Will We Finally See Third-Party Autofocus for Full-Frame RF?

[John Wilde]

Regarding the young audience: I think Canon is not pushing the Influencers enough to catch new shooters. Once brand loyalty is built, it is hard for competitors to break through the bias. YouTube, TikTok etc. are full of Sony (and the odd Fujifilm).

"...in the second half of last year, strong demand for entry-class cameras, which are popular among young people..."

"We will increase sales by cultivating new camera users who primarily use video shooting, such as social media users and video creators..."

- Canon financial document

 

[Maximilian]

First of all: competition is good. That's the way free enterprise economy works.
But...

This article took a couple of days going back and forth as to whether or not it should be written. The topic of third-party RF lenses for full-frame cameras ...

@ Craig, @Canon Rumors , honestly, why did you bother?
It is a topic that is interesting a lot out there.

... third-party RF lenses for full-frame cameras has been a polarizing one.

There are a lot of Canon shooters that would never buying a third-party lens for EOS R and don’t feel there is a need, or don’t care, and then there are others that will have a bag full of them.

IMO, the only polarizing thing is the way, Canon is keeping hands on THEIR (!) patents.
This was and could be discussed. But it is the way free enterprise economy works.
For those who complain about Canon's way, I have one question: "Do you prefer communistic command economy?"
Because that's the way it would be if patents weren't protected.

And as soon as Canon finds an agreement with third-party lens suppliers, they can deliver...
And to buy or not to buy depends on specs, product fit, IQ and price. Full stop.

 

[Bob Howland]

This whole subject fascinates me. There will be no agreement unless it benefits both Canon and, for example, Sigma. Consider what Canon would want as a licensing fee for Sigma to port their 300-600 f/4 to RF mount. It would have to be more than the profit that Canon gets from selling its big whites. Over $3000 per lens seems reasonable.

 

[Traveler]

I believe the perceived “need” for third-party lenses is largely driven by YouTubers who think they can pressure Canon into changing its strategy.
However, very few of them actually compare the full lens lineups and point out what’s truly missing. Even fewer acknowledge the unique lenses Canon offers that aren’t available on other systems.

 

[Quackator]

But Canon is not losing market share. That’s the difference between opinion and reality.

The effect of such constellation changes doesn't come overnight.
Think strategic, not tactical.

 

[Quackator]

However, very few of them actually compare the full lens lineups and point out what’s truly missing. Even fewer acknowledge the unique lenses Canon offers that aren’t available on other systems.

Canon has no lens in their EF range that has almost no chromatic aberrations wide open to compare with Sigma 50/135mm ART lenses. Their RF opposites lack the capability to use V-ND, CPL, Black Mist via drop-in filter slot in a mount converter. So, for quite some time into the future I will be using EF compatible glass on mount converters with my various cameras. I have a ton of lenses, but only two are RF: 35mm macro and 15-35mm L.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The effect of such constellation changes doesn't come overnight.
Think strategic, not tactical.

Lol. You should follow your own advice.

Over a dozen years ago, Canon’s poor low ISO DR was going to have a dire impact on their camera sales. Then they were late to mirrorless and were getting left behind. Then they were late to full frame mirrorless and were getting left behind. Then their unwillingness to allow 3rd party AF lenses meant their sales would suffer terribly.

Of course, Canon didn’t lose market share over low ISO DR and they eventually changed their sensor architecture. Of course, Canon didn’t lose market share over being late to mirrorless, the M line became the global best-selling line comprising 17% of all ILCs sold. Of course, Canon didn’t lose market share over being late to full frame mirrorless, and it’s worth noting that mirrorless didn’t overtake DSLRs until 2-3 years after Canon fully committed to the segment. Of course, Canon didn’t lose market share over not allowing APS-C 3rd party for RF, in fact they led the APS-C mirrorless market even before they recently started permitting them. And of course, Canon has led the ILC market for over 20 years and dominates it today.

But this time is different. This time, because of your vast knowledge of strategic thinking and your unparalleled ability to perceive the big picture, I’m just sure your prediction of Canon’s forthcoming, severe loss of market share from not allowing 3rd party full frame RF lenses (for however long that policy continues) is absolutely correct. That whole feeder constellation thingamabob spells certain doom for Canon.

Yes, I’m sure you’re right. Unlike all the predictions of doom before, yours is spot on. You've finally managed to kick that football, Charlie Brown!



...or, maybe not. Time will tell.

