# SIGMA will address the RF mount in 2022 [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 4, 2021)

> I don’t have a lot of reliable sources for SIGMA and Tamron, which isn’t for a lack of trying.  One of the most asked questions I get is “when will SIGMA and/or Tamron launch RF lenses?” With my answer usually being that I have no idea.
> That may have changed this week, as a good source for other areas of the industry told me that at least SIGMA would be addressing the RF mount in 2022. While the source wasn’t privy to the actual roadmap, they did think that we’d see 3-5 lenses announced for the RF mount in 2022. The biggest roadblock for SIGMA is apparently manufacturing capabilities beyond just the issues from the pandemic. This does make some sense, as SIGMA has said in the past that keeping up with demand is an ongoing challenge.
> As for Tamron, I haven’t heard a peep about their plans.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 4, 2021)

I am thinking of buying the 50mm 1.4 ART sometime early next year. So I'm sure they'll announce the RF update about 30seconds after my return period ends. 

Brian


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Nov 4, 2021)

I'd love the newest Sigma 85mm f/1.4 in RF mount. It's roughly the same size as the Canon RF 85 f/2. I dig what Canon has done with their f/1.2 lenses, but they're significantly bigger than the EF versions and with the smaller mirrorless bodies they just don't balance well. First to get some decently compact f/1.4 primes out gets my money.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Nov 4, 2021)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I'd love the newest Sigma 85mm f/1.4 in RF mount. It's roughly the same size as the Canon RF 85 f/2.


What? Not at all. The Sigma 85mm ART for EF is more than double the weight, and bigger of course. Similar to the RF 1.2 you find to heavy...


----------



## unfocused (Nov 4, 2021)

*"The biggest roadblock for SIGMA is apparently manufacturing capabilities beyond just the issues from the pandemic."*

But the experts on this forum keep telling us that it is Canon's fault that Sigma has not yet released any RF lenses. Don't tell me they are wrong!


----------



## binary (Nov 4, 2021)

I really hope it's true. I'm crying Everytime I see new 3rd party lenses for FE mount but nothing for RF. 
I actually recently decided to not invest anymore in glasses for my R6 and instead buy a second camera but this time from Sony. I will keep my R6 for 4k 60p and the superior RF 70-200 2.8 for stills.


----------



## padam (Nov 4, 2021)

Using 3rd party glass on Canon or Nikon is probably going to work out just fine, but it defeats the whole purpose of having these mounts with the wider diameter.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 4, 2021)

But are they going to have the full R-mount capabilities, whatever those are, or are they going to be EF lenses with an R mount, just to get away from using the adapter? There is also the issue of the Nikon Z-mount and the Fuji X-mount.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 4, 2021)

But those would have to be new lens designs who really take advantage of the RF mount. Not just an RF version of the 105mm f/1.4 Art for example. Then I would rather buy the EF version that still works on my other cameras.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 4, 2021)

unfocused said:


> *"The biggest roadblock for SIGMA is apparently manufacturing capabilities beyond just the issues from the pandemic."*
> 
> But the experts on this forum keep telling us that it is Canon's fault that Sigma has yet released any RF lenses. Don't tell me they are wrong!


I would like to be proven wrong if delay was only pandemic related and not licensing related. In any case I will be eyeing their Macro lens and one of their 24 f3.5 DG DN(or Tamron .5x primes).


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 4, 2021)

padam said:


> Using 3rd party glass on Canon or Nikon is probably going to work out just fine, but it defeats the whole purpose of having these mounts with the wider diameter.


That might be true in the case of Nikon. However, the Canon EF and R mounts are the same diameter.

Consider the Sigma DSLR Art lenses designed for both the Nikon F and Canon EF mounts. The F mount is much smaller than the EF mount but Sigma seems to have compensated. For FF DN lenses, the smallest lens mount will be the Sony FE, which is about the same diameter as the Canon M mount and the Nikon F mount.


----------



## kten (Nov 4, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> What? Not at all. The Sigma 85mm ART for EF is more than double the weight, and bigger of course. Similar to the RF 1.2 you find to heavy...


There are 2 sigma 85's. He means the mirrorless only one that currently doesn't exist for Canon thus mentioned the newer one and would like to see suggesting it doesn't exist. It is indeed much lighter and smaller than the old one. You're right on the size and weight of the EF old one thus I'd also like to see a lot of RF versions of the mirrorless only sigmas that currently Sony E and Leica only mounts. I never carry my sigma 85 art EF unless I really have to for the reason the size and weight and I'd swap out myself if they start making RF versions of those Sony E and L mount options.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Nov 4, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> That might be true in the case of Nikon. However, the Canon EF and R mounts are the same diameter.
> 
> Consider the Sigma DSLR Art lenses designed for both the Nikon F and Canon EF mounts. The F mount is much smaller than the EF mount but Sigma seems to have compensated. For FF DN lenses, the smallest lens mount will be the Sony FE, which is about the same diameter as the Canon M mount.


I think padam meant that Sigma or Tamron probably won't design the RF lenses from scratch, but will use the same designs as for Sony FE, and those will not be able to taka advantage of the larger RF throat.


----------



## Fischer (Nov 4, 2021)

Very nice. Competition will also help check Canon's RF lens prices.


----------



## bergstrom (Nov 4, 2021)

needs a sigma RF 14-35 f4 or even 2.8 at half the price of canons.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 4, 2021)

BurningPlatform said:


> I think padam meant that Sigma or Tamron probably won't design the RF lenses from scratch, but will use the same designs as for Sony FE, and those will not be able to taka advantage of the larger RF throat.


Which should give Canon and especially Nikon a competitive advantage, their larger lens mounts allowing them to make better lenses at a lower price. Anybody care to bet whether they will actually do that?


----------



## bergstrom (Nov 4, 2021)

which are overpriced by at least 50%


----------



## another_mikey (Nov 4, 2021)

14mm f/1.8 would be good - nothing in Canon's lineup that competes with that so far...

ML


----------



## jvillain (Nov 4, 2021)

I love me some Art glass and I need a FF 24-70. But the EF 24-70 isn't at the same level as most of thee rest of the Art glass so I am hoping it comes early in the road map which is likely. These will definitely be the same mirrorless lenses we have seen for Sony just with a different mount since that is how all their previous lenses worked.

BTW my biggest beef with the EF 85 1.4 Art is that is needs an 87mm filter. If you are shooting wide open in daylight even with the shutter at 1/8000 you are going to need an ND quite often.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2021)

jvillain said:


> BTW my biggest beef with the EF 85 1.4 Art is that is needs an 87mm filter. If you are shooting wide open in daylight even with the shutter at 1/8000 you are going to need an ND quite often.


Compared to a 1/8000 s shutter speed, the R3's 1/64000 s shutter speed is like adding a 3-stop ND (which is what I typically use for outdoor shooting with my EF 85 mm f/1.2 or 1.4 IS).


----------



## slclick (Nov 4, 2021)

I'd be very interested in Tammy's RF offerings as I have been impressed with their G2 versions. It can only get better! Sigma has had some winners for me but their lineup just has had too many wild mood swings. I really enjoyed the 24-35, total sleeper lens, like having 3 primes in one.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Nov 4, 2021)

My Sigma 14 – 24 f/2.8 adapts flawlessly to RF mount. However, most of us want native glass.

I spoke to a Sigma rep at the Photography Show in Birmingham a few months ago, he said it is Canon holding back. Sooner or later Canon should let 3rd party lens manufacturer’s supply lenses or ultimately, they will lose out to the likes of Sony who offer a better choice in lens suppliers.

Interestingly he also said once Canon issue a licence, Sigma will offer a service to convert certain Sigma EF mount lenses to a standard RF mount.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 4, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> My Sigma 14 – 24 f/2.8 adapts flawlessly to RF mount. However, most of us want native glass.
> 
> I spoke to a Sigma rep at the Photography Show in Birmingham a few months ago, he said it is Canon holding back. Sooner or later Canon should let 3rd party lens manufacturer’s supply lenses or ultimately, they will lose out to the likes of Sony who offer a better choice in lens suppliers.
> 
> Interestingly he also said once Canon issue a licence, Sigma will offer a service to convert certain Sigma EF mount lenses to a standard RF mount.


Will that be cheaper and more effective than using an adapter I wonder?


----------



## dlee13 (Nov 4, 2021)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I'd love the newest Sigma 85mm f/1.4 in RF mount. It's roughly the same size as the Canon RF 85 f/2. I dig what Canon has done with their f/1.2 lenses, but they're significantly bigger than the EF versions and with the smaller mirrorless bodies they just don't balance well. First to get some decently compact f/1.4 primes out gets my money.


I owned the Sigma 85mm DN Art when I shot Sony and it was seriously such a nice lens. I consider it the true successor to the EX lens as it’s a similar size and has such nice rendering.

I own the RF 85mm f/2 so not sure what I’d do I’d the Art releases, I’d probably just own both…


----------



## Jethro (Nov 4, 2021)

There has been a lot of speculation over time that Canon would not issue licenses to allow 3rd party makers full access to (eg) the full 12 pins in the new mount. I wonder whether the background to this rumour is actually that Canon have now agreed to issue such licenses? If so, Sigma and others would need time to translate that into actual lenses.


----------



## AJ (Nov 4, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> My Sigma 14 – 24 f/2.8 adapts flawlessly to RF mount. However, most of us want native glass.
> 
> I spoke to a Sigma rep at the Photography Show in Birmingham a few months ago, he said it is Canon holding back. Sooner or later Canon should let 3rd party lens manufacturer’s supply lenses or ultimately, they will lose out to the likes of Sony who offer a better choice in lens suppliers.
> 
> Interestingly he also said once Canon issue a licence, Sigma will offer a service to convert certain Sigma EF mount lenses to a standard RF mount.


I too suspect it's a matter of getting the R mount licensed from Canon, and that it's not just a matter of manufacturing capacity. Why else would they keep putting out DN lenses for Sony E, and not even an announcement for Canon R.

As such, I hope this rumour is news that Sigma may have struck a deal with Canon, rather than Sigma having resolved its manufacturing/supply chain issues.

2022 is pretty broad. Will we see something in a few months or will we have to wait another full year?


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 4, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Very nice. Competition will also help check Canon's RF lens prices.


I see no reason for Canon to reduce their RF prices (much as I would like them to). For the most part, Canon have features in their RF that aren't in their EF counterparts (if they exist) so their range is really RF + adapted Canon EF lenses which have a lower price point (bar 600/800mm big whites). People's allergy to the R mount adaptor is hard to understand except maybe for the big whites. Given the supply shortages, to have expectations of a price reduction is not logical.

Adapted EF Tamron/Sigma lenses should work fine as far as I know
If their RF versions have a control ring then that would be a good sign that they have a license from Canon.


----------



## dlee13 (Nov 4, 2021)

I’d love for these to release then Canon make f/1.4 versions of their 35mm, 50mm and 85mm primes that are non L’s, competitively priced and focus more on IQ than build like the L lenses.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 4, 2021)

If Sigma would promise to release a RF 14mm F1.4 (with less weight then the EF version) in 2022 I‘d preorder and prepay today!!!!


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 4, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> I spoke to a Sigma rep at the Photography Show in Birmingham a few months ago, he said it is Canon holding back. Sooner or later Canon should let 3rd party lens manufacturer’s supply lenses or ultimately, they will lose out to the likes of Sony who offer a better choice in lens suppliers.
> 
> Interestingly he also said once Canon issue a license, Sigma will offer a service to convert certain Sigma EF mount lenses to a standard RF mount.


I'm surprised that there is any actual licensing going on. In the 1970s and/or 1980s, Canon had the reputation of thinking of third party lens manufacturers as absolute parasites but there was nothing that Canon could do about them except stonewall.


----------



## Tidy Media (Nov 4, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> I am thinking of buying the 50mm 1.4 ART sometime early next year. So I'm sure they'll announce the RF update about 30seconds after my return period ends.
> 
> Brian


Currently selling mine hit me up xoxo


----------



## AJ (Nov 4, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> I'm surprised that there is any actual licensing going on. In the 1970s and/or 1980s, Canon had the reputation of thinking of third party lens manufacturers as absolute parasites but there was nothing that Canon could do about them except stonewall.


Seems to me that it's time for a lawsuit against Canon to open up the RF protocol. USA vs Microsoft (with regards to Internet Explorer) could be a precedent.


----------



## rbr (Nov 4, 2021)

Two of my favorite lenses on the R5 are the Sigma 14-24 f2.8 and 28mm f1.4 ART in EF mount. I have no interest in replacing them with any RF lenses, but I'd like to be able to get that 14-24 in the smaller, lighter DG DN version that is offered for Sony and L mounts only.


----------



## dominic_siu (Nov 5, 2021)

As long as Canon doesn’t open the R mount to third parties and Sigma going to producing lenses with internal adapter, it’s not going to be success


----------



## slclick (Nov 5, 2021)

Internally adapted build of existing other mount glass vs Canon ef-rf adapted 3rd party lenses....trade offs? Which scenario renders better?


----------



## Max TT (Nov 5, 2021)

Same rumor about Sigma in 2019, 2020 and now back again in 2021.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 5, 2021)

jvillain said:


> I love me some Art glass and I need a FF 24-70. But the EF 24-70 isn't at the same level as most of thee rest of the Art glass so I am hoping it comes early in the road map which is likely. These will definitely be the same mirrorless lenses we have seen for Sony just with a different mount since that is how all their previous lenses worked.
> 
> BTW my biggest beef with the EF 85 1.4 Art is that is needs an 87mm filter. If you are shooting wide open in daylight even with the shutter at 1/8000 you are going to need an ND quite often.


The filter size was one of the determining factors in me parting way s with the lens. I loved the optics, but the size was just a little too off base for earning a place in my bag. At the time, I was shooting with strobes that were very terrible with HSS and I had to use a variable ND to afford filters on this damn thing. That obviously came with its own challenges. THEN...Canon released the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM and I couldn't move on quickly enough. It was optically a step back, but it was a 77mm filter and created some absolutely beautiful images.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 5, 2021)

AJ said:


> Seems to me that it's time for a lawsuit against Canon to open up the RF protocol. USA vs Microsoft (with regards to Internet Explorer) could be a precedent.


Not even close.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 5, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> I spoke to a Sigma rep at the Photography Show in Birmingham a few months ago, he said it is Canon holding back. Sooner or later Canon should let 3rd party lens manufacturer’s supply lenses or ultimately, they will lose out to the likes of Sony who offer a better choice in lens suppliers.
> 
> Interestingly he also said once Canon issue a licence, Sigma will offer a service to convert certain Sigma EF mount lenses to a standard RF mount.


Sounds like bull to me. What else would you expect a Sigma salesman to say?


----------



## HMC11 (Nov 5, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> needs a sigma RF 14-35 f4 or even 2.8 at half the price of canons.


Sigma has an excellent 14-24 f2.8 dg dn lens for Sony mirrorless. I assume, though I wouldn't presume to know, that it would not be too difficult to use an RF mount for that lens. For the Sony version, it is priced at US$1299, so there is indeed hope for a very competitively priced wide angle 3rd-party RF zoom lens


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 5, 2021)

While it is ADMIRABLE that SIGMA and other are embracing the RF mount, Canon has made it quite difficult to parse the mount instruction set itself on the Camera side! De-engineering that is work for a true nutcase only (i.e. ME!) a Yippy Yi Yay slog it has been I tell ya!

After that fiasco, I pressured our parent Aerospace company to do something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT with modern lens technology and to THROW AWAY ALL CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES usied in today's prime and zoom lens systems.

After much blood, sweat and tears work for the past few years, I have finished my optics technology Research and Development and the parent company has now given me PERMISSION to announce that our completely new TYPE of lens arrangement system that breaks the boundaries of modern optics will be released FREE AND OPEN SOURCE under GPL-3 licence terms to any and all persons and companies who want to make their own versions.

Three key issue for modern optics needed to be solved:

1) How to gather more light and present that light to the image sensor itself!

- Solution: Change over ALL lens elements to cost-effective high-refractive index
optical-grade Acrylic with thin-film vapour deposited Sapphire on both sides of
each lens element for maximum scratch resistance. Acrylic, when combined with
Active Optics and Computational Photography algorithms, will make a lens that
20 percent more light gathering ability (i.e. is 20% brighter) than even the best
fluorite silica-glass lenses. Acrylic has 92% of the light transmissibility of air so
with appropriate coatings, it can be increased to past 96% which is fantastic.
Because of the lower distortion of the refractive index (1.49) of Acrylic versus
1.56 of glass it is EASIER to model in ray-tracing software and in the real world
so that the optimal light path can be better calculated and compensated for
by applying the principles of Snell's law to model each incoming light path
going towards a specific photosite on an image sensor.

We have also changed the formula of the Acrylic polymer itself to MINIMIZE
"Glass Creep and Deformation" and any thermal expansion/contraction issues.
The minimal amount that DOES occur is modelled within a now public-domain ray-tracing
algorithm to allow for algorithmic light-ray path compensation plus chromatic aberration
and luminance-value compensation using computational photography principles.

2) Prevent Heat Shimmer and Scintillation effects on Short and Long Focal Length Prime and Zoom Lenses!

- Solution: Model light pathways from source to imager under multiple common professional-level
photography scenarios and use A.I.-assisted light ray tracing to create a fast Rule-based Expert
System that can COMPENSATE and ESTIMATE what a pixel should be in terms of colour and
luminance value AND model/compensate for pixel movement when a light ray is refracted
or diffracted though a gas and liquid environment for distances ranging from below one metre
up to 100 kilometres. This is technology we have used within our various space platforms
which allows us to have a MAXIMUM OPTICAL RESOLUTION of 4 cm per pixel for high orbit
(i.e. Geo-Sync) imagery and 15mm per pixel for active refraction and diffraction compensation.
Not even the latest NRO Misty/Zirconic and EIS spy satellites have THAT resolution (i.e. they are
only 4 inches or 10 cm per pixel enhanced)!

3) Stabilize the lens element itself from vibration and movement on 2D-XY and 3D-XYZ axes!

Solution: Active Floatation of Individual Lens Elements within linear induction motor-based
electromagnetic fields for FAST RESPONSE sub-millisecond lens positioning for enhanced
real-time optical stabilization. We embed into the lens elements themselves, in a circular
pattern around the outer edge of each lens element, a set of ferromagnetic rectangular
slabs that are precisely machined and placed so that electromagnetic coils can push/pull
an individual lens element to a PRECISE PLACEMENT within a 3D volume of space so that
one and more lens elements will combined their optical properties to properly refract a light
ray along a pre-defined optical pathway that was modelled within a ray-tracer to ensure proper
entry of a stream of photons onto the correct 2D-XY photosite coordinate within a given image sensor.

This sub-millisecond floating of lens-elements allows an analog method of optical stabilization to be
combined with computational photography principles to ensure sharp still photos and smooth motion
video that has NO long range heat shimmer effects, no luminance-specific scintillation effects, almost
no chromatic aberration and no unwanted edge aliasing. They are completely removed from the final
imagery giving you the SHARPEST and BRIGHTEST still photos and moving video footage possible!
This real-time electromagnetic-based lens flotation system ALSO ALLOWS for real-time user-defined
Bokeh allowing short and long focal length prime and zoom lens to have VARIABLE DEPTH OF FIELD
from thin-slivers for depth of field sharpness to infinitely sharp along the entire focal length.

This NEW set of OPEN SOURCE lens constructions gives you f/0.95 brightness
at sub-$2000 price points. Even a 9600 mm Super-Telephoto Prime Lens will be
f/2.8 at under $2000 because of the combination of all-Acrylic lens element construction,
actively computer-controlled EM field-based lens element flotation and computational
photography and ray-tracing algorithms being modelled and pre-defined for each lens.

Further details will be released ON THIS WEBSITE FIRST when we are ready for full public disclosure!
A PDF file with full details will be released here also!

Please note that ALL ABOVE DESCRIPTIONS are now Fully Free and Open Source
under GPL-3 Licence Terms for BOTH Hardware and Software. ANYONE and EVERYONE
is fully free and able to modify, create, manufacture, sell/resell lenses for any type of
imaging system using our designs with NO ROYALTY PAYMENTS REQUIRED so long
you follow ALL the tenets of the GPL-3 Open Source Licence Terms!

Thank You,

AND YES! You Heard It Here First !!!!

V

----

P.S.

With quite a bit of background in high-end space imaging systems, I can tell you that the KEY METRIC is Inches OR CM per pixel and using our newest systems that use high-refractive-index, all-Acrylic lenses mated to ADAPTIVE shape-changing optics, and atmospheric shimmer reduction using computational photography techniques, I can get our corporate space systems imagery down to 1.5 CENTIMETRES (15 millimetres) per pixel!

That means with some extra edge detection and edge enhancement techniques, I can now read the INDIVIDUAL LINES of 8 to 12 point fonts on this web page from a medium orbit! (i.e. from at least 1000 km ceiling or 600 km ABOVE the ISS space station)

THAT is how far imaging has come! Currently, the satellite imaging-industry heavyweights in USA, Russia and France STILL only do about 10 cm per pixel (4 inches) so we are quite a bit ahead of the U.S. NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) spy satellite systems and all the rest from other countries!

We are RIGHT THIS MOMENT doing a GLOBAL OPTICAL, INFRARED and RADAR SATELLITE SURVEY that will have 15 millimetres resolution for EVERY SQUARE METRE of LAND on the ENTIRE EARTH by July of 2022 and we will make ALL of that imagery COMPLETELY FREE AND OPEN SOURCE UNDER GPL-3 WITH NO BLURRING OR COVERUP OF ANY FACILITIES or Land areas! We will have 4096 by 4096 pixel, 8192 by 8192 pixel and 16384 by 16384 pixel tiles at 16-bits per colour channel (48-bit colour) RGB pixels + D channel (i.e. where D = Depth plus or minus metres above or below mean sea level)

Our imagery is being scanned with 3D-XYZ volumetric applications in mind for height and depth of land and shoreline topography purposes so people can have a HIGHLY ACCURATE and much more visually realistic 3D view that goes waaaaaay beyond Google Earth Pro and Google Maps in terms of walk-through and fly-over capability.

Since we are FULLY ITAR-free being completely NON-USA-based with NO U.S. personnel and NO U.S. Goods, Designs and Technology used AT ALL in our entire hardware and software systems and all sub-systems, we can present that imagery to the ENTIRE WORLD fully free and open source without ANY restriction! ALL Imagery from EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE will be completely uncovered and not censored in any way, shape or form at a full 15 millimetres per pixel super-high image resolution!

YAAAAY !!!!!!

V

NOTHING will left uncovered! All the major EM wavelengths will be covered at their maximum resolutions. We have our custom-built imaging data servers OUTSIDE of the purvey and oversight of any major countries including the EU and USA, so there will be NO COVERUPS AT ALL --- ALL imaged AREAS will open to public review online by July 2022 !!!!


----------



## Quackator (Nov 5, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> Consider the Sigma DSLR Art lenses designed for both the Nikon F and Canon EF mounts. The F mount is much smaller than the EF mount but Sigma seems to have compensated. For FF DN lenses, the smallest lens mount will be the Sony FE, which is about the same diameter as the Canon M mount and the Nikon F mount.


As much as they now build lenses for Sony FE only, they might as 
well build lenses in the future that make use of the bigger diameter
that is offered by RF, Z and L. And not offer those for Sony because 
of the limitations of FE.

Sony is now in the unpleasant situation to have the weakest mount
construction of the top 4 mounts.


----------



## Fischer (Nov 5, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I see no reason for Canon to reduce their RF prices (much as I would like them to). For the most part, Canon have features in their RF that aren't in their EF counterparts (if they exist) so their range is really RF + adapted Canon EF lenses which have a lower price point (bar 600/800mm big whites). People's allergy to the R mount adaptor is hard to understand except maybe for the big whites. Given the supply shortages, to have expectations of a price reduction is not logical.
> 
> Adapted EF Tamron/Sigma lenses should work fine as far as I know
> If their RF versions have a control ring then that would be a good sign that they have a license from Canon.


Well, in all other market areas monopolies tend to drive prices up and increased competition tends to drive them down. But I understand you think the lens market is uniquely different in some way. I - for one - also hate the adapter even if you may like it.


----------



## allanP (Nov 5, 2021)

For me, a counterpart to 100-500 and 14-35 at a lower price. 14-35 would probably be difficult, but something like 150-600 seems realistic.
Any 500 or 600 f/4.0 would be nice too, but since it's more of a niche product, it seems unlikely.


----------



## binary (Nov 5, 2021)

Quackator said:


> Sony is now in the unpleasant situation to have the weakest mount
> construction of the top 4 mounts.


