SIGMA RF mount lens information finally coming in February 2024? [CR1]

[koenkooi]

I think Canon should take every tenth lens from the 16/24/28/35/50/85 production line, rebadge it, and sell as a separate RF-S one...

I’ve seen a lot of comments on the interwebs saying something like “I refuse to use an FF lens on my RF-S body, they are too big/heavy/expensive, Canon sucks.” When pointed at the 16/28/50 and 24/35, they just double down on the ‘Those are too big, a crop version would’ve been smaller/lighter/cheaper’ mantra.

I don’t have the 24 and 35, but the 16/28/50 have been great and they fit into the lens hood (which wasn’t included, of course) of the RF100-400, if you want a small vacation package

 

[Quack]

Unhappy customers make companies work and improve, and help competition between companies; so as a customer I feel it's a duty to be critic and pretend always more from the companies I buy stuff from, them being camera companies, car companies, or any other.

Do you contact Canon directly or through their forums? Or just go onto forums like this one with no relationship whatsoever to Canon?
Are your criticisms realistic understanding that companies like Canon do lots of market research, or are you just giving your own personal wish list?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Do you contact Canon directly or through their forums? Or just go onto forums like this one with no relationship whatsoever to Canon?
Are your criticisms realistic understanding that companies like Canon do lots of market research, or are you just giving your own personal wish list?

Mostly, whiners gonna whine.

 

[David - Sydney]

The main thing is that no agreement from Canon would have been required before 1995.
I am not sure that we can learn much from that history which is why the dates were brought up in the first place.

The original question/comparison was how long after EF mount was released did 3rd party AF lenses released. Based on a magazine as the internet age hadn't started, it was 2 years after EF protocols were released. That reverse engineering was impressive - at least for Sigma. There has been (to my knowledge) no official licensing of the EF protocols to Sigma.

Sigma has not been able to do the same for R mount over the last 5+ years. Samyang had a couple of AF on R mount but were then pulled over legal posturing. Something is different for the RF protocols and it has extended to R mount lenses even using EF protocols and only a few manual focus R mount lenses from 4th tier OEMs.

Something is different for this iteration. I contend that encryption of the RF protocols would prevent reverse engineering. The physical R mount should not be a barrier but Sigma/Tamron have resisted releasing R mount lenses. I contend that this would endanger official licensing agreements with Canon but at the end of the day, we don't know.

 

[Walrus]

Do you contact Canon directly or through their forums? Or just go onto forums like this one with no relationship whatsoever to Canon?
Are your criticisms realistic understanding that companies like Canon do lots of market research, or are you just giving your own personal wish list?

I give them money, so I give my own personal opinion on what they do, and what I expects them to do, knowing that of course my desires may not be completely in line with their commercial strategy; and I give my opinion in an environment populated with other customers, so we can discuss each other ideas, guesses and wishes. End of story.

And you? Why are you onto forums like this? What's your story? I'm curious.

 

[Walrus]

Sigma has not been able to do the same for R mount over the last 5+ years. Samyang had a couple of AF on R mount but were then pulled over legal posturing. Something is different for the RF protocols and it has extended to R mount lenses even using EF protocols and only a few manual focus R mount lenses from 4th tier OEMs.

My absolutely unverified guess (better to be precise, as trolls here are always ready to call people out) is that Sigma or any other main third party manufacturer would be able (like Samyang already did) to release RF AF lenses today; they don't do it because they want to avoid risk of legal posturing like Samyang suffered, as you also said.

I don't think it's a tech problem, I think is merely legal/patent stuff, and they don't want to mess with Canon legal dpt.

 

[David - Sydney]

Canon cannot pay attention to each and every individual customer, especially not, if those customers want Canon to facilitate for them access to competitor's products. Naive and unrealistic!

Agreed in a consumer environment.
In a B2B market, there will still be unhappy customers but generally there is an established method for key customers to provide feedback and priorities for future development roadmaps.

The consumer market is handled collectively but not always smoothly.
Apple iPhone faults need to be proved by reviewers/technical teams and various bug fixes mostly handled via iOS updates. Most issues are newsworthy as they can impact a lot of people.
That said, Apple has a generous support policy and earn loyalty by being generous. They don't need to open source for 3rd parties and virtually all requirements are handled within their ecosystem and especially via their walled 3rd party app store. The app store was released a year after the first iPhone but no side loading of apps is allowed.

Canon cameras straddles a market somewhere between consumer (ex-"Rebel" and compact cameras) and B2B products. Moving up the pricing/performance curve by not competing at the low end may mean they need to increase their direct contact with key customers.

