Sigma: Our RF lenses have been a great success

[AlanF]

the physical mount itself is patented.

not to mention the base protocols.

"AF specific"? I mean there is some patents that deal with the lens based algorithms, I guess it depends on how much they copied from Canon or mimicked.

but it probably wasn't worth the fight for Viltrox as you mentioned

IP law is that you can patent a mount (or any legal object) but you cannot patent attachments to that mount. So, any third party manufacturer can legally make a lens mount that fits on to that mount. The same is true for vacuum cleaners or any other device.
IP law allows anyone to reverse engineer a protocol legally. However, if the reverse engineering is actually based on illegally seeing a patented or secret protocol, it is illegal (as alluded to by @koenkooi that Viltrox may have done).
The consequence is that Viltrox and everyone else can legally make manual AF lenses for Canon RF lenses and no way can Canon stop that by law. For AF lenses, they need to design their own communications protocols without seeing Canon's.

 

[Berowne]

are lenses better now you mean? I assume you mean M42 mount? or maybe R mount?
C/Y was close i guess.

Here Catalog of M42 lenses are more than 1000 lenses mit M42-mount listed, third most after F- and EF-mount. My guess is, that more than ten Camera-Brands used the M42-mount. So it was somewhat a "Universal Mount". One can say, that Lens-Manufacturers who produced lenses for this mount have been in a highly competitive situation. The search function delivers 14 different 1.4/50mm SLR-Lenses, there was a great variety: 1.4/50
My question was, whether this competitive situation and the fact, that manufacurers produced a greater variety of lenses result in better quality of the respective lenses? I dont think so. There was also a greater variety of M39 Leica-screw mount lenses. But Leica and Zeiss have always made the best.
Conclusion: Consumer will not profit from an open RF-Mount. You may have cheaper, but not better glass.

 

[AlanF]

Here Catalog of M42 lenses are more than 1000 lenses mit M42-mount listed, third most after F- and EF-mount. My guess is, that more than ten Camera-Brands used the M42-mount. So it was somewhat a "Universal Mount". One can say, that Lens-Manufacturers who produced lenses for this mount have been in a highly competitive situation. The search function delivers 14 different 1.4/50mm SLR-Lenses, there was a great variety: 1.4/50
My question was, whether this competitive situation and the fact, that manufacurers produced a greater variety of lenses result in better quality of the respective lenses? I dont think so. There was also a greater variety of M39 Leica-screw mount lenses. But Leica and Zeiss have always made the best.
Conclusion: Consumer will not profit from an open RF-Mount. You may have cheaper, but not better glass.

That is not a "conclusion" for many reasons. Firstly, you can't predict the future from such "evidence" from the past. Secondly, you argue Leica and Zeiss have always made the best lenses, then if the past is to go by, then surely they should make better lenses than Canon if they decided to compete. Thirdly, if the consumer is not interested in better glass but the cheaper is good enough for them, then the consumer will profit from an open RF-Mount. etc etc.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Sigma has 6 APS-C lenses in their lineup, and 30 FF lenses. Why do you think that is? Could it be that they sell a LOT MORE full frame lenses? Or are they just that dumb and they keep releasing more & more FF lenses when the "real demand" is with APS-C?

Believe it or not, Sigma is not dumb. They make incredible FF lenses and sell a LOT of them. Except not on RF, where for "some reason" they only sell APS-C. This isn't rocket science, Sigma is not allowed to sell FF glass on RF. Maybe that will change. Maybe not. But let's not try to make the nariative something that is obviously not true. Sigma would be selling FF on RF if they were allowed to.

They are not even done rolling out the APS-C lenses they promised and can't keep up with demand.
Why do people seem to think Sigma can bring their entire lineup all at once?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

You may have missed this, which has been discussed here, or I have missed evidence that this report is wrong.

Viltrox Says Canon has Demanded They Stop Selling RF-Mount Lenses

There are no third party RF AF lenses on the market.

petapixel.com

That does not seem to have anything to do with Sigma making full-frame lenses.
Viltrox is not making RF lenses at all.
This is a direct quote from a Phototrend interview with Sigma France but translated into English, "
Does Canon decide on a case-by-case basis which lenses to offer in RF mounts?

• As far as I know, the mount has been open since the first contract was signed.
• Then there may be a timetable, but I don't know.

"

 

[neuroanatomist]

I hope that both Canon and Nikon open their mounts more fully as that is what would be best for users of both mounts. … Strong competition between systems is what will result in the best products on every system.

Companies do not want what’s best for their users. Many hopes are shattered to tiny pieces when they fall on the jagged rocks of reality.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Reps say the craziest of things - and a lot of what happened doesn't jive from my understanding of the protocols that lenses can use.

