Canon Germany addresses recent Viltrox RF mount lens demands, and it’s a case of patent infrigement

[wockawocka]

If you don't want to buy genuine Canon RF lenses, why not just use Canon or third-party EF glass via the EF-RF adaptor?

Because STM sucks.
Because I want a better 85mm 1.4-1.8 that isn't the heavyweight 1.2
Because I want a fast 24mm 1.4 that's sharp

If they can create a smaller lens due to the R design then that would be great. Currently the lightweight options from Canon 24,35,50 and 85mm are all STM and they hunt in low light.

I've a comprehensive lineup of RF glass already. But I don't need 1.2 a lot of the time. 1.8 is fine. It's just that Canon has made it all crappy STM. Slow, irregular STM. There was absolutely no excuse to not use nano usm but they went ahead and excluded it anyway.

Adapted EF glass is heavier on the body as well.

Having something like an 85mm f2 Batis or Zeiss 55mm 1.8 would be a much better user experience but I'll be damned if I'm going to use a Sony to get it.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]I've a comprehensive lineup of RF glass already. But I don't need 1.2 a lot of the time. 1.8 is fine. It's just that Canon has made it all crappy STM. Slow, irregular STM. There was absolutely no excuse to not use nano usm but they went ahead and excluded it anyway.[..]

The difference in focus speeds is what gets me, I realize that focussing the 16mm takes less travel and effort than focussing the 85mm, but it still surprises me when changing between the STM lenses. Switching between the RF85 f/2 and the RF100L has an opposite effect, I fully plan to make some coffee and drink it while the lens tries to focus, but the 100L instantly snaps to the right distance

 

[tron]

Regarding Canon muscle memory vs Nikon since I do birding and have spent a fortune in Canon equipment I have only bought a single Nikon lens the 500mm f5.6 PF which since it is a fixed one I have no issues trying to zoom in the opposite direction. I have programmed the button that my thumb rests upon the same as with Canon (full AF area) so muscle memory is no issue. There are still differences but there are no issues. I still find using a Canon DSLR (5DIV and 5DsR) a little easier that using my R5 although I use my R5 more often (talking mostly about birding though, R5 is more versatile in other uses). But even the placing of a cup at the back of the lenses is easier on EF than on RF.

 

[wockawocka]

The difference in focus speeds is what gets me, I realize that focussing the 16mm takes less travel and effort than focussing the 85mm, but it still surprises me when changing between the STM lenses. Switching between the RF85 f/2 and the RF100L has an opposite effect, I fully plan to make some coffee and drink it while the lens tries to focus, but the 100L instantly snaps to the right distance

Exactly. For years I've been hoping for some L series 1.8 glass. Not the budget offerings. I'm on my feet shooting for 10 hours a wedding. The 1.2 stuff is heavy.

 

[ashmadux]

Folks want to argue about Cannon's business acumen but that's not what it's all about. Canon has a huge crevice in between their so called budget lenses with low quality optics and the super expensive L lenses. THIS is the problem.

For example - Canon has no middle ground 50mm and has no intention of making one. Sure they know for a fact that a good 50/1.4 would make most photographers not need their massive expensive 50/1.2.... well they just don't give you the choice..its either $200 or $2,200.

Next, the original RF lenses they came out the gate with was spectacular. Apparently they had no such plans for the non-l lenses which look like a heap of junk for the most part especially if you compare them to the EF versions.

I had I had to kill my interest in the RFS line because the lens situation is pathetic, and knowing canon it's going to be a very long time before that gets better.

And of course you have one of the elephants in the room, the crippled hammer of the R6 to 20 megapixel to protect the R5. I don't care what whoever wants to say about the differences between a 20 megapixel FF and a crop 24 megapixel, but I actually do care about the file sizes and many others also. And that whopping 20 megapixel body is $2,500. Before tax.

We all know they are moving up market, but at least have a middle to fill in. Right now there's nothing for advanced users, you're either spending 6,000 Plus on a real RF body and a few lenses or you're really circling the bottom of the barrel with a lot of caveats and no access to third party glass.

I'm not letting go of my cannons as I'm too much invested in ef, but I am definitely looking at a Nikon z or a Sony body so when sigma and Tamron comes out with these new cool lenses I can say at least I have the choice. And that's the worst part about Canon right now, you have a very limited options and no choices in too many areas. It sucks because I really enjoyed my Canon gear but RF is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Exactly. For years I've been hoping for some L series 1.8 glass. Not the budget offerings. I'm on my feet shooting for 10 hours a wedding. The 1.2 stuff is heavy.