It didn't stop them to release an excellent FE 50mm 1.2 GM with slightly better image quality but smaller/lighter than Canon RF 50 1.2.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Nov 5, 2021)

Canon needs to open the RF mount protocol to 3rd party.
You block the 3rd party from making RF lens, at the same time, also block yourself from been used your RF lens on 3rd party camera body.

DJi latest camera is a good example.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 5, 2021)

Rzrsharp said:


> Canon needs to open the RF mount protocol to 3rd party.
> You block the 3rd party from making RF lens, at the same time, also block yourself from been used your RF lens on 3rd party camera body.
> 
> DJi latest camera is a good example.


Red makes RF mount Cinema cameras but thats a very different league ti consumer grade stills cameras.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2021)

HarryFilm said:


> 1) How to gather more light and present that light to the image sensor itself!
> 
> - Solution: Change over ALL lens elements to cost-effective high-refractive index
> optical-grade Acrylic with thin-film vapour deposited Sapphire on both sides of
> ...


The transmission of a sheet of glass is 92%, and this is less than 100% due to 4% of light being reflected back from its front surface and another 4% from its rear. Multi-coat it and the transmission gets close to 100%. It is absolutely impossible for acrylic to have 20% more transmission than 92 or 99+%! And, it's basic optics that the transmission coefficient decreases as refractive index increases because reflection increases (Fresnel equation).


----------



## gruhl28 (Nov 5, 2021)

AJ said:


> Seems to me that it's time for a lawsuit against Canon to open up the RF protocol. USA vs Microsoft (with regards to Internet Explorer) could be a precedent.


Canon doesn't have a near monopoly in the camera/lens market like Microsoft had with operating systems; totally different situation.


----------



## tangerine_sedge (Nov 5, 2021)

Not only does Canon not dominate the market, but it's provided a converter to enable 3rd party lenses to be used on RF mount cameras.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 5, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> If their RF versions have a control ring then that would be a good sign that they have a license from Canon.


Not really. If third parties can reverse engineer the lens mount they can reverse engineer the control ring.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 5, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Well, in all other market areas monopolies tend to drive prices up…


Canon doesn’t have a monopoly. Not even close. But yes, competition can lower prices.


----------



## rbr (Nov 5, 2021)

Canon seems to be trying to turn their mount into some sort of creepy cult isolated from the rest of the photographic world. That's the way it feels sometimes. If you buy into the Canon system you become forced to use their and only their optical designs and get cut off from the outside world and all the innovations that are taking place elsewhere from lens makers such as Zeiss, Sigma, and Tamron.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Nov 5, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Sounds like bull to me. What else would you expect a Sigma salesman to say?


The manager of my local camera shop was told something very similar by a Sigma UK rep. He also mentioned that that Sigma had an agreement with Canon to NOT produce RF lenses for the 1st 3 years of the RF mount.

Also I recently watched a YT video by Grays of Westminster who are a Nikon store exclusively. They mentioned being told by a Sigma UK rep that Sigma won’t reverse engineer any lenses for mirrorless. If they don’t get the AF protocols for a mount they won’t support it.

Whether any of that is true I have no idea but different people are saying very similar things about Sigma here in the UK in regards to support for RF/Z. I would imagine the same applies to the rest of Sigma Global.

I shoot Sony but it would be great if Canon/Nikon shooters could have access to the wonderful glass that has been released recently. In particular these

85mm f1.4 Art DG DN
14-24mm f2.8 Art DG DN
24-70mm f2.8 Art DG DN
65mm f2 I-series


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 5, 2021)

Back when DSLR's were fairly new, I had several Sigma Film lenses, a fair sized investment. all 5 refused to work on my first Canon DSLR. Sigma could only provide a fix for one of the lenses and that cost me $150. The rest of them went to ebay with a note telling buyers that they were only usable for film. Sigma then revised their chip again when the lenses did not work on the latest DSLR's.

Since then, I've only bought one Sigma lens for my APS-C camera and it did not live up to the hype.

I can't imagine buying a new Sigma lens that had been reverse engineered for RF. It took Sigma 3 tries to get the EF versions to work.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 5, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Whether any of that is true I have no idea but different people are saying very similar things about Sigma here in the UK in regards to support for RF/Z. I would imagine the same applies to the rest of Sigma Global.


Or it could have something to do with the culture of Sigma UK. I'd love to hear if Sigma reps in other countries are saying the same thing. This is a good question for the Sigma CEO but I think he's already been asked it. He did flatly state that Sigma would NEVER make a lens for the Fuji X mount.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 5, 2021)

I would imagine that Sigma won't stay out of the RF market forever, license or not on the protocols. They sell a lot of EF mount glass, and that market is going away along with the mount. Let's assume its 1/4 of their business (shared evenly with Sony, Nikon and Lmount - in reality it may be a larger portion of their business historically). They aren't just going to walk away from that. If nothing else, they'd use EF protocols for AF and change the mount/optical formula. 

It will be interesting to see what the first offerings look like from that perspective.

Brian


----------



## SNJ Ops (Nov 5, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> I would imagine that Sigma won't stay out of the RF market forever, license or not on the protocols. They sell a lot of EF mount glass, and that market is going away along with the mount. Let's assume its 1/4 of their business (shared evenly with Sony, Nikon and Lmount - in reality it may be a larger portion of their business historically). They aren't just going to walk away from that. If nothing else, they'd use EF protocols for AF and change the mount/optical formula.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what the first offerings look like from that perspective.
> 
> Brian


Its been rumoured that Sigma refuse to reverse engineer for mirrorless and that they’ll only produce glass on mounts for which they have protocols provided to them by the OEM. I would guess that Sigma don’t want a situation where their emount glass has licensed support and the AF has near/matching native level performance but RF is reverse engineered and the AF is noticeably inferior compared to native RF glass.

Remember Tamron, Zeiss, Tokina and Voigtländer haven’t supported the RF mount yet either.


----------



## Rumours not rumors (Nov 5, 2021)

If SIGMA released a RF mount version of their 70-200 f2.8 DG OS HSM | Sports lens, they'd sell truck loads because that lens in EF form is optically better IMHO than the EF 70-200 f2.8 Mk III lens that costs over a grand more but on the upside for Canon they would see a jump in body sales from people like me who refuse to go to mirrorless while the RF lenses are so outrageously priced. What would be a killer product for many SIGMA owners would be a version of the TC-1401 teleconverter that had the female EF mount to accept SIGMA lenses fitted with an EF mount and a RF male mount to natively fit onto the R series bodies, effectively combining a TC-1401 teleconverter and a EF-RF mount adapter into one unit - they'd sell like wildfire. My EOS 90D's read the correction data for peripheral illumination, chromatic aberrations, distortion, and more from my EF mount SIGMA 70-200 f2.8 DG OS HSM | Sports lens so I can't envisage there'd be any compatability issues with RF versions. The best part is unlike most lens vendors, SIGMA makes their lenses entirely in Japan buffering them from all the COVID related dramas affecting products made in China. The superior build quality is evident when you pick them up. If Tamron followed with RF versions of their G2 range, wow, sales of Canon EOS R bodies would soar.


----------



## slclick (Nov 5, 2021)

'Creepy Cult'

Where do people come up with this stuff? You want a creepy cult? Try QAnon.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 5, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Its been rumoured that Sigma refuse to reverse engineer for mirrorless and that they’ll only produce glass on mounts for which they have protocols provided to them by the OEM. I would guess that Sigma don’t want a situation where their emount glass has licensed support and the AF has near/matching native level performance but RF is reverse engineered and the AF is noticeably inferior compared to native RF glass.
> 
> Remember Tamron, Zeiss, Tokina and Voigtländer haven’t supported the RF mount yet either.


Yes, a comment above stating that got me thinking, and spurred my original response. 

The thing I was thinking is: Sigma already knows the EF protocols, so no reverse engineering is necessary. They may not be able to take full advantage of the dual voltage drive on the 3 (supposedly) and 1 (probably) series bodies, but every other EF lens works flawlessly on an RF body from an AF perspective. They give up almost nothing performance wise, using a protocol they know well. The control ring is another issue, but I'm guessing it is a lot less to 'reverse engineer' than AF communications. 

Brian


----------



## AJ (Nov 5, 2021)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Back when DSLR's were fairly new, I had several Sigma Film lenses, a fair sized investment. all 5 refused to work on my first Canon DSLR. Sigma could only provide a fix for one of the lenses and that cost me $150. The rest of them went to ebay with a note telling buyers that they were only usable for film. Sigma then revised their chip again when the lenses did not work on the latest DSLR's.
> 
> Since then, I've only bought one Sigma lens for my APS-C camera and it did not live up to the hype.
> 
> I can't imagine buying a new Sigma lens that had been reverse engineered for RF. It took Sigma 3 tries to get the EF versions to work.


I think a lot has changed since then. Sigma has gone from low-end and budget to upmarket. Firmware can now be updated through the USB docking station. Nowadays, the low-end is served by some of the Chinese start-ups.

The main thing, though, is that back in the day the lenses were reverse-engineered. I imagine that when Canon developed the EF protocol in the mid 80s, they developed a pretty simple protocol with not much thought to third parties. Now, fast-forward to RF. I imagine this protocol is tremendously complex and near impossible to reverse-engineer.

It seems that Sony has licensed their protocol to Sigma. For example, this publication has a footnote stating that: "This product is developed, manufactured and sold based on the specifications of E-mount which was disclosed by Sony Corporation under the license agreement with Sony Corporation"

If the future is licensing, which I hope it will be, then we can expect (1) more stability and better compatibility; and (2) higher prices for Sigma gear because I doubt Canon will license for free.

@MtSpokane, I do hope you get another chance to try some Sigma gear. Some of their latest lenses are simply awesome.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Nov 5, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Yes, a comment above stating that got me thinking, and spurred my original response.
> 
> The thing I was thinking is: Sigma already knows the EF protocols, so no reverse engineering is necessary. They may not be able to take full advantage of the dual voltage drive on the 3 (supposedly) and 1 (probably) series bodies, but every other EF lens works flawlessly on an RF body from an AF perspective. They give up almost nothing performance wise, using a protocol they know well. The control ring is another issue, but I'm guessing it is a lot less to 'reverse engineer' than AF communications.
> 
> Brian


I would imagine there’s a lot more going on code wise with RF mount than EF even if they are closely related. Its not just AF protocols but also any distortion correction in the EVF and IBIS compatibility.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 5, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> ...The control ring is another issue, but I'm guessing it is a lot less to 'reverse engineer' than AF communications...


There are several third-party adapters on Amazon, including some with control rings, so yeah it probably doesn't take much to reverse engineer.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 5, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> I would imagine there’s a lot more going on code wise with RF mount than EF even if they are closely related. Its not just AF protocols but also any distortion correction in the EVF and IBIS compatibility.


Distortion correction works with EF lenses on R bodies. I think most of the magic (stored lens profiles) must be in the body. I don't believe the DSLR bodies used in camera lens distortion correct for 3rd party lenses in the past (admittedly, most of my 3rd party glass is relatively obscure like a Rokinon 8mm fish eye, 24mm TSE, and 14mm 2.8 ED, so I may just be lucky in that it never worked for my lenses). Its possible that it is sending a few bits of info, like 'what is my barrel distortion correction value' 'what is my pincushion correction value' or 'what is my vignette correction value'...but if its doing that on a DSLR today it can do it via the same protocol on RF tomorrow. Or its possible its passing its name/model number, and the camera is looking in its firmware for a profile. Again, this could be done on EF, so it can be done on RF too. But I doubt canon is going to update firmware every time some new 3rd party lens comes on the market, just so in camera corrections are perfect. That is why I'd guess, at most, its just sending a parameter value for basic corrections. 

I'm sure there is a lot more going on with RF than EF, but my only point here is that very good performance could still be had using the EF protocols on the RF mount. I'm sure Sigma wants to use the full value of the mount, and I want them too as well! But if Canon were holding out on the necessary license or details in some way, I think they'd eventually be forced to do something on their own. Canon has a lot of the market, and Sigma can't afford to ignore it forever. 

Samyang/Rokinon have some AF lenses that are getting good reviews on the RF mount. I doubt they got a license. So either they hacked it, or went with EF protocols. 

Brian


----------



## jvillain (Nov 5, 2021)

I could swear I read an interview with a Canon exec ether here or on CW where the guy said Canon would not license RF. Plans can change but I am positive I read it because I remember it making me stop and re-evaluate my own road map.


----------



## jvillain (Nov 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Compared to a 1/8000 s shutter speed, the R3's 1/64000 s shutter speed is like adding a 3-stop ND (which is what I typically use for outdoor shooting with my EF 85 mm f/1.2 or 1.4 IS).


So your story is you regularly shoot your 85s on a camera that hasn't shipped yet?


----------



## SteveC (Nov 5, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Its not just AF protocols but also any distortion correction in the EVF and IBIS compatibility.


I doubt that stuff has anything to do with the actual RF mount specification.

Distortion correction is applied within the body of the camera; that's why you need firmware updates to be able to use new distorting lenses correctly.

Now if _Sigma_ makes a distorting lens, they are going to have a tough time of it, persuading Canon to release a firmware update, which tells me Sigma won't be making distorting lenses.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 5, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I doubt that stuff has anything to do with the actual RF mount specification.
> 
> Distortion correction is applied within the body of the camera; that's why you need firmware updates to be able to use new distorting lenses correctly.
> 
> Now if _Sigma_ makes a distorting lens, they are going to have a tough time of it, persuading Canon to release a firmware update, which tells me Sigma won't be making distorting lenses.


I very much doubt that's how it's implemented. More likely, there is process in the camera that needs a set of lookup values sent by the lens to determine how much correction of various types to apply. Doing it your way means that Canon would have to update the camera firmware every time they introduce a new lens. Also, Sigma has stated that they "fully support" Canon's distortion correction.


----------



## reefroamer (Nov 5, 2021)

I don’t think it’s wrong for Canon to want to capitalize, for some time period, on its innovation of the R system and and exclusively build a catalog of its own RF lenses. They have made a major investment in launching this system. And I doubt there is much interest from Sigma or others in making RF-compatible lenses until Canon has sold a certain critical mass number of R bodies. After three years, we may finally be reaching both of these landmarks, where Canon is more open to third-party lens compatibility and Sigma and others find the growing base of R camera owners large enough to attract their interest and investment.


----------



## AJ (Nov 5, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> I would imagine there’s a lot more going on code wise with RF mount than EF even if they are closely related. Its not just AF protocols but also any distortion correction in the EVF and IBIS compatibility.


I imagine much of the complexity involves getting IBIS to work optimally with in-lens stabilization. 
Distortion correction is probably purely in camera. All the lens has to do is to identify itself (also for exif)


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 5, 2021)

AJ said:


> I imagine much of the complexity involves getting IBIS to work optimally with in-lens stabilization.
> Distortion correction is probably purely in camera. All the lens has to do is to identify itself (also for exif)


The lens is going to have to do more than just identify itself. Let's assume that the lens is brand new model. How is the camera body going to know how much vignetting correction, for example, to apply if the camera body is several years old and is still using years old firmware?


----------



## SteveC (Nov 5, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> The lens is going to have to do more than just identify itself. Let's assume that the lens is brand new model. How is the camera body going to know how much vignetting correction, for example, to apply if the camera body is several years old and is still using years old firmware?


But we've already seen that Canon releases new firmware right before releasing a heavily distorting lens. (I'm not talking about the very minor distortions the top end lenses produce, I'm talking about lenses like the 24-240.)


----------



## SNJ Ops (Nov 6, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I doubt that stuff has anything to do with the actual RF mount specification.
> 
> Distortion correction is applied within the body of the camera; that's why you need firmware updates to be able to use new distorting lenses correctly.
> 
> Now if _Sigma_ makes a distorting lens, they are going to have a tough time of it, persuading Canon to release a firmware update, which tells me Sigma won't be making distorting lenses.


Actually Sigma’s new 85mm f1.4 Art DG DN has a noticeable amount of distortion. It corrects perfectly fine with the lens profile but until it’s applied you can definitely see it. That was the trade off to make it smaller, and lighter than the competition but for IQ it even holds its own against the RF 85mm f1.2.

I could be wrong on this but I believe the rumour that Sigma won’t reverse engineer for RF. The impression I gets from them as a company is that they want their customers to have the best experience possible when using their products. Especially considering that they don’t have to when making E and L mount glass.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2021)

SteveC said:


> But we've already seen that Canon releases new firmware right before releasing a heavily distorting lens. (I'm not talking about the very minor distortions the top end lenses produce, I'm talking about lenses like the 24-240.)


I’m not sure about that. My EOS R was on the original firmware (1.0.0), When I mounted my new 14-35, which like the 24-240 and 16/2.8 forces distortion correction, the camera displayed a warning that the lens might not function properly because it’s not supported by the camera firmware. However, the viewfinder showed an undistorted image at 14mm, and I couldn’t disable distortion correction in settings – the expected behavior with firmware support. The only issue I saw was that the ISO was fixed at 490 and it could not be changed.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 6, 2021)

This is one of the things I love about this site. @Canon Rumors Guy posts that manufacturing capabilities have held Sigma up. So then we get four pages of forum experts making up the “real” reasons. Don’t confuse anyone with the facts.


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The transmission of a sheet of glass is 92%, and this is less than 100% due to 4% of light being reflected back from its front surface and another 4% from its rear. Multi-coat it and the transmission gets close to 100%. It is absolutely impossible for acrylic to have 20% more transmission than 92 or 99+%! And, it's basic optics that the transmission coefficient decreases as refractive index increases because reflection increases (Fresnel equation).



Technically, AlanF is correct. I should have said "an Acrylic Lens with embedded Adaptive Floating Optics and Computational Photography algorithms will be a 20% Brighter Lens" than using the term "Acrylic has 20% better transmissibility" . Those are two VERY DIFFERENT MEANINGS and AlanF's is the scientifically correct one. Technically, Acrylic has 92% transmission at 50 mm thickness so I would say it's still better than the typical glasses Canon uses.


FIRST THING IS FIRST: Please look at the links below to get a little educational series for y'all today before I discuss WHY our lens are 20% Brighter (i.e. have more light gathering ability at a given focal length)

In case anyone is wondering what AlanF is speaking of, I present to you the following Wikipedia Weblinks to show you a background of and to illustrate the concepts of refraction, diffraction, Fresnel Equations and Fresnel Lenses, general Interferometry, Fourier Transform and the famous old Bell Curve so you understand that we use ALL such concepts in designing and building high-end prime and zoom lenses!

Refraction:








Refraction - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Refractive Index:








Refractive index - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Diffraction:








Diffraction - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Fresnel Equations








Fresnel equations - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Fresnel Lenses:








Fresnel lens - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Interferometry:








Interferometry - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Fourier Transform:








Fourier transform - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Normal Distribution (aka Bell Curve):








Normal distribution - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





The Refractive Index of Typical Optical-grade Fluorite Glasses used in Canon's higher end glass would be 1.56 and Acrylic would be 1.49 which doesn't sound like a lot of difference between the two but it is. You actually want the LOWER NUMBER index so distortion is not as bad. Ideally, you want the same amount of distortion as through AIR (i.e. Index of Refraction at Sea Level at 18 Celcius is 1.0 in Air) The curvature of front and back portion of the lens elements is what gives you the "Distorted Look" of a typical lens. Ideally in modern imaging, you would want NO distortion at all.

The base reason though that Acrylic is so sought after for lenses is WEIGHT! It is much lighter than glass and with modern interferometry techniques and ray tracing, you can make a lens that is 20% BRIGHTER, SHORTER in LENGTH and LIGHTER in WEIGHT by 50% than the same lens done in Glass.

The Fresnel effect that AlanF speaks of distorts (Bends?!) the light path within the glass (or Acrylic) lens element itself and the optimum light path is technically UNKNOWN as it exits the back part of the lens giving rise to chromatic aberrations, fringing, scintillation and edge artifacts once it finally hits the image sensor itself. To compensate for this, you model your lens in an Optical-band ray tracing program which takes into account the lens material light absorption characteristics and refraction/diffraction properties and curvature of the lens element itself.

You then make a grid across the entire front and back of the lens elements and compare the CALCULATED path of incoming light rays to the 2D-XY grid of the sensor itself, which for expediency-sake, we use a SQUARE sensor aspect ratio at pixel resolutions such as 4096 by 4096, 8192 by 8192, 16384 by 16384 pixels that is within the lens mount circle area where a Medium Format, Full Frame, APS-C, Micro 4/3rds, 2/3rd sensor area would be optically placed and that matches the actual photosite size in microns we wish to model.

When you model your lens, the incoming light rays will have a highly specific light path that will end up falling on a specific photosite of the destination image sensor. You can use interpolation to model for in-between resolutions and larger/smaller sensor sizes. When the light ray at grid coordinate x:200, y:200 in from the upper-left corner of the front element of a lens is tracked, we want to ENSURE that through the ENTIRE light path, that the photon stream will fall on photosite grid location x:200, y:200 of the sensor and any deviation NEEDS to be compensated for via a set of lookup table based correction factors that are applied to luminance, chroma, saturation and actual coordinate position. The final CORRECTED pixel value will then represent an ideal pixel value of a light ray that has been optimally waveguided through the entire lens assembly.

When we designed our lenses, we first modeled them and raytraced them in software. Then, in the real world, we shot monochromatic light (i.e. a laser) at various wave lengths corresponding to the Red, Green, Blue, Yellow, Violet, etc rainbow colours within the optical EM bands. The reduction in amplitude, the slight frequency shift on light wave exit from the back element and the POSITION and coning (diffraction) of the exiting light path(s) compared to the incoming grid position at the front lens element for each sensor resolution was turned into a lookup table which we embed into each lens so that any camera obtains and then applies a pixel 2D-XY positional correction factor, a luminance value correction factor and a chroma value (i.e. colour value) correction factor which is applied to the photosite located at a specific 2D-XY position on the sensor. Since there are microlenses and colour filters put on top of each photosite, we also take THAT into account and model WHAT an ideal pixel value would be based upon a given focal length, iris setting, focus value, neutral density filter value, and other correction factors which we also build into our lookup tables.

This means the light paths and pixel values modeled from monochromatic light path ray traces will result in a proper correction factor being applied to each pixel in a 2D-XY grid that will result in a super-sharp, perfectly Bokeh'ed and stable/non-distorted image no matter the focal length and destination image sensor size and pixel count! Since we use MULTIPLE lens elements in a single lens body, ALL individual lens elements are modeled together as a singular UNIT so all individual distortions can be accounted for in our final pixel value lookup tables for each image sensor resolution and sensor size.

The real-time adaptive optics are ALSO taken into account so we can ESTIMATE what the ideal pixel value SHOULD be once it filters through various atmospheric effects and distortions at distances from below one metre up to 100 km.

This means in the hottest desert or roadway environments with all that heat shimmer boiling up from the desert plain or hot pavement, you will get an UNDISTORTED CRYSTAL CLEAR IMAGE that accurately represents what is actually there in the far background!

P.S.

Please note that ALL ABOVE DESCRIPTIONS are now Fully Free and Open Source
under GPL-3 Licence Terms for BOTH Hardware and Software. ANYONE and EVERYONE
is fully free and able to modify, create, manufacture, sell/resell lenses for any type of
imaging system using our designs with NO ROYALTY PAYMENTS REQUIRED so long
you follow ALL the tenets of the GPL-3 Open Source Licence Terms!

V


----------



## Jethro (Nov 6, 2021)

It's really good to hear from you Harry!


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 6, 2021)

Jethro said:


> It's really good to hear from you Harry!



Thank you for your likes of my posts!

Soon enough ANOTHER PDF file with the details of the NEW Open Source 16K Camera AND NEW all-Acrylic lens designs will be disclosed here on CanonRumors on a completely FREE AND OPEN SOURCE BASIS under GPL-3 Licence Terms for BOTH the hardware and software.

We will ALSO announce our 15mm PER PIXEL resolution of our ITAR-free UNCENSORED GLOBAL SATELLITE IMAGE SURVEY in Optical Bands, RADAR Bands and INFRARED Bands that has 48 bit colour (16 bits per colour channel) at 16k by 16k resolution slices using RGB+Depth pixel formats. Every Square Metre of Land on the ENTIRE EARTH will be surveyed at the full 15 millimeres PER PIXEL resolution with NOTHING BEING COVERED UP (i.e. NO Censorship!) and ALL imagery being made available for public use on a completely FREE AND OPEN SOURCE basis!

