# Canon Releases New (Lacquerware) Lens Hoods



## [email protected] (Mar 25, 2022)

> At least no chips were used up in Canon’s most recent product release: lacquerware lens hoods. Instead, they’re designed to hold chips. The Canon Japan swag is priced around the same price as Canon’s actual lens hoods, which says something about the markup on molded plastic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 25, 2022)

In answer to everyone's question, no this is not an April Fools story.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Mar 25, 2022)

Is it possible to have a morning french coffee bowl made with RF 70-200 F/2.8 Lens-hood ?


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 25, 2022)

Sony's chip cups have more DR (Dip Recipes)


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 25, 2022)

I can find no use for them due to shortage of chips


----------



## Danglin52 (Mar 26, 2022)

Interesting. They can produce this c*** but they can't deliver hoods for the RF16mm & RF 100-400mm. I have both hoods on backorder. Or is this just a Canon Rumor / Development Announcement?


----------



## Blue Zurich (Mar 26, 2022)

Laughter is the best medicine


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 26, 2022)

I think the title needs a correction...

Canon Releases New (Ripoffware) Lens Hoods​
That's much better! 

From the company that's always been too stingy to include a lens hood worth a few dollars on lenses costing hundreds of dollars, and sell lens hood as overpriced optional extras.

Now ripped off consumers can buy similarly overpriced novelty lens hoods, because they have money to p*** away when many people can't afford fuel for their cars.

For real lens hoods, buy third part JJC lens hoods, they're a high quality alternative that are much cheaper.


----------



## subtraho (Mar 26, 2022)

So like are we all just gonna pretend these aren't ashtrays or what?


----------



## Swurre (Mar 26, 2022)

Danglin52 said:


> Interesting. They can produce this c*** but they can't deliver hoods for the RF16mm & RF 100-400mm. I have both hoods on backorder. Or is this just a Canon Rumor / Development Announcement?


Yes, same here too, I have waited 5 months for the hood for my RF16mm. My camera store send an email from time to time to tell me that they do no know when they can deliver the lens hood.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 26, 2022)

Swurre said:


> Yes, same here too, I have waited 5 months for the hood for my RF16mm. My camera store send an email from time to time to tell me that they do no know when they can deliver the lens hood.


JJC lens hood for RF 16mm, lots in stock, immediate shipping:
eBay US - https://www.ebay.com/itm/185140698989 US$12
Amazon UK - https://www.amazon.co.uk/JJC-Bayonet-Camera-Canon-Reversible/dp/B09KXQDCM7 for £11.99
Aliexpress JJC Official store - https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003499474382.html US$13.99


----------



## Swurre (Mar 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> JJC lens hood for RF 16mm, lots in stock, immediate shipping:
> eBay US - https://www.ebay.com/itm/185140698989 US$12
> Amazon UK - https://www.amazon.co.uk/JJC-Bayonet-Camera-Canon-Reversible/dp/B09KXQDCM7 for £11.99
> Aliexpress JJC Official store - https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003499474382.html US$13.99


Yes, I know, but I do not want the JJC Lens hood, I want the Canon Lens Hood.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 26, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> In answer to everyone's question, no this is not an April Fools story.


This was exactly my thought 
"They're a little bit early for April Fools' Day.
Thanks for sharing, @[email protected].


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 26, 2022)

Swurre said:


> Yes, I know, but I do not want the JJC Lens hood, I want the Canon Lens Hood.


Then you need to wait 5 months and pay triple the price, that's all there is to it!


----------



## Swurre (Mar 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Then you need to wait 5 months and pay triple the price, that's all there is to it!


Then so be it.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 26, 2022)

Swurre said:


> Yes, same here too, I have waited 5 months for the hood for my RF16mm. My camera store send an email from time to time to tell me that they do no know when they can deliver the lens hood.


I received my hood 2 weeks ago, so they are starting to go out to stores. I ordered the hood as soon as it became available to order, which is, like you say, 5 months ago.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I think the title needs a correction...
> 
> Canon Releases New (Ripoffware) Lens Hoods​
> That's much better!
> ...


I agree. I've bought the JJC ones for the RF 100-400 and 800. They are about 1/5th the price in the UK and function more than adequately. I regard these plastic hoods as disposable crumple zones. It's not like putting a dodgy 3rd party battery in your camera.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Then you need to wait 5 months and pay triple the price, that's all there is to it!


We now know why the RF 100-500mm is so much more expensive than the RF 100-400 - you pay for the white hood and they throw in the lens for free.


----------



## Nemorino (Mar 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> you pay for the white hood and they throw in the lens for free.


And they have tons of lenses but only the hood is missing?!?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> We now know why the RF 100-500mm is so much more expensive than the RF 100-400 - you pay for the white hood and they throw in the lens for free.


Next to the real lens hoods on the big whites, the one for the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 macro looks like an overgrown lens filter adapter, costs $45 and probably feels somewhat inadequate by comparison...


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 26, 2022)

Nemorino said:


> And they have tons of lenses but only the hood is missing?!?


Those are the ones that don't count, they're Canon's unworthy children that don't deserve lens hoods.
Think of them as Canon's charitable afterthought for the buyers who can't afford L series lenses, and a way of reminding them that lens hoods are a priviledge for their more important buyers...


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I agree. I've bought the JJC ones for the RF 100-400 and 800. They are about 1/5th the price in the UK and function more than adequately. I regard these plastic hoods as disposable crumple zones. It's not like putting a dodgy 3rd party battery in your camera.


Exactly, they're good for a bit of extra insurance to protect those lens front elements against accidental bangs and scrapes, and to keep light rain and other things off the glass. I've found the JJC ones very durable, they're probably 80% as good as the Canon lens hoods for 1/5 to 1/4 of the price.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Next to the real lens hoods on the big whites, the one for the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 macro looks like an overgrown lens filter adapter, costs $45 and probably feels somewhat inadequate by comparison...


