post. Regardless of whether Canon will eventually allow third party af lenses, there are fewer RF lenses available today than there were a month and a half ago and the pace of lens releases is unlikely to match other mount options in the foreseeable future. Now, maybe that will change in the future, maybe not. But that's the reality on the ground right now and will understandable factor into pirchasing decisions.

[Tronhard]

What I am saying is that this principle of developing native lenses first is neither unique nor specific to Canon.

Obviously, you have to make your decisions based on your needs and preferences - personally, I am in for the long haul with Canon; although I have, and shoot with, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus and Sony gear. 

The R-series system offers benefits as a system outside the necessity to purchase new RF glass. I have only three RF lenses and shoot a lot with my legacy EF glass - both native and from Sigma, without issues.  

You said: "I know, you can always adapt the deep bench of EF glass to RF, but that doesn't help them much as you can also adapt it to E mount. If someone is looking to move to mirrorless, it's a hard sell when the offerings just significantly shrunk."

Sure, one can use the native legacy lenses on both Canon and Sony (as well as Fuji).  However you are still using non-native lenses on a body with an adapter, which is apparently what you want to avoid. If the glass is equal, then surely it comes down to the performance of the bodies in that case, unless one is going to then invest in native Sony glass?  Switching camera systems in that context is not cheap, despite what a lot of folks seem to do on You Tube.

The offerings did not "just significantly shrunk" they simply did not expand for autofocus lenses as fast as you were expecting. 

You said: "there are fewer RF lenses available today than there were a month and a half ago".  Are you suggesting that Canon removed lens models from the market, or are you referring to lenses available in stock?  You would need to prove the former, and the latter is a function of logistics, not design policy.

[dantose]

AF lenses that were previously available are no longer available. This includes those removed following the cease and desists and also others that have more quietly vanished either due to less public cease and desists or chilling effects from the known ones. 

As far as the precedent, I'm aware of the walled garden strategy and understand the logic behind it. I'm just not sure it's wise in this market. 3 years into E-mount's release, Sigma, Tamron, et al were all releasing lenses. Z mount is only barely older than RF and has not only a stable of 3rd party lenses, but is now starting official partnerships with (IIRC) Tamron. 

There's a lot Canon is doing right too. They are making unique lenses that we haven't seen before, they have affordable options that are performing well, they have some stand out high end glass, but I think they are handling the 3rd party issue poorly, and the communication surrounding it even worse. 

BTW, I own an RP and a 77d. I'm looking at replacing the 77d with another crop sensor within a year. My plan was an R10 or R7 for christmas and maybe picking up that little 16mm they make for the RP, but with the uncertainty regarding the future of RF lens availability, I'm kicking that down the road and also looking at Sony. I like Canon cameras better than Sony cameras, but I know I'm going to have lots of lens options on Sony. There's uncertainty on that issue with the RF mount. 

That also raises the question of if I want to put more money into RF glass when I'm not sure which direction I'll go with my second camera. This isn't some stamping my foot "You've lost a customer!" reaction, but a reasoned approach about if I should really get the camera I really want when I don't know when (or even if) if I'll be able to get the glass I really want. i'm trying to make a decision not just for now, but also for my best guess of what will be 5 years down the road. 

[Tronhard]

I understand your concern.  I am simply saying that the environment within which you have been getting your information is skewed by the click-bait and hype, and general panic that it has caused in the market.  You say "I'm trying to make a decision not just for now, but also for my best guess of what will be 5 years down the road."

I will be absolutely amazed if market, the offerings, and the engagement with 3rd party suppliers will not have changed drastically in the next five years.  If you are considering the lenses designed for the RF APS-C mount, consider how long the bodies have been out for - just a few months.  So, it seems unreasonable to compare this situation to that of Sony, especially given that Sony made their releases well before COVID struck.  I am not suggesting blind loyalty to any brand here, I am suggesting that it is far too early to make conclusions and being concerned about what will happen in five years based on the last few months (in the context of APS-C) is drawing and extremely long bow. 

I think, if you don't need to, that delaying a decision is a wise move.  I think Sony and Nikon make great cameras, but I see no point in shifting my investment between brands on a short-term situation.  The lenses you mention not being available may, or may not be because of Canon - that is a surmise on anyone's part.  As I said, it could be as much because of changes that Canon may be making to the interface that engages between lenses and lens makers are actually in the loop and holding back to see how things settle.  It's an argument of equal merit because we have not proof or statements (of which I am aware) from either Canon or other 3rd party makers.  I will maintain that makers like Sigma would not be hiring significant numbers of designers for lenses they can't make for five years.