It will be MUCH BETTER than Google Earth Pro!

v


----------



## SNJ Ops (Nov 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> This is one of the things I love about this site. @Canon Rumors Guy posts that manufacturing capabilities have held Sigma up. So then we get four pages of forum experts making up the “real” reasons. Don’t confuse anyone with the facts.


Except the CEO said one thing but here in the UK Sigma reps are saying something completely different. Again my local camera shop manager told me what a Sigma UK rep told him. It had nothing at all to do with manufacturing capacity but rather it was do with Canon.

Someone else mentioned that they spoke to a Sigma rep at the recent Photography Show event in Birmingham and again Canon was given as the reason why.

Maybe Sigma are at maximum capacity as well as being prevented by Canon from making glass for RF mount anyway. But the question remains. Why haven’t Tamron, Tokina, Voigtländer and Zeiss made glass for RF mount either?


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 6, 2021)

SteveC said:


> But we've already seen that Canon releases new firmware right before releasing a heavily distorting lens. (I'm not talking about the very minor distortions the top end lenses produce, I'm talking about lenses like the 24-240.)


Canon has said that RF lenses will communicate 'DLO' information to the body. On EF-M, Sigma lenses already do this. 

What I think is happening with the firmware updates for the body is that the distortion parameters for those lenses couldn't be described with the existing standard, so Canon needed to update the correction algorithms in the body.
I've found it amusing that the RF white paper is very proud of RF lenses being able to provide the needed info, so you don't have to use a computer to register new lenses, but then require a body firmware update for pretty much every new lens they released. The fact that the RF16mm "Just Worked" was a pleasant surprise, so I hope we don't need any more body firmware updates for 'novel' designs.


----------



## deleteme (Nov 6, 2021)

AJ said:


> Seems to me that it's time for a lawsuit against Canon to open up the RF protocol. USA vs Microsoft (with regards to Internet Explorer) could be a precedent.


Won’t happen.
Microsoft was deemed having a monopoly on Operating Systems and thus was vulnerable on that score. Canon can scarcely be demonstrated to have a monopoly on lenses.
It would be easily demonstrated that camera companies have traditionally walled off their platforms via patented lens mounts.


----------



## dlee13 (Nov 6, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> The manager of my local camera shop was told something very similar by a Sigma UK rep. He also mentioned that that Sigma had an agreement with Canon to NOT produce RF lenses for the 1st 3 years of the RF mount.


If true this makes me wonder if they made some sort of agreement that if Sigma did hold off on it, Canon would license their AF algorithm to them. I’ve always thought it’s smarter for them to do that as if the third party is going to make the lens anyways, you might as well get a slice of the pie instead of nothing.

I also wondered if Sony made exclusivity deals with the third parties since they own part of Tamron and for gaming it’s quite normal to have an exclusive release on one platform for a set period of time. For example Sony exclusives like Horizon Zero Dawn were Sony exclusive for years then finally made their way to PC.


----------



## slclick (Nov 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> This is one of the things I love about this site. @Canon Rumors Guy posts that manufacturing capabilities have held Sigma up. So then we get four pages of forum experts making up the “real” reasons. Don’t confuse anyone with the facts.


But they 'Did their own research'. Like Aaron Rodgers.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> This is one of the things I love about this site. @Canon Rumors Guy posts that manufacturing capabilities have held Sigma up. So then we get four pages of forum experts making up the “real” reasons. Don’t confuse anyone with the facts.


"Facts"? I think you're underestimating people's willingness and ability to lie, especially corporate managers who do so when lying helps them and their company but doesn't appear to hurt others. And what is the Sigma CEO supposed to do when there are (probably) several reasons for his actions, explain them in detail to the whole world?


----------



## Ruiloba (Nov 6, 2021)

They said the same for 2021


----------



## SNJ Ops (Nov 7, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> If true this makes me wonder if they made some sort of agreement that if Sigma did hold off on it, Canon would license their AF algorithm to them. I’ve always thought it’s smarter for them to do that as if the third party is going to make the lens anyways, you might as well get a slice of the pie instead of nothing.
> 
> I also wondered if Sony made exclusivity deals with the third parties since they own part of Tamron and for gaming it’s quite normal to have an exclusive release on one platform for a set period of time. For example Sony exclusives like Horizon Zero Dawn were Sony exclusive for years then finally made their way to PC.


In this case I don’t think so.. It would be in Sony’s interest for Tamron to be available on the other mirrorless mounts as it would mean more revenue for them. Hence the recent Tamron options made available for Fuji X.

Personally I think both Canon and Nikon are acting in similar ways and up until now have not provided protocols to 3rd parties. For all we know there aren’t just technical issues to overcome with reverse engineering (which again Sigma allegedly refuse to do) but more importantly there are possible legal ones which the 3rd parties rightly don’t want to deal with.

Then there’s the simple matter of competition from 3rd parties on your platform. Take for one example the Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 DG DN available for E and L mount. A LOT of Canon shooters want a 35mm that completes the f1.2 trinity of primes, at the moment it sells for £1459/$1499. I doubt a Canon RF 35mm f1.2 L USM comes in at that based on previous RF lens prices.


----------



## binary (Nov 7, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> In this case I don’t think so.. It would be in Sony’s interest for Tamron to be available on the other mirrorless mounts as it would mean more revenue for them. Hence the recent Tamron options made available for Fuji X.
> 
> Personally I think both Canon and Nikon are acting in similar ways and up until now have not provided protocols to 3rd parties. For all we know there aren’t just technical issues to overcome with reverse engineering (which again Sigma allegedly refuse to do) but more importantly there are possible legal ones which the 3rd parties rightly don’t want to deal with.


Exactly, It's what Fuji did. https://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm...line-continues-no-gfx-fixed-lens-camera-more/

"The closed mount was also a problem, that lead Sigma CEO to say here that they would like to make X mount lenses, but Fujifilm does not share the protocols with them."

I bet the only reason why we don't see 3rd party lenses from Sigma or Tamron is because they are not allowed to do it. 
Someone posted here before on CR that his local retailer told him that after release of R5/R6 there is 2 years embargo between Canon and Sigma or Tamron (I don't remember) and they can't release any RF lenses.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Nov 7, 2021)

binary said:


> Exactly, It's what Fuji did. https://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm...line-continues-no-gfx-fixed-lens-camera-more/
> 
> "The closed mount was also a problem, that lead Sigma CEO to say here that they would like to make X mount lenses, but Fujifilm does not share the protocols with them."
> 
> ...


I was told this by the manager of my local camera shop.. A Sigma UK rep told him they have an agreement with Canon not to make any lenses for the 1st 3 years of the RF mount. Even if that is true Sigma still may well want/need protocols from Canon before they make any.

Until Canon address this publicly like Fuji did I think the situation will continue.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Nov 7, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> People's allergy to the R mount adaptor is hard to understand except maybe for the big whites.



It's the extra size and weight + have to carry the adapter too. When you have a small lens, the adapter adds significant extra size.


----------



## tangerine_sedge (Nov 7, 2021)

This is all about licensing the RF mount. Sigma reverse engineered the EF mount (rather than license it) and ended up with a bunch of incompatible lenses because they weren't able to reverse engineer it perfectly.

I doubt Sigma want to make the same mistake with the RF mount so will likely only start producing lenses when they have a licensing deal in place. The RF information is a very valuable asset for Canon, so rightly they are protecting it and ensuring they get maximum return on their investment.

I should imagine that Sigma have approached Canon about this and decided not to license the format (yet). Either Canon didn't want to open up the propriety format or Sigma didn't want to pay the licensing costs.

At some point, the cost/benefit for both Sigma & Canon will align and we will get 3rd part lenses, although it's a very strong possibility that this may never happen and Sigma will have to reverse engineer the mount, with all the associated risks found when they go the EF mount wrong. If Sigma do go this route, then I expect all their lenses will support upgrade/Rom flashing to account for changes in the spec.


----------



## KrisK (Nov 7, 2021)

Lemme guess: another 35, 50 and 85. Sigh.

Though I do remember Sigma saying that they were aware of the demand for small primes, so maybe there's hope for something more interesting. Personally, I'd love a compact 28mm.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2021)

tangerine_sedge said:


> This is all about licensing the RF mount...


Umm...No

@Canon Rumors Guy 


> _The biggest roadblock for SIGMA is apparently manufacturing capabilities beyond just the issues from the pandemic._


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 7, 2021)

KrisK said:


> Lemme guess: another 35, 50 and 85. Sigh.
> 
> Though I do remember Sigma saying that they were aware of the demand for small primes, so maybe there's hope for something more interesting. Personally, I'd love a compact 28mm.


How would that be a problem if Sigma can deliver the most used prime focal length lenses either at a better price, or at a higher quality? 

Many people here are complaining rightly that Canon is only offering budget entry-level lenses and super-expensive overpriced zooms with nothing in the mid-range. Sigma Art versions designed for RF mount perhaps?


----------



## tangerine_sedge (Nov 7, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Umm...No
> 
> @Canon Rumors Guy



so let me get this straight....Sigma can produce lenses for Nikon, EF. Sony using plastic, glass, metal and processors, but cannot make them for RF using plastic, glass, metal and processors?


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2021)

tangerine_sedge said:


> so let me get this straight....Sigma can produce lenses for Nikon, EF. Sony using plastic, glass, metal and processors, but cannot make them for RF using plastic, glass, metal and processors?


If your production facilities are already running short of needed parts and materials while trying to meet current demand, adding a new product line that will increase demand and further strain your available resources isn't a good business decision. If that new product line also requires changes in design and modifications in your production lines, it might not be a good idea to make those changes in the middle of a supply shortage. If you are making those changes to meet potential demand for a relatively new product, exercising some caution and not diverting resources from already successful products also makes sense. 

In case you haven't noticed, getting product to market is the single biggest challenge facing manufacturers today. Thus, what @Canon Rumors Guy 's sources have told him makes sense. He has a lot more experience and a lot better sources than random people on this forum. I have no reason to doubt him. Why do you think you know more about the situation than his sources do?


----------



## SNJ Ops (Nov 7, 2021)

KrisK said:


> Lemme guess: another 35, 50 and 85. Sigh.
> 
> Though I do remember Sigma saying that they were aware of the demand for small primes, so maybe there's hope for something more interesting. Personally, I'd love a compact 28mm.


Sigma’s DG DN lenses designed for mirrorless and currently available for E and L mount.

14-24mm f2.8 Art
24-70mm f2.8 Art
28-70mm f2.8 Contemporary 
150-600mm Sport
100-400 Contemporary 

I-Series

24mm f2
24mm f3.5
35mm f2
45mm f2.8
65mm f2
90mm f2.8

35mm f1.4 Art
35mm f1.2 Art
85mm f1.4 Art
105mm f2.8 Macro Art

That above list excludes the DG HSM options that fit natively but are the older DSLR designs. That’s a lot of options that Canon shooters are missing out on.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2021)

Another factor that people on this forum are conveniently ignoring is the risk of trying to compete with an immature product line. Third party lens makers survive by offering niche lenses not offered by the big guns. With a mature line like EF, it was much easier to identify the holes and try to fill them. But with RF, they don't yet know where those holes are.

Case in point: for years, the 600mm zooms have been cash cows for both Sigma and Tamron. They met a need that Canon didn't seem interested in filling.

Now, here comes the RF lineup and Canon nuked the market. A 100-500 zoom closes much of the gap between 400 and 600 plus it's lighter than the third party zooms and super responsive and sharp. Canon follows that up with low cost 600 and 800 mm primes and a super light, low-cost 100-400 zoom. It's hard to see where the 600mm zooms fit in and if I were Sigma or Tamron, I wouldn't be spending a penny adapting those lenses for RF. 

Another example, the 16mm f2.8 lens that is finding its way into the bags of virtually every R system owner. 

As long as Canon is willing to come out of left field with incredibly popular and unexpected lenses, the risks to Tamron, Sigma and Tokina are huge. Makes perfect sense for them to proceed with caution.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 7, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> It's the extra size and weight + have to carry the adapter too. When you have a small lens, the adapter adds significant extra size.


The size/weight reduction of the R5/6 would offset the adapter when compared to the 6D/5D.
I concur that the adapter doubles the size/weight of the 40mm pancake if you take that as a part of the system but there is no RF equivalent (yet)
For any EF lens of reasonable cost, then "weld" the adapter to the lens (don't take it off) and you can't forget it.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 7, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Not really. If third parties can reverse engineer the lens mount they can reverse engineer the control ring.


Is the control ring patented? I can't recall. Yes, they may be able to reverse engineer the function of the control ring.
If I was Canon and adamant about restricting 3rd parties then I would encrypt the communications end to end. Reverse engineering would be extremely difficult - if not impossible then.


----------



## fox40phil (Nov 7, 2021)

Gimme the new 150-600 S !!


----------



## Nemorino (Nov 7, 2021)

@David - Sydney There is one 3rd party lens with control ring:








Yongnuo announces the YN RF 85mm f/1.8R DF DSM, an autofocus lens for the RF mount.


Yongnuo has announced the autofocus YN RF 85mm f/1.8R DF DSM lens. This also appears to be the first third-party lens with a control ring. You can select betwee



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 7, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Well, in all other market areas monopolies tend to drive prices up and increased competition tends to drive them down. But I understand you think the lens market is uniquely different in some way. I - for one - also hate the adapter even if you may like it.


General economic theory would say that monopoly behaviour will have the highest prices but the R mount protocols are a proprietary system design and anti-competition regulatory bodies would never intervene. It is simple enough for Sigma/Tamron etc to release R mount lenses today using their reverse engineered EF protocols. 

The CPL/ND adapter is unique in that it enables filters for wide angle TSE and EF 11-24mm to avoid dinner plate sized front filters. It ends up being a cheaper option than front filters so the adapter is a benefit for those users.
The adapter enables all EF lenses to be used for R mount. That in itself is a major plus for the R system. It would have been extremely difficult for DLSR Canon users to move to mirrorless if our EF lenses couldn't be used.
I don't see a need to upgrade to the RF14-35mm or EF100 macro and can't upgrade my EF8-15mm to RF. 

The adapter is necessary for the success of the R mount system in my view.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 7, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Sigma’s DG DN lenses designed for mirrorless and currently available for E and L mount.
> 
> 14-24mm f2.8 Art
> 24-70mm f2.8 Art
> ...


Strangely enough, there is no lens in this list that I would want/need. I would be tempted by a 14mm/1.4 though if the coma was good.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> ...If I was Canon and adamant about restricting 3rd parties then I would encrypt the communications end to end. Reverse engineering would be extremely difficult - if not impossible then.


If the past is any indication, it seems as though Canon has never been adamant about restricting 3rd parties. They aren't going to make it easy, but they are content to let them reverse engineer their mounts. To me, this makes perfect sense. An overly aggressive approach might alienate customers.

There have been some cases (according to people on the internet) where in the past Canon changed lens protocols and some third party lenses quit working or quit working well. Some people claim that was a deliberate effort by Canon to undermine the competitors, but I believe the official explanation, which makes sense, is that Canon doesn't feel any obligation to make sure third party products work with their products when they need to make changes to improve the performance of their own products. Presumably, one reason why Sigma and Tamron have gone to consoles that enable user-updatable firmware has been to make sure their lenses stay compatible with manufacturer's products.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Nov 7, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Another factor that people on this forum are conveniently ignoring is the risk of trying to compete with an immature product line. Third party lens makers survive by offering niche lenses not offered by the big guns. With a mature line like EF, it was much easier to identify the holes and try to fill them. But with RF, they don't yet know where those holes are.
> 
> Case in point: for years, the 600mm zooms have been cash cows for both Sigma and Tamron. They met a need that Canon didn't seem interested in filling.
> 
> ...


Here in the UK

Sigma 150-600 DG DN Sport = £1199
Tamron 150-500 = £1379
Canon 100-500 RF = £2979

What risk is there to the 3rd parties when their options are less than half the price of Canon’s equivalent? I’d say it was the other way around. Not everyone can or is prepared to pay nearly £3K for a telephoto superzoom.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 7, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Here in the UK
> 
> Sigma 150-600 DG DN Sport = £1199
> Tamron 150-500 = £1379
> ...


You missed the £699 pricing of the RF 100-400mm. It’s a tremendous little featherweight lens that I think is likely to be a major seller. Canon could well capture both the top end and the bottom end of the zoom market. (I have both of them.)


----------



## SNJ Ops (Nov 7, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You missed the £699 pricing of the RF 100-400mm. It’s a tremendous little featherweight lens that I think is likely to be a major seller. Canon could well capture both the top end and the bottom end of the zoom market. (I have both of them.)


If someone wants to get to 500/600mm but for a reasonable price a 100-400 won’t cut it for a lot of people.

On a similar note if someone wants an 85mm f1.4 Canon doesn’t offer that in mirrorless at the moment. But Sigma do for £999, Canon’s 85mm f1.2 are £2869 and £3299 for the DS version. Yes Canon offer the 85mm f2 Macro but f2 isn’t f1.4 and besides the Sigma is one of the very best 85mm primes on any platform 2nd only to the Canon RF but again for less than half the price.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 7, 2021)

unfocused said:


> If the past is any indication, it seems as though Canon has never been adamant about restricting 3rd parties. They aren't going to make it easy, but they are content to let them reverse engineer their mounts. To me, this makes perfect sense. An overly aggressive approach might alienate customers.
> 
> There have been some cases (according to people on the internet) where in the past Canon changed lens protocols and some third party lenses quit working or quit working well. Some people claim that was a deliberate effort by Canon to undermine the competitors, but I believe the official explanation, which makes sense, is that Canon doesn't feel any obligation to make sure third party products work with their products when they need to make changes to improve the performance of their own products. Presumably, one reason why Sigma and Tamron have gone to consoles that enable user-updatable firmware has been to make sure their lenses stay compatible with manufacturer's products.


Seeing that there is a 3rd party control ring R mount adapter then the protocols are probably not encrypted but that should be simple to reverse engineer vs combined IBIS/OIS. I would be surprised if Canon allowed IBIS/OIS to be independently switched off in the next firmware but it would be needed for the 3rd parties to get stabilisation working well.

The Magic Lantern project was the big one for the 5Diii in my opinion. The 5Dii is renowed for combining video/stills hybrid but if Canon marketing allowed even some of the features of Magic Lantern into the production model firmware of the 5Diii then it would have been remarkable. Even now, ETTR isn't a specific feature. Allowing the R5 engineers to let loose caused the overheating drama that has never gone away unfortunately. Despite improving record times significantly with new firmware and external recorders providing a perfect solution for those that need it. First impressions do count.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 8, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Here in the UK
> 
> Sigma 150-600 DG DN Sport = £1199
> Tamron 150-500 = £1379
> ...


For those wanting to avoid the high RF prices, you can get the Sigma EF versions and get the adapter. Their Contemporary, Sports, and Art line of lenses are all compatible with the "R system" cameras, as far as I know. Not sure about Tamron. And, of course, most of the Canon EF lenses are available considerably cheaper. So for those who really want to get quality, but less expensive lenses for their R series cameras, the options are there and fairly obvious. For those who are unwilling to accept these options, there really is no reason to complain - other than just wanting to whine and complain on a forum, which seems to be a popular pastime. 

it seems quite reasonable to expect Canon to do all they can to restrict 3rd party lenses. Sigma, Tamron and all the others didn't pay a penny of all the R&D costs for the 5 R system cameras and all the new lenses. If the time comes when Canon believes that the amount they will make by granting the licensing to 3rd party makers is worth it, then it will happen.


----------



## AJ (Nov 8, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> it seems quite reasonable to expect Canon to do all they can to restrict 3rd party lenses.



Meanwhile Sony licenses their e-mount protocol to Sigma. To me that's the more reasonable approach. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## preppyak (Nov 8, 2021)

unfocused said:


> *"The biggest roadblock for SIGMA is apparently manufacturing capabilities beyond just the issues from the pandemic."*
> 
> But the experts on this forum keep telling us that it is Canon's fault that Sigma has not yet released any RF lenses. Don't tell me they are wrong!


Pretty simple, this one. EOS R released in 2018, and we still have no Sigma or Tamron lenses. Sigma obviously worked with Panasonic to release their entire lineup with L-mount. Once the Sony FE mount had market penetration (building to the a7III, really), they developed lenses for that.

Canon already had the market penetration for Sigma/Tamron to build those lenses if they licensed them. Hell, the Tamron 28-75 raked it in for both Tamron and Sony in terms of people moving to the a7III. Canon just, as usual, protected their own margins at the expense of faster adoption rates.

Doesnt seem to have hurt them as Nikon continues to flail, and the L-Mount hasnt really taken off (because its just as pricey and large)


----------



## Jethro (Nov 8, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> If someone wants to get to 500/600mm but for a reasonable price a 100-400 won’t cut it for a lot of people.


Add a 1.4x extender (about £500?) and you'll get to that range, at a comparable or lower price, with decent results (although nowhere near the RF 100-500 L).


----------



## unfocused (Nov 8, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Here in the UK
> 
> Sigma 150-600 DG DN Sport = £1199
> Tamron 150-500 = £1379
> ...


I suspect there are more than a few enthusiasts who bought both the Canon 100-400 and one of the 600mm zooms. I bought the Sigma Contemporary because I wanted the extra reach of the 600 zoom. I could have used a 1.4 extender with the 100-400, but with a DSLR that meant you were restricted to only the f8 autofocus points, which in the case of the 7DII, meant having only one center point. 

With the Sigma I could use all the autofocus point selections because it "fooled" the Canon DSLRs into thinking it was an f5.6 lens. But, the 100-400 was a much easier lens to pack and carry and I preferred the sharpness and responsiveness of the 100-400 most of the time.

With the 100-500, I can replace both the 100-400 EF lens and the Sigma 600 zoom. Consolidating to one lens means that the total cost is less than the two combined, plus I get a lighter lens and no longer have the hassle of choosing which lens to carry. 

But, as others have said, it's not just about the 100-500, there are also the budget 600 and 800 lenses and the new 100-400 budget lens. 

My point is that the combination of these four Canon lenses significantly reduced the market for the 600mm zooms. 

As I said, these lenses were cash cows for Sigma and Tamron, but I have to think it would be much harder for them to slap on an RF mount and sell these same basic lenses, given the options Canon is providing. Could Sigma and Tamron come up with new lenses that fill a niche Canon isn't meeting with the RF lenses. Yes, but that requires new lens designs. Thus my point that Sigma and Tamron need to study the market and determine what niche they can fill.


----------



## Otara (Nov 8, 2021)

I suspect the real competition is the EF 600mm zooms - probably most people wanting one already had one, so you're asking them to sell off the EF to get the RF, which isnt too likely without some kind of real advantage features wise, and other than price there probably isnt much they can do.

Bird watching has grown during lockdowns but I suspect the number of truly new RF 600mm zoom type users is still fairly small.


----------



## tangerine_sedge (Nov 8, 2021)

unfocused said:


> If your production facilities are already running short of needed parts and materials while trying to meet current demand, adding a new product line that will increase demand and further strain your available resources isn't a good business decision. If that new product line also requires changes in design and modifications in your production lines, it might not be a good idea to make those changes in the middle of a supply shortage. If you are making those changes to meet potential demand for a relatively new product, exercising some caution and not diverting resources from already successful products also makes sense.
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, getting product to market is the single biggest challenge facing manufacturers today. Thus, what @Canon Rumors Guy 's sources have told him makes sense. He has a lot more experience and a lot better sources than random people on this forum. I have no reason to doubt him. Why do you think you know more about the situation than his sources do?


At some point Sigma will have to start making RF lenses, and at the moment there are huge holes across the RF range, begging to be filled. I'm surprised that Sigma is not not dipping a toe in the RF market with a single lens just as a discovery activity to understand the issues. Sigma already has excellent EF lens designs for many of those gaps therefore the engineering effort to convert them to RF is relatively small (in comparison). 

The market for EF is obviously shrinking (see the regular announcements from Canon about EF lenses being discontinued and stocks run down). It would be poor business sense for Sigma to remain stuck in the EF world ignoring where all the growth is going to come from. Sigma could easily swap out one of the existing lense production lines and start building a single RF lense, why can't they do that? They've had a few years of RF mount to start planning that...

I have no better sources than what @Canon_Rumours_Guy has said, but it seems an excuse rather than a reason. We've already heard 2 reasons why Sigma are not producing RF lenses (they can't manufacture them/Canon won't let them), and this is a rumour forum, so I'll throw my opinion into the mix too


----------



## gruhl28 (Nov 8, 2021)

rbr said:


> Canon seems to be trying to turn their mount into some sort of creepy cult isolated from the rest of the photographic world. That's the way it feels sometimes. If you buy into the Canon system you become forced to use their and only their optical designs and get cut off from the outside world and all the innovations that are taking place elsewhere from lens makers such as Zeiss, Sigma, and Tamron.