I'm not sure it would have held up in court - because if they were using the EF protocol, they would have to then prove that the EF protocol on the RF mount (which is patented but widely used outside of Canon) is a patent infringement.

so it would have had to have been the a) the electronic contacts + b) auto focus logic + c) RF mount

probably more viltrox and samyang just didn't want to have that fight.

Yongnou has made full-frame RF lenses with autofocus since 2020 and they continue to do so.

YONGNUO Lenses - Best Third Party Lens

YONGNUO provide lenses for Sony E, Canon EF/RF, Nikon F/Z and MFT mount camera. Free Shipping1 Year Warranty7 Days Return

th.hkyongnuo.com

I have pointed this out several times but people seem to ignore it since it goes against the popular narrative.
"Canon does not allow third-party full-frame RF lenses" is simply not true.

 

[AlanF]

That does not seem to have anything to do with Sigma making full-frame lenses.
Viltrox is not making RF lenses at all.
This is a direct quote from a Phototrend interview with Sigma France but translated into English, "
Does Canon decide on a case-by-case basis which lenses to offer in RF mounts?

• As far as I know, the mount has been open since the first contract was signed.
• Then there may be a timetable, but I don't know.

"

That was a reply to the statement;

There's a "narrative" of Canon not allowing fullframe lenses that people like believe and complain about.
But probably nobody complaining actually knows. And me neither.

Viltrox did make RF AF lenses: here is a review of one of them etc.

Viltrox RF 85mm F1.8 STM Review - DustinAbbott.net

Photographer Dustin Abbott shares a thorough review of the Viltrox RF 85mm F1.8 STM - a budget autofocus prime lens for Canon RF mirrorless

dustinabbott.net

Here is one of the many accounts that Canon stopped them.

 

[Bob Howland]

Before Sigma could introduce any lenses in R mount, they had to learn the interface firmware, unless they just wanted to introduce EF lenses with RF mounts. I suspect that was the hard part. Judging from Sigma's lens mount conversion capability, it seems that the hardware portion of the interface was the easy part or at least the part where Sigma is very experienced.

Why the APS-C first? Because there was a glaring lack of competition. Now if Sigma would just introduce a 50-135 f/2.8 DC DN C in all pertinent lens mounts, I would appreciate it. Come on Sigma, complete the trinity!

 

[AlanF]

Yongnou has made full-frame RF lenses with autofocus since 2020 and they continue to do so.

YONGNUO Lenses - Best Third Party Lens

YONGNUO provide lenses for Sony E, Canon EF/RF, Nikon F/Z and MFT mount camera. Free Shipping1 Year Warranty7 Days Return

th.hkyongnuo.com

I have pointed this out several times but people seem to ignore it since it goes against the popular narrative.
"Canon does not allow third-party full-frame RF lenses" is simply not true.

Read my post about IP law: Canon cannot legally stop 3rd parties making RF manual focus RF lenses, or AF lenses with genuinely reverse engineered communication protocols.

 

[Richard CN]

IP law is that you can patent a mount (or any legal object) but you cannot patent attachments to that mount. So, any third party manufacturer can legally make a lens mount that fits on to that mount. The same is true for vacuum cleaners or any other device.
IP law allows anyone to reverse engineer a protocol legally. However, if the reverse engineering is actually based on illegally seeing a patented or secret protocol, it is illegal (as alluded to by @koenkooi that Viltrox may have done).
The consequence is that Viltrox and everyone else can legally make manual AF lenses for Canon RF lenses and no way can Canon stop that by law. For AF lenses, they need to design their own communications protocols without seeing Canon's.

that's interesting - I do know Canon applied for patents on the mount mechanics, but the last thing I want to do is go back and try and find them again

i do know there were several patents dealing with the electrical contacts - but that was more the design of the plate in which the contacts were attached to.
Surprisingly there was a serious amount of thought put into those tiny little contacts and how you turn the lens, and disconnect which contacts first and how.

(but extenders and macro extenders, etc - have used similar contact plates so i can't see canon being huffy over that)

I get what you mean about protocol but for me that never past the sniff test - because they could have simply used the EF protocol which was in the public domain.

I always get to a point in these discussions where I just go .. i really have no idea it doesn't make any sense.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Read my post about IP law: Canon cannot legally stop 3rd parties making RF manual focus RF lenses, or AF lenses with genuinely reverse engineered communication protocols.

Then how are so many people claiming that Canon is not allowing third-party lenses?

 

[AlanF]

that's interesting - I do know Canon applied for patents on the mount mechanics, but the last thing I want to do is go back and try and find them again

i do know there were several patents dealing with the electrical contacts - but that was more the design of the plate in which the contacts were attached to.
Surprisingly there was a serious amount of thought put into those tiny little contacts and how you turn the lens, and disconnect which contacts first and how.

