The state of third-party lenses for the RF mount, Canon may be involved

[David - Sydney]

Except for bird photographers, R APS-C is now dead without third party lens.

Can you tell me where the "dead" comes from?
There is a gap in UWA RF-S lenses where adapted EF-S lenses is needed for instance but otherwise?

 

[David - Sydney]

Canon has stopped manufacturing a number of EF lenses, especially ones with a direct RF replacement. Supply chain, plus there are copious numbers in the wild already of basically all of them.

Can you list the EF lenses that have been made end-of-sale that affected you? Supply chain is affecting everyone so I am not sure it is limited to Canon.

 

[Kharan]

I think this is likely. But I think it is a bit more like, Canon needs 1st crack on any sale of RF lenses. Nobody here knows or seems to consider how much R&D money went into developing the RF mount and the new RF lenses. So nobody knows how many cameras and especially lenses Canon needs to sell before they recoup that money. A year's worth? 3 years? 5 years? I have no idea, but from a business point of view, Canon would be stupid if they if they allowed competitors to make profits on RF lenses when they were the ones who spent all the R&D money.

On another thread I compared this scenario to when a new drug comes to market. The developer of the drug has a 6 year exclusivity window to sell their product before generic drugs can be sold by others. The reason for that window is obvious, it's there so the maker of the drug can recoup their R&d costs. Otherwise, why would any drug company develop a new drug? I've been in that situation of having to spend $700 a month for a drug while waiting for the generic version to come to market. Luckily I had health insurance that kicked in after my $1800 deductible. Many aren't so lucky.

But the point is, nobody has to buy the Canon RF lenses - either because they find the higher end versions to be too expensive or because they find the consumer grade lenses lacking in some way. Nobody. Not one person. Want cheaper alternatives? There is an entire lineup of EF lenses, made by numerous companies. The used market is overflowing with very affordable EF lenses. All you need is a $99 adapter.

I understand people want cheaper alternatives. I understand people who visit forums like this are even more impatient because they want the latest gear.
You can of course express your anger and your frustration on forums like this. Better yet, you can express your anger and frustration by not buying RF lenses, or even buying cameras and lenses from other brands. Or you can be patient and wait to see what happens. Unlike with generic drugs, nobody will suffer serious consequences by not being able to buy a third party RF lens. Nobody needs to buy an RF lens at all.

Really? Adding four extra pins and keeping the same physical characteristics of the EF bayonet, with a shorter flange, seem worth millions of dollars to you? If there was one company that didn't need to spend tons of money on their mirrorless transition, that was Canon, who had pretty much all of the pieces already before the launch of RF. Heck, the overall size of the electronic contact patch on RF is identical to EF! I wouldn't be surprised if the perfect level of integration achieved in adapting by Canon was due to them simply expanding on the EF protocol, instead of rewriting it.

To me, this isn't really an argument. But it's great that you bring up pharmaceuticals, who actually mostly purchase the patents for new drugs from universities and public research institutes for peanuts, and then get six years to stuff their pockets full. Because pharmaceutical companies actually spend a pittance on R&D, the ones who do are governments and nonprofits, and they reap only a tiny part of the profits (because they don't have the infrastructure to mass-produce drugs). Canon are trying the same, make the public believe that they made some big investments in their tech, when they really only spent spare change for their new system, and want the exclusivity to rake in more cash.

I think this sort of short-term thinking will do Canon harm. It's not 2011 anymore. Their imaging division has already been downsized, and it'll be necessarily shrunk further in the future. Canon won't be able to cover all the gaps in RF in 2-3 years, and even worse, the competition is inventing new gaps in the meantime with bold, innovative designs. EF lenses are reasonably well adapted on all other mirrorless mounts now, and so the existing, massive EF userbase isn't at all forced to stay with the company if they go mirrorless.