Didn't happen with EF in the heyday of ILCs. Hope springs eternal, but I would not hold your breath waiting for relatively slow (for the lens type) L-series lenses. The idea of them isn't really consistent with Canon's L-series philosophy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

We all know they are moving up market, but at least have a middle to fill in. Right now there's nothing for advanced users, you're either spending 6,000 Plus on a real RF body and a few lenses or you're really circling the bottom of the barrel with a lot of caveats and no access to third party glass.

Perhaps that strategy reflects the market. Entry level buyers or those on a tight budget on one end, affluent amateurs and successful professionals on the other end, and a much smaller middle comprising people who post on forums but don't buy much.

People in the middle will undoubtedly argue that they represent a massive market...but as usual, they have no data to support that argument, and most won't even acknowledge that Canon undoubtedly does have those data.

 

[Ozarker]

Canon have a long history of thousands of patents protecting their designs and concepts, all published and available for third parties to browse.

Did Viltrox fail to look at the patents, or did they realise they were infringing, but hope to get away with it?

I assume Canon threatened a lawsuit if Viltrox failed to stop production.

Sometimes it's about what it might cost to fight. Canon is the 800 lb gorilla. Viltrox is a lightweight.

Several years ago I bought a product from a boutique manufacturer. They were a small machine shop with a fantastic product. A large manufacturer in the same space sued for patent infringement. For the life of me, I, nor anyone else in that field could figure out how in the world there was any infringement. They were very different designs. The small shop quit making the product. They had a far superior product, but no money to fight a giant.

 

[Ozarker]

Folks want to argue about Cannon's business acumen but that's not what it's all about. Canon has a huge crevice in between their so called budget lenses with low quality optics and the super expensive L lenses. THIS is the problem.

For example - Canon has no middle ground 50mm and has no intention of making one. Sure they know for a fact that a good 50/1.4 would make most photographers not need their massive expensive 50/1.2.... well they just don't give you the choice..its either $200 or $2,200.

Next, the original RF lenses they came out the gate with was spectacular. Apparently they had no such plans for the non-l lenses which look like a heap of junk for the most part especially if you compare them to the EF versions.

I had I had to kill my interest in the RFS line because the lens situation is pathetic, and knowing canon it's going to be a very long time before that gets better.

And of course you have one of the elephants in the room, the crippled hammer of the R6 to 20 megapixel to protect the R5. I don't care what whoever wants to say about the differences between a 20 megapixel FF and a crop 24 megapixel, but I actually do care about the file sizes and many others also. And that whopping 20 megapixel body is $2,500. Before tax.

We all know they are moving up market, but at least have a middle to fill in. Right now there's nothing for advanced users, you're either spending 6,000 Plus on a real RF body and a few lenses or you're really circling the bottom of the barrel with a lot of caveats and no access to third party glass.

I'm not letting go of my cannons as I'm too much invested in ef, but I am definitely looking at a Nikon z or a Sony body so when sigma and Tamron comes out with these new cool lenses I can say at least I have the choice. And that's the worst part about Canon right now, you have a very limited options and no choices in too many areas. It sucks because I really enjoyed my Canon gear but RF is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth.

Aw c'mon. The "real" bodies start at $6k? The "REAL" ones?

 

[dolina]

Folks want to argue about Cannon's business acumen but that's not what it's all about. Canon has a huge crevice in between their so called budget lenses with low quality optics and the super expensive L lenses. THIS is the problem.

For example - Canon has no middle ground 50mm and has no intention of making one. Sure they know for a fact that a good 50/1.4 would make most photographers not need their massive expensive 50/1.2.... well they just don't give you the choice..its either $200 or $2,200.

Next, the original RF lenses they came out the gate with was spectacular. Apparently they had no such plans for the non-l lenses which look like a heap of junk for the most part especially if you compare them to the EF versions.

I had I had to kill my interest in the RFS line because the lens situation is pathetic, and knowing canon it's going to be a very long time before that gets better.

And of course you have one of the elephants in the room, the crippled hammer of the R6 to 20 megapixel to protect the R5. I don't care what whoever wants to say about the differences between a 20 megapixel FF and a crop 24 megapixel, but I actually do care about the file sizes and many others also. And that whopping 20 megapixel body is $2,500. Before tax.

We all know they are moving up market, but at least have a middle to fill in. Right now there's nothing for advanced users, you're either spending 6,000 Plus on a real RF body and a few lenses or you're really circling the bottom of the barrel with a lot of caveats and no access to third party glass.

I'm not letting go of my cannons as I'm too much invested in ef, but I am definitely looking at a Nikon z or a Sony body so when sigma and Tamron comes out with these new cool lenses I can say at least I have the choice. And that's the worst part about Canon right now, you have a very limited options and no choices in too many areas. It sucks because I really enjoyed my Canon gear but RF is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth.