Do not complain before having taken a look at the Leica price list.
Of course, their lenshoods are certainly made of military-grade kevlar-reinforced hyper polymers (NASA and ESA tested).
Not to forget: Kardashian approved!
My worst nightmare is about losing such a delicate item (I usually wake up sweat-drenched).


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Next to the real lens hoods on the big whites, the one for the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 macro looks like an overgrown lens filter adapter, costs $45 and probably feels somewhat inadequate by comparison...



That's a blast from the past. I remember opening up the packages for my lens and hood and searching the boxes over and over again for the "actual hood." Never had I been so disappointed by a Canon product. 

In point of fact, having a more substantial hood with that lens design would start to affect the edges, but to have priced that adapter ring at $45 was itself a suggestion that it served a purpose, causing me to think I should buy it. 

Other weirdly inconvenient-for-the-value hoods: the EF 40 f/2.8, and the tiny one that came with the 35mm M-mount lens. While I'm at it, the ancient TS-E 24mm hood can't reverse, so it's a huge pain to keep in a bag.

I think I waited about 8 months to finally get my RF 800mm f/11 hood. That's genuinely useful, but for the cost and time it took, Canon must have started making them after the lenses were already sent out. Somewhere there's a company that must have an exclusive contract and a very cozy relationship. Perhaps an internal division. But here we are shelling out $ for them. Dumb us.


----------



## HenWin (Mar 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I think the title needs a correction...
> 
> Canon Releases New (Ripoffware) Lens Hoods​
> That's much better!
> ...


All 3 of the RF lenses I purchased in the USA (November and December, 2021) came with hoods. A 14-35, 24-105 and 100-500, so I don't understand your "From the company that's always been too stingy to include a lens hood worth a few dollars on lenses costing hundreds of dollars, and sell lens hood as overpriced optional extras." statement.


----------



## becceric (Mar 27, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Do not complain before having taken a look at the Leica price list.
> Of course, their lenshoods are certainly made of military-grade kevlar-reinforced hyper polymers (NASA and ESA tested).
> Not to forget: Kardashian approved!
> My worst nightmare is about losing such a delicate item (I usually wake up sweat-drenched).


Has Harryfilm been slipping you Leica product descriptions?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 27, 2022)

HenWin said:


> All 3 of the RF lenses I purchased in the USA (November and December, 2021) came with hoods. A 14-35, 24-105 and 100-500, so I don't understand your "From the company that's always been too stingy to include a lens hood worth a few dollars on lenses costing hundreds of dollars, and sell lens hood as overpriced optional extras." statement.


Well, someone on this forum is cashed up lol! 
The lenses you purchased, they're all L series lenses, Canon's top tier, priced at US at $1699.00, $1299.00 and $2899.00 respectively. For close to US$6000 you would expect they will throw in three lens hoods with a real cost that's likely less than $30!

There are around 27 RF lenses, 9 of these (30% of them) are the standard lenses from US$199 - 999 and all come without lens hoods. The rest are L-series lenses, mostly priced from US$1,299.00 - $3,099.00, which come with lens hoods. Only Canon L series lenses come with lens hoods and pouches/bags. The other lenses are just crudely bubble-wrapped in a box.

It's interesting that 2/3 of RF lenses released to date are the more expensive L series lenses. Also rather curiously, after the R and RP, which use recycled DSLR 6DIi and 5DIV sensors, all the truly new camera bodies have been on the more expensive end. It looks like the RF platform is quite skewed towards the expensive end so far, especially with the whole mid-tier of lenses mostly missing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 27, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I think the title needs a correction...
> 
> Canon Releases New (Ripoffware) Lens Hoods​
> That's much better!
> ...





AlanF said:


> I agree. I've bought the JJC ones for the RF 100-400 and 800. They are about 1/5th the price in the UK and function more than adequately. I regard these plastic hoods as disposable crumple zones. It's not like putting a dodgy 3rd party battery in your camera.



I've bought JJC and other third party lens hoods. For my use case I really need some sort of flocking to prevent reflection off the inner surface of the hood. The cheap hoods from JJC, Altura, etc. are too smooth and shiny on the inside. The flocking on the Canon hoods reflects practically zero percent of the light that falls on it.




Several years ago my Canon EW-83H absorbed the lion's share of a nasty drop of my 5D Mark III + EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS from about four feet onto a concrete driveway and cracked completely in two at the narrowest point between two of the "petals". The camera and lens suffered no damage at all. After supergluing it black together and reinforcing that with black duct tape on the outside a couple of times over the next few years, it refused to be glued together again. So I bought a cheap replacement hood.




Most sporting events and many other places I shoot are in environments where bright point sources of light are in the frame of many of my images. The unlined plastic can actually make lens flare worse, even the ones that claim to have a matte finish.





My solution is to line the cheap hoods myself.

It's a real pain creating a pattern to fit the inside of a truncated cone.

Once I've got a pattern, though, it's pretty easy to cut some Peel & Stick felt to fit. I get 9x12 inch sheets of the felt for about $2 each at the local craft store. You can get packs of 6-10 sheets from third party sellers on amazon for less than $10.




Then its another pain to get the felt lined up inside the hood without it sticking before it's positioned precisely. But once I've got the lining in them, they work just as well as the OEM hoods do.

So far I've lined Altura or JJC hoods for my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, EF 35mm f/2 IS, EF 50mm f/1.4, and EF 85mm f/1.8 (the same hood also fits the EF 100mm f/2). Due to the irregular shape of the interior of the ET-65 III and knock-offs, it was a real pain lining that one. There are two bulges on the interior that house the spring loaded clips that hold the hood onto the front of the lens. Why Canon didn't design the 85/1.8 and 100/2 with a conventional bayonet mount for the hood is beyond me.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 27, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> So far I've lined Altura or JJC hoods for my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, EF 35mm f/2 IS, EF 50mm f/1.4, and EF 85mm f/1.8 (the same hood also fits the EF 100mm f/2). Due to the irregular shape of the interior of the ET-65 III and knock-offs, it was a real pain lining that one. There are two bulges on the interior that house the spring loaded clips that hold the hood onto the front of the lens. Why Canon didn't design the 85/1.8 and 100/2 with a conventional bayonet mount for the hood is beyond me.