 

[David - Sydney]

I think that's my biggest concern here - not necessarily affordability, but the fact that these manufacturers wouldn't be filling niches that aren't lucrative for Canon to fill going forward. For instance, there are EF versions of off brand lenses that Canon just aren't likely to make in RF. Some examples - the Sigma 14mm f/1.8, 14-24 f/2.8, 105mm f/1.4, and the Laowa 24mm probe - for me, all of those are interesting lenses. All of those are available for EF and can be adapted today so the pathway to use them remains, but my fear is that over time these new small niche lenses no-longer get released in a format which can be used on RF. I'm sure the people leaving for lack of these lenses is a drop in the bucket (by definition of being niche lenses) compared to what Canon stands to gain by building walls around the ecosystem, so I understand the decision, but as a user it does concern me.

EF isn't going away anytime soon and any 3rd party still needs to make money with volume of sales vs R&D cost. I agree that there are some interesting niches out there but they each have their pros and cons. The best part is that there will be a second hand market for these before and even after they go end-of-sale. I have bought a few lenses second hand simply because the new price was too expensive for the amount of time that I use them.

 

[David - Sydney]

I seriously was considered to buy sigma for EF mount, but unfortunately it has focus issues when you're adapting it to rf mount.

Does it have the same focus issues when used on DLSR?

 

[antonio_s]

Can you list the EF lenses that have been made end-of-sale that affected you? Supply chain is affecting everyone so I am not sure it is limited to Canon.

The discontinuations haven't affected me (I have a bunch of EF lenses, some Canon, plus a bunch of Sigma). All the lenses that have been recently discontinued (https://www.canonrumors.com/recently-discontinued-ef-lenses/) are readily available second-hand or even still in stock places. Or in some cases there is a superior new lens available (the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 vs. the Canon 135mm f/2, or the RF replacements for a few of these).

 

[David - Sydney]

To be clear, these are my personal preferences taking into account size, weight, cost, etc. I am not saying Canon doesn't make good gear. Much of it is excellent, and even the gear I'm critical of (eg the RF 35 f/1.8 and RF 85 f/2) is not actually bad gear. I am, however, unimpressed with Canon, taking into account the package of image quality, size, weight, cost, etc. With Sony, I can get a relatively small and light system with at least pretty good image quality, and (probably) not have to sell a kidney to get it. The EF/RF system doens't offer that. (You can use EF gear and pay less compared with RF gear, but a lot of it still isn't exactly cheap and it doesn't allow for small and light.) I know the RF system still hasn't been around that long, but if there were third party manufacturers making RF lenses, there is a greater chance someone would be making the sort of lenses which appeal to me.

Appreciate your explanation.
Weight/size has not been an issue for me up til now and I guess that my budget has been larger than some others as well. That said, I have bought a few lenses second hand as I couldn't justify the new price and they have worked flawlessly for me.

Canon hasn't subscribed to the mirrorless = tiny dream and I am thankful for someone who has larger hands. But the RP is still very small/light and would only be a backup for me.

What would be fascinating to know is how much R&D money has Sony pumped into their ff mirrorless system. It must have been hemorrhaging money to start with so I wonder when it tipped over into positive territory. Canon certainly made a lot of money from selling Canon EF lenses to early Sony users.

 

[blackcoffee17]

What I don't understand is why Canon is so slow releasing new lenses. How can Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, or even Sony release at a faster pace?
For example, Sony released 3 very good wide-angle lenses for APS-C at the same time, something I would never imagine Canon to do.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What I don't understand is why Canon is so slow releasing new lenses. How can Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, or even Sony release at a faster pace?
For example, Sony released 3 very good wide-angle lenses for APS-C at the same time, something I would never imagine Canon to do.

Canon's pace of releasing RF lenses in the first 4 years of the mount was faster than Sony's pace when they launched FF MILCs. Canon previously stated they're planning to release ~8 lenses/year for the next four years.

