# Samyang appears to have ceased production of RF mount lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 24, 2021)

> Earlier this week I was made aware that Samyang had removed all RF lenses from their website. The responses from Samyang representatives on social media were ambiguous at best.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## jd7 (Jun 24, 2021)

I really hope they will continue to make RF lenses under one brand or another. That Samyang/Rokinon AF 85mm f/1.4 for RF mount is certainly a lens I would be interested in if I ever move to the RF system.


----------



## fastprime (Jun 24, 2021)

The RF system needs more third party lens manufacturers, not fewer. I have the Samyang RF 85mm 1.4 and it's fantastic for the price.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 24, 2021)

fastprime said:


> The RF system needs more third party manufacturers, not fewer. I have the Samyang RF 85mm 1.4 and it's fantastic for the price.


I read somewhere that Canon is breaking compatibility with these Samyang lenses with each firmware update, so I suspect cost of reverse engineering and developing firmwares has gotten out of hand or time required for new firmwares might be causing support issues.


----------



## amorse (Jun 24, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> I read somewhere that Canon is breaking compatibility with these Samyang lenses with each firmware update, so I suspect cost of reverse engineering and developing firmwares has gotten out of hand or time required for new firmwares might be causing support issues.


That was my fear - the rapid firmware updates actually reducing performance for competitors on purpose. I really hope that isn't true, because it's not a great look from the consumer side of things. It's all hearsay for now I guess - that's a conclusion I really don't want to jump to.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 24, 2021)

I almost bought this for the price when I had to sell off my Canon RF lenses. Glad I didn't, if it is a compatibility problem. I had real high hopes for this lens.

*Just a silly aside... for the U.S. market the branding should be Hemi, Thunderbird, or Biscuit.  To my ear, neither Rokinon nor Samyang sound nice.

Hmmmm.... Thunderbird RF 85mm f/1.4


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 24, 2021)

My first assumption was there may be a patent dispute. I'm unsure what patent would generally apply to RF lenses (that Canon won't prominently note in marketing). But the "Whack-a-mole" firmware update idea (as anti-consumer* and potentially illegal in some jurisdictions as it may be) seems plausible. 

*I'm comfortable that as long as Canon has Nikon, Sony, and Fuji competing, they can make arguably bad decisions and the market will show them whether being more open source vs. proprietary makes more sense for them.


----------



## dilbert (Jun 24, 2021)

Maybe the sales just aren't there yet because there aren't enough RF bodies around..


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 24, 2021)

amorse said:


> That was my fear - the rapid firmware updates actually reducing performance for competitors on purpose. I really hope that isn't true, because it's not a great look from the consumer side of things. It's all hearsay for now I guess - that's a conclusion I really don't want to jump to.


Canon doesn't purposely remove compatibility with third-party lenses and accessories. The flip side is that they have no responsibility to test for compatibility with third-party products if there isn't an official partnership, Atomos comes to mind.


----------



## Dmcavoy (Jun 24, 2021)

I also suspect it's Canon clamping down on them using the mount. 

Very likely the same reason we still don't have Sigma/Tamron RF mount lenses several years after its launch.


----------



## genriquez (Jun 24, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> I read somewhere that Canon is breaking compatibility with these Samyang lenses with each firmware update, so I suspect cost of reverse engineering and developing firmwares has gotten out of hand or time required for new firmwares might be causing support issues.


Is Samyang using the EF protocol and not the RF protocol on RF mount? I imagine they set it up so that the camera thinks it is an EF lens+adapter when really it isn't.

Can firmware updates block third party EF protocol on an RF mount? 

I definitely see them being able to block third party RF lenses trying to use the RF protocol.


----------



## jd7 (Jun 24, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Canon doesn't purposely disable third-party lenses and accessories. The flip side is that they have no responsibility to test for compatibility with third-party products.


Canon may not have the responsibility to test thrid party products, but if Canon is aware there is third-party gear out there then, at least assuming it is not some really rare piece of gear, in my opinion it doesn't say much for Canon if they stick their heads in the sand so far as checking if what they are doing is breaking compatability with the third-party gear. I have no idea whether Canon does or doesn't worry about breaking compatability with third party gear, but if they don't, I blame Canon at least as much as the third-parties for the problem. I am convinced the existence of third-party gear helps attract buyers to a system. I know I won't move to RF unless and until we start seeing good third-party lens support (I'll move to another mirrorless system).