All your concerns should be addressed within the next 4 years.

The goods you want are either slow moving or thinner margin.

 

[koenkooi]

Aw c'mon. The "real" bodies start at $6k? The "REAL" ones?

Yeah, all the others turn back into pumpkins at midnight!

 

[Ozarker]

Yeah, all the others turn back into pumpkins at midnight!

My lowly R was about $1,900. I wouldn't have paid so much if I knew it was fake. Takes great fake photos though. I'm thinking my photos will be 3x better if I ever get one of them "real" cameras. Someday I might own some "real" lenses.

 

[Curahee]

Working pro in the field. I have a blend of Canon and third-party lenses, all great performers, even adapting my EF lenses to RF. Unfortunately, as Canon ages out its lineup it will no longer be worth it for me to stay with them. If I don't at least have that choice, my next camera won't be a Canon.

What's wrong with your EF lenses?
They work the same or even better on RF bodies except you get an added control ring just like the RF lenses. So in reality if you have the lenses both Canon and third party you have lost NOTHING but gained mirrorless and added capabilities with a $200 control ring adapter to upgrade ALL your EF lenses. Pretty sweet deal. When you lenses all die 6-10 years from now there will likely be RF mount third party to buy.
Look at Nikon and how they screwed their F mount owners with the Z mount and lack of compatibility for such a huge portion of lenses including auto focus ones.
Oh well good luck.

 

[LogicExtremist]

What's wrong with your EF lenses?
They work the same or even better on RF bodies except you get an added control ring just like the RF lenses. So in reality if you have the lenses both Canon and third party you have lost NOTHING but gained mirrorless and added capabilities with a $200 control ring adapter to upgrade ALL your EF lenses. Pretty sweet deal. When you lenses all die 6-10 years from now there will likely be RF mount third party to buy.
Look at Nikon and how they screwed their F mount owners with the Z mount and lack of compatibility for such a huge portion of lenses including auto focus ones.
Oh well good luck.

Nothing wrong with EF lenses! BC explained why "as Canon ages out its lineup it will no longer be worth it for me to stay with them". To explain in further detail, EF works fine, no real need to upgrade to RF until it needs replacement or repair. As Canon phases out EF lenses (they already have discontinued quite a few of the EF and EF-S lenses), and EF lenses are no longer available to buy, or replacement parts are no longer available for repair, which will happen in time, then EF users will need to upgrade to RF.

Many new photographers get a misleading impression from forums, which often filled with lots of gear heads who love buying the latest tech, much like iPhone users do, and few pros, who usually keep their gear until it stops either working, or the new gear provides a compelling advantage that make it more cost effective to use because it allows them to work faster/more efficiently or provides some other financial advantage in their business.

 

[neuroanatomist]

To explain in further detail, EF works fine, no real need to upgrade to RF until it needs replacement or repair. As Canon phases out EF lenses (they already have discontinued quite a few of the EF and EF-S lenses), and EF lenses are no longer available to buy, or replacement parts are no longer available for repair, which will happen in time, then EF users will need to upgrade to RF.

That pokes a rather large hole in the lens selection argument. The EF lens catalog is over 60 lenses, the RF catalog will be at that point in 4 years (~30 now and Canon’s promise of ~30 more in the next few years). Canon generally keeps supporting discontinued lenses for >5 years. That suggests that there will be RF replacements for almost all the EF lenses before they ‘age out’ even if the entire catalog were discontinued today.

Granted, not all the EF lenses will get RF versions (lenses like the 28-70/2 and 5.2 dual fisheye have no EF counterparts), but the non-replaced lenses will likely not be popular ones (for example, I love my MP-E 65 but I’m not sure there will ever be an RF version).

Also granted, that doesn’t help with the cost of buying the RF replacements. But people tend to ignore the time component of that as it pertains to aging out. If your EF 70-200/2.8 IS MkI dies and can’t be repaired, sure you’d pay a lot more for the RF version, but you’d also pay a lot more for the EF MkIII than you paid for the MkI 15 years ago.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]Granted, not all the EF lenses will get RF versions (lenses like the 28-70/2 and 5.2 dual fisheye have no EF counterparts), but the non-replaced lenses will likely not be popular ones (for example, I love my MP-E 65 but I’m not sure there will ever be an RF version).[..]

I wonder which way Canon would go for 'improvements' over the original. I'd love to have the option to go smaller than life size, being limited to 1:1 can be an issue for larger insects. This was a big motivation for me to move from APS-C to FF, a wasp would only fit diagonally in the frame on the EOS-M I could live with a 0.5x - 2.5x range.