 

[dtaylor]

Back in June a Sigma UK rep told me that they are waiting on licenses from both Canon and Nikon so that they can release lenses on those platforms. Recent events point to that not only being a good move but also potentially mandatory. Sigma, Tamron and Cosina will know what has happened to Samyang, Viltrox and Yongnuo and have no doubt already researched if reverse engineering is possible from a technical standpoint to which the answer is almost certainly yes but then might have already discovered or been told by outright by Canon that legally it’s prohibited.

Properly done, reverse engineering for interoperability is legal. But it can be difficult, costly, and then costly to defend in court. Best case is Canon licenses the mount, and does so soon. Acceptable case is they just don't interfere with properly reverse engineered lenses. Worst case is they actually fight 3rd party participation, which will only erode their marketshare and profits over time.

 

[dtaylor]

You should really tell Canon. Be sure to mention that one person switched over this issue, like an iceberg that is 90% underwater, there must be at least 9 more people switching over this travesty. Maybe they've never even considered licensing their mounts.

The "you're too small of a sample" argument is completely irrelevant here. When you would throw that at people complaining about DR there was years of relevant sales data to show that it was not negatively affecting Canon's sales. This is new. People were noticing the absence of 3rd party RF lenses, but until now it was easy to blame the pandemic and supply chains. Given the existence of a few, nobody was expecting Canon to all of a sudden try and block them. Everyone was expecting Sigma and Tamron and Tokina lenses "any day now."

If this is Canon's position...and that is still an "if"...the impact has yet to be felt. Come back in three years and tell us whether or not we were too small of a sample.

You and others on this forum know so much more about the camera business than the company that's dominated it for >20 years,

Just because Canon has dominated it, does not mean Canon will continue to dominate it. I know that at my next kit overhaul, I will not want to invest in a closed mount with limited options. I know that other people were already complaining about that, before anyone had reason to believe that something more than supply chains were at fault. And I know that unlike DR, lens catalog size and cost is something that serious buyers consider before choosing a mount. That's more than enough for me to speculate that this is a poor decision on Canon's part which may cost them the #1 spot. (Isn't Sony still #1 in FF mirrorless sales? Is lens support already a reason? How long until it impacts total sales?)

it's really a shame that none of you seem willing to just tell Canon what they've been doing wrong all these years and exactly how to fix it. Speak up, man.

I've already submitted feedback to Canon that if they really do have a closed mount policy then at my next overhaul I will likely move to Sony.

 

[dtaylor]

Wisdom is seen in hindsight but I don't think that it is correct today. Canon is more likely to lose long term by licensing the mount now than keeping it proprietary and forcing 3rd party lens manufacturers to use their reverse engineered EF mount.

Explain how Canon won with dlee13.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The "you're too small of a sample" argument is completely irrelevant here. When you would throw that at people complaining about DR there was years of relevant sales data to show that it was not negatively affecting Canon's sales. This is new.

Well, that explains how you know exactly what is going to happen, even if poor, benighted Canon does not. The hammer will fall.

Incidentally, the R system seems to have been selling very well for Canon over the past four years, despite the dearth of 3rd party lenses. Canon knows that quite well, even if it's escaped your attention. Enjoy your Sony gear!

 

[dtaylor]

Really? Adding four extra pins and keeping the same physical characteristics of the EF bayonet, with a shorter flange, seem worth millions of dollars to you? If there was one company that didn't need to spend tons of money on their mirrorless transition, that was Canon, who had pretty much all of the pieces already before the launch of RF. Heck, the overall size of the electronic contact patch on RF is identical to EF! I wouldn't be surprised if the perfect level of integration achieved in adapting by Canon was due to them simply expanding on the EF protocol, instead of rewriting it.

There is a website where someone claims to have tested the pins and found that the existing pins in the same positions serve the same functions. The new pins apparently implement a high speed serial interface.

That raises the question of how the existing 3rd party lenses were implemented, because if true it means you could ship an RF lens which relies entirely on EF protocol. And the EF cat left the bag years ago. I wouldn't think Canon would have a legal angle to threaten anyone shipping an RF lens using EF protocol.