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 24, 2021)

jd7 said:


> Canon may not have the responsibility to test thrid party products, but if Canon is aware there is third-party gear out there then, at least assuming it is not some really rare piece of gear, in my opinion it doesn't say much for Canon if they stick their heads in the sand so far as checking if what they are doing is breaking compatability with the third-party gear. I have no idea whether Canon does or doesn't worry about breaking compatability with third party gear, but if they don't, I blame Canon at least as much as the third-parties for the problem. I am convinced the existence of third-party gear helps attract buyers to a system. I know I won't move to RF unless and until we start seeing good third-party lens support (I'll move to another mirrorless system).


That's like blaming an automaker for not testing if their vehicle works reliability with third-party modifications, that cost to the automaker would be massive. The same applies here with Canon. If compatibility is hurt, Canon has zero control over the software in a third party's product, why on earth should we expect Canon to spend time and money to prevent these issues from happening? If Canon wants to add improvements in their software, do you really want them forgoing those improvements if it makes a $500 Samyang fully compatible? This is one of the issues with reverse engineering, we see it across all sorts of industries.

If Canon sold an SDK, then yes, it would be partly Canon's responsibility to troubleshoot issues. There is zero real financial benefits for Canon in this situation and all of the third-party lenses that purchased and licensed Canon's tech would cost significantly more.


----------



## JustAnotherCanonShooter (Jun 24, 2021)

That's very unfortunate if true, Samyang/Rokinon makes some fantastic astrophotography lenses. I was hoping they'd even make a RF 135mm F/2.


----------



## fastprime (Jun 24, 2021)

Not great. I'd hate to have to tell my wife one day the lens she paid $700 for and gave to me as a gift is now a hunk of useless glass.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 24, 2021)

JustAnotherCanonShooter said:


> That's very unfortunate if true, Samyang/Rokinon makes some fantastic astrophotography lenses. I was hoping they'd even make a RF 135mm F/2.


The Rokinon RF lenses are still listed. I'm thinking this is more of a branding and cost savings exercise. It never made much sense to sell the exact same lenses under two brands. There were also markets around the world that didn't sell both brands. I'm hoping this is just a streamlining of Samyang's business.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 24, 2021)

jd7 said:


> Canon may not have the responsibility to test thrid party products, but if Canon is aware there is third-party gear out there then, at least assuming it is not some really rare piece of gear, in my opinion it doesn't say much for Canon if they stick their heads in the sand so far as checking if what they are doing is breaking compatability with the third-party gear.


 I disagree. Canon should not waste a second of their time testing third-party gear. It is up to the third party to keep pace with the current firmware. That is how Magic Lantern always worked and developers donate their own time keeping up.
On the other hand, the EF mount is second in popularity in cinema and ENG to PL. If Canon wants to replicate that with RF then they can't go it completely alone. They seem to be assisting RED with the Komodo but neither company has said anything publicly. There are a few cinema cameras that support Sony E-mount but those are complete dumb mounts.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 24, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> That's like blaming an automaker for not testing if their vehicle works reliability with third-party modifications, that cost to the automaker would be massive. The same applies here with Canon. If compatibility is hurt, Canon has zero control over the software in a third party's product, why on earth should we expect Canon to spend time and money to prevent these issues from happening? If Canon wants to add improvements in their software, do you really want them forgoing those improvements if it makes a $500 Samyang fully compatible? This is one of the issues with reverse engineering, we see it across all sorts of industries.
> 
> If Canon sold an SDK, then yes, it would be partly Canon's responsibility to troubleshoot issues. There is zero real financial benefits for Canon in this situation and all of the third-party lenses that purchased and licensed Canon's tech would cost significantly more.


Not really.
Car companies rely on third parties to make compatible parts.
The way camera companies work is by constantly upgrading firmware and the only car company that works like that is Tesla.
Not surprisingly, replacing certain parts with on a Tesla with third party parts is risky.
More car companies are following the over-the-air update model of Tesla but I imagine Ford will be more accomodating to parts suppliers.


----------



## fasterquieter (Jun 24, 2021)

Bought an RF 14mm 2.8 for $540 on Prime day. It is fantastic, but I am thinking I should send it back now.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 24, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Not really.
> Car companies rely on third parties to make compatible parts.
> The way camera companies work is by constantly upgrading firmware and the only car company that works like that is Tesla.
> Not surprisingly, replacing certain parts with on a Tesla with third party parts is risky.
> More car companies are following the over-the-air update model of Tesla but I imagine Ford will be more accomodating to parts suppliers.


