Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[Deleted member 383640]

Those who designed the RF TCs and the RF 100-500 and RF 70-200 f/2.8 not to be fully or only partly compatible may deserve a cardboard box and bread and water as contrition?

I believe that these were EF fan boys inside Canon itself (the so-called EF moles). By limiting or disabling the operation of those lenses with TCs, they extended the life of the EF 100-400L II and EF 70-200 2.8L II/III a little more.

 

[EricN]

Those who designed the RF TCs and the RF 100-500 and RF 70-200 f/2.8 not to be fully or only partly compatible may deserve a cardboard box and bread and water as contrition?

I think many people feel like they deserve it haha It would be nice if Canon explained controversial decisions.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I believe that these were EF fan boys inside Canon itself (the so-called EF moles). By limiting or disabling the operation of those lenses with TCs, they extended the life of the EF 100-400L II and EF 70-200 2.8L II/III a little more.

The EF 135/2 was compatible with TCs. The RF 135/1.8 is not. It seems the moles struck again.

I hope they keep their little noses out of any forthcoming tilt-shift lenses.

 

[Vilacom]

It would be, yes. But: it looks like Sigma's new releases are for E and L mount and don't come in EF. I'd say it is very probable that Sigma will make a 85/1.2 in the future, but it is very improbable that it will come in an EF mount.
Rather than continuing along with the retro-engineered EF mount, it seems that Sigma has shied away completely from Canon. Could Canon's litigious attitude be a factor in this? My guess is that it is.

You’re missing my point. This isn’t about any particular lens, this is about the logistics of what it would actually take for a company like Sigma to produce a lens for the RF system.

Let’s look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for the canon, it’s currently selling from B&H for $1499 USD and according to a number of reviews has been on sale for as low as $999 USD. It’s a fantastic lens, 5 stars with over one hundred reviews on the page, $600 less than the Canon EF version 3 of the same lens and $1000 less than the Canon RF version. Tons of those reviews are in the last 2ish years with many noting that they use it adapted on modern mirrorless systems, including one mentioning adapting it to a C70 cinema camera and loving it.

So for sigma to come out with a new lens for the RF system they would need to spend a ton of time and energy making the new version, but it couldn’t be much more expensive than that older EF lens without being SIGNIFICANTLY better, which is fairly unlikely since its already a great lens, if their price is anything above the cost of the EF version+an adapter you immediately are directly competing with your own lens, but if you match the price of the old lens what’s the point of sinking all the development money into the new form factor when anyone who does a review is likely going to say “Yeah, this new one is fantastic, just like the old one, buy the old one used or on sale to save a ton of money for the same performance“ when you can just keep selling the older design, make a higher profit on it cause you’ve already done all the development, and the people who actually care about price/performance were going to buy that anyway. Sigma has no incentive to chase the gearheads(which I count myself as) who are going to buy the canon versions 90% of the time regardless when they already have a phenomenal product out that will be their primary competition when it comes to a new lens release.

Canon’s excellent job at keeping EF glass relevant does far more to hurt new third party RF lens development than anything else they could really do. Which is a FANTASTIC problem for consumers to have, do you know what the PC communities would give to have an issue where older parts are so good there just isn’t a point in companies updating them to the new hotness?

 

[AJ]

Let me quote you...
"It would, it looks like, probable, improbable, it seems, could, my guess" etc...
Just like you wrote: no certainties, but guesses and assumptions. Nobody but Sigma and Canon know what will or won't happen.

This is a rumors site. That post was speculation based on observed patterns.
BTW whether Sigma knows what will happen is an open question IMO.

 

[EricN]

The EF 135/2 was compatible with TCs. The RF 135/1.8 is not. It seems the moles struck again.

I hope they keep their little noses out of any forthcoming tilt-shift lenses.

It's a legitimate complaint about the lack of usability of some of the RF lenses with TCs. I haven't checked about the Nikon and other 135 F/1.8 lenses. Do they allow a TC?

 

[David - Sydney]

Popcorn bag emptied and new one started

Great job everyone for increasing engagement for the @Canon Rumors Guy article on 3rd party lenses! 21 pages and counting

 

[David - Sydney]

I could go Canon R, or use Metabones to jump. My EF lenses will be adapted either way.
Probably unpopular point: Canon could turn off EF compatibility later if they wish to force lens sales, there is less likely to be a move that'd break metabones by Sony (probably - but ofc you can never be certain).

Hard to imagine a scenario where Canon would discontinue support of EF lenses on R mount.
No need to force RF lens sales like that as it would certainly anger a lot of users.
The simple solution is to discontinue making EF lenses so the only choice becomes second hand EF and RF lenses.... which is already underway. And if the rumour is correct, then Canon Australia has ceased to import EF lenses leaving only local stock available for sale leading the way for other countries to start doing the same thing.

Metabones has never been ideal for EF lenses on E mount. Yes it worked most of the time but also had issues and went through a number of iterations to improve it. Native E mount lenses work better of course.