 

[photophil]

View attachment 223879

Good thing that Sigma full-frame RF is expected to still take a while, then people should have some more time to invent more goal posts to move to /s

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

This article took a couple of days going back and forth as to whether or not it should be written. The topic of third-party RF lenses for full-frame cameras has been a polarizing one.

There are a lot of Canon shooters that would never buying a third-party lens for EOS R and don’t feel there is a need, or don’t care, and then there are others that will have a bag full of them.

The fact that you felt the need to lead with these statements, and that you questioned whether you should even write this article concerning an important development for Canon users, illustrates just how vicious and out-of-control these forums are.

With all of the forums I've been on, photography and others, I've never been in another community where users are allowed to belittle other users who choose equipment that they don't personally use (whether it's third party lenses, variable aperture lenses, or APS-C), or make personal attacks with impunity against those whose views differ from theirs. Even going back to the unmoderated usenet rec.photo group 35 years ago, other users would jump in to keep the discussion civil when they felt somebody had crossed the line.

This site's posting rules say "Be civil. This means no critical or spiteful comments directed at other reviews posted on the site, or their authors". In my experience as a registered member of these forums for nearly five years, it seems those are hollow words.

I'm not just calling out others; I've posted comments to other users that would have been quickly moderated and maybe even gotten me a temporary ban on most other sites. Here? The target of my spite defended himself (rightly so), but no official word to discourage the behavior.

I know of sites where the moderation is very, shall we say, heavy handed, and that's not fun either. But there are plenty of online forums where moderation is balanced and virtually invisible, and those forums are able to support lively discussions while still being welcoming communities for members of all views and experience levels.

Maybe the current state is exactly what the CR folks want, but there are those of us--or maybe it's just me--for whom it makes a hostile environment and discourages us from contributing more.

To those who disagree, go ahead and flame me all you want. I've said my piece, I feel somebody had to say it, and I won't engage on this topic further.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Good thing that Sigma full-frame RF is expected to still take a while, then people should have some more time to invent more goal posts to move to /s

Well, it certainly makes sense that some people really want to see Sigma (or others) allowed to make FF lenses for the RF mount. But I wonder what Canon perceives as the need/desire for that?

In DSLR days, 3rd party lenses offered lower cost alternatives that likely brought users into the system or kept them there. With the RF mount, Canon offers relatively few APS-C lenses and it makes a lot of sense for them to open that space up to 3rd parties and focus on the more profitable FF market. On that front, Canon has made a concerted effort to populate the affordable part of that range with a lot of very good lenses – offerings like the 15-30, 16/2.8, 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11 are at very good price points for their focal lengths compared to other camera makers and even 3rd parties, and Canon has started offering 'mid-tier' lenses like the 16-28/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 as well.

So it seems to me like most of the desire for 3rd party lenses for full frame RF is driven by the want/need for lenses Canon doesn't currently offer, as opposed to simply cheaper alternatives. The former is a sentiment frequently expressed on this forum, but this forum really is not representative of the broader market...and it's that broader market that Canon cares about, and historically they have had a very, very good understanding of how to meet the wants/needs of that market.

When someone says Canon is 'asleep at the wheel' because another manufacturer made a couple of lenses with minimal chromatic aberration, that person is out of touch with the reality of the market and the majority of people who buy lenses. It's fine to have a specific want/need. Personally, I want Canon to release a TS-R 14, and also a TS-R 24 if the movements are encoded. But I don't delude myself into believing that my wants represent those of any sort of majority, or even a modest minority, of people buying lenses.

 

[kaihp]

I sold my adapter and EF lenses and they're not coming back. I didn't go mirrorless to adapt old tech and fiddling with the adapter was just annoying.

Good for you. I have a couple of lenses that are either too expensive to replace, have no direct replacement, or both, and I'm not willing to part with my kidneys, my firstborn, my secondborn, and my soul to replace them.

300/2.8, 200-400/4 and 85/1.4 to be specific.

 

[MikeGalos]

Even going back to the unmoderated usenet rec.photo group 35 years ago, other users would jump in to keep the discussion civil when they felt somebody had crossed the line.

There was always, "Take it to alt.flame" to fall back on.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Good for you. I have a couple of lenses that are either too expensive to replace, have no direct replacement, or both, and I'm not willing to part with my kidneys, my firstborn, my secondborn, and my soul to replace them.

300/2.8, 200-400/4 and 85/1.4 to be specific.

In my case, it’s the TS-E 17/24 and MP-E 65 for which there are no RF equivalents or even reasonable substitutes, and the 600/4 II for which the EF MkIII / RF version is lighter but a (very slight) step down in IQ.