Those are partnerships, built to a specific OEM spec. There is a whole industry of third-party parts makers that have no relationship with the automaker. I have built 4 cars in my day and it can be a trainwreck with the third parties. I'm not mad at Ford because Mishimoto has a product that doesn't play well with something made by BBK when attached to a Ford block....

At the end of the day, if you want your gear to operate as intended.... buy the Canon. It's really simple. If I want a high horsepower engine with no real issues, I'm free to buy the $20,000 crate engine from the automaker, instead of trying to pay half as much with third-party products.

As the cliche goes, you get what you pay for.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 24, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Those are partnerships, built to a specific OEM spec. There is a whole industry of third-party parts makers that have no relationship with the automaker.


True, but those third-party parts are only risky with Teslas or if they are not in line with the specs.
Performance mods tend to be outside of the specs.


----------



## Cmam (Jun 24, 2021)

People, please stop these absurd speculations! 
Do we have first-hand evidence from Samyang/Rokinon lens owners about Canon crippling compatibility? No, we don't! So, do not create another conspiracy theory, please.


----------



## bergstrom (Jun 24, 2021)

lot of focusing complaints on the 85 1.4 EF AF lenses so I held off buying one.


----------



## jam05 (Jun 24, 2021)

amorse said:


> That was my fear - the rapid firmware updates actually reducing performance for competitors on purpose. I really hope that isn't true, because it's not a great look from the consumer side of things. It's all hearsay for now I guess - that's a conclusion I really don't want to jump to.


That's the risk of manufacturing electronics in 2021. Technology is fluid. Most all modern electronics are updated via firmware. Modems, TVs, car cams, etc. Can't keep up, find another business. How absurd to complain about updates to a products because of concern about third party eneptness.


----------



## jam05 (Jun 24, 2021)

Dmcavoy said:


> I also suspect it's Canon clamping down on them using the mount.
> 
> Very likely the same reason we still don't have Sigma/Tamron RF mount lenses several years after its launch.


It's called lack of competent employees or workforce. Can't handle updating your products firmware then change your business model.


----------



## jam05 (Jun 24, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Not really.
> Car companies rely on third parties to make compatible parts.
> The way camera companies work is by constantly upgrading firmware and the only car company that works like that is Tesla.
> Not surprisingly, replacing certain parts with on a Tesla with third party parts is risky.
> More car companies are following the over-the-air update model of Tesla but I imagine Ford will be more accomodating to parts suppliers.


BS. Automanufacturers have "Genuine parts" or OEM. And there are hundreds if not thousands of third party parts manufacturers. You get what you pay for. Sometimes they work and last, sometimes they don't and fail. Put some cheap brakes on your vehicle, it's your life or family's life at risk. I have no tears to shed if some cheap lens manufacturer can't keep up with updates. They make their money from copying. To cheap to invest in firmware engineers, that was their choice. Electronic updates have been going on for decades.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 24, 2021)

fastprime said:


> Not great. I'd hate to have to tell my wife one day the lens she paid $700 for and gave to me as a gift is now a hunk of useless glass.


I'd keep that speech in my back pocket for just in case....


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 24, 2021)

jam05 said:


> BS. Automanufacturers have "Genuine parts" or OEM. And there are hundreds if not thousands of third party parts manufacturers. You get what you pay for. Sometimes they work and last, sometimes they don't and fail. Put some cheap brakes on your vehicle, it's your life or family's life at risk. I have no tears to shed if some cheap lens manufacturer can't keep up with updates. They make their money from copying. To cheap to invest in firmware engineers, that was their choice. Electronic updates have been going on for decades.


That is an issue with quality and not compatibility.
This discussion is about parts that stop functioning after an update.
It is not about parts that fail on their own.
There are terrible third-party lenses too.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 24, 2021)

Cmam said:


> People, please stop these absurd speculations!


Do you know where you are?


----------



## nathlas (Jun 24, 2021)

Dmcavoy said:


> I also suspect it's Canon clamping down on them using the mount.
> 
> Very likely the same reason we still don't have Sigma/Tamron RF mount lenses several years after its launch.




That must be the case.

Samyang had also cine lenses with manual iris totally free of any firmware combatilities that also have been discontinued. So the RF mount rights should be the reason of that.