I know the older EF L series lenses had a flocked inner surfaces on their lens hoods, but my new RF 24-105 f/4 L doesn't, it has a ribbed plastic inner surface.
For those of you who have other RF L series lenses, are the inner surfaces flocked, or has Canon dropped that surface treatment with the new RF lenses?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 27, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> My solution is to line the cheap hoods myself.
> 
> It's a real pain creating a pattern to fit the inside of a truncated cone.
> 
> ...


You have obviously made a good job of it. I would guess that Canon and co might spray the flocking on. I googled and came up with sites like this https://www.flockingunlimited.com/pages/how-to-apply-flocking but it's probably quicker and more effective to do what you have done.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 27, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I know the older EF L series lenses had a flocked inner surfaces on their lens hoods, but my new RF 24-105 f/4 L doesn't, it has a ribbed plastic inner surface.
> For those of you who have other RF L series lenses, are the inner surfaces flocked, or has Canon dropped that surface treatment with the new RF lenses?



Ribs work pretty well, too. It's just that smooth plastic that creates too many reflections.

A few years ago when I did not own a FF digital camera one of my most used lenses was a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 that had a ribbed hood. I shot plenty with it in gyms and in stadiums at night and never had any issue with it adding flare that would not have been there with the hood not in place.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You have obviously made a good job of it. I would guess that Canon and co might spray the flocking on. I googled and came up with sites like this https://www.flockingunlimited.com/pages/how-to-apply-flocking but it's probably quicker and more effective to do what you have done.



I did look at some of those sprays before I found the peel-and-stick felt. It looked to me like way too many different materials to buy that, when added together, would have cost almost as much as a genuine Canon EW-83H! 

In fact, I had went to the hobby store intending to buy some flat black modeler's paint to spray on with an airbrush. But the felt goes on without making a total mess and doesn't require several days to dry. I can do it sitting at my desk when the weather outside is not ideal for painting with aerosols.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 27, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I know the older EF L series lenses had a flocked inner surfaces on their lens hoods, but my new RF 24-105 f/4 L doesn't, it has a ribbed plastic inner surface.
> For those of you who have other RF L series lenses, are the inner surfaces flocked, or has Canon dropped that surface treatment with the new RF lenses?


The £89 Lens Hood ET-83F for the RF 100-500mm is ribbed.


----------



## becceric (Mar 28, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> I've bought JJC and other third party lens hoods. For my use case I really need some sort of flocking to prevent reflection off the inner surface of the hood. The cheap hoods from JJC, Altura, etc. are too smooth and shiny on the inside. The flocking on the Canon hoods reflects practically zero percent of the light that falls on it.
> 
> View attachment 202877
> 
> ...


I’ve used fiber optic polishing film to take gloss off of shiny plastic. It seems like 2, 3, or 5um grit would do. This would eliminate the need match shapes precisely. While my first choice would be 5um silicon carbide, the others are a little smoother.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The £89 Lens Hood ET-83F for the RF 100-500mm is ribbed.


I just checked my RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens and its lens hood is the Canon EW-83N, which has the ribbed inner surface.
Much to my surprise, the EF 24-70 f/4L has exactly the same lens hood, I didn't realise that was the case till now!
The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art prime lens also uses a ribbed interior surface on its lens hood.


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 28, 2022)

I


LogicExtremist said:


> I think the title needs a correction...
> 
> Canon Releases New (Ripoffware) Lens Hoods​
> That's much better!
> ...





LogicExtremist said:


> I think the title needs a correction...
> 
> Canon Releases New (Ripoffware) Lens Hoods​
> That's much better!
> ...


Every lens I’ve bought from Canon has come with a lens hood? did you buy grey market items?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> Every lens I’ve bought from Canon has come with a lens hood? did you buy grey market items?


L-series lenses include the hoods, as do select others (the 70-300 DO, and IIRC the old non-L TS-E 45 and 90). Non-L lenses do not include the hood in most geographies (there are exceptions, e.g. the 50/1.8 includes a hood in Malaysia, or at least it did at one point).


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 29, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> I
> 
> 
> Every lens I’ve bought from Canon has come with a lens hood? did you buy grey market items?


No, I buy brand new Canon gear from official outlets.

As I stated earlier, and Neuro has just confirmed, only the expensive Canon L series lenses come with lens hoods (and lens bags), while the rest generally do not. 

Why do they do this? Consider that a Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens sells for US$199, the Canon ES-65B lens hood is sold as an optional accessory for US $40, which is 20% of the price of the lens! It's like selling the lens with the hood at a price that is inflated by 20%, but in it make the lens price look cheaper.

This is a ripoff as the actual manufacturing cost is nowhere near that, and all other lens manufacturers usually include lens hoods with their lenses.


----------



## 2 cents (Mar 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I think the title needs a correction...
> 
> Canon Releases New (Ripoffware) Lens Hoods​
> That's much better!
> ...


Yes. I've been a sucker purchasing Canon products and original hoods/accessories for over 30 years. I'm a pro photographer, but this is the year I'm drawing a line in the sand. I bought JJC hoods for my new lenses and cost a fraction, and are well made. For the first time I will also be considering 3rd party lenses. Their prices are stupid.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 29, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Yes. I've been a sucker purchasing Canon products and original hoods/accessories for over 30 years. I'm a pro photographer, but this is the year I'm drawing a line in the sand. I bought JJC hoods for my new lenses and cost a fraction, and are well made. For the first time I will also be considering 3rd party lenses. Their prices are stupid.