 

[Surab]

But Canon is not losing market share. That’s the difference between opinion and reality.

It likely will long term. This is an expensive hobby and likely still very dominated by sales to older generations, but among my friends I am the only with Canon that got into this hobby recently. The only other Canon users I know started before when the 60D was still new. Everyone else, an approximate anecdotal 5 people, are looking into Sony or have Sony, For reference these people are in their late 20s or early 30s.

Canon is still the name in the game and I'm sure it's helping them at the budget end (R10 and lower), but

 

[neuroanatomist]

It likely will long term.

Yes, people have been saying that on this forum for 15 years. I've already trotted out the Charlie Brown gif once in this thread, you can just scroll up to see it.

Maybe it depends on what you mean by long term...eventually Canon will lose market share because the sun will become a red giant and destroy the earth.

 

[Surab]

Yes, people have been saying that on this forum for 15 years. I've already trotted out the Charlie Brown gif once in this thread, you can just scroll up to see it.

Maybe it depends on what you mean by long term...eventually Canon will lose market share because the sun will become a red giant and destroy the earth.

Well, I am pretty sure that it won't kill them which is part of why I got into Canon after m43. But the too big to fail bit didn't help many other companies before.

Cameras are certainly a specific beast, as the mount system naturally breeds hard commitment to the brand and mount due to investments into lenses.

1. Lower DR at levels that most normal users don't exploit don't matter, but spending $200-500 more is something immediately clear to any consumer.
2. Canon lost a lot of new users that didn't want a DSLR, but was able toto maintain market share thanks to system lethargy, brand loyals, and market name and obviously the fact that the cameras were good regardless. Regardless they immediately countered the APSC E mount within one year with the EF-M mount which at lower costs is much more fluctuating. The FF market with the big investments and initial cost barriers, allowed them to wait longer with RF mount.

Given that Canon cameras aren't better than other brands' and that the system is also more expensive, I will assume that brand recognition and loyalty are the main reasons for Canon having kept market shares stable.

It doesn't change the fact that I don't see any interest in the brand in my circles, not that Panasonic or Nikon fare better in that regard. Sony seems to be gathering more interest though.

Let's see what happens in 10 years, I doubt either of us will have moved on from here.

PS: Please keep ridicule to yourself. Such antics just diminish your other arguments.

 

[EricN]

Well, I am pretty sure that it won't kill them which is part of why I got into Canon after m43. But the too big to fail bit didn't help many other companies before.

Cameras are certainly a specific beast, as the mount system naturally breeds hard commitment to the brand and mount due to investments into lenses.

1. Lower DR at levels that most normal users don't exploit don't matter, but spending $200-500 more is something immediately clear to any consumer.
2. Canon lost a lot of new users that didn't want a DSLR, but was able toto maintain market share thanks to system lethargy, brand loyals, and market name and obviously the fact that the cameras were good regardless. Regardless they immediately countered the APSC E mount within one year with the EF-M mount which at lower costs is much more fluctuating. The FF market with the big investments and initial cost barriers, allowed them to wait longer with RF mount.

Given that Canon cameras aren't better than other brands' and that the system is also more expensive, I will assume that brand recognition and loyalty are the main reasons for Canon having kept market shares stable.

It doesn't change the fact that I don't see any interest in the brand in my circles, not that Panasonic or Nikon fare better in that regard. Sony seems to be gathering more interest though.

Let's see what happens in 10 years, I doubt either of us will have moved on from here.

PS: Please keep ridicule to yourself. Such antics just diminish your other arguments.

rendering opinions as if they were facts, doesn't make them facts

 

[neuroanatomist]

But the too big to fail bit didn't help many other companies before.

It's not that they're too big to fail, it's that they've made good strategic decisions that keep buyers buying. Consider that the market as a whole underwent a paradigm shift due to smartphone cameras (overall camera sales dropped by 90%), and there was a technology transition from DSLR to mirrorless that overlapped with the later part of that paradigm shift. Fifteen years ago, Canon led the market (with 43-46% share) and Nikon was a very close second (with 40-43% market share). Today, Canon still leads the market (45-48% market share), Sony is in a not very close second (under 30%), and Nikon is hanging on to 3rd place after falling to ~11%.

So though major upheaval Canon held steady but Nikon lost significantly, even though they were very close at one time.

2. Canon lost a lot of new users that didn't want a DSLR, but was able toto maintain market share thanks to system lethargy, brand loyals, and market name and obviously the fact that the cameras were good regardless.