I don't know about "creepy cult", but yes, Canon is trying to force customers to buy Canon lenses for their Canon cameras. Annoying to those of us interested in third party lenses, but not that surprising given Canon's history. Their primary goal is making money, and they seem to believe (perhaps correctly) that this will make them more money.


----------



## PennyDreadful (Nov 8, 2021)

Hope this will be real. I use the eos r5 with sigma 14mm f.18 art with the adapter. i want sigma for RF monunt soon!


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 8, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> The manager of my local camera shop was told something very similar by a Sigma UK rep. He also mentioned that that Sigma had an agreement with Canon to NOT produce RF lenses for the 1st 3 years of the RF mount.
> 
> Also I recently watched a YT video by Grays of Westminster who are a Nikon store exclusively. They mentioned being told by a Sigma UK rep that Sigma won’t reverse engineer any lenses for mirrorless. If they don’t get the AF protocols for a mount they won’t support it.



I've seen references indicating EF protocols were never licensed to third party lens makers, but that the reverse-engineering simply got good enough. Seems like there is much contradictory info out there. 

We do know that Sony actively tried to get third parties to make lenses back when it had few lenses to offer itself. This is true now of Fuji too.

We may later find in retrospect that the RF protocol's encryption element was enough of a fear-inducing element that some third parties didn't want to create a customer base that later could be stranded by a future firmware update. 

My RF 85mm f/1.4 Samyang is a fantastic lens. Has all RF pins, but I assume it's essentially a dressed-up EF lens with a thin adapter in there. In any case, it can take better pictures than I'm capable of composing. Of the list of Sigma mirrorless lenses, there are three I would purchase on day one if they were to offer them in RF.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 8, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Its been rumoured that Sigma refuse to reverse engineer for mirrorless and that they’ll only produce glass on mounts for which they have protocols provided to them by the OEM. I would guess that Sigma don’t want a situation where their emount glass has licensed support and the AF has near/matching native level performance but RF is reverse engineered and the AF is noticeably inferior compared to native RF glass.
> 
> Remember Tamron, Zeiss, Tokina and Voigtländer haven’t supported the RF mount yet either.



Zeiss and Voigtlander don't even require any new protocols! No AF. That means they could essentially build in an adapter and use EF protocols they already have. 

Samyang/Rokinon HAVE made RF glass, even some that does AF. How did they do it? Using EF protocols? China has a reputation for ignoring patents and intellectual property, so it could also be that they got a copy of the RF protocols and used it without license. 


blackcoffee17 said:


> It's the extra size and weight + have to carry the adapter too. When you have a small lens, the adapter adds significant extra size.


I suppose everyone is different, but what you mention is fully a non-issue for me. Once the lens is on, you don't even notice the adapter is there. If you are changing between EF lenses, you just push a different button for the lens release. Its almost fully transparent. The weight is negligible, and while you can measure than an RF equivalent would be an inch or two shorter and a couple of ounces lighter, in practice what you are using is not any larger or heavier than it was on a DSLR. I sometimes feel that people who say things like this about the adapter just haven't really tried it. Of course I'm sure there are people who shoot differently than I do, and maybe they are changing multiple lenses very often. 

Brian


----------



## SNJ Ops (Nov 8, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Zeiss and Voigtlander don't even require any new protocols! No AF. That means they could essentially build in an adapter and use EF protocols they already have.
> 
> Samyang/Rokinon HAVE made RF glass, even some that does AF. How did they do it? Using EF protocols? China has a reputation for ignoring patents and intellectual property, so it could also be that they got a copy of the RF protocols and used it without license.
> 
> ...


A few points

The Zeiss Batis lenses all have AF.

Yes Voigtlander don't need AF protocols and yet they still haven't supported the RF or Z mount. They did however release a lens for X mount AFTER Fuji opened it up.

Samyang stopped making RF lenses very abruptly and never explained why, Rokinon don't sell lenses in Europe directly the only way to get them in this part of the world is to import but we wouldn't get a warranty which for many people here won't be an option.

There are many of us who simply only want native mount glass on our bodies, whether that's 3rd party or OEM. Then there's the fact that native mirrorless glass often is sharper, smaller, lighter, faster to focus, is designed to resolve more megapixels and designed to shoot at faster frame rates. Its perfectly fine if people want to adapt their DSLR lenses but for those don't their options are very limited at the moment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> Its perfectly fine if people want to adapt their DSLR lenses but for those don't their options are very limited at the moment.


There are 24 RF mount lenses. I wouldn’t call that ‘very limiting’.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 8, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> Samyang/Rokinon HAVE made RF glass, even some that does AF. How did they do it? Using EF protocols? China has a reputation for ignoring patents and intellectual property, so it could also be that they got a copy of the RF protocols and used it without license.


FYI Samyang is a Korean company, not Chinese.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Nov 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are 24 RF mount lenses. I wouldn’t call that ‘very limiting’.


24 lenses is no where near a full line up.. Sony has loads more options and even emount is a fair way from being complete even with 3rd party options.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> 24 lenses is no where near a full line up.. Sony has loads more options and even emount is a fair way from being complete even with 3rd party options.


Agreed. But Sony started in FF MILCs several years before Canon (in fact, Sony started just after Canon entered the APS-C MILC market, and I'm sure that was not a coincidence). The RF mount is only three years old. Three years into the FE mount, Sony had put out 18 lenses.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed. But Sony started in FF MILCs several years before Canon (in fact, Sony started just after Canon entered the APS-C MILC market, and I'm sure that was not a coincidence). The RF mount is only three years old. Three years into the FE mount, Sony had put out 18 lenses.



24 lenses? Wow, that sneaked up on us over the years. I remember it was just a handful of medium focal length, wide-aperture lenses when I first started paying attention.


----------



## newy_pics (Nov 8, 2021)

Looking forward to Sigma RF lenses. I'm currently deliberating on what wide angle lens to purchase for my canon R3. I have a 100-500 (RF), 70-200 (EF), 50mm (EF) and would love the 15-35 RF 2.8 however I'm all outta $$. Can anyone recommend a good cheapish EF lens (With max aperture of 2.8) to adapt for the R3? Currently considering the Samyang 14mm 2.8 AF EF. Samyang have an RF version however they've dropped the RF mount recently and I'm not confident firmware will be given much back end support.


----------



## slclick (Nov 8, 2021)

It took 32+ years for the entire line of EF glass (191-ish lenses) I think the RF line is doing pretty well for having 24 by this point. Thinking there should be far more (during a pandemic and all that it brings) is shortsighted. Furthermore, Canon has never licensed their mounts. So no, that isn't a point up for debate.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 8, 2021)

newy_pics said:


> Looking forward to Sigma RF lenses. I'm currently deliberating on what wide angle lens to purchase for my canon R3. I have a 100-500 (RF), 70-200 (EF), 50mm (EF) and would love the 15-35 RF 2.8 however I'm all outta $$. Can anyone recommend a good cheapish EF lens (With max aperture of 2.8) to adapt for the R3? Currently considering the Samyang 14mm 2.8 AF EF. Samyang have an RF version however they've dropped the RF mount recently and I'm not confident firmware will be given much back end support.


I know you want f/2.8, but if you could go down a stop, the EF 16-35mm f/4 is a superb lens.


----------



## rbr (Nov 8, 2021)

newy_pics said:


> Looking forward to Sigma RF lenses. I'm currently deliberating on what wide angle lens to purchase for my canon R3. I have a 100-500 (RF), 70-200 (EF), 50mm (EF) and would love the 15-35 RF 2.8 however I'm all outta $$. Can anyone recommend a good cheapish EF lens (With max aperture of 2.8) to adapt for the R3? Currently considering the Samyang 14mm 2.8 AF EF. Samyang have an RF version however they've dropped the RF mount recently and I'm not confident firmware will be given much back end support.



The Sigma 14-24 is the best ultra wide angle lens I have ever used on a Canon camera. Check out Dustin Abbott's reviews. I have never used the latest f2.8 16-35 EF L lens, but it puts the 16-35f4L IS to shame. The Sigma is big and heavy, but it's awesome. I sure would like to try the DG DN version that is offered for Sony.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 8, 2021)

rbr said:


> The Sigma 14-24 is the best ultra wide angle lens I have ever used on a Canon camera. Check out Dustin Abbott's reviews. I have never used the latest f2.8 16-35 EF L lens, but it puts the 16-35f4L IS to shame. The Sigma is big and heavy, but it's awesome. I sure would like to try the DG DN version that is offered for Sony.


I'm a big fan of that one too. I now have the 15-35 f/2.8, so I don't miss it but so much, but if I were to look for an inexpensive super wide zoom, that would certainly be the one.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 9, 2021)

slclick said:


> It took 32+ years for the entire line of EF glass (191-ish lenses) I think the RF line is doing pretty well for having 24 by this point. Thinking there should be far more (during a pandemic and all that it brings) is shortsighted. Furthermore, Canon has never licensed their mounts. So no, that isn't a point up for debate.


Canon does license their mounts to Red and in case of EF-M to sigma themselves.


----------



## slclick (Nov 9, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Canon does license their mounts to Red and in case of EF-M to sigma themselves.


Thanks


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 9, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Canon does license their mounts to Red and in case of EF-M to sigma themselves.


Are you sure? The M-mount lens protocols are the same as the EF-mount protocols, which Sigma has reverse engineered.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed. But Sony started in FF MILCs several years before Canon (in fact, Sony started just after Canon entered the APS-C MILC market, and I'm sure that was not a coincidence). The RF mount is only three years old. Three years into the FE mount, Sony had put out 18 lenses.


I realize that 24 lenses is not a fully developed system, but it is also pretty clear that Canon's RF lens lineup now covers probably 80-90% of the most commonly sold and used EF lenses (either with direct RF replacements or comparable RF models that fill similar demands). Just a quick glance and I would say that the most common lenses that are missing are a 70-300 zoom and 24 and 28 mm primes. Most of the other missing lenses are specialized lenses, like an ultra-wide zoom, fisheye, tilt-shift or certain Big Whites. Others are ancient lenses like the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6, which Canon pretty much abandoned in the EF lineup. 

Overall, I'm hard pressed to think of a commonly used focal length that isn't available either in prime or zoom form. If someone thinks the lenses lineup is "very limiting" they aren't trying very hard.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I realize that 24 lenses is not a fully developed system, but it is also pretty clear that Canon's RF lens lineup now covers probably 80-90% of the most commonly sold and used EF lenses (either with direct RF replacements or comparable RF models that fill similar demands). Just a quick glance and I would say that the most common lenses that are missing are a 70-300 zoom and 24 and 28 mm primes. Most of the other missing lenses are specialized lenses, like an ultra-wide zoom, fisheye, tilt-shift or certain Big Whites. Others are ancient lenses like the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6, which Canon pretty much abandoned in the EF lineup.
> 
> Overall, I'm hard pressed to think of a commonly used focal length that isn't available either in prime or zoom form. If someone thinks the lenses lineup is "very limiting" they aren't trying very hard.


Agreed! I don't think Canon feels compelled to recreate the entire current EF lineup in the RF mount. There are notable RF gaps in the 'main lenses', e.g. 24mm and 35mm L-series primes, but most are already released.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 9, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I don't really buy this line. The heavier the lens, the more we hold the lens and the less we hold the body, I think. I've never note that a 50/1.8 Mk I balances better or worse than the 50/1.0, that the 70-200/2.8 is better or worse than the 135/2.0, etc. I'll grant the center of gravity is different. They don't feel the same, for sure. And some are just too heavy, of course. There's surely some amount of shooting which is going to be tiring with the RF 50/1.2 but not the EF 50/1.2 I can imagine. But mere bad balance? I don't get it.


The balance would be a bigger issue if the lens isn't held. Not sure if you've seen the newer generation of wedding and portrait photographers who hold their cameras at arms length by the body with two hands and shoot while viewing from the rear display, much like a smartphone? There's plenty on YouTube... Some claim they've gotten RSI in their wrists from using heavy lenses, and have been switching to the smaller, lighter RF lenses like the Rf 85mm f/2. Holding a heavy new RF lens this way for hours each day will definitely mess up your wrists. Bad way to hold a camera? Sure is!


----------



## kaihp (Nov 9, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> China has a reputation for ignoring patents and intellectual property, so it could also be that they got a copy of the RF protocols and used it without license.


Ten and fifteen years ago, this was a reasonable reputation. Over the last years, China have become much more interested in and willing to enforce IP rights, as it is now in their interest in doing so (Chinese companies have over the years aquired many companies which means that they now own a considerable amount of IPR).


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 9, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Ten and fifteen years ago, this was a reasonable reputation. Over the last years, China have become much more interested in and willing to enforce IP rights, as it is now in their interest in doing so (Chinese companies have over the years aquired many companies which means that they now own a considerable amount of IPR).


That's not what the evidence shows... No, China still ignores Canon's questionable heavy-handed tactics when it comes to third-party lenses. Look at all the third-party RF lenses that are left on the market after Canon shut down the Korean Samyang/Rokinon RF offerings. You'll find they're all from China. Why? Because they don't give a flying f-stop about a Japanese corporation who can't do diddly squat to them about the situation. What are Canon going to do, complain to the Chinese government???


----------



## AJ (Nov 9, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> don't give a flying f-stop


I like that expression. I'm going to start using that in my daily interactions.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 9, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> That's not what the evidence shows... No, China still ignores Canon's questionable heavy-handed tactics when it comes to third-party lenses. Look at all the third-party RF lenses that are left on the market after Canon shut down the Korean Samyang/Rokinon RF offerings. You'll find they're all from China. Why? Because they don't give a flying f-stop about a Japanese corporation who can't do diddly squat to them about the situation. What are Canon going to do, complain to the Chinese government???



Since you state that "the evidence shows", then please show the evidence that Canon has gone to court (or tried to) in China and got ignored or refused.

LEGO (the toy building brick company) have successfully taken Chinese copycats to court and won. First time was around 15 years ago. Note that I didn't say that China has become 'perfect', has become a 'rechtsstaat' or that it treats foreign and domestic companies equally. I'm only saying that China has gotten '_better_' over the last 10-15 years. (there's possibly an argument somewhere for the statement that they couldn't any get worse).

A lot of people claim things like "China does X" or "China is Y" when they have in fact never set foot there, haven't worked there, haven't spoken with the people, don't speak the language, and don't understand the culture. That includes some fairly well-known journalists and self-proclaimed 'China experts' in the US and in Europe.

I'm not an 'expert' on China in any way, but I have lived and worked there for 2½ years and can speak/read and write a bit. That probably puts me ahead of 90-95% of everyone else.


----------



## Fischer (Nov 9, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I realize that 24 lenses is not a fully developed system, but it is also pretty clear that Canon's RF lens lineup now covers probably 80-90% of the most commonly sold and used
> Overall, I'm hard pressed to think of a commonly used focal length that isn't available either in prime or zoom form. If someone thinks the lenses lineup is "very limiting" they aren't trying very hard.


Some people need a specific lens for their photography. I used to take 50-60% of my pictures with the 300 f/2.8 IS L - I miss an RF version a lot, and the RF 100-500 is no substitute at all.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 9, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Some people need a specific lens for their photography. I used to take 50-60% of my pictures with the 300 f/2.8 IS L - I miss an RF version a lot, and the RF 100-500 is no substitute at all.



Yes, the missing RF 300 f/2.8 and an RF version of the 200-400mm f/4 is very curious to me too. Since the R3 'supplemental information' pages indicated that they are fully supported in terms of AF, shutter speed and everything else, I expect (well... I _hope_) that they'll work very well with the EF-RF adapter that's sitting here on my shelf waiting for an R3 body to pair up to.

Canon, gimme gimme that R3.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 9, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Some people need a specific lens for their photography. I used to take 50-60% of my pictures with the 300 f/2.8 IS L - I miss an RF version a lot, and the RF 100-500 is no substitute at all.


You can't expect that a lens system will be built out overnight or even in a year or two. No company has infinite production resources. That's even more true today in light of worldwide manufacturing challenges. 

Existing EF lenses continue to work on R bodies with the adapter, so if one absolutely needs a lens for their business, it is available. 

Canon simply has to prioritize and that is my point. It's only natural that their priorities would focus on the most in demand lenses and they've done a good job in meeting the bulk of the market. 

You may really, really need a 300 f2.8 but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that it's a very small minority of photographers who fit into the category.


----------



## Otara (Nov 9, 2021)

I wonder if the sales of the RF big whites gave an idea of how vital these kinds of lenses are to get to market too.

I wouldn't get an RF 500 f4 even if it came out because I like having the adapter with filter option with my EF. I know there are 'adapters over my dead body' people, but rather suspect there are more than a few who arent, given the increase in price.


----------



## slclick (Nov 9, 2021)

unfocused said:


> You can't expect that a lens system will be built out overnight or even in a year or two. No company has infinite production resources. That's even more true today in light of worldwide manufacturing challenges.
> 
> Existing EF lenses continue to work on R bodies with the adapter, so if one absolutely needs a lens for their business, it is available.
> 
> ...


You continue to use logic and facts here. When will you learn?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2021)

Otara said:


> I wouldn't get an RF 500 f4 even if it came out because I like having the adapter with filter option with my EF. I know there are 'adapters over my dead body' people, but rather suspect there are more than a few who arent, given the increase in price.


That’s a good rationale for lenses like the EF 11-24mm and TS-E 17mm, and it’s why any RF replacement would need to offer something major to outweigh that advantage for my use of those two lenses.

But like my EF 600/4 II, your 500/4 already has a drop-in filter slot. I’m curious as to why you need a second slot. I’m not planning to swap my 600 II for the RF version, but the adapter isn’t the reason.


----------



## Otara (Nov 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s a good rationale for lenses like the EF 11-24mm and TS-E 17mm, and it’s why any RF replacement would need to offer something major to outweigh that advantage for my use of those two lenses.
> 
> But like my EF 600/4 II, your 500/4 already has a drop-in filter slot. I’m curious as to why you need a second slot. I’m not planning to swap my 600 II for the RF version, but the adapter isn’t the reason.



I can use it for any lens rather than having to buy a lens specific one for the 500mm. Also no variable ND for the drop in 500mm at this stage.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Nov 10, 2021)

Others have already mentioned reverse engineering the protocols... but there is another handshake that important if they want to release an IS lens... and that's effectively communicating with IBIS unit. With the release of the R5/R6... 3rd party lenses got quiet.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 10, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Since you state that "the evidence shows", then please show the evidence that Canon has gone to court (or tried to) in China and got ignored or refused.
> 
> LEGO (the toy building brick company) have successfully taken Chinese copycats to court and won. First time was around 15 years ago. Note that I didn't say that China has become 'perfect', has become a 'rechtsstaat' or that it treats foreign and domestic companies equally. I'm only saying that China has gotten '_better_' over the last 10-15 years. (there's possibly an argument somewhere for the statement that they couldn't any get worse).
> 
> ...


Not up on the Lego case and its details, but that sounds like a knock-off or a fake version, which other countries can ban from being imported, because of consumer protection laws, where the product is purporting to be something its not.

The logical fallacy here is false equivalence, because were talking about a Chinese company designing their own unique patented products that work as accessories on someone else's products. That would like BMW trying to ban other companies from making aftermarket windscreen wipers.

Note that I qualified my initial statement when I specified we were talking about Canon-compatible lenses, and not everything that China does in the broad world of international commerce. I was talking specifics, not generalities. The evidence is the existence of Chinese made Rf mount lenses, you can go order them yourself from China online!


----------



## HarryFilm (Nov 10, 2021)

All this is going to be a MOOT POINT in a few days ..... SUPER LIGHT-WEIGHT High Refractive Index Sapphire-coated all-Acrylic lens elements, adaptive shape-changing optics and computational photography algorithms melded together in a FULLY OPENS SOURCE under GPL-3 licence terms lens system.

P.S. Anybody want an f/2.8 9600 mm SHARP Super-Telephoto lens with very very little chromatic aberration for around $2000 USD?

V


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 10, 2021)

HarryFilm said:


> All this is going to be a MOOT POINT in a few days ..... SUPER LIGHT-WEIGHT High Refractive Index Sapphire-coated all-Acrylic lens elements, adaptive shape-changing optics and computational photography algorithms melded together in a FULLY OPENS SOURCE under GPL-3 licence terms lens system.
> 
> P.S. Anybody want an f/2.8 9600 mm SHARP Super-Telephoto lens with very very little chromatic aberration for around $2000 USD?
> 
> V


 Context really helps when you make a statement that reads like something out of a science-fiction novel. Have aliens landed, or did you get those flux capacitors working and have come back from the future? What exactly are you going on about here???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Context really helps when you make a statement that reads like something out of a science-fiction novel. Have aliens landed, or did you get those flux capacitors working and have come back from the future? What exactly are you going on about here???


Treat such posts as if they are statements from young child who’s gotten ahold of some advanced textbooks and excerpted words at random in a vain attempt to sound impressive.

Or do what those of us who’ve been here a while do, and ignore @HarryFilm.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 10, 2021)

HarryFilm said:


> All this is going to be a MOOT POINT in a few days ..... SUPER LIGHT-WEIGHT High Refractive Index Sapphire-coated all-Acrylic lens elements, adaptive shape-changing optics and computational photography algorithms melded together in a FULLY OPENS SOURCE under GPL-3 licence terms lens system.
> 
> P.S. Anybody want an f/2.8 9600 mm SHARP Super-Telephoto lens with very very little chromatic aberration for around $2000 USD?
> 
> V


A 9600mm f/2.8 would be greater than 3400mm (11 feet) wide.


----------



## Fischer (Nov 10, 2021)

unfocused said:


> You can't expect that a lens system will be built out overnight or even in a year or two. No company has infinite production resources. That's even more true today in light of worldwide manufacturing challenges.
> 
> Existing EF lenses continue to work on R bodies with the adapter, so if one absolutely needs a lens for their business, it is available.
> 
> ...


Who said I expected anything? I replied to a statement saying that the existing lineup and zooms could cover all needs. Not true. And I still miss it. There are two other - much less popular - big whites with RF mount already, so it certainly could have happened by now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> A 9600mm f/2.8 would be greater than 3400mm (11 feet) wide.


With @HarryFilm‘s superawesomefantastic open source technology, such a lens would be only the size of a dry erase marker.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 10, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Who said I expected anything? I replied to a statement saying that the existing lineup and zooms could cover all needs. Not true. And I still miss it. There are two other - much less popular - big whites with RF mount already, so it certainly could have happened by now.


Then I don’t understand why you replied to my post, since I didn’t say anything like that. If someone said that you should reply to them.
As a side note to your second point, what evidence do you have that the two existing big whites are much less popular than the one you want? And how does the existence of two other lenses prove that Canon could have released a third lens by now?, since you probably aren’t privy to their sales data and manufacturing capacity.


----------



## AJ (Nov 10, 2021)

I too do think that Canon's current RF lineup of 24 lenses covers virtually all applications in photography. Perhaps there are a few exceptions where an EF lens is needed with an adapter, but that's just fine for now.
What I think what Sigma brings to the table is (1) better prices, and (2) availability. For example, Sigma's 35/1.4 DG DN for Sony costs $900 and Canon's 35/1.4L mk2 costs $1800. The much-anticipated Canon 35/1.2 will likely cost a lot more than that. 
Much has been said about Sigma 150-600 versus Canon RF 100-500. I'm sure that the Canon is a tad better and some people prefer it for that reason. For me, the 100-500 is simply too rich for my blood. I bought the Sigma when it first came out and I'm extremely happy with it. It perfectly serves my needs as an amateur. I suppose that we have the 100-400 now, but I really appreciate the extra reach and extra 2/3 stop at the long end of the Sigma lens.


----------



## dsut4392 (Nov 11, 2021)

Nemorino said:


> @David - Sydney There is one 3rd party lens with control ring:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Viltrox also make an EF-RF adapter with control ring.


----------



## Fischer (Nov 11, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Then I don’t understand why you replied to my post, since I didn’t say anything like that. If someone said that you should reply to them.
> As a side note to your second point, what evidence do you have that the two existing big whites are much less popular than the one you want? And how does the existence of two other lenses prove that Canon could have released a third lens by now?, since you probably aren’t privy to their sales data and manufacturing capacity.


1) Seems pretty obvious to me: "Overall, I'm hard pressed to think of a commonly used focal length that isn't available either in prime or zoom form. _*If someone thinks the lenses lineup is "very limiting" they aren't trying very hard.*_" I do not agree - trying hard is simply not a solution if you do not have the right tools.

