AF not working with TAMRON lenses on R5C in video mode

[PeteAG]

Hi there,

I just bought the R5C and I am fairly dissapointed by the fact that the AF of my two TAMRON lenses (SP 35 1.4 and SP 70-200 G2) does not work in video mode. In photo mode everything is perfect but in video mode...no chance. The problem is broadly discussed at reddit, DPReview a.s.o.

Seems to be fixable by Canon cause these lenses DO work on a C70.

CANON, please fix this as soon as possible!

[Tronhard]

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'locked down'.  Legally, it is, but there is no reason why an OEM would not avoid pain and suffering for them and everyone else, and get some ROI by leasing out access to certain parts of the firmware.  It is the same with computer manufacturers.  IBM rigorously enforced patents back in the 1980's and 90's with the firmware for their PS/2 systems, but over time they released parts of that material as they got back some of their investment and wanted to further establish the brand's market base.  I was working between Microsoft and IBM at the time and while not directly involved in the legalities, I had to sign NDA's in both directions about what was and was not allowed to be shared according to the licensing documents.

[deebatman316]

I shouldn't have said locked down. But throughout the forum. It was always said that 3rd parties reverse engineered lenses, speedlites and other accessories. Canon DID NOT license other companies to make things for the EOS system.

-Demetrius

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

430EX III-RT & 600EX II-RT

[Tronhard]

"Canon DID NOT license other companies to make things for the EOS system".  Not according to my legal eagle.  She at one point said she was staring at such a licensing agreement as it was being used as a model for a similar agreement with an Australian company.  Given she is a partner and has no reason to lie about it, if you have documentation to the contrary, I would love to reference it.

[Tronhard]

Canon, like all other camera makers, make it clear, and logic would suggest that it is the responsibility of 3rd paty manufacturers to make their lenses work with OEM camera equipment - in this case Canon. 

Both Tamron and Sigma have clearly stared that their lenses are not designed to work with R- series bodies. 

That is why one should do due diligence before making any purchase.

[PeteAG]

Will return the R5C tomorrow. Thanks.

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

@PeteAG,

May I respectfully recommend you give this some more thought and not make a knee-jerk return.  I purchased a control ring with my R5 C.  I have a modest collection of EF glass - Sigma Art, Contemporary, Canon L and non L series lenses.  So far they all work in photo mode.  The Sigma 24~70 Art works in CineOS too, but not as well as native RF glass.  Thus I purchased a RF version of the lens.  I was ok doing so since this version now has IS. This was the reason I purchased the Sigma Art in EF in the first place. Its like it was made for my 6D2.

The R5 C is a premiere product. Yes it has some quirks. I know exactly how you feel though.  I just spent $5k on a body.  I have an adapter, "what do you mean my 3rd party EF lenses won't work in CineOS"?  They aren't Canon lenses.  Unfortunately, not all will work and some will work better than others.  I thought the same thing.  I'll just use my control ring and take my time migrating to RF.  5 months later and there is only 1 more lens I probably want.   

While I am not ultimately a fan of Tamron, I know they make good glass. Comparatively though, Tamron lenses have one of the highest levels of hardware incompatibility in the industry.  They barely ever release FW.  This was one of the main reasons I chose Sigma over them.  Also because the zoom is reversed which is silly I know. I don't think Canon will spend any time getting your EF glass to work in CineOS on the R5 C. Tamron most assuredly will not. We all know 35mm is super sweet for video. Canon has their RF 35mm for $399 right now. Its $100 off. Anyway, just use the camera for a bit and see what you think. Or dump it for the R5. It really is a nice camera though.

One last question.  What body or body's are you coming from.

[Tronhard]

What I find perplexing is the concept that people have that Canon have to make their cameras compatible with 3rd party lenses - which is a common misconception, it would appear.  It is absolutely the responsibility of the 3rd party makers to ensure their gear works with the OEM's equipment.  In licensing agreements between the OEM and the 3rd party, both sides will have commitments: specifically the OEM will ensure that if they have licensed firmware to control devices like lenses of strobes, that they will update the 3rd party with such IP as appropriate.  However, it is the responsibility of that 3rd party to then make their products compliant.  That does not apply in this (and similar cases) as the lenses in question were never intended by the makers to work with the new RF mounts.

[PeteAG]

Hi there. I am a bit pissed by some answers cause a lot of Canons popularity for so many users is the ability to use third party lenses which don't cost thousands of dollars or euros. My first Canon was a T2i/550D with a kit lens I've never liked. The first lens I bought for it was a Sigma 18-35 which I still use today and this lens is fantastic by no competition from Canon itself. And this lens made a huge difference for people choosing Canon over some other brands.

You cannot argue that this is not Canons problem when a third party lens does not work with their cameras. It's a investment decision. The 8K50 full frame and my huge collection of EF-lenses was the reason I bought the R5C over all the other brands. When you look at the lens market, L-mount and E-mount is where you will find EVERYTHING to be happy. But in the RF-universe this is a pretty huge bummer cause the RF system keeps unattractive for people who wanna have a choice. And Canon should not ignore that! I don't like Sony nor the Panasonics but the lens choices are just over Canons excellent and I would love to use such lenses for my work!

Yes, I paid 5k for a body only device but I wish that Canon would let me decide which lens/look I want to use on this.

@Elite I'am from Germany

[Tronhard]

Hi Pete:
In response to your comment "You cannot argue that this is not Canons (sic) problem when a third party lens does not work with their cameras. It's a investment decision". 

Actually one can.  Canon have no control over the manufacture over 3rd party lenses - that is the right and responsibility of those manufacturers, so they have no responsibility for them.  It is up to 3rd party manufacturer to make their gear work with EOM equipment.  That is true for all camera makers and and lens makers.

Right now, Canon is still developing the RF/RF-S lens mounts and their own suite of lenses to work with them.  To design a lens for any modern camera system takes years of design and testing, so for all you know 3rd party makers are on that path.  One clue that I have alluded to is that Sigma have significantly expanded their design and manufacturing capacity, in the words of the CEO Kazuto Yamaki.  He said that this was to increase capacity to address 'the new lens mounts'.  The plural used here is significant.  There are only two new lens mounts around at this point: the Nikon Z mount, and the Canon R mount.  It beggars belief that they would build a new factory, and invest in new engineers if they were not confident that they had a market to engage with.

So, forget the click-bait and rumours, and be patient.  This has happened before when Canon went from the FD mount to the EOS EF mount.  They did not lock the 3rd party makers out of the market at that time, but there was a delay of a few years between the introduction of the mount and the first 3rd party lenses coming to market.  Canon are not stupid - they know the benefits of having 3rd party lenses, and they have good relations with reputable companies like Sigma and Tamron, for example.

[estudiook]

Good. At this point, Feb 2023, any news or solutions about?