That's precisely why Canon is preventing third-parties from manufacturing lenses on the RF platform, because people would be able to buy reasonably priced third party lenses that are almost as good (and sometimes better in some ways) for much less. By eliminating any third-party competition, Canon becomes the sole supplier of lenses, and can charge whatever they want, take it or leave it!

There are only a few Chinese brand lenses available on the RF mount, and it appears that Canon scared off Sigma and Samyang/Rokinon with legal threats, so they have no competition to their limited range of mostly overpriced lenses. While this does sound like anti-competition practice to create a monopoly, it's legal because Canon can claim you can still use adapted third-part EF lenses, or just sell your gear and change brands. Swapping brands is a less likely option for anyone invested in a lot of Canon lenses already, as there's a considerable financial loss involved.

Pro photographers only change their gear when they need to, but when a whole platform changes, the outlay can be considerable as they're potentially purchasing a lot of top-tier top dollar gear. If the EF lenses still work, and the RF lenses don't add any real value, speed up work or bring in more money, then why bother? Apart from a few exceptions, most RF lenses are only marginally better and some are a bit worse than their Ef counterparts, for a lot more money.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> There are only a few Chinese brand lenses available on the RF mount, and it appears that Canon scared off Sigma and Samyang/Rokinon with legal threats, so they have no competition to their limited range of mostly overpriced lenses. While this does sound like anti-competition practice to create a monopoly, it's legal because Canon can claim you can still use adapted third-part EF lenses, or just sell your gear and change brands. Swapping brands is a less likely option for anyone invested in a lot of Canon lenses already, as there's a considerable financial loss involved.


On what basis could Canon make legal threats? It is perfectly legal to make lenses to fit on other makers mounts and perfectly legal to reverse engineer communication protocols.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> That's precisely why Canon is preventing third-parties from manufacturing lenses on the RF platform,[..]
> 
> There are only a few Chinese brand lenses available on the RF mount,[..]


Which is it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> That's precisely why Canon is preventing third-parties from manufacturing lenses on the RF platform


Are they really? Got any evidence for that or is it just speculation? There is a long list of third-party lenses for the RF mount, so if Canon is preventing other manufacturers from making them, they’re really doing a crappy job at it.



LogicExtremist said:


> There are only a few Chinese brand lenses available on the RF mount, and it appears that Canon scared off Sigma and Samyang/Rokinon with legal threats, so they have no competition to their limited range of mostly overpriced lenses.


Samyang/Rokinon are based in Korea. The 14/2.8 and 85/1.4 are remain available with the Rokinon branding. Seems that the facts don't support your conclusions.



LogicExtremist said:


> Pro photographers only change their gear when they need to, but when a whole platform changes, the outlay can be considerable as they're potentially purchasing a lot of top-tier top dollar gear. If the EF lenses still work, and the RF lenses don't add any real value, speed up work or bring in more money, then why bother?


Although @unfocused and I don't always see eye-to-eye, I definitely agree with his argument that the 'professional photographer' is steadily losing importance as a market for camera makers. Apple manages to sell a lot of new iPhones to people who have perfectly good, relatively recent model iPhones. The buyers don't need a new phone, they want it and can afford it, so they buy it. The RF system is not too different, and I think the main target market isn't professionals but rather enthusiasts who have deep pockets.



LogicExtremist said:


> Apart from a few exceptions, most RF lenses are only marginally better and some are a bit worse than their Ef counterparts, for a lot more money.


Which RF lenses are a bit worse for a lot more money?

From what I can tell, most RF lenses offer meaningful improvements over their already-good EF counterparts, for a lot more money. The 14-35/4L is 2 mm wider. The 70-200 zooms are much smaller and lighter, and the 70-200/2.8L is optically better. The 24-70/2.8 adds IS. The 100-500L is 100 mm longer. The 100-400 non-L has a bit better IQ than the EF 70-300 II, and is longer (but narrower on the wide end), and not much more expensive. Compared to the EF 85/1.8, the RF 85/2 has better IQ, 1:2 magnification, and IS.

The EF 24-105 non-L has a wider aperture and a slight IQ advantage over the RF 24-105 non-L, but the latter is smaller and lighter. The EF lens costs 50% more than the RF lens, so that's a case where the price differential is dramatically reversed.

The one clear example where the RF version is virtually identical in terms of IQ, size, weight and features to the EF version is the 24-105/4L. The RF lens launched at the same price as the EF MkII lens.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> On what basis could Canon make legal threats? It is perfectly legal to make lenses to fit on other makers mounts and perfectly legal to reverse engineer communication protocols.


I believe that would be patent infringement. Canon has only licensed the RF mount to a single third-party, that would be RED, who use the RF mount on their RED Komodo 6K Digital Cinema Camera. From what I have read, RED had to do some reverse engineering to get phase-detect autofocus working with Canon RF and adapted EF lenses. As far as I know, and have not seen evidence indicating otherwise, Tamron, Sigma and Samyang/Rokinon haven't been licensed by Canon to manufacture RF lenses.

Even though there was no official statement by Samyang that their RF lens production was squashed legally (why would they, corporate squabbles are bad for PR), their abrupt cessation of production without any clear or plausible explanation, and the delay from Tamron and Sigma to even announce RF lenses indicates that something is amiss. From https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/sigma-to-start-producing-lenses-for-canon-rf-mount-cameras "Sigma CEO confirms that Canon RF mount lenses could be coming" published January 14, 2021, then...nothing. As Shakespeare once said, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark", and in this case its not the herring! 

If I'm not mistaken, Canon has not released the RF protocol (nor the EF protocol) to third parties, they're forced to reverse engineer it, even licensed third parties such as RED. Canon have a long history of not playing ball with third parties. Sony by comparison has opened their mount and lens communications protocols to third parties, so they aren't require to reverse engineer Sony's E-mount lenses. This gives buyers a greater lens choice, and the guarantee of more reliable operation, irrespective of the lenses they use.