----------



## RBSfphoto (Jun 24, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> lot of focusing complaints on the 85 1.4 EF AF lenses so I held off buying one.


I have one and have had no issues focusing, I did have to buy the dock to update the firmware to be compatible with the IBIS but as far as the performance of the lens, I have had zero issues. TBH the image quality is stunning , the focus has been perfect, even using animal eye detect on a running french bulldog it hit 98% of the time. My worry has always been long-term build quality, I assume it uses more plastic and glues internally than the canon lenses having more metal and screws. Unless Canon breaks compatibility I would recommend this lens.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jun 24, 2021)

jd7 said:


> I really hope they will continue to make RF lenses under one brand or another. That Samyang/Rokinon AF 85mm f/1.4 for RF mount is certainly a lens I would be interested in if I ever move to the RF system.


I absolutely love my Samyang RF 85 f/1.4. I was having autofocus issues for a bit, but they seems to be worked out now (I believe the problem was with my overworked EOS RP camera body, actually). The rendering is really nice with vivid sharpness wide open. Even the vignette is not overwhelming and easily fixed in post for those instances where my subjects are at the frame’s edge. As a bonus it’s quite lightweight, too.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 24, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> True, but those third-party parts are only risky with Teslas or if they are not in line with the specs.
> Performance mods tend to be outside of the specs.


If only that were true


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 24, 2021)

Dmcavoy said:


> I also suspect it's Canon clamping down on them using the mount.
> 
> Very likely the same reason we still don't have Sigma/Tamron RF mount lenses several years after its launch.


This has nothing to do with Canon. Samyang was quick to market because they used the EF protocols for their RF lenses. Tamron and SIGMA are reverse-engineering the RF mount and protocols, which hasn't been done yet. This takes a lot of time.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 24, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> This has nothing to do with Canon. Samyang was quick to market because they used the EF protocols for their RF lenses. Tamron and SIGMA are reverse-engineering the RF mount and protocols, which hasn't been done yet. This takes a lot of time.


Don’t let facts or common sense contradict a nice conspiracy theory! It’s bad for business


----------



## chasingrealness (Jun 24, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Don’t let facts or common sense contradict a nice conspiracy theory! It’s bad for business


I’m so  at this.


----------



## Surab (Jun 24, 2021)

If the third-party situation actually worsens that could push me to E mount or L mount, if Panasonic actually is looking into adding PDAF to their future bodies (GH6 is rumored to have PDAF).

That Sigma 24-70 F2.8 is every bit as good as the Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Panasonic, but half the price...


----------



## figiko (Jun 24, 2021)

This makes me very much concerned about canon not making things easy for third party lens brands . Still no Sigma /Tamron for RF mount. This alone makes me choose Sony over Canon when considering switching to mirrorless...


----------



## navastronia (Jun 24, 2021)

I paranoically re-tested my Samyang RF 14/2.8 and Samyang RF 85/1.4 this afternoon, looking for autofocus problems, and found none.

I'm on the EOS RP with firmware 1.4.0, and have never used the Samyang dock.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 24, 2021)

figiko said:


> This makes me very much concerned about canon not making things easy for third party lens brands . Still no Sigma /Tamron for RF mount. This alone makes me choose Sony over Canon when considering switching to mirrorless...


Canon have never ‘made it easy’ for third parties, they only released the EF protocols to companies that would pay them, Red and Zeiss for example, but most companies chose to save the money or licensing restrictions and reverse engineer them. But Canon also introduced firmware for third party batteries in bodies.

To me it seems like an Apple/PC thing. In general if you buy Apple ‘it’ just works but you have comparatively limited options, for PC users the options are limitless but there are a billion caveats, workarounds, and broken compatibility. You pay your money and make your choice.

Nobody, including Canon, care if you move to Sony from EF because you are an irrelevant single data point. Only when the majority of buyers actually do that would there be changes, don’t hold your breath!


----------



## dominic_siu (Jun 25, 2021)

jd7 said:


> Canon may not have the responsibility to test thrid party products, but if Canon is aware there is third-party gear out there then, at least assuming it is not some really rare piece of gear, in my opinion it doesn't say much for Canon if they stick their heads in the sand so far as checking if what they are doing is breaking compatability with the third-party gear. I have no idea whether Canon does or doesn't worry about breaking compatability with third party gear, but if they don't, I blame Canon at least as much as the third-parties for the problem. I am convinced the existence of third-party gear helps attract buyers to a system. I know I won't move to RF unless and until we start seeing good third-party lens support (I'll move to another mirrorless system).