IS would be nice, but I'm not sure how much can be done when going beyond 1:1. An EF-M 28mm style integrated ringlight would be great, provided it can go much, much brighter and can be controlled from the camera.

It's not quite autofocus, but it would be interesting to have a motor integrated that would move the whole optical assembly forward a bit. It would only be used by the built-in focus stack modes.

Rear filter slot for filters

Having the magnification ratio and focus distance displayed in the EVF wouldn't require any changes to the lens, nor would having a focus assist mode that doesn't use a point, but an area to show what is in focus. Kinda like focus peaking, but based on DPAF instead of local contrast.

 

[LogicExtremist]

That pokes a rather large hole in the lens selection argument. The EF lens catalog is over 60 lenses, the RF catalog will be at that point in 4 years (~30 now and Canon’s promise of ~30 more in the next few years). Canon generally keeps supporting discontinued lenses for >5 years. That suggests that there will be RF replacements for almost all the EF lenses before they ‘age out’ even if the entire catalog were discontinued today.

Granted, not all the EF lenses will get RF versions (lenses like the 28-70/2 and 5.2 dual fisheye have no EF counterparts), but the non-replaced lenses will likely not be popular ones (for example, I love my MP-E 65 but I’m not sure there will ever be an RF version).

Also granted, that doesn’t help with the cost of buying the RF replacements. But people tend to ignore the time component of that as it pertains to aging out. If your EF 70-200/2.8 IS MkI dies and can’t be repaired, sure you’d pay a lot more for the RF version, but you’d also pay a lot more for the EF MkIII than you paid for the MkI 15 years ago.

The EF native and third-party lens selection is quite broad and comprehensive, as you'd expect from a mature platform. If discontinued lenses are supported for around 5+ years, that's a handy guideline for decision making when that happens. Depending on how heavily lenses are used, they can last quite a while.

Granted, the Canon claim of that number of future lenses is a promise, and enthusiasts who buy gear for pleasure are able to wait four years, despite the inconvenience, but working professionals don't have that luxury when they need to purchase the tools of their trade here and now.

Judging by Canon's L-series lens releases, which must provide pros with the tools they need very early in the product cycle, the demand professionally (or Canon's opinion based on sales?) is on a traditional holy trinity of f/2.8 zooms (15-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm), with the RF 50mm f /1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 as the prime offerings, with the 28-70mm f/2 as a flagship zoom lens offering.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Judging by Canon's L-series lens releases, which must provide pros with the tools they need very early in the product cycle, the demand professionally (or Canon's opinion based on sales?) is on a traditional holy trinity of f/2.8 zooms (15-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm), with the RF 50mm f /1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 as the prime offerings, with the 28-70mm f/2 as a flagship zoom lens offering.

Indeed. There's also the f/4 trinity of 14-35, 24-105, and 70-200. Plus supertele L primes, and a macro lens. And an affordable (for the industry) non-L trinity of 15-30, 24-105 and 100-400, plus several non-L primes including some with macro capability.

Honestly, I think Canon has done a great job of providing RF lenses to meet the needs of the majority of photographers at multiple levels. Canon has provided an appetizer and a good meal, but people complain because the dessert hasn't been served yet or because they didn't get their favorite amuse-bouche. Or because they'd rather dine at a cheaper restaurant. Those are valid complaints, but as the world's largest restaurant chain Canon has no real need to cater to a minority of disaffected diners.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Indeed. There's also the f/4 trinity of 14-35, 24-105, and 70-200. Plus supertele L primes, and a macro lens. And an affordable (for the industry) non-L trinity of 15-30, 24-105 and 100-400, plus several non-L primes including some with macro capability.

Honestly, I think Canon has done a great job of providing RF lenses to meet the needs of the majority of photographers at multiple levels. Canon has provided an appetizer and a good meal, but people complain because the dessert hasn't been served yet or because they didn't get their favorite amuse-bouche. Or because they'd rather dine at a cheaper restaurant. Those are valid complaints, but as the world's largest restaurant chain Canon has no real need to cater to a minority of disaffected diners.

True, they have a complete set of f/2.8, f/4 and variable aperture zooms at each price point. Classic 80-20 rule scenario, perhaps 20% of the lenses cater for 80% of people's most common needs.

Primes are a different story though. You've been in the photography scene much longer, were primes generally more popular and now less in demand now that the quality of zooms has improved?

Without the discussions and speculation about the 'desserts' though, there wouldn't be much happening on the photography forums! People tend to get excited a lot about the additional, unusual and exotic that probably sells in the lowest numbers!

 

[SwissFrank]

I hope Photokina will come back.

Me too. Do you think it will be back after covid? Or is the ILC market just too small any more?