What we're simply looking at is Canon (and Nikon) opting for an exclusive, old-school closed system approach, while the world is embracing the concept of "open source", and Sony is opting for an open system where information is shared with third parties. Will Canon's closed systems approach harm them in future? Only time will tell!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Which is it?


China doesn't care about patents much especially when Japanese companies are concerned lol! 
That should explain why there's an ever increasing range of RF lenses from Chinese manufacturers, many of them quite new companies, or are new to lens manufacture, while the established lens manufacturing companies from Korea and elsewhere haven't done much of anything, and the ones that were - stopped!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I believe that would be patent infringement. Canon has only licensed the RF mount to a single third-party, that would be RED, who use the RF mount on their RED Komodo 6K Digital Cinema Camera. From what I have read, RED had to do some reverse engineering to get phase-detect autofocus working with Canon RF and adapted EF lenses. As far as I know, and have not seen evidence indicating otherwise, Tamron, Sigma and Samyang/Rokinon haven't been licensed by Canon to manufacture RF lenses.
> 
> Even though there was no official statement by Samyang that their RF lens production was squashed legally (why would they, corporate squabbles are bad for PR), their abrupt cessation of production without any clear or plausible explanation, and the delay from Tamron and Sigma to even announce RF lenses indicates that something is amiss. From https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/sigma-to-start-producing-lenses-for-canon-rf-mount-cameras "Sigma CEO confirms that Canon RF mount lenses could be coming" published January 14, 2021, then...nothing. As Shakespeare once said, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark", and in this case its not the herring!
> 
> ...


Seems like you should change your handle to IllogicExtremist. Patent infringement lawsuits (speculation) prevent Sigma and Tamron from making RF mount lenses because Canon didn't license the RF mount to them. You go on to say that Canon didn't license the EF mount to them, either. I guess that prevented Sigma and Tamron from making EF mount lenses, too. Oh, wait....

Is the world embracing the 'open source' concept? I guess successful companies like Apple, Amazon and Google missed the memo and are still operating as walled gardens. Better send Tim, Andy, and Sundar letters telling them they're too 'old school' to survive in the modern open source world.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are they really? Got any evidence for that or is it just speculation? There is a long list of third-party lenses for the RF mount, so if Canon is preventing other manufacturers from making them, they’re really doing a crappy job at it.
> 
> 
> Samyang/Rokinon are based in Korea. The 14/2.8 and 85/1.4 are remain available with the Rokinon branding. Seems that the facts don't support your conclusions.
> ...


See my reply below for some answers to your questions.

You'll never get evidence that Canon threatened a third party company legally, it's bad for Canon's PR and if Samyang said what really happened it would sour their working relationship. All we can do is engage in inference, and use inductive reasoning to draw a probable premise from the limited objective information we do have. Applying Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually the most plausible one. If have another explanation which is as simple or more so, I'm open to considering its likelihood in terms of probability.

I don't understand the Samyang/Rokinon company structure, why it sells under one name in some countries, and not under others, can manufacture RF lenses under one, but not the other. If anyone can anyone explain the workings of this company, many would be interested.

RF lenses that are worse than EF lenses for various reasoins, but cost more, that's easy, two come to mind:
RF 14-35mm f/4 L vs RF 16-35mm f/4 L
RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro vs EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro
This could be a can of worms, but from what I've read in reviews, I'd rather keep the EF versions, which are cheaper. YMMV!

The one you mentioned, the RF 70-200 has inferior construction/durability/resistance to ingress of contaminants (external focus design) as a trade-off for weight. If I recall, zoom works in opposite direction and takes two complete twists to go from 70 to 200, which is slow and clumsy, and for what marginal optical improvement, it's not worth the extra cost, this is another where I'd rather keep my EF 70-200 f/2.8 III. 

I agree with your points on the other lenses. Also, with the RF 24-105L, I suspect that there is either huge variation, or it's grossly underrated. I've seen the charts, but some reviewers claim it's as sharp as the latest version of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM, which was a sharp lens, while others say its just a bit sharper then the EF 24-105. I get stellar sharp images from mine, way sharper than from my EF 24-70 f/4, which was known to be shrper then the 24-105, so not sure what to believe. I'm curious what other people's experience has been with this one.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Seems like you should change your handle to IllogicExtremist. Patent infringement lawsuits (speculation) prevent Sigma and Tamron from making RF mount lenses because Canon didn't license the RF mount to them. You go on to say that Canon didn't license the EF mount to them, either. I guess that prevented Sigma and Tamron from making EF mount lenses, too. Oh, wait....
> 
> Is the world embracing the 'open source' concept? I guess successful companies like Apple, Amazon and Google missed the memo and are still operating as walled gardens. Better send Tim, Andy, and Sundar letters telling them they're too 'old school' to survive in the modern open source world.


Now, now, we know that argumentum ad hominem doesn't constitute a reasonable argument! 
Anyone care to tell us when the EF patent expired, or on what specifications a RF mount patent can be enforced? As I said, we can only speculate what goes on behind the scenes, and can try to reason what will be the most likely explanation from limited evidence we have. A logical rebuttal would be a more plausible *theory *to explain the events in a logically consistent matter, and this is my theory that I've stated.

Many decades ago, there were many big name proprietary computer hardware platforms and operating systems. Nearly all have disappeared, it's basically all windows and unix these days, other than some new platforms for handeld devices, Apple uses a variant of BSD Unix. Most of the world's internet infrastructure such as web hosting servers runs on some variant of the open source Linux operating system, with open source database MySQL where database functionality is needed. Another potential can of worms that will trigger every IT nerd out there, and resurrect decades of operating system holy wars, better not go there!