I think this sort of short-term thinking will do Canon harm. It's not 2011 anymore. Their imaging division has already been downsized, and it'll be necessarily shrunk further in the future. Canon won't be able to cover all the gaps in RF in 2-3 years, and even worse, the competition is inventing new gaps in the meantime with bold, innovative designs. EF lenses are reasonably well adapted on all other mirrorless mounts now, and so the existing, massive EF userbase isn't at all forced to stay with the company if they go mirrorless.

Bingo.

 

[David - Sydney]

Really? Adding four extra pins and keeping the same physical characteristics of the EF bayonet, with a shorter flange, seem worth millions of dollars to you? If there was one company that didn't need to spend tons of money on their mirrorless transition, that was Canon, who had pretty much all of the pieces already before the launch of RF. Heck, the overall size of the electronic contact patch on RF is identical to EF! I wouldn't be surprised if the perfect level of integration achieved in adapting by Canon was due to them simply expanding on the EF protocol, instead of rewriting it.

The physical changes are minimal but please don't discount the R&D effort needed to develop new protocols for the next generation of body/lens combinations. You can get some idea of effort based on open standards for buses in PCs etc. It is easier to do a proprietary interface than getting multiple parties to agree but it still requires effort and imagination for the future.

Canon are trying the same, make the public believe that they made some big investments in their tech, when they really only spent spare change for their new system, and want the exclusivity to rake in more cash.

Canon set a new bar in the R5 letting their engineers off their leashes. That was a massive first new R mount body that wasn't using spare parts. It clearly took years to develop only for 3 video setting thermal limitations to overtake the market perception. There is still no other hybrid body can take 8k/30 raw after 2 years.
Kudos for Sony to be able to have better power/performance efficiency in their sensor/processor for battery life in a small body though.

I think this sort of short-term thinking will do Canon harm. It's not 2011 anymore. Their imaging division has already been downsized, and it'll be necessarily shrunk further in the future. Canon won't be able to cover all the gaps in RF in 2-3 years, and even worse, the competition is inventing new gaps in the meantime with bold, innovative designs. EF lenses are reasonably well adapted on all other mirrorless mounts now, and so the existing, massive EF userbase isn't at all forced to stay with the company if they go mirrorless.

From less than a month ago, Canon has stated that we are at the bottom of the market and for growth after that in the "advanced amateur and pro" segments.
Can you explain why the imaging division will be shrunk in the future? Canon is all in for RF which will set them up in the long term. They have no other option.

Almost all new RF lenses have added new features as well as additional cost premiums. These are innovative in the market and would prompt users to move to Canon if it makes sense. Canon are inventing new gaps as well!
- Premium lenses like the RF50/1.2, 85/1.2 28-70/2, RF5.2mm.
- RF14-35mm/4 in a 77mm filter thread is another.
- Getting new users into 600/800mm focal ranges with their cheap f11 lenses was a brilliant move that may get users into the RF100-500 or other big whites.

It was a no-brainer for me to migrate to RF as my EF lens collection kept me in the ecosystem. I didn't believe that adapting my EF lenses to Sony etc was a benefit especially as I knew that new R bodies would come. I am glad that waited and have no regrets now.

 

[dtaylor]

Well, that explains how you know exactly what is going to happen, even if poor, benighted Canon does not. The hammer will fall.

I know what I'm going to do. I know what other people are going to do. And I have a good idea what newbies are going to do as the gap in lenses and lens pricing grows. That's enough for a prediction.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope Viltrox just stepped on a patent they shouldn't have, and that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina are either already licensed, or already done properly and legally reverse engineering the mount. But if Canon is actually trying to close the mount in a world where everyone else either licenses their mount or at least doesn't block reverse engineered 3rd party lenses, it is not going to end with them holding onto the #1 spot.

Incidentally, the R system seems to have been selling very well for Canon over the past four years, despite the dearth of 3rd party lenses.

But not well enough to take the FF mirrorless sales spot from Sony. Again I ask: does lens availability already have something to do with this? And how long until it impacts total sales?