I bought EOS R then changed to R5 because of Canon RF lenses.


----------



## dominic_siu (Jun 25, 2021)

Choose a system not only the body but lenses, I dumbed all EF lenses when I switched to RF because makes superb RF lenses. If buying third party lenses and fear about compatibility in the future then simply don’t buy them.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 25, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> The Rokinon RF lenses are still listed. I'm thinking this is more of a branding and cost savings exercise. It never made much sense to sell the exact same lenses under two brands. There were also markets around the world that didn't sell both brands. I'm hoping this is just a streamlining of Samyang's business.


Rokinon is not a brand in Australia - only Samyang. I can't find any Samyang RF lenses available locally now.
It does sound like a patent issue when all products for a mount are no longer available


----------



## Otara (Jun 25, 2021)

Canon can of course do what they like. For me having the option to buy third party is one thing that I liked about them when I switched from Olympus, so it will be a pity. Maybe its just while they're waiting for the transition to settle down, although thats more with hope than any reason to think so.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jun 25, 2021)

I've got a EF Samyang 16mm F/2.0 designed for APS-C which is un-chipped, you change the aperture on the lens itself. I'll never get firmware problems with it 

Unfortunately buying third party lenses that need the chip for AF and aperture is a bit of a risk.

A workaround could be to tape up the chip and use manual focus and shoot at the widest aperture all the time, it's better then nothing.


----------



## jd7 (Jun 25, 2021)

dominic_siu said:


> I bought EOS R then changed to R5 because of Canon RF lenses.


If the RF lenses appeal to you then sure, go for it. It seems that most of the RF lenses are fantastic lenses. On the whole they don't appeal to me though (as a hobbyist). I have no interest in paying Canon's asking price for the L series RF primes (eg the RF 85L is the best part of A$4000) and even if the price was better I don't really want primes which are that big and heavy. On the other hand, from what I've seen, I don't feel overly impressed by the cheaper, lighter non-L RF lenses. So for me, overall, the lenses available in other systems (particularly for the Sony system) are more attractive. For example, I would take lenses such as the Sony 35mm f/1.8 or Samyang 35mm f/1.8 or Sigma 35mm f/2 (all for the Sony system) over the Canon RF 35 f/1.8 for my use. I won't go on, but the point is other systems offer a wider range of lenses to suit different buyers than you can get for Canon RF. (Yes, I know you can adapt EF to RF, and that's great, but it doesn't allow you to get some of the benefits of mirrorless).


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 25, 2021)

Glad I got my 14mm RF AF recently from a b&m store in Sydney.
AF works really well on my R and R5. A great lens for the price.

As is common in intellectual property dissagreements, the guilty party has to withdraw all offending stock ASAP.
Not doing so will make their fines and retribution even higher.


----------



## quiquae (Jun 25, 2021)

My guess is that it was triggered by nothing more nefarious than poor sales.

It is very unlikely that Canon would make legal threats over reverse-engineering the mount: Canon is currently going through a lawsuit in Japan with a reused ink cartridge vendor over antitrust allegations, and it would make them look Really Bad in that lawsuit if they go around suing lens makers for being uppity enough to make compatible lenses.

Additionally, the speculation about Canon changing the camera behavior with firmware updates to hurt Samyang does not explain the fact that Samyang pulled the MF RF lenses as well, which had no electronic connection to the body at all.

Meanwhile, the RF mount’s share of installed bodies is only recently beginning to pick up--R5 and R6 are doing well, but they’ll need to remain best-selling bodies for several years in order for the RF mount to reach anything resembling E mount’s market presence. It would have only been a big surprise if the Samyang RF lenses _didn’t_ sell poorly. Look at Sigma’s Yamaki-san comment in a recent DPR interview: Sigma can make RF lenses if they wanted to, but he doesn’t feel the market is ready. If the market isn’t ready for Sigma, it isn’t ready for Samyang either.


----------



## dlee13 (Jun 25, 2021)

Wait for EOSHD or SAR to post:

“Samyang pulls all RF Lenses as Canon confirmed to be dead like Kodak due to no innovation”


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 25, 2021)

I've locked this up, there are youtube channels for camera conspiracies if that's your thing.


----------