2) Canon notoriously does not talk about specific lens sale numbers. However, there are far more user reviews on popular photo sites and at large photo stores for the 300mm than the two others. There is also no comparison in the number of pictures posted online between the three. So in addition to more anecdotal evidence such as discussions in photo forums etc. we have very strong evidence that 300mm is by far the most popular of the three.

3) I trust the last comment is written in jest.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 11, 2021)

Fischer said:


> 2) Canon notoriously does not talk about specific lens sale numbers. However, there are far more user reviews on popular photo sites and at large photo stores for the 300mm than the two others. There is also no comparison in the number of pictures posted online between the three. So in addition to more anecdotal evidence such as discussions in photo forums etc. we have very strong evidence that 300mm is by far the most popular of the three.


The 300/2.8 is a ‘cheap’ great white so it makes sense that it’s more popular. IIRC, in an interview Canon indicated that the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 were developed ahead of schedule based on requests from professional photographers.


----------



## EricN (Nov 11, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 300/2.8 is a ‘cheap’ great white so it makes sense that it’s more popular. IIRC, in an interview Canon indicated that the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 were developed ahead of schedule based on requests from professional photographers.


I remember this too


----------



## jwpatmore (Nov 18, 2021)

Hopefully they release lightweight alternatives like they have been doing for the Sony E-mount. It seems like a lot of their lenses are heavier than Canon's native EF lenses.


----------



## bergstrom (Nov 21, 2021)

want a sigma RF 14-35 f4 or f2.8 and be half the price of canon


----------



## JPAZ (Dec 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 300/2.8 is a ‘cheap’ great white so it makes sense that it’s more popular. IIRC, in an interview Canon indicated that the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 were developed ahead of schedule based on requests from professional photographers.


My EF 300 f/2.8 ii works well with a 2xTC and EF to RF adapter. Agree that is was "cheap" compared to other great whites in that era. I am not anxious to change this to an RF mount, were it to be produced. I wonder if others feel the same way and suspect that's why Canon has not yet done an upgrade.


----------



## JPAZ (Dec 6, 2021)

I get decent results with my Signa 15mm f/2.8 EX DG. Worked fine on my DSLR but now, using it on the R5 with an adapter, I need to use MF and shut down IBIS to get clear images. Fortunately, was able to set up a Custom Mode for this so now I just need to remember to move from M to C3 (actually made a label for the lens case ). Although the EXIF transmits and although the lens works with AF (slow and really hunts a lot to fix on a focus point), do wonder if a native RF lens would do a better job. But, I think the Fisheye demand is relatively small so I am not holding my breath.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jan 20, 2022)

Andy Westwood said:


> Interestingly he also said once Canon issue a licence, Sigma will offer a service to convert certain Sigma EF mount lenses to a standard RF mount.


!! I hope this is true! I just got the RF85 1.2 and manual focusing is somewhat sloppy - not as bad as the Sigma 70mm Art - but sloppy compared to all my non focus-by-wire glass. To convert all my Sigma Art glass to RF would be wonderful!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jan 20, 2022)

kaihp said:


> Since you state that "the evidence shows", then please show the evidence that Canon has gone to court (or tried to) in China and got ignored or refused.
> 
> LEGO (the toy building brick company) have successfully taken Chinese copycats to court and won. First time was around 15 years ago. Note that I didn't say that China has become 'perfect', has become a 'rechtsstaat' or that it treats foreign and domestic companies equally. I'm only saying that China has gotten '_better_' over the last 10-15 years. (there's possibly an argument somewhere for the statement that they couldn't any get worse).
> 
> ...


I spent a year there working in factories; not corporate offices. I also am not an expert, but I avoid buying anything made there and I have yet to buy a Chinese lens. I did buy a Nisi ND filter and found it to strongly red-cast images.

I am sure some Chinese lenses are unique. In fact, the 'Venus Optics LAOWA Argus 33 mm f/0.95 CF APO' intrigued me until I looked at the poor resolution wide open. Why design a lens of that aperture that cannot be used wide open?


----------



## bergstrom (Jan 31, 2022)

No rumblings from Tamron, Sigma or Tokina?


----------



## Sean C (Mar 15, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> I also wondered if Sony made exclusivity deals with the third parties since they own part of Tamron and for gaming it’s quite normal to have an exclusive release on one platform for a set period of time. For example Sony exclusives like Horizon Zero Dawn were Sony exclusive for years then finally made their way to PC.


You'd only need to make the special not found elsewhere lenses exclusive as incentive to invest in the system.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 5, 2022)

Nearly 3/4 of the way through 2022 and still eagerly anticipating that 85mm DN Art and 105mm DN Macro


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 5, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> No rumblings from Tamron, Sigma or Tokina?


Whatever disincentive Canon provided them with to not to produce any new lenses on a RF platform that needs so many more lens choices must have been pretty effective!

Rather interesting how all the big third-party players are nicely and conveniently sitting idle (while producing lenses on every other lens mount platform), giving Canon time to release its mostly overly expensive new premium lenses and its new budget/entry level narrower aperture and/or heavily software corrected lenses, limiting choice and forcing RF lens buyers to buy Canon's offerings or go without. Quite a curiosity also how its nearly only Chinese lens manufacturers that are putting out RF compatible lenses. The Canon fanboys and brand loyalits tell us it's purely coincidental, and there's nothing to see here...


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 5, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Who said that? I haven't say anyone say that. All the Canon users I know, and that I see on this forum, see it as regrettable and most likely a purposeful move by Canon.


Hi SwissFrank, I wish that was the case, please feel free to look up some of the replies to my posts in earlier threads on this topic. I've read every rationalisation imaginable, some so convoluted and improbable that they were screaming justifications for the principle of Ockham's razor - where there are two competing theories, the simpler explanation (which is the one you've stated) is the preferred one.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 5, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Did you do so? If not, I got a 28/1.4 last month and that's sure to precipitate some action...


I've was thinking on similar lines, do I buy the Sigma Art 85mm EF lens, or hold off? Similarly, do I try the Rf 100-400mm lens, or will the promised RF150-600mm be a more attractive option if/when it materialises?


----------



## bergstrom (Aug 5, 2022)

I'd love an economics teacher to explain canon's strategy, "if your customers want something, don't give it to them, make them switch to other competitors".


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 5, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> Did you do so? If not, I got a 28/1.4 last month and that's sure to precipitate some action...


I did, and nothing happened. Maybe because I bought used.....

Brian


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> I'd love an economics teacher to explain canon's strategy, "if your customers want something, don't give it to them, make them switch to other competitors".


I’d love to have you explain your logic. “I want something that there is no demand for, so someone should make it just for me.”


----------



## bergstrom (Aug 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I’d love to have you explain your logic. “I want something that there is no demand for, so someone should make it just for me.”



customer is singular. Customers is plural. so multiple people want the same thing.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 5, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> customer is singular. Customers is plural. so multiple people want the same thing.


But not enough people to make it a priority.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 5, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I see in your sig that you really like primes!
> 
> I finally gave in and bought an EF-mount Sig 28/1.4, 1) because Canon is taking forever with the 35/1.x, 2) if 1.x=1.2 it'll probably more than I want to budget, 3) I had the EF 35/1.4 and I felt it was slightly too normal an angle while 24/1.4 was too wide, 4) given the 35/1.x Canon's probably never going to make a 28/1.4, 5) while I had heard this rumor of Sig coming to another platform, I think I heard it did and wasn't RF, so that was the end of that.
> 
> ...


Yeah it’s a bit outdated as I sold the M gear and replaced it with Fuji (also primes only) but I do own the RF 100-400mm and I’m somewhat interested in the 14-35mm L. 

If/when Sigma do release their lenses, their 85mm will replace the Canon F/2 and I’ll likely get that 105mm Macro as well.



LogicExtremist said:


> Whatever disincentive Canon provided them with to not to produce any new lenses on a RF platform that needs so many more lens choices must have been pretty effective!
> 
> Rather interesting how all the big third-party players are nicely and conveniently sitting idle (while producing lenses on every other lens mount platform), giving Canon time to release its mostly overly expensive new premium lenses and its new budget/entry level narrower aperture and/or heavily software corrected lenses, limiting choice and forcing RF lens buyers to buy Canon's offerings or go without. Quite a curiosity also how its nearly only Chinese lens manufacturers that are putting out RF compatible lenses. The Canon fanboys and brand loyalits tell us it's purely coincidental, and there's nothing to see here...


Not sure how true it is but I remember reading once that Sigma a rep told someone Canon would share the AF algorithm with them if they waited a certain period before releasing anything. 

The RF mount is coming up on 4 years soon so maybe at either that point or 5 years if it’s true. Sigma licensing the algorithm would be great too, they perform like native on Sony bodies.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 10, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Whatever disincentive Canon provided them with to not to produce any new lenses on a RF platform that needs so many more lens choices must have been pretty effective!
> 
> Rather interesting how all the big third-party players are nicely and conveniently sitting idle (while producing lenses on every other lens mount platform), giving Canon time to release its mostly overly expensive new premium lenses and its new budget/entry level narrower aperture and/or heavily software corrected lenses, limiting choice and forcing RF lens buyers to buy Canon's offerings or go without. Quite a curiosity also how its nearly only Chinese lens manufacturers that are putting out RF compatible lenses. The Canon fanboys and brand loyalits tell us it's purely coincidental, and there's nothing to see here...


I have seen claims on the internet about Canon doing deals with third parties such as Sigma not to produce RF mount lenses for a certain period, but frankly I think that is unlikely to be true. Deals, especially between competitors (such as Canon and lens manufacturers such as Sigma / Tamron / Samyang), which prevent or limit one or more of the parties from competing tend to fall found of anti-competitve conduct (anti-trust) laws. Those laws are often complex, and the laws of multiple countries may be relevant here which could further complicate things, but I suspect any deal between Canon and third party lens manufacturers not to compete would be a dangerous game to play.

So, if there is no deal prevening third party lens manufacturers making RF mount lesnes, two obvious possibilities to explain the very limited range of third party RF mount lenses are:

1. Canon has designed the RF mount / R system such that it is very hard, or impossible, to make auto-focusing lenses which work without infringing Canon's intellectual property, ie presumably one or more of Canon's patents. (Given we have seen a number of manual focus lenses, it seems AF is probably the difficult issue). If that is the case, whether we see many third party RF mount lenses is likely to come down to whether Canon is willing to grant licenses to use its IP ... and I understand Canon doesn't have a history of doing that very often. However, if this is the situation, you would think Canon would be putting a stop to any third party lens which infringes Canon's IP, yet there are a few RF lenses out there with AF (the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 and the Yongnuo 85mm f/1.8 to name two). For all I know they are using the AF system/protocols from EF days and avoiding infringing Canon's newer IP that way (albeit that would mean they are not taking advantage of all the RF mount has to offer), but if that is the only way third party lens manufacturers can make RF lenses without infringing Canon's IP, why wouldn't they all just do that? After all, EF lenses seem to AF well on R camera bodies even if RF lenses can be better still.

2. The commercial reality is there just aren't enough RF mount bodies out there yet to make it worthwhile for a third party manufacturer to produce RF mount lenses, ie they are commercially better off spending their time and money producing lenses for other mounts. Reading a forum like CR it is easy to get the impression almost everyone has bought an RF camera, Canon talks a good game about the RF system, supply shortages tend to create an impression of high demand (even if it is possible they simply reflect supply problems meaning only very few products are being produced rather than high demand), and of course Canon's market share is strong at least in general terms. However, does anyone outside Canon know how many R bodies have actually sold? The RF system is obviously still relatively young, so perhaps there really just aren't RF bodies out there yet to convince third party lens manufacturers its worth spending too much time on RF mount lenses at this stage of the game? If that is the case, whether/when we start to see more third party RF mount lenses will presumably depend on whether/when there are a critical mass of RF mount bodies out there in the wild.

At this point, I'm going with the theory that there simply aren't enough R bodies out there to entice third party manufacturers to be very interested in making RF mount lenses, simply becasue the other possibilities I can think of seem to me to be even less likely.

Anyone want to suggest any other possibilities?


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 10, 2022)

jd7 said:


> I have seen claims on the internet about Canon doing deals with third parties such as Sigma not to produce RF mount lenses for a certain period, but frankly I think that is unlikely to be true. Deals, especially between competitors (such as Canon and lens manufacturers such as Sigma / Tamron / Samyang), which prevent or limit one or more of the parties from competing tend to fall found of anti-competitve conduct (anti-trust) laws. Those laws are often complex, and the laws of multiple countries may be relevant here which could further complicate things, but I suspect any deal between Canon and third party lens manufacturers not to compete would be a dangerous game to play.
> 
> So, if there is no deal prevening third party lens manufacturers making RF mount lesnes, two obvious possibilities to explain the very limited range of third party RF mount lenses are:
> 
> ...


Going from what I have heard and been told directly in regards to Sigma; they are waiting on a license from both Canon and Nikon in order to make RF and Z mount glass and they they will not reverse engineer either mount. 

- Being part of the L mount alliance they will of course been given access to specs/protocols by Leica.

- Sigma alongside side other companies signed agreements with Sony in order to make lenses for emount which is why AF performance with 3rd party lenses is so good.

- Fuji previously had a largely closed mount but they changed their policy and opened up xmount in 2020 - https://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm...line-continues-no-gfx-fixed-lens-camera-more/
Soon after Sigma, Tamron and others made lenses for that platform in full agreement with Fuji. Sigma had said publicly before this happened that they couldn’t make lenses for Fuji as the mount was closed.

So unless agreements are reached with Canon I don’t think there will be any lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina or Voigtländer on RF.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 10, 2022)

jd7 said:


> I have seen claims on the internet about Canon doing deals with third parties such as Sigma not to produce RF mount lenses for a certain period, but frankly I think that is unlikely to be true. Deals, especially between competitors (such as Canon and lens manufacturers such as Sigma / Tamron / Samyang), which prevent or limit one or more of the parties from competing tend to fall found of anti-competitve conduct (anti-trust) laws. Those laws are often complex, and the laws of multiple countries may be relevant here which could further complicate things, but I suspect any deal between Canon and third party lens manufacturers not to compete would be a dangerous game to play.
> 
> So, if there is no deal prevening third party lens manufacturers making RF mount lesnes, two obvious possibilities to explain the very limited range of third party RF mount lenses are:
> 
> ...


There is no Samyang/Rokinon AF 85mm f/1.4 for RF mount anymore. That was an RF mount third party AF lens that was being sold in the retail market and just disappeared. Most likely Canon pulled some legal stunt related to IP to get them to take a popular lens that was selling well off the market, and even remove it from their own website.

It's not all bad though, Canon is happy to sell people some sort of consumer grade lens whatever the focal length, with darker aperture, possibly a crippled AF system or extreme optical distortion, for more money. "Less for more" is Canon's new marketing mantra! People do have the option to spend four times the money for the top-end professional grade lens which works properly if they like! It's all about choice!


----------



## jd7 (Aug 10, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> There is no Samyang/Rokinon AF 85mm f/1.4 for RF mount anymore. That was an RF mount third party AF lens that was being sold in the retail market and just disappeared. Most likely Canon pulled some legal stunt related to IP to get them to take a popular lens that was selling well off the market, and even remove it from their own website.
> 
> It's not all bad though, Canon is happy to sell people some sort of consumer grade lens whatever the focal length, with darker aperture, possibly a crippled AF system or extreme optical distortion, for more money. "Less for more" is Canon's new marketing mantra! People do have the option to spend four times the money for the top-end professional grade lens which works properly if they like! It's all about choice!


Well, Rokinon still advertises the AF 85mm f/1.4 for RF mount on its website, as well as the AF 14mm f/2.8 for RF mount.








85mm F1.4 AF High Speed Full Frame Telephoto (Canon RF)


Buy 85mm F1.4 AF High Speed Full Frame Telephoto (Canon RF) at Rokinon Lenses! The ROKINON® AF 85mm F1.4 Full Frame Telephoto for Canon RF mount is arguably the best value, high performance and affordable AF portrait prime available, superbly suited for both amateurs and professionals.This...




rokinon.com












14mm F2.8 AF Full Frame Ultra Wide Angle (Canon RF)


Buy 14mm F2.8 AF Full Frame Ultra Wide Angle (Canon RF) at Rokinon Lenses! The Rokinon IO14AF-RF was specifically designed for Canon RF mount. Its 113.9 degree ultra-wide angle view at this writing the widest available for any autofocus prime lens available for Canon R series mirrorless cameras...




rokinon.com





That said, I did a search just now and struggled to find anyone actually selling either of those lenses. I only found them on one online store (becextech.com.au) and that is not a store I know much about (I believe it has existed for some years, and sends products from Hong Kong to Australia, but I may be wrong).

I did find a shop I know well selling a Viltrox 85mm AF lens for RF mount though. 








Viltrox AF 85mm F1.8 II FF Lens - Canon EOS R


If you're looking for a simple, budget-friendly way to take your portrait photography to the next level, look no further than this Viltrox AF 85mm f1.8 II FF lens. This prime lens is designed for use on full-frame mirrorless bodies and its high-quality optical design assures that it is up to the...




www.teds.com.au





I believe there is a Yongnuo 85mm AF lens for RF mount around too.

So, is Canon really using legal means to keep third party RF mount lenses off the market? I wish I knew.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 10, 2022)

jd7 said:


> Well, Rokinon still advertises the AF 85mm f/1.4 for RF mount on its website, as well as the AF 14mm f/2.8 for RF mount.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Chinese companies such as Viltrox, Yongnuo and Laowa are producing third-party RF mount lenses, unlike Sigma, Samyang/Rokininon or Tamron.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 10, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Chinese companies such as Viltrox, Yongnuo and Laowa are producing third-party RF mount lenses, unlike Sigma, Samyang/Rokininon or Tamron.


Point taken. However, one of the links in my previous post is to a Viltrox lens being sold by a well known Australia business which has a number of physical stores as well as selling online. If the issue is Canon has difficulties enforcing its IP in China, you would think Canon would still be able to enforce, and would be enforcing, its IP in a place like Australia. In other words, if the Viltrox lens infringes Canon's IP, I would not expect to see it on sale in an Australian shop even if it is possible Canon could have difficult preventing a Chinese company making lenses and shipping them direct to customers from China.

It all seems a little bit odd to me.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 10, 2022)

jd7 said:


> Point taken. However, one of the links in my previous post is to a Viltrox lens being sold by a well known Australia business which has a number of physical stores as well as selling online. If the issue is Canon has difficulties enforcing its IP in China, you would think Canon would still be able to enforce, and would be enforcing, its IP in a place like Australia. In other words, if the Viltrox lens infringes Canon's IP, I would not expect to see it on sale in an Australian shop even if it is possible Canon could have difficult preventing a Chinese company making lenses and shipping them direct to customers from China.
> 
> It all seems a little bit odd to me.


It's basic patent law that: a) you have no rights to prevent others making devices to fit on your patented mount; b) it's legal to reverse engineer the code to get it to work. So, I don't know how Canon can use any IP to prevent 3rd party lenses.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 10, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It's basic patent law that: a) you have no rights to prevent others making devices to fit on your patented mount; b) it's legal to reverse engineer the code to get it to work. So, I don't know how Canon can use any IP to prevent 3rd party lenses.


In general terms, a patent is an IP right in respect of the "invention" of a method, process, substance, or device. It does not cover the practical result achieved by the invention though, essentially it covers the way in which that pracitcal result is achieved. To give a simple example, a pharmaceutical company which patents a drug which reduces inflammation is not able to stop another company producing a sufficiently different drug which similarly reduces inflammation. However, the patent will stop the other company simply copying the drug disclosed in the first company's patent.

To give an example in the photography world, not that many years ago Nikon sued Sigma for allegely infringing a Nikon patent conerning vibration reduction systems. Nikon sued over the VR system Sigma was using in six particular lenses, presumably because Nikon believed the VR systems in those lenses achieved their vibration reduction effect using a method which was essentially the same as the method of achieving that result disclosed in Nikon's patent. Here is a short report (for what it is worth) about the dispute: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1...nikon-14-5-million-for-vr-patent-infringement

So, if a third party can reverse engineer Canon's equipment so the third party understands how it works (and perhaps how it was built), that is a start. However, the third party still has to come up with a way of achieving necessary results, eg generating and sending the appropriate signals/messages from lens to camera body, which is sufficiently different from the way Canon does it (as disclosed in Canon's patent) to avoid infringing Canon's patent and any other relevant IP (eg copyright). I haven't thought too hard about how that might work in the context of making a lens which uses a particular mount, but I can imagine that if someone tried hard enough, it might be possible to include something in the way the mount works which makes it difficult for others to create a lens which uses that mount but nevertheless works in a sufficiently different way to avoid infringing on some IP owned by the mount-maker (for want of a better description!). This would also be consistent (I think) with the problem for third party manufactures wanting to make RF lenses being about creating a lens which auto-focuses. Making a lens which physicially fits the lens mount should be OK (I say should - perhaps there could be some sort of proprietary connection or locking system implemented which makes even that difficult without infringing a patent?"), and if the lens is manual focus query what else might be a problem? I assume(!) things like exposure settings are determined by the camera body without it needing any signal/message from the lens, so I assume the auto-exposure system is not going to be an issue. Another system which might raise patent or other IP issues is an IS/VR system (as Sigma no doubt will attest!), and perhaps that could relate to communication of relevant signals over the mount, creating potential IP infringement headaches implementing IS on a lens even if the way the IS system otherwise works sufficiently differently from anyone else's IS system. There may be others.

On a separate note, I guess another possibilty is that Canon isn't using IP rights but simply using some system (eg encrypted signals) which means the third parties simply cannot (have not been able to) reverse engineer it. Clearly third parties have made RF mounts lenses (with AF) though, which gives some reason to doubt that. However, perhaps the third parties are using the EF protocols/system so the R camera ends up treating the third party lens as if it is an EF lens connected via adapter? Still, if that is the case, I come back to a point in one of earlier posts: why don't third party manufacturers just make RF mount lenses which use the EF protocols/system if they cannot use the new RF protocols/system? Are (most of) the third party manufacturer's simply saying they aren't going to make RF mount lenses if they cannot make lenses which take advantage of all that the RF system has to offer?

PS: Here is just one example link to a (limited) discussion about reverse engineering and patent law: https://peillaw.com/the-legalities-of-reverse-engineering/ (relating to US law, not the law where I am). However, note the statement "Inventions that are protected by patents offer a well-defined path for responding to efforts to commercially exploit the results of a reverse engineering effort."


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 10, 2022)

> Clearly third parties have made RF mounts lenses (with AF) though, which gives some reason to doubt that. However, perhaps the third parties are using the EF protocols/system so the R camera ends up treating the third party lens as if it is an EF lens connected via adapter? Still, if that is the case, I come back to a point in one of earlier posts: why don't third party manufacturers just make RF mount lenses which use the EF protocols/system if they cannot use the new RF protocols/system? Are (most of) the third party manufacturer's simply saying they aren't going to make RF mount lenses if they cannot make lenses which take advantage of all that the RF system has to offer?


Well, you've just explained it there yourself jd7, the very fact that the Samyang Rokinon RF 85mm AF lens existed, and was selling, with lots of happy purchasers and great reviews, but was taken off the market clearly tells us that it's not a technical or design problem stopping the production of third party RF lenses. It can be done and has been done... and undone (stopped). Therefore it's something else, and what that something else is will be a matter of speculation on our behalf. 

Canon applying some legal pressure somehow, in my mind, would be the simplest and most probable reason why a company would pull a product overnight with no explanation, while Canon slowly releases lenses at their own pace with negligible competition. If anyone has a more plausible and logically cohesive explanation, it would be great to share it.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 10, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Well, you've just explained it there yourself jd7, the very fact that the Samyang Rokinon RF 85mm AF lens existed, and was selling, with lots of happy purchasers and great reviews, but was taken off the market clearly tells us that it's not a technical or design problem stopping the production of third party RF lenses. It can be done and has been done... and undone (stopped). Therefore it's something else, and what that something else is will be a matter of speculation on our behalf.
> 
> Canon applying some legal pressure somehow, in my mind, would be the simplest and most probable reason why a company would pull a product overnight with no explanation, while Canon slowly releases lenses at their own pace with negligible competition. If anyone has a more plausible and logically cohesive explanation, it would be great to share it.


I most certainly agree that it would be nice to know the explanation!