----------



## AlanF (Mar 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> I believe that would be patent infringement. Canon has only licensed the RF mount to a single third-party, that would be RED, who use the RF mount on their RED Komodo 6K Digital Cinema Camera. From what I have read, RED had to do some reverse engineering to get phase-detect autofocus working with Canon RF and adapted EF lenses. As far as I know, and have not seen evidence indicating otherwise, Tamron, Sigma and Samyang/Rokinon haven't been licensed by Canon to manufacture RF lenses.


I thought I had made it clear: Canon can patent the RF mount on the camera side but it can't then patent the mount on the lens side. You can patent a Gizmo, but you cannot then patent everything that will obviously fit on the Gizmo.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> You'll never get evidence that Canon threatened a third party company legally...All we can do is engage in inference, and use inductive reasoning to draw a probable premise from the limited objective information we do have..



Standard conspiracy theory reasoning. "I can't prove anything I'm saying because they are keeping it secret."



LogicExtremist said:


> ...the simplest explanation is usually the most plausible one.



And, the simplest explanation is that Sigma, Tamron and Tokina have not yet found it profitable to produce RF lenses. There could be a number of very simple, innocent reasons for that. 

1) The R series is relatively new and still has limited reach. Third party manufacturers need to sell lots of lenses to amortize their development costs, and the market may not be large enough yet.

2) The RF mount has some unique characteristics that differentiate it from other mounts. With EF mount lenses, third party manufacturers could make one lens and then bolt on multiple mounts for different manufacturers, thus spreading their costs out. The RF mount is more specialized and may not lend itself to simple bolt-on solutions.

3) There is a worldwide supply chain shortage that has limited manufacturers' ability to deliver product. Third party lens makers could be understandably hesitant to add another mount at a time when meeting current demand is difficult enough.

4) R system buyers as a whole may be less interested in third-party lenses than you imagine. Canon already has low-cost options for ultra-wide angle, standard, standard zoom and telephoto lenses. Those may be reducing the viability of offering low-cost third-party options.

But these simple, market-driven explanations aren't nearly as fun as conspiracy theories, so go ahead and have at it.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I thought I had made it clear: Canon can patent the RF mount on the camera side but it can't then patent the mount on the lens side. You can patent a Gizmo, but you cannot then patent everything that will obviously fit on the Gizmo.


Apologies, but I didn't understand that from what was stated earlier. Given that being the case, I'm not quite sure how that works when there's a chip in the lens that has to use the camera body mount protocols to communicate with it. I'm guessing the RF mount protocols are part of the camera body and its mount?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 29, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Standard conspiracy theory reasoning. "I can't prove anything I'm saying because they are keeping it secret."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Calling something conspiracy theory reasoning doesn't address the argument, I'm explaining that corporates don't air their dirty laundry publicly, so whatever explanation anyone proposes is going to be speculation no matter what angle they take, me included!

Your attempt at a simpler explanation misses two points:

1. Why did Samayang cease production of a perfectly good working lens?
2. The R&D delay argument doesn't hold up because the RF mount is back compatible with the EF mount, and third party RF mount lenses can just use the EF protocol, and chances are that most do. Either that, or small/fledgling Chinese companies have reverse engineered the RF protocol before the big third party players Sigma, Tamron and Samyang, which is highly implausible.

Remember, there is a whole mid-tier of RF lenses missing altogether, 2/3 of released RF lenses are expensive L series lenses, and the majority of the photography market are not top-end gear buyers, the entry level and enthusiast market is the larger proportion.

I'm not theorising about conspiracies, I'm well aware that corporations are there to maximise profits for shareholders, do engage in questionable ethics at times, and don't necessarily play fair when they want to monopolise a market, especially if its highly profitable during a financial downturn of the market. There's nothing far fetched about anti-competitive practice in this day and age. Apple has been fined more than once for illegal business practices, as has Microsoft, even Sony has been fined, look it up. What makes Canon any different? Ascribing an imagined purity or benevolence to a company, without any objective evidence, just because we have a preference for their products, doesn't seem reasonable to me. 

It may be hard to admit, but there is a heck of a lot of future uncertainty in the Canon roadmap, a lot of disturbing trends such as high prices that get higher in the supply shortage world, and lots of unanswered questions that we can waste lots of time speculating about.

Whichever way we look at this, and however we choose to explain it all or speculate about the reasons, the facts are that we have only two tiers of lenses, 1/3 is entry level stuff, some is decent, and 2/3 is expensive L-series glass. Not too many primes, especially at f/1.4. No mid-tier lenses between these, and none of the usual big third party choices that we had on the EF platform, and that other brands enjoy currently. That my friends is the state we're in, we can acknowledge, or we can try denying it but it doesn't change anything. Hey, it's less than ideal, and given time it may get better, or worse, we just don't know. That's how the world is right now anyway.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 29, 2022)

I guess the after-shortage future will give us the answer, in the form of cute little Sigmas and Tamrons for the RF and Nikon's Z mount.
PS: wasn't this post originally about lacquerware?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Apologies, but I didn't understand that from what was stated earlier. Given that being the case, I'm not quite sure how that works when there's a chip in the lens that has to use the camera body mount protocols to communicate with it. I'm guessing the RF mount protocols are part of the camera body and its mount?


I also wrote that it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer communication protocols. You can’t steal Canon’s actual protocol but you can code anything else that gives the same results.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 29, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I guess the after-shortage future will give us the answer, in the form of cute little Sigmas and Tamrons for the RF and Nikon's Z mount.
> PS: wasn't this post originally about lacquerware?


I'm hoping we see a beastly Sigma RF 150-600mm lens! Maybe a hefty Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 too! 

Yeah, this post was originally about Canon selling overpriced novelty lens hood ashtrays or whatever, and would be the same price as the real lens hoods.

I mentioned that Canon lens hoods were a ripoff, and that they were stingy misers for not including hoods with their regular lenses, which some people didn't realise.