 

[Jethro]

if the rumour is correct, then Canon Australia has ceased to import EF lenses leaving only local stock available for sale leading the way for other countries to start doing the same thing.

I hadn't heard that - and yes it could be the first example of similar steps around the world. I can only think that demand for EF lenses has been steadily reducing in Oz, to the stage where it becomes unprofitable to incur the substantial delivery and holding costs of keeping stock in Australia. But, the pretty clear Canon strategy had been to 'encourage' existing users onto the RF mount by promising easy compatibility with their existing EF lenses. With gaps in the RF mount lens range made up for by continuing EF lens sales.

 

[AJ]

So for sigma to come out with a new lens for the RF system they would need to spend a ton of time and energy making the new version, but it couldn’t be much more expensive than that older EF lens without being SIGNIFICANTLY better, which is fairly unlikely since its already a great lens, if their price is anything above the cost of the EF version+an adapter you immediately are directly competing with your own lens, but if you match the price of the old lens what’s the point of sinking all the development money into the new form factor when anyone who does a review is likely going to say “Yeah, this new one is fantastic, just like the old one, buy the old one used or on sale to save a ton of money for the same performance“ when you can just keep selling the older design, make a higher profit on it cause you’ve already done all the development, and the people who actually care about price/performance were going to buy that anyway.

Wow, that's an impressively long sentence! Kudos. I'm not quite sure I follow, though. Sigma's new lenses such as 50/1.4 Art and 14/1.4 come in E and L mount only. Wouldn't it be simply a matter of bolting an RF mount on the ends of these, rather than a complete re-design for RF?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Wouldn't it be simply a matter of bolting an RF mount on the ends of these, rather than a complete re-design for RF?

Should be. The L mount has the same 20mm flange focal distance as RF.

 

[Richard CN]

Popcorn bag emptied and new one started

Great job everyone for increasing engagement for the @Canon Rumors Guy article on 3rd party lenses! 21 pages and counting

hey now! it's my article. blame wordpress forum integration for the forum post. No need to blame Craig for this mess

It's interesting though that it got so much traction.

And to finish off my own popcorn. I do hope we get some clarity on the matter.

 

[Richard CN]

Wow, that's an impressively long sentence! Kudos. I'm not quite sure I follow, though. Sigma's new lenses such as 50/1.4 Art and 14/1.4 come in E and L mount only. Wouldn't it be simply a matter of bolting an RF mount on the ends of these, rather than a complete re-design for RF?

totally.

the L mount is a flange distance of 20mm, Nikon 16mm, the FE mount 18mm, the Canon mount 20mm. All are within the design tolerances of simply swapping out the mount hardware. They'll design for happy medium, and spacer out the longer mounts and inset the rear element a bit further back for the shorter flange distances. If Sigma has had no problems in doing Z mount, they definately have no problems doing RF.

The same goes for Canon moving their EF-M lenses to RF-S.. but that's saved for another bag of popcorn depending on what Canon releases this month

And Sigma, Tamron, etc are pros and have decades of experience at providing lenses with just a simple mount switch. Canon's RF mount from a physical standpoint isn't going to worry them too much.

 

[Del Paso]

Are you certain of that?

NO!

 

[Del Paso]

I think many people feel like they deserve it haha It would be nice if Canon explained controversial decisions.

Indeed, communication has never been Canon's strength.

 

[koenkooi]

With the newly announced Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 lens for APS-C, I do start wishing for RF(-s) Sigma lenses a bit more.
Also glad that Canon doesn’t have an EVF-less RF body yet, so I’m still not interested in crop bodies

 

[David - Sydney]

And to finish off my own popcorn. I do hope we get some clarity on the matter.

clarity on equivalence?

 

[Deleted member 383640]

clarity on equivalence?

If we want to have a smoother picture on the question of equivalence, we actually have to reduce the clarity.

 

[EricN]

With the newly announced Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 lens for APS-C, I do start wishing for RF(-s) Sigma lenses a bit more.
Also glad that Canon doesn’t have an EVF-less RF body yet, so I’m still not interested in crop bodies

It could be too optimistic, but I think canon will eventually allow the third-party auto focus lenses and eventually produce an EV -less body for RF.

 

[AJ]

totally.

the L mount is a flange distance of 20mm, Nikon 16mm, the FE mount 18mm, the Canon mount 20mm. All are within the design tolerances of simply swapping out the mount hardware. They'll design for happy medium, and spacer out the longer mounts and inset the rear element a bit further back for the shorter flange distances. If Sigma has had no problems in doing Z mount, they definately have no problems doing RF.

The same goes for Canon moving their EF-M lenses to RF-S.. but that's saved for another bag of popcorn depending on what Canon releases this month

And Sigma, Tamron, etc are pros and have decades of experience at providing lenses with just a simple mount switch. Canon's RF mount from a physical standpoint isn't going to worry them too much.

Yes. On top of that, the throat diameter of RF is 54 mm, which is larger than E (46.1 mm) or L (51.6 mm)
So an RF mount should fit around the rear elements of an E/L mount design.