I do wonder though if it is possible it is as simple as third party manufacturers not bothering with RF mount lenses at this stage simply for commercial reasons. Imagine you are a third party manufacturer and your production capacity is already full so you would have to reduce production of something you are producing now to produce RF mount lenses. I speculate that the number of RF cameras sold so far may not be that great relative to the number of, say, Sony full frame mirrorless cameras out there. Further, I speculate that many of the people who have paid the price of entry into the RF system so far are likely to want first party lenses and be willing and able to pay relatively high prices for them. So, the prospect of third party RF lenses selling in large quantities may not be that high, at least until there is a much larger RF mount user base. Very much speculation on my part, but if there is anything in it, if you are a third party manufacturer, are you going to divert any of your resources and production capacity to RF lenses?

Perhaps I just want to believe that the explanation is not that Canon is locking out third party manufacturers and there are never going to be many third party RF lenses?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 10, 2022)

jd7 said:


> I most certainly agree that it would be nice to know the explanation!
> 
> I do wonder though if it is possible it is as simple as third party manufacturers not bothering with RF mount lenses at this stage simply for commercial reasons. Imagine you are a third party manufacturer and your production capacity is already full so you would have to reduce production of something you are producing now to produce RF mount lenses. I speculate that the number of RF cameras sold so far may not be that great relative to the number of, say, Sony full frame mirrorless cameras out there. Further, I speculate that many of the people who have paid the price of entry into the RF system so far are likely to want first party lenses and be willing and able to pay relatively high prices for them. So, the prospect of third party RF lenses selling in large quantities may not be that high, at least until there is a much larger RF mount user base. Very much speculation on my part, but if there is anything in it, if you are a third party manufacturer, are you going to divert any of your resources and production capacity to RF lenses?
> 
> Perhaps I just want to believe that the explanation is not that Canon is locking out third party manufacturers and there are never going to be many third party RF lenses?


Interesting that you are logical, while the guy who claims to be. is a subscriber to conspiracy theories. I would add to your post the fact that all third-party lenses already work just fine with a simple and relatively inexpensive adapter. Why would Sigma or Tamron rush to produce specific RF mount lenses when their current crop of lenses work seamlessly on Canon R cameras?

I would add to your analysis that the economics for producing third-party RF lenses is not necessarily the same as the economics for producing third-party EF lenses. Sigma, for several years, has offered a mount replacement service that allows anyone purchasing one of their lenses to switch from one mount (Nikon for example) to another mount (Canon, as an example). The obvious conclusion is that there is no design difference between any of the lenses from one mount to another. It's possible that is no longer the case with the new mirrorless mounts. That would mean that instead of amortizing the development cost of a lens over multiple mounts and brands, there might need to be sufficient demand in one mount (Canon RF) to justify the development costs. 

As you point out, it's very logical and likely that the return on investment just isn't there yet to justify developing RF mount only lenses. Additionally, Canon seems to be offering RF mount lenses in a range of prices that could also serve as a disincentive to competitors. A native mount 16mm f2.8 lens selling for $300 and a native mount RF 800mm lens selling for $900, to give just two examples, certainly has to have some impact on the market calculations of third party manufacturers.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 10, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Chinese companies such as Viltrox, Yongnuo and Laowa are producing third-party RF mount lenses, unlike Sigma, Samyang/Rokininon or Tamron.


For Sigma/Tamron I would dare to believe that they are more concerned about quality than these companies who are making them. 

Sigma and Tamron lenses on Sony honestly perform like native and for those brands they are viewed significantly better than they were back in the DSLR days when they reverse engineered everything. Because of this I’d believe they are waiting to license the AF algorithms from Canon and Nikon. 

As someone above mentioned, Fuji gave in and let them license their AF in 2020 but we are only seeing the lenses now. This means if we see these lenses suddenly announced they made a quiet deal or if we get an official announcement about them opening up the mount then we can wait another 2 years from that. 

For those who don’t play video games, third parties in the gaming industry are seen as Allie’s and not enemies. Sony/Microsoft will work with third parties and even make exclusive deals for those games to be released only on their platform. Clearly Sony adopted this to their camera philosophy too (plus them owning 12% of Tamron helps).


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 11, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Interesting that you are logical, while the guy who claims to be. is a subscriber to conspiracy theories. I would add to your post the fact that all third-party lenses already work just fine with a simple and relatively inexpensive adapter. Why would Sigma or Tamron rush to produce specific RF mount lenses when their current crop of lenses work seamlessly on Canon R cameras?
> 
> I would add to your analysis that the economics for producing third-party RF lenses is not necessarily the same as the economics for producing third-party EF lenses. Sigma, for several years, has offered a mount replacement service that allows anyone purchasing one of their lenses to switch from one mount (Nikon for example) to another mount (Canon, as an example). The obvious conclusion is that there is no design difference between any of the lenses from one mount to another. It's possible that is no longer the case with the new mirrorless mounts. That would mean that instead of amortizing the development cost of a lens over multiple mounts and brands, there might need to be sufficient demand in one mount (Canon RF) to justify the development costs.
> 
> As you point out, it's very logical and likely that the return on investment just isn't there yet to justify developing RF mount only lenses. Additionally, Canon seems to be offering RF mount lenses in a range of prices that could also serve as a disincentive to competitors. A native mount 16mm f2.8 lens selling for $300 and a native mount RF 800mm lens selling for $900, to give just two examples, certainly has to have some impact on the market calculations of third party manufacturers.


Yes, but the entirely logical explanation that Sigma is waiting to have a licensing agreement, and that they are interested in the long game (waiting for the market to be large enough and the products to be developed with quality so they can sell them for the next 20 years) is far too boring for clever forum detectives and impatient internet crybababies! And the equally obvious explanation that Canon is in no hurry for others to make lenses, thus reducing their profits, until they have a mature RF product line available and have taken advantage of initial sales of each lens as it is released without competition, is too logical for some to accept, since, as we all know, Canon is BAD, and perhaps even EVIL in their suspicious little minds. The big profits for camera companies are in the lenses...not in in the cameras, so to give the profits away to 3rd party companies would be a foolish strategy in today's shrinking market.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 11, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Interesting that you are logical, while the guy who claims to be. is a subscriber to conspiracy theories. I would add to your post the fact that all third-party lenses already work just fine with a simple and relatively inexpensive adapter. Why would Sigma or Tamron rush to produce specific RF mount lenses when their current crop of lenses work seamlessly on Canon R cameras?
> 
> I would add to your analysis that the economics for producing third-party RF lenses is not necessarily the same as the economics for producing third-party EF lenses. Sigma, for several years, has offered a mount replacement service that allows anyone purchasing one of their lenses to switch from one mount (Nikon for example) to another mount (Canon, as an example). The obvious conclusion is that there is no design difference between any of the lenses from one mount to another. It's possible that is no longer the case with the new mirrorless mounts. That would mean that instead of amortizing the development cost of a lens over multiple mounts and brands, there might need to be sufficient demand in one mount (Canon RF) to justify the development costs.
> 
> As you point out, it's very logical and likely that the return on investment just isn't there yet to justify developing RF mount only lenses. Additionally, Canon seems to be offering RF mount lenses in a range of prices that could also serve as a disincentive to competitors. A native mount 16mm f2.8 lens selling for $300 and a native mount RF 800mm lens selling for $900, to give just two examples, certainly has to have some impact on the market calculations of third party manufacturers.


Conspiracy theories hey, that's not a logical argument, that's just an ad hominem argument and an appeal to ridicule logical fallacy...  
Using that term in ridicule is such a weak argument that suggests a head-in-the-sand way of dealing with the negative side of human nature which litters history and the news of the present day. It's not like individual humans or profit-based corporations are totally incapable of premeditated action to engage in unethical, selfish, wrongful or illegal conduct. Like that's never happened in this world before lol!!! 

If you want to reason that "my favourite company always does the right thing without exception because I like their products", then be my guest, it's your prerogative and you're free to do so, but please express your unstated premises and assumptions beforehand for the sake of clarity. If you honestly believe that, you may want to rethink your assumptions:









Canon fined $29M as it loses court battle against EU over 2016 acquisition - EconoTimes


Canon went to court to challenge the EUs sanction related to its acquisition of Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation in 2016 but was defeated. With the decision, the European Unions General Court upheld the 28 million 28...




www.econotimes.com













Canon, Toshiba Fined Over Antitrust Violations - CFO


Canon and Toshiba have agreed to pay $2.5 million each to settle charges that they structured a deal so it would not be delayed by U.S. pre-merger notification laws. Toshiba sold its medical systems subsidiary to Canon for $6.1 billion in March 2016 amid a financial crisis caused by an...




www.cfo.com






Let's look more closely at what you've mentioned here. 

"_Why would Sigma or Tamron rush to produce specific RF mount lenses when their current crop of lenses work seamlessly on Canon R cameras?_" 
Let's reframe this question in a way that it answers itself - Why would anyone on this forum rush to buy specific RF mount lenses when the current crop of Canon, Sigma or Tamron EF lenses that work seamlessly on Canon R cameras? Why would a company not tap into that demand? 

"_it's very logical and likely that the return on investment just isn't there yet to justify developing RF mount only lenses_. "
The elephant in the room here is the magically disappearing Samyang lens, retailing well one day, gone the next. This reasoning conveniently ignores this glaring fact. It may be true for Sigma and Tamron, we have no evidence either way to conform that, but we know for sure that this is false in the case of Samyang, because they had a product out, which they invested R&D and marketing money, and had a good product out there that was well received. Pulling a product without warning or explanation doesn't achieve a return on investment!

Something to think about, if Sigma is producing mirrorless lenses for Sony, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Panasonic, Sigma, and Fujifilm, then it's unlikely that there would be anything radically different with Canon RF lenses if they're just using EF protocols. To suggest so without evidence is the logical fallacy of special pleading, applying a certain set of criteria to one circumstances while exempting others from the same criteria. As far as I know there is nothing to differentiate the optics of Canon RF lenses from any other mirrorless lenses, and if anyone knows otherwise, I'm open to new information.

Others have mentioned the possibility of Canon doing a deal with the third parties, making them wait so they can then get permission/license to use the RF protocols. It's been suggested that would be anti-competitive corporate practice which would be illegal. This isn't an area I know about, any corporate lawyers out there?

If you're going to speculate on the reason why we're not seeing third-party lenses, it has to account for all cases we're observing, the inaction of Sigma and Tamron, and also the withdrawal of a product from the market by Samyang/Rokinon. If it fails to account for any one case, namely the latter company, then it stands that the speculative reasoning is partly incorrect at best. 

Reasoning from unstated assumptions, especially emotive ones that assume Canon's unwavering benevolence and incapacity to err accidentally or intentionally is flawed as that rules our many possible and plausible explanations. If you just want to state an opinion that's not backed by reason, just say that's how you feel about the matter, that's also valid!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 11, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Yes, but the entirely logical explanation that Sigma is waiting to have a licensing agreement, and that they are interested in the long game (waiting for the market to be large enough and the products to be developed with quality so they can sell them for the next 20 years) is far too boring for clever forum detectives and impatient internet crybababies! And the equally obvious explanation that Canon is in no hurry for others to make lenses, thus reducing their profits, until they have a mature RF product line available and have taken advantage of initial sales of each lens as it is released without competition, is too logical for some to accept, since, as we all know, Canon is BAD, and perhaps even EVIL in their suspicious little minds. The big profits for camera companies are in the lenses...not in in the cameras, so to give the profits away to 3rd party companies would be a foolish strategy in today's shrinking market.


See my previous post re flawless ultra-ethical corporations, they must have rainbow coloured unicorns that sparkle in the dark as CEOs, but you've nailed it in terms of what would motivate companies such as Canon in your last sentence:

"_The big profits for camera companies are in the lenses...not in in the cameras, so to give the profits away to 3rd party companies would be a foolish strategy in today's shrinking market_."

Couldn't agree more, thanks for the clarity!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 11, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Let's look more closely at what you've mentioned here.
> 
> "_Why would Sigma or Tamron rush to produce specific RF mount lenses when their current crop of lenses work seamlessly on Canon R cameras?_"
> Let's reframe this question in a way that it answers itself - Why would anyone on this forum rush to buy specific RF mount lenses when the current crop of Canon, Sigma or Tamron EF lenses that work seamlessly on Canon R cameras? Why would a company not tap into that demand?


Possibly because the majority of R system owners prefer Canon-branded lenses. You have no access to market data from Sigma or Tamron that indicates whether or not their entrance into the RF system at this time would be profitable.


LogicExtremist said:


> "_it's very logical and likely that the return on investment just isn't there yet to justify developing RF mount only lenses_. "
> The elephant in the room here is the magically disappearing Samyang lens, retailing well one day, gone the next. This reasoning conveniently ignores this glaring fact. It may be true for Sigma and Tamron, we have no evidence either way to conform that, but we know for sure that this is false in the case of Samyang, because they had a product out, which they invested R&D and marketing money, and had a good product out there that was well received. Pulling a product without warning or explanation doesn't achieve a return on investment!


You keep talking about Samyang, like you know something. I'm not sure you do. The Samyang website lists four native-mount RF lenses with two listed as sold out. The Rokinon website lists four native-mount RF lenses with none listed as sold out. Neither says anything about discontinued. You've chosen to draw your own conclusions, but you *know *nothing. I'm willing to admit that I know nothing about the inner workings or marketing and supply decisions of a company. But, I do know that drawing broad conclusions from a single, isolated case (that may not even be correct) is not logical.


LogicExtremist said:


> Something to think about, if Sigma is producing mirrorless lenses for Sony, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Panasonic, Sigma, and Fujifilm, then it's unlikely that there would be anything radically different with Canon RF lenses if they're just using EF protocols. To suggest so without evidence is the logical fallacy of special pleading, applying a certain set of criteria to one circumstances while exempting others from the same criteria. As far as I know there is nothing to differentiate the optics of Canon RF lenses from any other mirrorless lenses, and if anyone knows otherwise, I'm open to new information.


The operative phrase here is "As far as I know." You simply *don't know*. Yet you insist on speculating and assuming it's some kind of anti-competitive plot.


LogicExtremist said:


> If you're going to speculate on the reason why we're not seeing third-party lenses, it has to account for all cases we're observing, the inaction of Sigma and Tamron, and also the withdrawal of a product from the market by Samyang/Rokinon. If it fails to account for any one case, namely the latter company, then it stands that the speculative reasoning is partly incorrect at best.


I am not the one doing the speculating. I am simply suggesting there are far too many variables and far too little solid information available to draw the conclusions that you are drawing.


LogicExtremist said:


> Reasoning from unstated assumptions, especially emotive ones...


Exactly. That's why I'm not willing to buy into your conspiracy theory.


LogicExtremist said:


> ... that assume Canon's unwavering benevolence and incapacity to err accidentally or intentionally is flawed as that rules our many possible and plausible explanations...


Who ever said anything about Canon's benevolence or incapacity to err? You have assigned imagined, speculative causes to the lack of third-party lenses with zero evidence. You are the one making a moral judgment about Canon. They have a long-standing policy of not making it easy for third parties to siphon away their business. There is nothing evil or immoral about that. Indeed, they have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their interests and their stockholders' investment. Third party manufactures have never let that stand in their way before, so it's logical that they aren't going to let it stand in their way now. Instead, I've simply suggested that the same desire to maximize profits and assure a solid return on investment may be at play in the decision by Sigma and Tamron not to aggressively pursue the RF market thus far. The simple explanation is that they don't see it as good investment at this time. But, that's not nearly as fun as assuming Canon is somehow blocking them from the market.


LogicExtremist said:


> If you just want to state an opinion that's not backed by reason, just say that's how you feel about the matter, that's also valid!


Yes. You have stated an opinion that is not backed by reason.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 12, 2022)

In regards to Samyang/Rokinon if you go to Samyang’s main website https://www.samyanglens.com/en/m/pr...type=&mount=&best_for=&selectTab=&mount[]=211 and search for RF lenses they list 0 products.

For Rokinon https://rokinon.com/collections/canon-rf?gf_307473=Canon RF both of the AF lenses are sold out with only cine lenses being available.

Rokinon isn’t available in Europe so in terms of those markets Samyang did indeed stop making RF lenses available completely. Why is open for debate.

Also Viltrox have removed RF lenses from their website as well https://viltroxstore.com/ However their 85mm f1.8 is still available to purchase from retailers.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 13, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> In regards to Samyang/Rokinon if you go to Samyang’s main website https://www.samyanglens.com/en/m/product/product-srch.php?category=&camera_type=&sensor_size=&lens_type=&mount=&best_for=&selectTab=&mount[]=211 and search for RF lenses they list 0 products.
> 
> For Rokinon https://rokinon.com/collections/canon-rf?gf_307473=Canon RF both of the AF lenses are sold out with only cine lenses being available.
> 
> ...



The Viltrox RF 85mm AF lens is advertised at https://www.viltrox.store/product/v...erture-lens-for-canon-rf-mount-camera-lenses/

Noting the domain is viltrox.store rather than viltroxstore.com, is that an offical Viltrox webpage? If you try to buy lens from viltrox.store it takes you to aliexpress.com for the purchase, so perhaps it is not?

I am not a fan of conspiracty theories and I am on record in this thread suggesting that the lack of third party AF lenses may simply reflect third parties not thinking the RF market is large enough (yet) fot it to make commercial sense to make RF lenses. However, IF we now have Viltrox following Samyang/Rokinon having put RF mount AF lenses on the market only to stop supplying them, the idea that Samyang/Rokinon and Viltrox have both simply withdrawn auto-focus RF lenses from the market for commercial reasons is too much for me. And I have serious doubts it would reflect any sort of gentleman's agreement (as I've said earlier in this thread, I suspect any such agreement would likely be illegal anti-competitive conduct and therefore a very dangerous game to play). The only remaining explanation I can think of would be that Canon was exercising intellectual property laws to block them. So, I will be very interested to see whether Viltrox AF lenses for RF mount disappear from the market over the coming months.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 13, 2022)

jd7 said:


> The Viltrox RF 85mm AF lens is advertised at https://www.viltrox.store/product/v...erture-lens-for-canon-rf-mount-camera-lenses/
> 
> Noting the domain is viltrox.store rather than viltroxstore.com, is that an offical Viltrox webpage? If you try to buy lens from viltrox.store it takes you to aliexpress.com for the purchase, so perhaps it is not?
> 
> I am not a fan of conspiracty theories and I am on record in this thread suggesting that the lack of third party AF lenses may simply reflect third parties not thinking the RF market is large enough (yet) fot it to make commercial sense to make RF lenses. However, IF we now have Viltrox following Samyang/Rokinon having put RF mount AF lenses on the market only to stop supplying them, the idea that Samyang/Rokinon and Viltrox have both simply withdrawn auto-focus RF lenses from the market for commercial reasons is too much for me. And I have serious doubts it would reflect any sort of gentleman's agreement (as I've said earlier in this thread, I suspect any such agreement would likely be illegal anti-competitive conduct and therefore a very dangerous game to play). The only remaining explanation I can think of would be that Canon was exercising intellectual property laws to block them. So, I will be very interested to see whether Viltrox AF lenses for RF mount disappear from the market over the coming months.


I looked for another official Viltrox site and found their Chinese one https://www.viltrox.com/ProductInfoCategory?categoryId=512919,514962,514963&PageInfoId=0 when you look for full frame lenses there are only E and Z mount options are available, nothing for RF mount at all.

While the 85mm from Viltrox is still available to purchase I’m guessing that is the last of the available inventory and the lens is no longer in production. Fully admit this is nothing but speculation on my part but it seems that reverse engineering RF mount infringes Canon’s IP. If that is true, that in affect most likely completely locks out any 3rd party wanting to making lenses not just with AF but even manual focus lenses that pass exif data to the camera via electrical contacts.

The only 3rd party lenses I can find for Canon RF are from Meyer Optik Görlitz and Meike but in both cases neither include electrical contacts on their glass.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 13, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> I looked for another official Viltrox site and found their Chinese one https://www.viltrox.com/ProductInfoCategory?categoryId=512919,514962,514963&PageInfoId=0 when you look for full frame lenses there are only E and Z mount options are available, nothing for RF mount at all.
> 
> While the 85mm from Viltrox is still available to purchase I’m guessing that is the last of the available inventory and the lens is no longer in production. Fully admit this is nothing but speculation on my part but it seems that reverse engineering RF mount infringes Canon’s IP. If that is true, that in affect most likely completely locks out any 3rd party wanting to making lenses not just with AF but even manual focus lenses that pass exif data to the camera via electrical contacts.
> 
> The only 3rd party lenses I can find for Canon RF are from Meyer Optik Görlitz and Meike but in both cases neither include electrical contacts on their glass.


Laowa and Lensbaby also have RF mounts.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 13, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Laowa and Lensbaby also have RF mounts.


I just saw a video review where it was stated that the Viltrox RF 85mm f/1.8 is registered by the camera body as an EF 85mm f/1.8 USM lens, that's apparently how they got the AF to work on that lens, and it also gets in-camera lens corrections which third-partly lenses normally can't do. Maybe that has something to do with it? It seems that only the third-party AF lenses for the RF mount are progressively disappearing.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 13, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Laowa and Lensbaby also have RF mounts.


Very true, I forgot about them. They don’t add electrical contacts to their mirrorless lenses either so probably not an issue in terms of potential patent infringement.


----------



## Johnw (Aug 22, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Canon applying some legal pressure somehow, in my mind, would be the simplest and most probable reason why a company would pull a product overnight with no explanation, while Canon slowly releases lenses at their own pace with negligible competition. If anyone has a more plausible and logically cohesive explanation, it would be great to share it.



Could just be low sales although your theory is also possible. I believe it was also reported that Sigma said they could have started making RF lenses already but just feel the ROI is not there yet. The fact that Canon made EF lenses work so well with the RF mount means Sigma is probably less incentivized to produce native RF lenses than they otherwise would be.



LogicExtremist said:


> the very fact that the Samyang Rokinon RF 85mm AF lens existed, and was selling, with lots of happy purchasers and great reviews



That fact and the fact that you may have liked or purchased the product and that other people did so as well is not sufficient to establish that a valid business case existed for the continued production of this product. Are you aware of any sales figures that Samyang has communicated highlighting whether sales matched their projections for this product? That's really the information we would need to know whether it was pulled simply for a business case reason or whether there were other legal factors involved as you have speculated.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 22, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Could just be low sales although your theory is also possible. I believe it was also reported that Sigma said they could have started making RF lenses already but just feel the ROI is not there yet. The fact that Canon made EF lenses work so well with the RF mount means Sigma is probably less incentivized to produce native RF lenses than they otherwise would be.
> 
> 
> 
> That fact and the fact that you may have liked or purchased the product and that other people did so as well is not sufficient to establish that a valid business case existed for the continued production of this product. Are you aware of any sales figures that Samyang has communicated highlighting whether sales matched their projections for this product? That's really the information we would need to know whether it was pulled simply for a business case reason or whether there were other legal factors involved as you have speculated.


I have been one of the people suggesting (including earlier in this thread) the lack of third party lenses might simply reflect the third party manufacturers not seeing a good business case to make RF lenses yet. However, the fact there are now two manufacturers (Samyang and more recently Viltrox) which have gone to the trouble of putting one or more RF lenses (with AF) on the market only to (it seems) stop supplying them has led me to believe that Canon is using intellectual property laws to prevent third parties from supplying/selling such lenses. No, I don't have any direct confirmation of that, but it just seems too unlikely that two manufacters would start supplying RF lenses and then stop simply for commercial reasons, and I cannot think of any good explanation other than Canon using IP laws to stop them. When Samyang originally removed their RF lenses from their website, the lenses were still listed on the Rokinon website so I assumed that for some reason they had decided to supply them only under the Rokinon name. However, the Samyang/Rokinon lenses don't seem to be in stock with retailers under either name, and just recently Viltrox seems to have removed their RF lenses from their website.

I may well be in a minority for all I know, but if Canon is going to make the RF system a closed system for lenses (ie no third party lenses), the RF system is not a system I want to buy into, least of all when the Sony system offers a great range of Sony and third party lenses.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 22, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Could just be low sales although your theory is also possible. I believe it was also reported that Sigma said they could have started making RF lenses already but just feel the ROI is not there yet. The fact that Canon made EF lenses work so well with the RF mount means Sigma is probably less incentivized to produce native RF lenses than they otherwise would be.
> 
> 
> 
> That fact and the fact that you may have liked or purchased the product and that other people did so as well is not sufficient to establish that a valid business case existed for the continued production of this product. Are you aware of any sales figures that Samyang has communicated highlighting whether sales matched their projections for this product? That's really the information we would need to know whether it was pulled simply for a business case reason or whether there were other legal factors involved as you have speculated.


It looks like every RF AF third party lens has been pulled off the market (Samyang, Viltrox, Yonguno), and no other third party is releasing any, which suggests that it's probably an IP matter in respect to how the AF works on the RF mount.