 

[David - Sydney]

I give them money, so I give my own personal opinion on what they do, and what I expects them to do, knowing that of course my desires may not be completely in line with their commercial strategy; and I give my opinion in an environment populated with other customers, so we can discuss each other ideas, guesses and wishes. End of story.

But have you provided feedback via Canon's official support website? I have with specific suggestions for future iterations of R5 firmware updates but those suggestions have not been implemented.

Canon may monitor CR but it is unlikely. They may be interested in the top line rumours for leakages for instance though. Active forum members fully expect that Canon isn't interested in our comments.

 

[David - Sydney]

My absolutely unverified guess (better to be precise, as trolls here are always ready to call people out)

Hmmm, trolls? Careful throwing that around when you have made definitive statements that you have needed to retract or modify.

In any debate, robust rebuttals should be expected based on any available data and a degree of logic. Personal opinions are okay of course but stating "facts" or extrapolating single data points to a statistically relevant trend will be called out. There are other forums where any debate descends into a cesspool of people shouting at each other from a very biased perspective which helps no one and just adds to our increasingly polarised society.

There are a number of very qualified CR contributors happy to educate on various camera/lens/optic related topics which have been welcomed to increase our own understanding of the market and technology.

 

[Walrus]

But have you provided feedback via Canon's official support website? I have with specific suggestions for future iterations of R5 firmware updates but those suggestions have not been implemented.

I recently, meaning this year, gave a direct email suggestion to Canon Italy, through CPS credentials, on R10 firmware (a button mapping), I can give you specifics if you're interested, tl;dr was "there's this function that is in firmware, can be mapped to a button, but can be ONLY mapped in this unique button; actually that very button is the worst place to map the function, because its best use is something else; why don't you make available that function on other buttons, like is feasible on my R6 where I can map the function to like 5 or 6 different buttons? Function exist on R10, it's not something I ask to implement, it's not mkt segmentation, the thing is already there, so why limit to a single button, which is not the right button? Update that in the next firmware".

Got response "we will pass your valuable suggestion to our mother company", and of course nothing happened
Now that CPS program has changed I feel there will be even less possibility to give direct feedback.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon cameras straddles a market somewhere between consumer (ex-"Rebel" and compact cameras) and B2B products. Moving up the pricing/performance curve by not competing at the low end may mean they need to increase their direct contact with key customers.

Clearly Canon already manages relationships at large events, especially sporting events. However, most professional photography is at the small business level, and it's a shrinking market anyway.

Since @Walrus mentioned Pharma, as an example at one big pharma company I worked for every medicinal chemist had a mass spectrometer next to their hood, and they were replaced every few years. That’s the type of B2B relationship where a customer is heard. Outside of agencies like AP, Getty, etc., what photography businesses would be large enough to constitute ‘key customers’?

I think that’s one reason Canon is focusing (pun intended) on the affluent enthusiast market. @Walrus is interested in 3rd party RF lenses because native RF L glass is out of his business’ price range.

Anecdotally, I know local pro photographers (portraits/events) who use a 5DIII or D800, which meet their needs just fine. Needs. Whereas affluent amateurs have wants and disposable income. As a group of individuals, those folks will never have an impactful direct line of communication with Canon other than aggregate buying decisions.

 

[Walrus]

Hmmm, trolls? Careful throwing that around when you have made definitive statements that you have needed to retract or modify.

In any debate, robust rebuttals should be expected based on any available data and a degree of logic. Personal opinions are okay of course but stating "facts" or extrapolating single data points to a statistically relevant trend will be called out. There are other forums where any debate descends into a cesspool of people shouting at each other from a very biased perspective which helps no one and just adds to our increasingly polarised society.

There are a number of very qualified CR contributors happy to educate on various camera/lens/optic related topics which have been welcomed to increase our own understanding of the market and technology.

Never had to retract or modify anything, believe me surely I sometimes explained better my view, as me not being native english speaker may lead someone to misinterpret my words. It happens.

Didn't really found so many qualified educators here tbh, but sureley there are lot of interesting people to discuss with, like you, that may not share my view and ideas, but keep the discussion civil and still absolutely stimulating and interesting. Others are not civil, nor even knowledgeable, and often end up in ignore, for the sake of readibility of the whole stuff.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I recently, meaning this year, gave a direct email suggestion to Canon Italy,

Got response "we will pass your valuable suggestion to our mother company", and of course nothing happened

Conversely, I discovered a bug with the 1D X firmware, was able to document that bug and with the help of other forum members here identify the cause of the problem (having the orientation-linked AF point setting ON resulted in lens-specific AFMA values not being saved properly), and was given the same response from Canon USA – we’ll pass this along to HQ.