Someone then mentioned buying third-part lenses because they're much more affordable, and when I replied that Canon had an interest in suppressing those, because it would eliminate competition, it all went down hill from there...

Those two comments of mine derailed the thread,  but showed us that a lot of people don't think Canon would do bad, even if it was profitable to the company, an interesting perspective which should make Canon quite happy that people think well of them!


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> L-series lenses include the hoods, as do select others (the 70-300 DO, and IIRC the old non-L TS-E 45 and 90). Non-L lenses do not include the hood in most geographies (there are exceptions, e.g. the 50/1.8 includes a hood in Malaysia, or at least it did at one point).





LogicExtremist said:


> That's precisely why Canon is preventing third-parties from manufacturing lenses on the RF platform, because people would be able to buy reasonably priced third party lenses that are almost as good (and sometimes better in some ways) for much less. By eliminating any third-party competition, Canon becomes the sole supplier of lenses, and can charge whatever they want, take it or leave it!
> 
> There are only a few Chinese brand lenses available on the RF mount, and it appears that Canon scared off Sigma and Samyang/Rokinon with legal threats, so they have no competition to their limited range of mostly overpriced lenses. While this does sound like anti-competition practice to create a monopoly, it's legal because Canon can claim you can still use adapted third-part EF lenses, or just sell your gear and change brands. Swapping brands is a less likely option for anyone invested in a lot of Canon lenses already, as there's a considerable financial loss involved.
> 
> Pro photographers only change their gear when they need to, but when a whole platform changes, the outlay can be considerable as they're potentially purchasing a lot of top-tier top dollar gear. If the EF lenses still work, and the RF lenses don't add any real value, speed up work or bring in more money, then why bother? Apart from a few exceptions, most RF lenses are only marginally better and some are a bit worse than their Ef counterparts, for a lot more money.


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 29, 2022)

I must have the exceptions then because the two RF lenses I’ve bought are the best lenses I’ve ever owned. They were well out of my budget though and I agree Canon is more expensive than competitors. I’m glad I bought them though I have no regrets. I do hope Sigma releases RF mounts soon though because I have the Sigma 135 A and it’s an excellent lens and I would definitely purchase more Sigma if they came in an RF mount.


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> No, I buy brand new Canon gear from official outlets.
> 
> As I stated earlier, and Neuro has just confirmed, only the expensive Canon L series lenses come with lens hoods (and lens bags), while the rest generally do not.
> 
> ...


Now that I think about it I remember I have a 40mm stm (pancake) lens that has no hood. I forgot about that lens. I never felt like it needed one, probably because it has such a small front element and it’s recessed. I bought that lens new on sale for $99 and was actually quite impressed at the sharpness for the price. It was a perfect lens for casual photography when you wanted just one lens attached as a walk around. Unfortunately it’s looses that small form factor advantage with an RF adapter.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 29, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> Now that I think about it I remember I have a 40mm stm (pancake) lens that has no hood. I forgot about that lens. I never felt like it needed one, probably because it has such a small front element and it’s recessed. I bought that lens new on sale for $99 and was actually quite impressed at the sharpness for the price. It was a perfect lens for casual photography when you wanted just one lens attached as a walk around. Unfortunately it’s looses that small form factor advantage with an RF adapter.


Yes. I am looking forward to a real RF pancake lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> You'll never get evidence that Canon threatened a third party company legally, it's bad for Canon's PR and if Samyang said what really happened it would sour their working relationship. All we can do is engage in inference, and use inductive reasoning to draw a probable premise from the limited objective information we do have. Applying Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually the most plausible one. If have another explanation which is as simple or more so, I'm open to considering its likelihood in terms of probability.
> 
> I don't understand the Samyang/Rokinon company structure, why it sells under one name in some countries, and not under others, can manufacture RF lenses under one, but not the other. If anyone can anyone explain the workings of this company, many would be interested.





LogicExtremist said:


> 1. Why did Samayang cease production of a perfectly good working lens?


They didn’t. Samyang is the manufacturer. They sell their lenses under different private labels. Rokinon, Bower, Vivitar, Walimex, Opteka, and a few others are all labels for Samyang-made lenses. In the modern era of global commerce, major retailers often sell several of them, but they're the same lens internally, and all manufactured by Samyang.

If Canon had somehow forced Samyang to stop making RF mount lenses, they would not be available with the Rokinon label, either. The simplest explanation is that Canon has not forced Samyang to stop producing RF mount lenses.



LogicExtremist said:


> RF lenses that are worse than EF lenses for various reasoins, but cost more, that's easy, two come to mind:
> RF 14-35mm f/4 L vs RF 16-35mm f/4 L
> RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro vs EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro
> This could be a can of worms, but from what I've read in reviews, I'd rather keep the EF versions, which are cheaper. YMMV!


Having used both the EF 16-35/4L and the RF 14-35/4L, I would not say the latter is inferior. In the overlapping focal range, the optics are pretty similar. The barrel distortion of the two lenses at 16mm is about the same (3.5% or so). At wider than 16mm, the RF distortion is extreme, but the 16-35 doesn't go wider than 16mm at all. If you compare software-corrected images, the RF 14-35 is as good or better than the EF 16-35 across the range, and it goes to 14mm (or even 13.5mm if you use the right software). It's only 'worse' if you apply no correction to your images. Does that really matter? I'd argue that it does not. An argument can be made that without a lens correction profile it was inferior (mainly because the distortion is mustache-type, and that's hard to manually correct). Adobe was late in getting one out, but DPP had it from the beginning and DxO had one early on.

As for the 100/2.8 Macro, definitely agree that paying more for the RF lens with its design-imposed focus shift is bullshift. I'm keeping the EF version for sure.