On DPR one poster is claiming to have been told by a Sigma rep that the company position is that it's waiting for Canon to license the RF mount to them. "_From what I was told by a Sigma UK rep in June, they are waiting on a license to make RF lenses". _Fact or fiction, who knows? Sounds totally plausible.

To quote the same post, the CEO of Sigma has made public statements that they're considering making RF lenses, and see it as a viable market, which negates claims its not economically viable to make RF lenses.

_"Sigma's CEO said in 2019:

"I have a great interest in the Canon R and Nikon Z systems because eventually they will have more and more customers. So we are now investigating these systems. But still it’s too early to make a statement about how we will respond."

In 2021 he said:

"I am aware that there’s a very strong demand from customers for Canon RF and Nikon Z. We believe, too, as a lens manufacturer, that it’s our mission to support as many mounts as possible. We would like to support those mounts, and we’re discussing and researching.""_

The suggested reason that companies like Sigma would prefer to licence the RF protocol rather than reverse engineer it is because one of the uses of the extra pins for high speed communication is in the coordination between camera body IBIS and lens IS, and this increases technical complexity, potentially making reverse engineering less economical. You'd want new third-party stabilised lenses to work well on a Canon RF camera body, so I can understand the argument there.

With EVERY brand removing existing RF mount lenses, this could have been done via incentive "remove lenses and we'll give you a license in the future" or disincentive "cease and desists, your design violates RF mount patent x for technology y". Lack of a market fails to explain this point. In fact, the market is very hungry for more choices. The thing is, people will buy whatever Canon puts out, good or bad, then come to forums to validate their purchasing decisions. Canon is milking this monopoly situation all the way to the bank.

We could be potentially be looking at two factors at play here, RF protocol licensing and RF mount communication protocol patent/IP infringement.

Either way, simple fact is that there are NO third party lenses available on Canon's new RF mount or Nikon's new Z-mount. Coincidence? I don't think so...


----------



## unfocused (Aug 22, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Could just be low sales although your theory is also possible…That fact and the fact that you may have liked or purchased the product and that other people did so as well is not sufficient to establish that a valid business case existed for the continued production of this product. Are you aware of any sales figures that Samyang has communicated highlighting whether sales matched their projections for this product? That's really the information we would need to know whether it was pulled simply for a business case reason or whether there were other legal factors involved as you have speculated.


We would also need to know if the same manufacturing lines or facilities were needed for more profitable or better selling products as well as whether or not they had a reliable supply chain for parts, etc.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> We would also need to know if the same manufacturing lines or facilities were needed for more profitable or better selling products as well as whether or not they had a reliable supply chain for parts, etc.


We have an idea what the market for full frame cameras and lenses did last year, it grew!

"Canon Global has revised its financial forecast for its 2021 fiscal year to account for, amongst other things, an increase in demand for inkjet printers and full-frame mirrorless cameras and lenses. According to the note, posted on Canon's investor relations website, Canon increased its full-year net sales forecast by 2.9% and its full-year operating profit by 42.9% to 3,600B yen ($32.7B) and 283B yen ($2.5B), respectively. For comparison, Canon’s full-year net sales were 3,100B yen ($28.2B) in 2020 and 3.6B yen ($32.7B) in 2019, while its full-year operating profit was 110B yen ($1B) in 2020 and 175B yen ($1.6B) in 2019. *This means 2021 should see Canon's operating profit equal roughly that of both 2019 and 2020, combined*, even as net sales remain fairly consistent with pre-pandemic numbers."

As long as old men in first world countries keep retiring, there will be a market for premium RF lenses! 
As long as Canon keeps putting out out overpriced lenses, either high end pro lenses or seriously crippled junk consumer lenses, there will be a huge market for third-party RF lenses!


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 22, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> It looks like every RF AF third party lens has been pulled off the market (Samyang, Viltrox, Yonguno), and no other third party is releasing any, which suggests that it's probably an IP matter in respect to how the AF works on the RF mount.
> 
> On DPR one poster is claiming to have been told by a Sigma rep that the company position is that it's waiting for Canon to license the RF mount to them. "_From what I was told by a Sigma UK rep in June, they are waiting on a license to make RF lenses". _Fact or fiction, who knows? Sounds totally plausible.
> 
> ...



Actually Z mount is somewhat different. Voigtländer have some sort of agreement with Nikon to make lenses for mirrorless. The 2 APO Lanthar (absolutely stunning glass) lenses are ones that already had E and M mount versions. The D 23mm f1.2 and D 35mm f1.2 are for crop bodies and appear to have been designed specifically for that use. 






Z – Mount | Voigtländer







www.voigtlaender.de


----------



## Johnw (Aug 24, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> It looks like every RF AF third party lens has been pulled off the market (Samyang, Viltrox, Yonguno)



Ok I was not aware that every third party manufacturer of AF lenses for the RF mount had ceased production. I still see the Viltrox AF 85 in stock at B&H. Anyway, if that is true, then I would agree that this would be additional evidence that there might be a common event which precipitated that, rather than every manufacturer simultaneously realizing there was no business case.

However, even if such a common event occurred, that does not mean it necessarily implies your chosen theory, that Canon threatened legal action or is on a mission to kill off all third party lenses. One possible example is that Canon simply released updated firmware, which may have interfered with some features these lenses were using. It's possible these manufacturers decided it wasn't worth the investment to continue to stay ahead of Canon's changes to keep the lenses working. It's even possible Canon did this without even intending to kill off such third party capability. If the existing AF lenses are relying on reverse engineering, it's possible Canon may not even know what steps they took to get the AF working.

In any case, there is still insufficient evidence to support your theory of legal threats as factual, and I suspect that will be the case until either:
1. Canon makes a more public statement on its position wrt third party RF lenses
2. One of the manufacturers makes a statement to the effect that it was interference from Canon that forced them to cease production
3. A journalist digs a bit deeper and finds out why these companies have stopped producing AF lenses for the RF mount


----------



## jd7 (Aug 25, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Ok I was not aware that every third party manufacturer of AF lenses for the RF mount had ceased production. I still see the Viltrox AF 85 in stock at B&H. Anyway, if that is true, then I would agree that this would be additional evidence that there might be a common event which precipitated that, rather than every manufacturer simultaneously realizing there was no business case.
> 
> However, even if such a common event occurred, that does not mean it necessarily implies your chosen theory, that Canon threatened legal action or is on a mission to kill off all third party lenses. One possible example is that Canon simply released updated firmware, which may have interfered with some features these lenses were using. It's possible these manufacturers decided it wasn't worth the investment to continue to stay ahead of Canon's changes to keep the lenses working. It's even possible Canon did this without even intending to kill off such third party capability. If the existing AF lenses are relying on reverse engineering, it's possible Canon may not even know what steps they took to get the AF working.
> 
> ...


If manufacturers have decided it isn't worth putting in the required investment to keep their lenses up to date to work with new firmware, that amounts to the manufacturers all realising there is no (good) business case to make lenses for the RF mount. And while firmware updates stopping third party lenses from working would be different from Canon threatening legal action for intellectual property infringement, the practical result would be the same: Canon would be keeping third party RF lenses off the market. Yes, Canon is free to develop whatever firmware it wants and it can choose to ignore the effects on third party equipment if that is what it wants to do. But equally, I'm sure Canon could develop firmware which at least minimises the difficulties for third party manufacturers (avoiding all problems altogether may be unrealistic). Canon has choice. No doubt Canon will do what it thinks is in the best interests of its business. However, a closed RF system (ie no native RF third party lenses) would be dissapointing to me, to put it mildly. When I bought into the EF system many years ago, one of the attractions was the wide range of lenses available, including lenses from third parties. In the mirrorless full frame arena, the only system which offers that with native lenses is the Sony system.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 25, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Ok I was not aware that every third party manufacturer of AF lenses for the RF mount had ceased production. I still see the Viltrox AF 85 in stock at B&H. Anyway, if that is true, then I would agree that this would be additional evidence that there might be a common event which precipitated that, rather than every manufacturer simultaneously realizing there was no business case.
> 
> However, even if such a common event occurred, that does not mean it necessarily implies your chosen theory, that Canon threatened legal action or is on a mission to kill off all third party lenses. One possible example is that Canon simply released updated firmware, which may have interfered with some features these lenses were using. It's possible these manufacturers decided it wasn't worth the investment to continue to stay ahead of Canon's changes to keep the lenses working. It's even possible Canon did this without even intending to kill off such third party capability. If the existing AF lenses are relying on reverse engineering, it's possible Canon may not even know what steps they took to get the AF working.
> 
> ...


There's no evidence to support any theory in fact, only logical inferences that can be made from known facts, some being more logically sound than others, it's all speculation, this is CanonRumors after all! 

Like I said earlier, Canon has likely provided some disincentive (legal) or incentive (licensing) to clear the critical early stages of the growing RF lens market of competition when it comes to RF AF lens sales! There's a high probability it's either or both. Quite impressive, however it's been done to achieve such a monopoly. Such a situation permits Canon to drive up their prices to whatever they choose, because it's their way or no way, there's no other choice! Luring existing Canon customers with some impressive RF flagship lenses, a few great value for money L-series and consumer level lenses, with the obviously implied promise of more, and then no other choices - a masterfully executed real Canon gotcha to create a captive market!


----------



## Johnw (Aug 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> it's been done to achieve such a monopoly



Yeah these are the kind of statements I don't think you can logically infer from the available evidence. We don't even know at this point what action(s) and by who precipitated these manufacturers exit from the RF lens market. Since we don't even know that, we certainly can't infer the intention on the part of the actors who took those actions.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 26, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Yeah these are the kind of statements I don't think you can logically infer from the available evidence. We don't even know at this point what action(s) and by who precipitated these manufacturers exit from the RF lens market. Since we don't even know that, we certainly can't infer the intention on the part of the actors who took those actions.


The fact that Canon has a monopoly on autofocus RF mount lenses is exactly that, a _fact_. There's no need to infer it, it's clearly observable. There were three other third party companies making AF RF lenses and they 'stopped' making them without stating a reason, which is rather unusual to say the least. The big name third party manufacturers never even got started. The situation changed from one where there was some minor competition to one where there was no competition whatsoever, and that is what's called a monopoly. We can only make logical inferences at best about the cause/s of this situation, because there are no explanations, and if anything bordering on the questionable is going on, then you're guaranteed to get no public explanations. 

Remember the logical principle that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Just because something hasn't been revealed yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's still possible, and maybe even probable. Even if Canon was skirting the borders of what's legal (they've received massive fines for anti-trust actions which they conspired to commit and carried out, so we do have a precedent here), third-party manufacturers won't publicly air corporate dirty laundry, as it doesn't serve them in any way and can tarnish their brand, and Canon surely won't reveal its actions publicly if they are detrimental to their customers.

If these corporate shenanigans which are creating a captive market and eliminating choice and healthy competition aren't to people's liking, maybe it might be a good idea to hold off on any unnecessary purchases (wants vs needs) so as to not support such a scenario, and perhaps wait till more choices are available for other manufacturers. If the current offerings don't meet specific needs, rather than buying new (and overpriced) RF lenses anyway, just because that's all that Canon's offering, and having to sell later at a greater loss, it could be a better stop-gap solution to simply buy second-hand EF glass until better suited RF lenses are released by whoever.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> The fact that Canon has a monopoly on autofocus RF mount lenses is exactly that, a _fact_.


Clearly you don't know what a monopoly *or* a fact is.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> ... aren't to people's liking, maybe it might be a good idea to hold off on any unnecessary purchases (wants vs needs) so as to not support such a scenario, and perhaps wait till more choices are available for other manufacturers. If the current offerings don't meet specific needs, rather than buying new (and overpriced) RF lenses anyway, just because that's all that Canon's offering, and having to sell later at a greater loss, it could be a better stop-gap solution to simply buy second-hand EF glass until better suited RF lenses are released by whoever.


If you fit into that category, then that does seem like a sensible option. However, judging by Canon's successful sales numbers, it looks like there are a lot of buyers out there that find Canon's offerings do meet their needs. And, if you buy what you need or want, then why would you have to "sell later at a greater loss?" Every time I've sold a Canon lens or camera I've gotten my money's worth out of the body or lens by the time I sold it and anything I got when I sold has been a bonus.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2022)

So, Tamron just released a 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD lens for Sony E-mount for $1,300. Canon has a 100-400 RF f5.6-8 that retails for $600. A *logical* person might speculate that a similar Tamron lens for the R mount could be a hard sale at *more than twice* the price of the Canon lens, even though the Canon lens is slightly slower and has 50mm less at the short end. 

A *logical* person might look at Canon's affordable RF lens lineup and question how much room there is for competition from third parties given the selection and aggressive pricing that Canon is offering.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Clearly you don't know what a monopoly *or* a fact is.


Ok, I'll bite lol! 

*Monopoly *- _mə-nŏp′ə-lē_ (noun) Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
*Fact *- (noun) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences, something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
The dictionary is your friend, and it's very easy to use!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> If you fit into that category, then that does seem like a sensible option. However, judging by Canon's successful sales numbers, it looks like there are a lot of buyers out there that find Canon's offerings do meet their needs. And, if you buy what you need or want, then why would you have to "sell later at a greater loss?" Every time I've sold a Canon lens or camera I've gotten my money's worth out of the body or lens by the time I sold it and anything I got when I sold has been a bonus.


Well, the successful Canon sales in RF is because there's virtually no other option, and generally people tend to let companies create the demand for them, hype something up, make them want it (want more often than need), and they'll buy whatever Canon throws out. The real need being fulfilled here is probably more gratification though spending than a real technical need, considering most enthusiasts don't need cameras, they want them for a hobby, which is fine!

Anyone selling camera gear will generally always sell it at a loss. If you feel you had it long enough and you feel you got your money's worth out of it relative to the financial loss, that's a subjective assessment that nobody can argue against, that's great! It kind of depends how long you own it and how much you use it. Buying an overpriced line of products during times of economic inflation just means paying more, and potentially losing more if/when prices settle.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> So, Tamron just released a 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD lens for Sony E-mount for $1,300. Canon has a 100-400 RF f5.6-8 that retails for $600. A *logical* person might speculate that a similar Tamron lens for the R mount could be a hard sale at *more than twice* the price of the Canon lens, even though the Canon lens is slightly slower and has 50mm less at the short end.
> 
> A *logical* person might look at Canon's affordable RF lens lineup and question how much room there is for competition from third parties given the selection and aggressive pricing that Canon is offering.


A logical person wouldn't compare apples and oranges! 

It's obvious there are products at different price points in every brand, and the Tamron zoom you mention has an f/6.3 vs f/8 aperture at 400mm, 8x zoom vs 4x zoom, but it's not reasonable to make an accurate assessment without considering the internals and performance.

The Tamron has a 25cm minimum focus distance (vs 88cm-1.2m for the Canon) and does 1:2 macro or 0.5x magnification (vs 0.41x on Canon). It is fully weather-sealed, including fluorine coating on the front lens, the design includes 24 elements in 18 groups including 5 special dispersion elements and 2 aspherical elements. By comparison the Canon RF 100-400 has 12 elements in 9 groups, with only two special elements, 1 UD-glass element and 1 PMo (cheap molded plastic) aspherical element.

It's a whole different class of lens, hence the price. The old Tamron 100-400 released back in 2017 (5 years ago), like the competing Sigma 100-400, was getting close to the Canon EF 100-400 II and eats the budget Canon zoom for breakfast in terms of sharpness on the TDP comparison tool. What would a more recent Tamron zoom do in terms of performance? Now, if Canon released a less crippled tele zoom that sat somewhere between the cheap but not so sharp consumer USD $600 RF 100-400 and the super sharp but super expensive USD $3,000 RF 100-500, that would offer buyers some more reasonable choices...


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> See my previous post re flawless ultra-ethical corporations, they must have rainbow coloured unicorns that sparkle in the dark as CEOs, but you've nailed it in terms of what would motivate companies such as Canon in your last sentence:
> 
> "_The big profits for camera companies are in the lenses...not in in the cameras, so to give the profits away to 3rd party companies would be a foolish strategy in today's shrinking market_."
> 
> Couldn't agree more, thanks for the clarity!


From Canon's point of view, maximizing profits is what they are supposed to do. You somehow, totally illogically, then warp this obvious business truth, into a conspiracy, or an evil, dirty business maneuver that borders on illegal and unethical. And if someone points out that it is neither, then apparently we are guilty of some sort of Canon worship or love. Maybe we're just not willing to jump on your bandwagon of totally biased hate.

From another post, your total bias is revealed. "...As long as Canon keeps putting out overpriced lenses, either high end pro lenses or seriously crippled junk consumer lenses, there will be a huge market for third-party RF lenses!"

What I infer from this sort of comment, which you repeat over and over in many threads is this...

You are angry at the price of Canon's high end RF lenses. Then don't buy them. I think we can all agree that the lenses are high priced. But the key point is - *you don't have to buy them*. Their R system cameras *do not require you to buy them*. All the EF lenses, whether made by Canon or made by Sigma, Tamron or others can be used on the R system cameras. This is the point you seem to be missing as you you cry "monopoly" (it's not). Not just because you can buy other lenses that will work with the R cameras, but that you can buy other cameras. As long as you can go buy a Nikon, Sony , Fuji or other camera, means there is no monopoly. 

You believe the consumer lenses are "seriously crippled junk". I have seen numerous reviews of these lenses and I don't recall any reviewer taking quite this stance. I believe most reviews are more positive than negative, and although there are some folks who dislike them quite a lot, I can't recall anyone else calling them "seriously crippled junk." Most owners of these lenses find them to be good performers for the price, I believe. 

I have no emotional feelings about Canon whatsoever. I have owned their camera on and off since 1995, but have also owned Olympus cameras (since 1979) and also had a brief time owning Nikon and Sony. What I do have an emotion feelings about is truth, about accusing others (including corporations) of wrongdoing with no facts to back it up, about bias that creates bigoted attitudes. Those things bother me enough to respond to those that exhibit a clear lack of regard to the truth and a fair analysis of events.


----------



## Johnw (Aug 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> The situation changed from one where there was some minor competition to one where there was no competition whatsoever



Oh really? So then, if I order a Vitrolix RF 85 from B&H right now, I won't receive a third party AF lens? Even if they do cease production, I could still purchase that one or a Samyang used.

Additionally, if that were true, then I couldn't have just ordered a Sigma 12-24 last week for my R6, because I like that better than any of Canon's UWA zoom offerings in RF so far. Again, Sigma, not Canon, got my money on a NEW autofocus lens for an RF camera. 



LogicExtremist said:


> Canon has a monopoly



Not really. Your argument seems to be that they WILL have a monopoly after they have driven out every third party lens manufacturer with legal threats. But that remains to be seen and so far I've also seen insufficient evidence to conclude that is Canon's intention.

And that's not even considering that you are only using the term monopoly to refer to one's options for fitting lenses to Canon bodies. Canon does not have any illegally acquired market position such that you have to use a Canon body, which is what the actual term monopoly indicates. As I've also indicated, even using your own definition that fails as there are multiple options for utilizing third party AF lenses on Canon RF bodies.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> From Canon's point of view, maximizing profits is what they are supposed to do. You somehow, totally illogically, then warp this obvious business truth, into a conspiracy, or an evil, dirty business maneuver that borders on illegal and unethical. And if someone points out that it is neither, then apparently we are guilty of some sort of Canon worship or love. Maybe we're just not willing to jump on your bandwagon of totally biased hate...
> 
> 
> ...I have no emotional feelings about Canon whatsoever. I have owned their camera on and off since 1995, but have also owned Olympus cameras (since 1979) and also had a brief time owning Nikon and Sony. What I do have an emotion feelings about is truth, about accusing others (including corporations) of wrongdoing with no facts to back it up, about bias that creates bigoted attitudes. Those things bother me enough to respond to those that exhibit a clear lack of regard to the truth and a fair analysis of events.


Excellent post. Unfortunately I doubt if logic or facts will matter. Extremist seems to be the operative description.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> So, Tamron just released a 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD lens for Sony E-mount for $1,300. Canon has a 100-400 RF f5.6-8 that retails for $600. A *logical* person might speculate that a similar Tamron lens for the R mount could be a hard sale at *more than twice* the price of the Canon lens, even though the Canon lens is slightly slower and has 50mm less at the short end.
> 
> A *logical* person might look at Canon's affordable RF lens lineup and question how much room there is for competition from third parties given the selection and aggressive pricing that Canon is offering.


Canon do great in the budget lens area (aside from those STM motors which are horrible) but it's their mid range and high end pricing that really hurts them. Here in Australia for example, Canon charge way too much for a lot of their L lenses compared to what the competition charge for both first party and third party lenses.

Let's look at some comparisons:

35GM - $1899 AUD / $1399 USD
35L II - $2800 AUD / $1999 USD (much older, heavier lens in an old mount)
35mm DN Art - $1299 AUD / $749 USD

50mm f/1.2 GM - $2630 AUD / $1998 USD
50mm f/1.2L - $3399 AUD / $2299 USD

EF85L - f1/.4 $2299 AUD / $1599USD
RF85L - $3888 / $2699 USD 
85mmGM - $1774AUD / $1798 USD
85mm DN Art - $1299 AUD / $1199 USD

EF16-35Lf/4 - $1799 AUD $1299 USD
RF14-35L - $2499 AUD / $1649 USD
FE PZ 16-35 - $1580 AUD / $1198 USD (released this year but still cheaper than RF/EF options)
Sigma DN 16-28mm f/2.8 - $1189 AUD / $899USD

If you look purely at Sigma and other third parties, their DN lenses are smaller and sharper than the old DG versions and as Sony share their AF, they perform like native too. 

So a *logical *person who wants new, f/1.2 or f/1.4 primes or fast/f/4 zooms may realize they can pay less for more on another mount due to third party support and fairer pricing.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 27, 2022)

unfocused said:


> So, Tamron just released a 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD lens for Sony E-mount for $1,300. Canon has a 100-400 RF f5.6-8 that retails for $600. A *logical* person might speculate that a similar Tamron lens for the R mount could be a hard sale at *more than twice* the price of the Canon lens, even though the Canon lens is slightly slower and has 50mm less at the short end.
> 
> A *logical* person might look at Canon's affordable RF lens lineup and question how much room there is for competition from third parties given the selection and aggressive pricing that Canon is offering.


I understand your point, but the same logic could result in saying Canon is wasting its time with an RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS. After all, it would seem a hard sale at *more than quadruple *the price of the RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 even though the RF 100-400 lens is slightly slower and has 100mm less at the long end. But not too many people think Canon is wasting its time with the RF 100-500. I would like to know more about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the RF 100-400 and the new Tamron 50-400 before I formed a view about whether it is worth its price over the RF 100-400. (And I can imagine some people placing substantial value on the focal length range starting at 50mm rather than 100mm.)

Further, one lens does not a system make. To me (YMMV), lenses such as a 24-70, 70-200 (or 70-180, noting the Tamron), 24, 35, 50, 85 and perhaps 135 are going to form the core of a kit (Inot saying I'd want all of them, but my kit would be based around a selection from that range), and for RF native lenses Canon gives you a choice or optically excellent but large, heavy and extremely expensive lenses (except for the 70-200s which at least are small and light) or a few cheaper lenses which are, in my opinion, disappointing and certainly uninspiring. DLee13 has already posted a comparison of Canon RF lens prices with the prices of various lenses available for the Sony system, so I won't set out details here. However, in my neck of the woods, an R6 + RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS + RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS is over A$11k, while an A7 IV + Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 + Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 is about A$6.5k (perhaps a little more). Sure the Canon gear is nice, but the A7 IV + third party lenses does have some advantages too (apart from cost), and to me the extra $4.5k for the Canon gear is not even remotely worth it. Again, YMMV, of course. However, it seems to me that while Canon may offer a few good deals (the RF 100-400 seems to be one of them), they are the exception, not the rule.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 27, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Clearly you don't know what a monopoly *or* a fact is.


I don't agree with everying LogicExtremist has said (eg as much I am critical of a number of the non-L RF lenses, I would not call them junk), but I think this is perhaps a little harsh.

As I have read what LogicExtremist has posted, he was talking about Canon having a monopoly on RF mount lenses or more specifically RF mount lenses with AF. And it seems Canon all but does have a monopoly on RF mount lenses with AF. Of the other three other manufacturers I am aware of which have gone to the trouble of putting RF mounts lenses with AF on the market, Samyang/Rokinon seems to have stopped supplying them, and Viltrox has removed RF lenses from its website which suggests to me they have probably stopped supplying them (and the Viltrox RF lenses still on the market are earlier stock which hasn't sold yet). That leaves Yongnuo, and it still has RF lenses on its website although they are hard to find in my neck of the woods. Will see what happens there. So, has LogicExtremist jumped the gun in saying it is a fact Canon has a monopoly on RF mount lenses with AF? I would say literally yes. However, I'm not sure he's far off though.