The bug was fixed in the next firmware update.

 

[David - Sydney]

Never had to retract or modify anything, believe me surely I sometimes explained better my view,

Just from a couple of days ago:
let's face it, the last stuff from Sigma works on DSLR as good as any other Canon lens;
...
Let me just say "it's good enough to not feeling any limitation or difference whatsoever".

as me not being native english speaker may lead someone to misinterpret my words. It happens.

Hey, I gave you a pass as a non-native English speaker in the past but you made it clear to take you as a "almost bilingual"

"Still, I feel I have good enough writing skills to be easily understood, and hardly misunderstood; I have a C2 Proficiency qualifications, in my country that's considered as being almost bilingual (even if I'm clearly not; I speak fluently, but less grammatically correct then when I'm writing), so I don't really feel there should be any problem or doubt in communicating with me, at least on a forum"

Can't have it both ways

Didn't really found so many qualified educators here tbh, but sureley there are lot of interesting people to discuss with, like you, that may not share my view and ideas, but keep the discussion civil and still absolutely stimulating and interesting. Others are not civil, nor even knowledgeable, and often end up in ignore, for the sake of readibility of the whole stuff.

I have learnt heaps in this forum over many years. There are many people much more qualified than myself on patents, optical phenomena and historical Canon lens development. I have been challenged and done more research to extend my knowledge and modify my previous views. Some are here to learn and others just to announce their opinions and wishes to the ether.

 

[David - Sydney]

Got response "we will pass your valuable suggestion to our mother company", and of course nothing happened
Now that CPS program has changed I feel there will be even less possibility to give direct feedback.

You are lucky that CPS is available in your country for you and you have a more direct feedback channel.
I have spent a lot more on Canon stuff than some pros locally but CPS Australia only available for businesses with only 1D/R3/5D or cinema bodies not even R5. The program significantly varies by country :-(
https://cps.canon.com.au/cps/membership/qualification

 

[neuroanatomist]

Some are here to learn and others just to announce their opinions and wishes to the ether.

^^This.

And IMO, the latter add little value to the forums, if any.

 

[David - Sydney]

Clearly Canon already manages relationships at large events, especially sporting events. However, most professional photography is at the small business level, and it's a shrinking market anyway.

Since @Walrus mentioned Pharma, as an example at one big pharma company I worked for every medicinal chemist had a mass spectrometer next to their hood, and they were replaced every few years. That’s the type of B2B relationship where a customer is heard. Outside of agencies like AP, Getty, etc., what photography businesses would be large enough to constitute ‘key customers’?

I think that’s one reason Canon is focusing (pun intended) on the affluent enthusiast market. @Walrus is interested in 3rd party RF lenses because native RF L glass is out of his business’ price range.

Anecdotally, I know local pro photographers (portraits/events) who use a 5DIII or D800, which meet their needs just fine. Needs. Whereas affluent amateurs have wants and disposable income. As a group of individuals, those folks will never have an impactful direct line of communication with Canon other than aggregate buying decisions.

I agree but that leads to a newer problem for Canon in how to address (and listen) to their changing demography of the prosumer/affluent enthusiasts.
Canon never had an aggregated feedback for their consumer level products but Canon has exited that market due to phone cameras. Maybe they had focus groups though. Hopefully they aren't listening closely to click-bait youtubers.

Canon didn't want to chase Associated Press against the Sony proposal so that is one less large customer who could provide feedback. Clearly those users are highly focused in the types of equipment they need.

 

[EricN]

I give them money, so I give my own personal opinion on what they do, and what I expects them to do, knowing that of course my desires may not be completely in line with their commercial strategy; and I give my opinion in an environment populated with other customers, so we can discuss each other ideas, guesses and wishes. End of story.

And you? Why are you onto forums like this? What's your story? I'm curious.

Don't you usually buy Canon's lenses used?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Don't you usually buy Canon's lenses used?

Good question...and the answer is:

... everything I buy is totally out of my pocket, so that's why I almost only buy used, and has to be cheapest then possible.

Yes. Still, him saying, "Never had to retract or modify anything, believe me," can be true if he blatantly lies but never acknowledges it. But I certainly would not recommend anyone follow his advice about believing him...

 

[EricN]

You are lucky that CPS is available in your country for you and you have a more direct feedback channel.
I have spent a lot more on Canon stuff than some pros locally but CPS Australia only available for businesses with only 1D/R3/5D or cinema bodies not even R5. The program significantly varies by country :-(
https://cps.canon.com.au/cps/membership/qualification

I took a peak and R5 is now listed. I was surprised the list of lenses is not long