The whole industry lost a lot of new users that didn't want a standalone camera at all. Canon maintained market share, even through the transition to mirrorless. You can speculate on the reasons for that all you want, but new buyers were almost certainly a part of it.

Given that Canon cameras aren't better than other brands' and that the system is also more expensive, I will assume that brand recognition and loyalty are the main reasons for Canon having kept market shares stable.

Canon is more expensive? Mmmmkay, maybe where you are. Care to share some pricing examples? Here, Canon starts at $480 for the R100, followed by Nikon at $550 for the Z30, Sony comes in at $700 with the ZV-E10. With kit lenses, Canon and Nikon are $600, Panasonic's G7 is $650, Oly comes in at $700 and Sony will cost you $750 for the 6 year old a6100 or $800 for the much newer ZV-E10. That same $800 will get you an R100 with two lenses (covering 18-210mm), an R50 with the kit lens, or even the EOS RP, which at $800 is cheapest FF camera available.

What do other brands, including 3rd party options, have to offer that compares to the RF 16/2.8, 15-30, 100-400, 600/11 or 800/11?

Overall, it certainly seems to me that Canon offers a much more affordable entry point both for APS-C and FF.

It doesn't change the fact that I don't see any interest in the brand in my circles, not that Panasonic or Nikon fare better in that regard. Sony seems to be gathering more interest though.

Opinions ≠ facts, and anecdotes ≠ data. Do you actually believe that your 'circles' are representative of the nearly 7 million ILCs shipped last year? If you don't, then your point is irrelevant to everyone except you. If you do, then wow, just wow. Hubris, much?

Let's see what happens in 10 years, I doubt either of us will have moved on from here.

Indeed. That pretty much verbatim echoes replies I got from others starting over a dozen years ago. And here we are, with Canon still leading the market.

 

[roby17269]

Well, I am pretty sure that it won't kill them which is part of why I got into Canon after m43. But the too big to fail bit didn't help many other companies before.

Cameras are certainly a specific beast, as the mount system naturally breeds hard commitment to the brand and mount due to investments into lenses.

1. Lower DR at levels that most normal users don't exploit don't matter, but spending $200-500 more is something immediately clear to any consumer.
2. Canon lost a lot of new users that didn't want a DSLR, but was able toto maintain market share thanks to system lethargy, brand loyals, and market name and obviously the fact that the cameras were good regardless. Regardless they immediately countered the APSC E mount within one year with the EF-M mount which at lower costs is much more fluctuating. The FF market with the big investments and initial cost barriers, allowed them to wait longer with RF mount.

Given that Canon cameras aren't better than other brands' and that the system is also more expensive, I will assume that brand recognition and loyalty are the main reasons for Canon having kept market shares stable.

It doesn't change the fact that I don't see any interest in the brand in my circles, not that Panasonic or Nikon fare better in that regard. Sony seems to be gathering more interest though.

Let's see what happens in 10 years, I doubt either of us will have moved on from here.

PS: Please keep ridicule to yourself. Such antics just diminish your other arguments.

It's very very difficult, if not impossible, to compare camera systems as wholes:

1. from a cost perspective, new items may be more expensive just because they are newer than equivalent items that have been introduced earlier - you'd have to compare prices taking that and inflation into account
2. Every system has some unique selling points and different approaches / strategies to sensor / AF / DR / color / lens selection / 3rd parties openness, etc. so comparing apples to apples becomes a challenge
3. You can (and should) reduce the scope to a single item or small group of related items... but even then, whether a piece of gear is better than another piece of gear depends on the priorities and sensibilities of the appraiser

I think it's fair to say that all major systems right now can cater well to most photographic needs. Sure, I'm on record here saying that I disagree with some of Canon's decisions of late (still do, sorry Canon execs, I know you must be losing soo much sleep due to my disapproval ), but there are other decisions of theirs I approve of as well there are decisions by competitors that leave me cold. Just saying that some blades of grass may be greener on the other side, but not necessarily the whole lawn.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Just saying that some blades of grass may be greener on the other side, but not necessarily the whole lawn.

There's green grass everywhere, IMO. If you can't take excellent pictures with any current ILC system, the fault is not with the gear. Having said that, I completely agree that there are niche products that may impact the choices of a small number of users.

Honestly, it's one reason I bring up market share so often. There's no way to objectively compare systems for 'the best' because everyone defines their own wants and needs. But it is possible to objectively compare which cameras are actually bought, and pretty straightforward to infer from a decision to buy a camera that people are generally picking what best meets their individual wants/needs (which in many cases is simply cost, which is why I found the statement that @Surab made about Canon being more expensive to be very counterintuitive).