(but extenders and macro extenders, etc - have used similar contact plates so i can't see canon being huffy over that)

I get what you mean about protocol but for me that never past the sniff test - because they could have simply used the EF protocol which was in the public domain.

I always get to a point in these discussions where I just go .. i really have no idea it doesn't make any sense.

The possibly of using the EF protocol by 3rd parties but their not doing so has always puzzled me.

 

[Richard CN]

Here Catalog of M42 lenses are more than 1000 lenses mit M42-mount listed, third most after F- and EF-mount. My guess is, that more than ten Camera-Brands used the M42-mount. So it was somewhat a "Universal Mount". One can say, that Lens-Manufacturers who produced lenses for this mount have been in a highly competitive situation. The search function delivers 14 different 1.4/50mm SLR-Lenses, there was a great variety: 1.4/50
My question was, whether this competitive situation and the fact, that manufacurers produced a greater variety of lenses result in better quality of the respective lenses? I dont think so. There was also a greater variety of M39 Leica-screw mount lenses. But Leica and Zeiss have always made the best.
Conclusion: Consumer will not profit from an open RF-Mount. You may have cheaper, but not better glass.

times were alot different back then.

a) lenses didn't have to be as precise. CoC was .030mm and most lenses were good enough for 8x12" prints. beyond that you were gratefully covered by observer distance.
b) film wasn't perfectly flat.
c) computers didnt' design lenses back then
d) automated factories didn't grind elements and manufacturer lenses.
e) test equipment for these lenses wasn't nearly as advanced as today.

Leica and Zeiss made the best because they used craftsmen to do every step of the construction of the lenses. they weren't mass market.

 

[Richard CN]

The possibly of using the EF protocol by 3rd parties but their not doing so has always puzzled me.

you and me both my friend.

if i get to go to to CP+ next feb it's a question i am going to ask

 

[koenkooi]

Then how are so many people claiming that Canon is not allowing third-party lenses?

It’s a compelling narrative, especially for places that conflate ‘full frame mirrorless’ with ‘the whole market’.
You can generally spot those places by the amount of glee accompanying the use of words like ‘cripple’.

 

[AlanF]

Then how are so many people claiming that Canon is not allowing third-party lenses?

I am simply stating clearly the law surrounding IP regarding making attachments to cameras or any other devices, which is not universally known here judging by the comments. It puts claims about prevention into context. Some manufacturers like Yongnuo have used their legal rights, Viltrox was seemingly caught with their fingers in the till and are keeping their heads down to avoid punitive action, others like Sigma and Tamron have likely come to an agreement with Canon that is presumably mutually profitable.

 

[Richard CN]

I am simply stating clearly the law surrounding IP regarding making attachments to cameras or any other devices, which is not universally known here judging by the comments. It puts claims about prevention into context. Some manufacturers like Yongnuo have used their legal rights, Viltrox was seemingly caught with their fingers in the till and are keeping their heads down to avoid punitive action, others like Sigma and Tamron have likely come to an agreement with Canon that is presumably mutually profitable.

I wonder if viltrox and samyang copied Canon's ASIC, logic, etc that exists in their lenses to handle the communication - i could see Canon getting really hissy about that.

a few 10's of thousands of custom asics may have fallen off a truck somewhere in china, and "accidentally" landed in viltrox's HQ.

 

[Bob Howland]

times were alot different back then.

a) lenses didn't have to be as precise. CoC was .030mm and most lenses were good enough for 8x12" prints. beyond that you were gratefully covered by observer distance.
b) film wasn't perfectly flat.
c) computers didnt' design lenses back then
d) automated factories didn't grind elements and manufacturer lenses.
e) test equipment for these lenses wasn't nearly as advanced as today.

Leica and Zeiss made the best because they used craftsmen to do every step of the construction of the lenses. they weren't mass market.

The M42, Nikon F and Canon FD mounts were all entirely mechanical, with no electronics whatsoever. Furthermore, the M42 mount required that exposure metering be performed with the lens stopped down and the only "command" issued by the body to the lens was to push a pin on the back of the lens causing it to go to the aperture selected on the lens. Consider what the means for a long exposure in dim light at f/16, using ASA 25 Kodachrome film.

(I owned Asahi Pentax Spotmatic II, purchased while in the U.S. Coast Guard during the Vietnam era. I was so disgusted after two years, I traded the entire system, in 1975, for a Canon FTb and a few lenses.)

 

[David_B]

Sigma doesn’t produce any full frame lenses I’m interested in and Canon isn’t producing crop bodies I’m interested in. It feels a bit weird to be suddenly cured of GAS

Now, if Canon does a Fuji XM5 style body….

Or if Canon brought out a successor to the M6-II (with at least 30MP) ... yeah, crickets.