 

[David - Sydney]

Explain how Canon won with dlee13.

A single data point is still valid but doesn't make a trend or would impact Canon. There will always be switchers to Sony/Nikon/Fuji/Oly and switchers to Canon
Net ads is the real metric which we don't have the data on except to look at overall market share and Canon isn't looking too bad given R mount is only 4 years old.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I know what I'm going to do. I know what other people are going to do. And I have a good idea what newbies are going to do as the gap in lenses and lens pricing grows. That's enough for a prediction.

Wow, you have a really low bar for predictions. If you have two pennies in your pocket, every coin in the world must be a penny.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope Viltrox just stepped on a patent they shouldn't have, and that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina are either already licensed, or already done properly and legally reverse engineering the mount. But if Canon is actually trying to close the mount in a world where everyone else either licenses their mount or at least doesn't block reverse engineered 3rd party lenses, it is not going to end with them holding onto the #1 spot.

Lol, yes by all means predict d00m for Canon. People doing that here have such a great track record.

But not well enough to take the FF mirrorless sales spot from Sony. Again I ask: does lens availability already have something to do with this? And how long until it impacts total sales?

There are four 3rd party autofocus lenses in a native EF-M mount, the same number as for the RF mount. The M line is a more budget-conscious market level than FF MILCs where you'd expect 3rd party lenses to have a bigger presence, and the M line is the best-selling APS-C MILC globally. So the dearth of 3rd party lenses clearly isn't an impediment to Canon's success.

Sony has been making FF MILCs for twice as long as Canon, and now has only 5% more of the FF MILC market share than Canon. That's far more evidence of a trend than a couple of people on the internet claiming they have or will someday switch brands. But you seem quite skilled at not letting facts and data influence your opinions.

 

[dtaylor]

Wow, you have a really low bar for predictions. If you have two pennies in your pocket, every coin in the world must be a penny.

And what is your prediction based on? Canon has been #1 for a while so surely that can never change? That's a fallacy in case you did not know.

Lol, yes by all means predict d00m for Canon. People doing that here have such a great track record.

#2 spot isn't d00m, but's probably also not where Canon executives and shareholders want them to be.

There are four 3rd party autofocus lenses in a native EF-M mount, the same number as for the RF mount. The M line is a more budget-conscious market level than FF MILCs where you'd expect 3rd party lenses to have a bigger presence, and the M line is the best-selling APS-C MILC globally.

The M line sells so well because it fills the gap left by the death of the P&S market. That's why it also doesn't need very many lenses to sell well. It is not a proper point of comparison. What is happening in the prosumer/professional FF market?

Sony has been making FF MILCs for twice as long as Canon, and now has only 5% more of the FF MILC market share than Canon.

Think about what you're saying: when Sony started they had practically zero of the FF market. As the market is transitioning from DSLRs to mirrorless Canon has failed to retain the #1 spot. Can Canon get it back by locking out 3rd party lenses? Kinda doubtful.

You can bring up DSLR+mirrorless FF sales, but Canon has to retain those DSLR users as they transition. I don't see how locking out 3rd party lenses helps them do that.

That's far more evidence of a trend than a couple of people on the internet claiming they have or will someday switch brands.

The trend right now is Sony landing at #1 in FF after all new sales are mirrorless. If Canon's position is no 3rd party RF glass, do you really think that will help or hurt the trend from their viewpoint? Be honest, don't just cheerlead.

I guarantee that Sony executives are happy about this dust up. They will do everything in their power to make sure the considerable talent and manufacturing at Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. are dedicated to E-mount.

 

[Del Paso]

Sorry to hurt your feelings.
Good look waiting for 02 fast primes in 10 years of R mount.

You're absolutely right! My tender feelings are deadly hurt!
It's scandalous that Canon turns out a new APS/C camera, and that, 4 FULL month later, they don't even have at least 50 new lenses for it!
You have convinced me, I'll jump ship, Canon is d....d.