LogicExtremist said:


> The one you mentioned, the RF 70-200 has inferior construction/durability/resistance to ingress of contaminants (external focus design) as a trade-off for weight


I've not found extending zooms to be more susceptible to ingress of contaminants. I've seen plenty of dust in EF 70-200 lenses, and EF 24-70 lenses with none. I think the environment in which a lens is used is far more relevant for dust ingress than the sealing of sealed lenses. Canon has stated that the dust/water resistance of extending and non-extending zooms is similar (with the caveat that a front filter is needed for full sealing of some lens designs).



LogicExtremist said:


> If I recall, zoom works in opposite direction and takes two complete twists to go from 70 to 200, which is slow and clumsy, and for what marginal optical improvement, it's not worth the extra cost, this is another where I'd rather keep my EF 70-200 f/2.8 III.


Sorry, your recollection needs work. The zoom rotation direction on the RF 70-200/2.8 is the same as all the other Canon zoom lenses. I suspect you're referring to the relative positions of the zoom and focus rings, which are reversed on the RF 70-200/2.8 compared to lenses like the 24-105, 24-70/2.8, 28-70/2, 14-35, etc. However, the relative positions are the same on the 70-200/2.8 and 100-500 (which for me is a little easier, since my white lenses both have the zoom ring further from the camera; it was harder with my EF pair, where the 70-200/2.8 and 70-300L had different positions).

The RF 70-200/2.8 takes ~90° of rotation (i.e. 1/4 the way around the lens), longer than the throw on the EF MkII/III but still easy to go from 70 to 200 with one quick hand motion.

As for the IQ, I was out shooting with a friend a few weeks ago and he compared his EF 70-200/2.8 II to my RF 70-200/2.8 on his R5. Hopefully he won't mind my sharing the results. There's a pretty clear winner and loser, and the improvement with the RF lens sure doesn't appear marginal to me.




Cost is certainly a good reason to stick with the EF 70-200/2.8 III, but I do think the RF lens is better in many ways (which is a challenge since the EF 70-200/2.8 II/III are excellent lenses).



LogicExtremist said:


> I agree with your points on the other lenses. Also, with the RF 24-105L, I suspect that there is either huge variation, or it's grossly underrated. I've seen the charts, but some reviewers claim it's as sharp as the latest version of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM, which was a sharp lens, while others say its just a bit sharper then the EF 24-105. I get stellar sharp images from mine, way sharper than from my EF 24-70 f/4, which was known to be shrper then the 24-105, so not sure what to believe. I'm curious what other people's experience has been with this one.


I've been quite pleased with the RF 24-105/4. I bought it with the EOS R, but I really didn't use it much since I had the 1D X and 24-70/2.8 II. Since getting the R3, the 24-105/4 has become my 'walk around' lens and I like the extra range. I don't feel that I've given up any IQ (although the 24-70/2.8 II was noticeably better than the EF 24-105/4 MkI and I had two copies of that). I also don't mind losing a stop of light since 1) one of the main reasons I went with the EF 24-70/2.8 II was for better AF, and that no longer applies with MILCs, and 2) if I want more light or subject isolation, I can go a stop better than the 24-70 with the 28-70/2).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> Now that I think about it I remember I have a 40mm stm (pancake) lens that has no hood. I forgot about that lens. I never felt like it needed one, probably because it has such a small front element and it’s recessed. I bought that lens new on sale for $99 and was actually quite impressed at the sharpness for the price. It was a perfect lens for casual photography when you wanted just one lens attached as a walk around. Unfortunately it’s looses that small form factor advantage with an RF adapter.


The 40/2.8 has a dedicated hood, but it must be bought separately as with most non-L lenses.









Canon ES-52 Lens Hood


Buy Canon ES-52 Lens Hood featuring For Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM, and EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lenses. Review Canon ES-52




www.bhphotovideo.com





I agree that the form factor of that lens is great, I used it as a body cap for my 1D X, and it was great to put in a pocket when walking around with the 70-200, 70-300 or 100-400. I sold mine when transitioning to the R3, as you say adding the adapter obviates the pancake-ness of the lens. 



SteveC said:


> Yes. I am looking forward to a real RF pancake lens.


Yeah, me too!


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 40/2.8 has a dedicated hood, but it must be bought separately as with most non-L lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I have it in my glovebox in my car. Although the R mount does make its pancakeness rather thick, I find it extremely useful there because I take my EF 600mm with me everywhere I go in the car, but occasionally I need a wide angle to get something. Just pop the glovebox, and I already have the adapter on my R5 from the EF 600.

It's a lens I've sold twice thinking I'd never need it, and then when a cheap used one comes around, I can't resist.

It's also one of the best picture quality/$ ratios of available lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 15, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I thought I had made it clear: Canon can patent the RF mount on the camera side but it can't then patent the mount on the lens side. You can patent a Gizmo, but you cannot then patent everything that will obviously fit on the Gizmo.



Why couldn't they patent the RF lens flange and skip the camera side mount instead? (Assuming they can only patent one)


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Seems like you should change your handle to IllogicExtremist. Patent infringement lawsuits (speculation) prevent Sigma and Tamron from making RF mount lenses because Canon didn't license the RF mount to them. You go on to say that Canon didn't license the EF mount to them, either. I guess that prevented Sigma and Tamron from making EF mount lenses, too. Oh, wait....
> 
> Is the world embracing the 'open source' concept? I guess successful companies like Apple, Amazon and Google missed the memo and are still operating as walled gardens. Better send Tim, Andy, and Sundar letters telling them they're too 'old school' to survive in the modern open source world.



The patent on the EF mount has long expired. More than a few informed industry observers noted over a decade ago that third party APS-C only lenses used the EF mount without the EF-S modifications at a time when the EF-S patent was still in force but the EF patents had been expired for quite a while.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 15, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Why couldn't they patent the RF lens flange and skip the camera side mount instead? (Assuming they can only patent one)


They could have indeed patented a novel lens mount, and it would have allowed anyone to make cameras with a mount that fits the lens.


----------