Of course, having a monopoly is one thing, whether it is a valuable monopoly is another, eg RF mount cameras can use EF mount lenses via adapter so for as long as EF mounts lenses are aroung, having a monopoly on RF mount lenses does not mean having a monopoly on lenses for RF mount cameras. I can imagine an economist saying RF mount lenses and EF mount lenses are sufficiently substitutable that they form part of the same market so a monopoly on RF mount lenses is not that significant. (An economist may say that, for practical purposes, the market should be defined at a higher level again, eg interchangeable lenses cameras or whatever. Economists, and lawyers dealing with anti-competive conduct (anti-trust) laws can spend a lot of time debating the appropriate definition for a market in any given case.) However, my guess is EF lenses will fade away over time now, so having a monopoly on RF mount lenses will become more valuable over time *if* Canon can sell enough RF mount cameras.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 27, 2022)

Johnw said:


> And that's not even considering that you are only using the term monopoly to refer to one's options for fitting lenses to Canon bodies. Canon does not have any illegally acquired market position such that you have to use a Canon body, which is what the actual term monopoly indicates. As I've also indicated, even using your own definition that fails as there are multiple options for utilizing third party AF lenses on Canon RF bodies.


Monopoly does not necessarily imply any of sort illegality. Yes, there are anti-competitive conduct laws which prohibit or discourage monopolies in various scenarios, but that is a separate issue. For example, Microsoft and Google ended up with near monopoly positions in some areas and governments/regulators have taken action to change the situation, but that doesn't mean Microsoft or Google acted illegally to get their positions. Or to give another example, if I own the copyright in the source code for some software, the law gives me a monopoly on use of that source code (subject to limited exceptions which don't detract from the primary point here).


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 27, 2022)

unfocused said:


> So, Tamron just released a 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD lens for Sony E-mount for $1,300. Canon has a 100-400 RF f5.6-8 that retails for $600. A *logical* person might speculate that a similar Tamron lens for the R mount could be a hard sale at *more than twice* the price of the Canon lens, even though the Canon lens is slightly slower and has 50mm less at the short end.
> 
> A *logical* person might look at Canon's affordable RF lens lineup and question how much room there is for competition from third parties given the selection and aggressive pricing that Canon is offering.



There are many many more but here are just a few examples of where 3rd parties could provide fierce competition with very aggressive pricing.

Canon 24-70mm f2.8 = £2'359 - Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 = £1049 - Samyang 24-70mm f2.8 = £828 - Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 = £849
Sigma 28-70mm 2.8 = £759

Canon 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 = £2979 - Tamron 150-500mm = f5-6.7 = £1099 - Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 = £1199

Canon 70-200mm f2.8 = £2599 - Canon 70-200mm f4 = £1699 - Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 = £1149

Canon 100 f2.8 Macro = £1499 - Sigma 105 f2.8 Macro = £699

Canon 24mm f1.8 Macro = £719 - Sigma 24mm f1.4 = £779

Canon 35mm f1.8 Macro = £529 - Sigma 35mm f2 = £579

Canon 85mm f1.2 = £3059 - Sigma 85mm f1.4 = £999


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 27, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> From Canon's point of view, maximizing profits is what they are supposed to do. You somehow, totally illogically, then warp this obvious business truth, into a conspiracy, or an evil, dirty business maneuver that borders on illegal and unethical. And if someone points out that it is neither, then apparently we are guilty of some sort of Canon worship or love. Maybe we're just not willing to jump on your bandwagon of totally biased hate.
> 
> From another post, your total bias is revealed. "...As long as Canon keeps putting out overpriced lenses, either high end pro lenses or seriously crippled junk consumer lenses, there will be a huge market for third-party RF lenses!"
> 
> ...



Totally agree, corporations exist to make a profit, but there are legitimate and illegitimate ways to achieve that goal.

A monopoly is a situation _where you control the market you're in_, not all possible markets as you loosely and incorrectly define it. Remember the Microsoft antitrust case with their web browser? Yes, people were still able use Apple computers, or run other operating systems such as Linux on their intel PCs, but the case was about having a monopoly on web browsers in the Microsoft Windows market, they locked out third parties. The outcome was that The European Commission fined Microsoft 561m euros ($731m or £484m) for failing to comply with its commitments to offer users a browser choice screen enabling them to easily choose their preferred web browser.

Similar to the Microsoft Windows platform (an operating system) is the Canon ecosystem, and in either case you can't lock out third-parties without falling afoul of the law. Canon has been charged and fined for violating other anti-trust laws in the past. In 2019 the European Commission fined Canon €28 million ($32 million) and the U.S. Department of Justice fined them $5 million fine for violating anti-trust laws related to Canon's acquisition of Toshiba's Medical group in 2016. Are their ethics beyond reproach? Clearly not... Might they do the wrong thing again? Plenty of corporations that have been fined have breached the law multiple times. Look to the term "Microsoft litigation" for an amusing read.

Yes, totally agree with what you said, "_But the key point is - *you don't have to buy them*. Their R system cameras *do not require you to buy them*. All the EF lenses, whether made by Canon or made by Sigma, Tamron or others can be used on the R system cameras_." Precisely my point. If the lenses are less than ideal, people don't have to buy them - _if they have choice of third-party options_. If people can wait, it might help not to just swallow up whatever Canon throws out there. The customers do drive the market, but the only way they can get what *they want* as opposed to whatever Canon wants to sell them is to be a bit more discriminating in their purchases, and vote with their wallets.

Yes, some of the new Canon lenses are cheap junk that's seriously afflicted by the Canon cripple hammer lol! No company is perfect, so there are bound to be a few duds in there, but it's the questionable cost-cutting measures are a bit much. Making RF lenses with darker apertures than were ever used on the EF and EF-S series because you can on mirrorless is hardly in the spirit of customer goodwill or technological process and actually regressive. That's on top of Canon's long history of mean-spirited miserliness which we all tolerate.

Canon released the RF mount in September 2018 (4 years ago). Where's the choice???

I'm not sure what you're objecting to really, the gist of my message is that people are better served to:

Employ critical thinking when they encounter the predominately borderline dishonest marketing hype that's meant to stir up emotions to drive sales, 
Objectively analyse the pros and cons of a particular product, and be open to information about problems, shortcomings or limitations without getting defensive to get a clear picture of what the product can or can't do.
Have a realistic perspective of technology and engineering, by understanding that all design involves some level of compromise.
Recognise that certain products may be suitable for specific applications, and not other, making them terrible for some uses and great for others. On top of that, appreciating that bad designs of the wrong compromises may make them bad in many areas of their specific niche application too.
Understand the relationship between companies and consumers clearly, companies are in it for the profits, consumers look to get their needs/wants met through having the choices to best meet those. If the balance is out, as it is now, with no competition and therefore greatly reduced consumer choice, even worse a monopoly on native AF glass, then this needs to be highlighted. For people to pretend they're not getting a bad deal from their favourite camera company is just an exercise in self-delusion. Perhaps hold off buying until there is real choice might serve their needs better.
Put simply, the news some people don't want to hear is that on Canon's RF platform, there are no native third-party options so there is less choice, Canon's prices are high and they can charge what they like in the absence of competition, some products are technically not that great (even for the price), and Canon is cutting corners while elevating prices to maximise profits, which is good for them and not so good for consumers.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, the way Canon gives 'less for more' is by intentionally under-designing lenses either in terms of optical correction or effective aperture, using cheaper plastic aspherical lens elements and making the design compromises that favour centre sharpness above other attributes of image quality, while charging more than an earlier lenses which were optically better (in overall IQ, light-gathering, etc). People only see better centre sharpness (while the periphery of the image has gone to pixel hell, the corners are vignetted to the realm of shadows, and the lens only lets through half the light) and claim it's an improvement over a previous lens! Maybe if you only do studio portrait photography... If that's the new Canon design formula for their lesser non-L series lenses, that's a significant change in direction that matters in a lot of photography genres and worth paying attention to.

That's a long enough explanation!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 27, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Oh really? So then, if I order a Vitrolix RF 85 from B&H right now, I won't receive a third party AF lens? Even if they do cease production, I could still purchase that one or a Samyang used.
> 
> Additionally, if that were true, then I couldn't have just ordered a Sigma 12-24 last week for my R6, because I like that better than any of Canon's UWA zoom offerings in RF so far. Again, Sigma, not Canon, got my money on a NEW autofocus lens for an RF camera.
> 
> ...


No RF AF lenses being made anymore, some retailers have stock left. Check the manufacturer's websites.

No law against having a large market share, or a monopoly. If a company maintains monopoly power by anticompetitive means, like how Microsoft and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market, that violates anti-trust laws!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 27, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Canon do great in the budget lens area (aside from those STM motors which are horrible) but it's their mid range and high end pricing that really hurts them. Here in Australia for example, Canon charge way too much for a lot of their L lenses compared to what the competition charge for both first party and third party lenses.
> 
> Let's look at some comparisons:
> 
> ...


Looking at Australian prices (and I did a post ages ago looking at the median incomes of US, UK, AU comparing what percentage of annual income a fancy camera and body lens costs in each country) the prices are very high! Maybe Canon in that region charges more to maintain profit levels in the smaller market, but either way its not a level playing field.

Browsing AU camera sites, the RF 24mm f/1.8 macro is a $1,000 lens, and RF 800mm f/11 is close to a $2,000 lens at $1800, and the RF 100-500 is closer to $5,000! Wow! I get what you mean!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 27, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> ...the gist of my message is that people are better served to:
> 
> Employ critical thinking when they encounter the predominately borderline dishonest marketing hype that's meant to stir up emotions to drive sales,
> Objectively analyse the pros and cons of a particular product, and be open to information about problems, shortcomings or limitations without getting defensive to get a clear picture of what the product can or can't do.
> ...


Most of what you have said here is reasonable. I would disagree with some of the underlying bias against Canon products but your basic premises are not too extreme. 

What I originally disagreed with is the assumption that Canon has pro-actively blocked third party development and the moral judgement you assigned to that. It appears to me that that is really the _"gist"_ of your argument. 

We have no proof that Canon has done so (no record of court filings for example), but you jumped to a conclusion when you don't have sufficient information to verify your assumptions, ruling out all other logical and simpler explanations. I have pointed out that there can be other reasons for the lack of third-party lenses at this time: the market may be too small, they may be having a difficult time identifying where to slot their products, they may not want to divert resources to a new market in the midst of a supply chain crisis, the nature of the RF mount might make it more difficult for third parties to design lenses that work across multiple brands, they are just slow in coming to the market, etc. etc.) I have also pointed out that third-parties have never been stopped by Canon's efforts to protect its technology and we have no evidence that they will be stopped in the future.

Even if Canon is pro-actively trying to block entry to the RF market from other manufacturers, they can only do so within the confines of the law. So to assign a negative moral judgement to such action is simply wrong. 

Value judgements like _"For people to pretend they're not getting a bad deal from their favourite camera company is just an exercise in self-delusion"_ fail to recognize that you are simply stating your personal opinion that is not shared by others. In fact, most of the available evidence (Canon's ability to consistently sell out its products and available figures from companies that monitor the market) would indicate that many people believe they are getting a good deal from Canon.

Your message seems to be that you are more discerning or wiser than other Canon customers and I find that condescending and illogical. I suspect that most of the people buying into the R system are experienced photographers who know exactly what they want and are fully capable of deciding if Canon's offerings meet their needs or wants without your advice. 

Some of my posts may be harsh. Unfortunately, the nature of internet forums does not also lend itself to reasoned, polite discussion. I disagree with your premises and conclusions. You claim to know that Canon has pro-actively blocked third parties, when you really have no knowledge of whether that is true or not. You have assigned a negative moral and legal judgement to a strategy that Canon is well within their legal rights to pursue. And most egregious of all, you are dismissive of the experience, wisdom and discretion of those who buy Canon products.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 27, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Most of what you have said here is reasonable. I would disagree with some of the underlying bias against Canon products but your basic premises are not too extreme.
> 
> What I originally disagreed with is the assumption that Canon has pro-actively blocked third party development and the moral judgement you assigned to that. It appears to me that that is really the _"gist"_ of your argument.
> 
> ...


You're welcome to disagree with what I've written! If healthy discussion gets people thinking and challenging their preconceptions, me included, that's a good thing. 

Nobody has any proof of anything, I stated from the start and on many occasions that we're all speculating on what's happening, but our speculation needs to be logically consistent and not contradicted by what little we all do know about this unusual situation.

Whatever theory we posit needs to be able to explain why many third-party vendors are holding back on releasing products AND also why all third-party vendors suddenly and mysteriously withdrew all their RF AF glass without explanation or public announcement.

The suggestions you've made may explain the first but not the second observation, which is why I'm saying that's probably not the case. I'm not claiming to be commenting from an exalted position or making condescending comments, just pointing out the basic concept that a theory must be able to explain all observations it describes to be valid.

You stated "_Even if Canon is pro-actively trying to block entry to the RF market from other manufacturers, they can only do so within the confines of the law. So to assign a negative moral judgement to such action is simply wrong_." The suggestion by another member that Canon is providing the incentive of licensing and making the third-party vendors wait, for whatever reason, which works immensely in Canon's favour in the meantime, fits well with that, I'd assume it's probably legal. Though, logically, an action can be immoral and unethical, even if it is legal. Shutting down all third parties that have products on the market, by whatever means to limit competition and reduce customer choice, creating a situation where Canon sets their price in a market vacuum can be judged as unethical in my mind,

What I'm claiming is that the only two theories which stand up logically to explain both no new third-party lenses *and *the highly irregular disappearance of existing RF AF lenses are:

1. foul play
2. licensing

Both are possible, and I was calling out people who deny that the first is possible when we actually have public court records that show illegal activity has occurred in the past. 

I'm open to more theories as long as they hold up to scrutiny.

You mentioned bias. That would imply an illogical or irrational preference or prejudice _against _Canon, when in fact I've only ever owned Canon DSLRs and MILCs, all my EF and RF lenses (quite a few) are Canon lenses apart from a single Sigma Art lens! I can outline what features I like to justify why I prefer Canon gear, but that would probably be quite subjective on some level, so would that be a bias for Canon gear?

No bias, just calling out what is either irregular, suspect or questionable, and pointing out where the limitations and shortcomings are in gear that people get irrationally emotive over and prefer not to see. Frankly, if I'm looking to buy new gear, I'd prefer a brutally honest review to be able to make a properly informed decision, rather than a informercial style review that plays down any shortcomings to avoid upsetting the manufacturers and provides post-sale validation to buyers to assuage their feelings.

If your disagreements about my premises and conclusions are polite and well-reasoned, then they're not harsh from my perspective! I expect to be corrected when I'm mistaken!


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 27, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Looking at Australian prices (and I did a post ages ago looking at the median incomes of US, UK, AU comparing what percentage of annual income a fancy camera and body lens costs in each country) the prices are very high! Maybe Canon in that region charges more to maintain profit levels in the smaller market, but either way its not a level playing field.
> 
> Browsing AU camera sites, the RF 24mm f/1.8 macro is a $1,000 lens, and RF 800mm f/11 is close to a $2,000 lens at $1800, and the RF 100-500 is closer to $5,000! Wow! I get what you mean!


yeah we really get shafted for pricing here. People used to buy online but then one of the largest chain electronic stores lobbied for a 10% tax for anyone buying products from overseas to stop us from doing so which was implemented.

The problem definitely is Canon Australia as say pre-Covid prices of many Sony lenses have stayed the same whereas Canon have significantly increased their pricing. For example I purchased the EF 16-35mm f/4L in 2017 for $1000 AUD but now it’s $1799 AUD brand new. It seems Canon AU have simply increased the EF pricing to make the RF ones seem less expensive.

Stores here tend to really inflate the pricing too then have big 20% off ‘sales’. Or they simply increase the price before a sale/promotion so it still ends up more than the previous normal price.

Our Sigma AU supplier (CR Kennedy) sells their stuff often via eBay for 20% off so you can get third party gear really cheap and would be great for Canon users if they just open their mount….


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 28, 2022)

Just to further fuel the speculation, I found this in a post on the same subject on DPR today, where the poster wrote:

"_Thought I'd chime in on this thread, I've messaged Viltrox directly on Instagram and here is what they've responded with:_"







Where is Canon going this this???


----------



## navastronia (Aug 28, 2022)

I'm just here to say I hope the value of my now-rare Samyang RF 85/1.4 AF and RF 14/2.8 AF go up now that they're no longer sold.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 28, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Just to further fuel the speculation, I found this in a post on the same subject on DPR today, where the poster wrote:
> 
> "_Thought I'd chime in on this thread, I've messaged Viltrox directly on Instagram and here is what they've responded with:_"
> 
> ...



Having no competition for lenses on RF is great Canon’s profits but I would argue terrible for Canon’s RF shooters.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 28, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Oh really? So then, if I order a Vitrolix RF 85 from B&H right now, I won't receive a third party AF lens? Even if they do cease production, I could still purchase that one or a Samyang used.
> 
> Additionally, if that were true, then I couldn't have just ordered a Sigma 12-24 last week for my R6, because I like that better than any of Canon's UWA zoom offerings in RF so far. Again, Sigma, not Canon, got my money on a NEW autofocus lens for an RF camera.
> 
> ...


As a matter of fact, I' m using one single native RF lens, but 14 EFs, 4 Leica Rs, 7 Leica Ms, and 3 Zeiss with EF mount on my EOS R.
Where is the monopoly????


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 28, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> As a matter of fact, I' m using one single native RF lens, but 14 EFs, 4 Leica Rs, 7 Leica Ms, and 3 Zeiss with EF mount on my EOS R.
> Where is the monopoly????


That would be in the area of native Canon RF mount AF lenses, you know the ones, the lenses for Canon's new cameras, that don't need to be manually focused, which nearly everyone uses and wants to buy, that make up approximately 99.99% of the discussions on this forum, nothing really that important lol! 

"_As a matter of fact, I'm using a Sony, where's the Canon monopoly?_" (just kidding...)


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 28, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> As a matter of fact, I' m using one single native RF lens, but 14 EFs, 4 Leica Rs, 7 Leica Ms, and 3 Zeiss with EF mount on my EOS R.
> Where is the monopoly????


In a strictly legal sense Canon do not have a monopoly and are probably acting within their legal rights.

I and others can perceive Canon’s actions to be anti-customer and therefore cause them reputational damage which can and will lead some customers to either choose a different system or run a competing system in tandem. Canon and some Canon shooters may not care about that and that’s fine but in business it’s unwise to take actions that can assist the competition.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Just to further fuel the speculation, I found this in a post on the same subject on DPR today, where the poster wrote:
> 
> "_Thought I'd chime in on this thread, I've messaged Viltrox directly on Instagram and here is what they've responded with:_"
> 
> ...


Well, that is certainly an interesting development if true. Wondering if they are sending out cease and desist letters. I also wonder if it is a temporary strategy as I can't imagine it would be good for Canon to be the only camera manufacturer that native mount third party lenses are available for. Finally, I'm curious if Sigma may have enough resources to get around Canon's patents.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2022)

It is a shame that there are no real journalists covering Canon (or any photography) news, so when something like this comes up there is no site to turn to where a reporter has actually dug into the facts.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 28, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> That would be in the area of native Canon RF mount AF lenses, you know the ones, the lenses for Canon's new cameras, that don't need to be manually focused, which nearly everyone uses and wants to buy, that make up approximately 99.99% of the discussions on this forum, nothing really that important lol!
> 
> "_As a matter of fact, I'm using a Sony, where's the Canon monopoly?_" (just kidding...)


Not a single EF lens needs to be manually focused...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Not a single EF lens needs to be manually focused...


You can AF your manual Leica lenses on Sony using the latest Techart adapter, which will drive the MF for you.








Techart PRO Leica M – Sony E Autofocus Adapter ver II (LM-EA9)


The LM-EA9 is not compatible with partial LTM or M-mount lenses that are with an infinity lock button at the lenses' flange level. Here are some lenses that are not compatible with LM-EA9: Leitz Elmar 35mm f/3.5 (LTM version) Leitz Hektor 50mm f/2.5 Leitz Hektor 28mm f/6.3 Leitz Summar 50mm...




techartpro.com





and to Nikon Z.








TECHART Leica M - Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter (TZM-01)







techartpro.com


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 28, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> That would be in the area of native Canon RF mount AF lenses, you know the ones, the lenses for Canon's new cameras, that don't need to be manually focused, which nearly everyone uses and wants to buy, that make up approximately 99.99% of the discussions on this forum, nothing really that important lol!
> 
> "_As a matter of fact, I'm using a Sony, where's the Canon monopoly?_" (just kidding...)


Not a single EF lens needs to be manually focused...


AlanF said:


> You can AF your manual Leica lenses on Sony using the latest Techart adapter, which will drive the MF for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





AlanF said:


> You can AF your manual Leica lenses on Sony using the latest Techart adapter, which will drive the MF for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know, but that would mean buying a Sony again, what a horrible thought! (I once owned an A7 which I hated).
And manual focusing is so easy with an R , since I only use M lenses from 35 to 90mm on my R.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Not a single EF lens needs to be manually focused...
> 
> 
> I know, but that would mean buying a Sony again, what a horrible thought! (I once owned an A7 which I hated).
> And manual focusing is so easy with an R , since I only use M lenses from 35 to 90mm on my R.


I am not suggesting you do, but it shows Sony and Nikon are willing to share their protocols with 3rd parties, which is to their credit, and it may well be to their advantage.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 28, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Not a single EF lens needs to be manually focused...


The tilt-shift lenses do.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 28, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Well, that is certainly an interesting development if true. Wondering if they are sending out cease and desist letters. I also wonder if it is a temporary strategy as I can't imagine it would be good for Canon to be the only camera manufacturer that native mount third party lenses are available for. Finally, I'm curious if Sigma may have enough resources to get around Canon's patents.


Not according to the Sigma rep I spoke to in June, I was told Sigma are waiting on a license in order to release RF mount lenses. With what Viltrox said about Canon telling them to stop making RF products it seems like reverse engineering is not going to happen. As for this being a temporary situation the RF mount is nearly 4 years old.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 29, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> The tilt-shift lenses do.


They are named TS-E by canon... despite their EF mount.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I am not suggesting you do, but it shows Sony and Nikon are willing to share their protocols with 3rd parties, which is to their credit, and it may well be to their advantage.


It is indeed an advantage for the customers, having a much wider choice of lenses. Some Sigmas are really tempting.
Some Tamrons too.
But would it be an advantage for Canon? Sales will tell.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 29, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> It is indeed an advantage for the customers, having a much wider choice of lenses. Some Sigmas are really tempting.
> Some Tamrons too.
> *But would it be an advantage for Canon? Sales will tell.*


I personally think it would be an advantage for Canon. If someone wants to use one of these DN lenses for example, they’d need a RF mount body which Canon would be making money from. Plus if they license out their AF protocol, they’d be making money from that while keeping their customers happy.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 29, 2022)

unfocused said:


> It is a shame that there are no real journalists covering Canon (or any photography) news, so when something like this comes up there is no site to turn to where a reporter has actually dug into the facts.


Unfortunately, it's all just discussion and leaks on online forums that have revealed what we know!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 29, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Not a single EF lens needs to be manually focused...


I didn't mention EF lenses that needed manual focus, is this another discussion thread you're starting?

Ok, I'll go with it! 

*Del Paso: * "Not a single EF lens needs to be manually focused..."
*Every macro photographer:* Hold my beer!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 29, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> The tilt-shift lenses do.


So does the Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro, that's a manually focused native EF lens.

Where is neuro these days? He's slipping in his game here, he's the master of picking up exceptions to general statements! We're missing his skills here!


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> So does the Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro, that's a manually focused native EF lens.
> 
> Where is neuro these days? He's slipping in his game here, he's the master of picking up exceptions to general statements! We're missing his skills here!


The MP-E is actually a fixed-focus lens, no way to focus, manually or electronically. And like the TS-E lenses, the MP-E is not called 'EF' by Canon.


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 29, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Totally agree, corporations exist to make a profit, but there are legitimate and illegitimate ways to achieve that goal



You keep insinuating that Canon is doing something illegitimate but, as far as I know, have offered absolutely no evidence. Funny that you continue to insinuate that Canon is being unethical, while making false accusations is definitely unethical in my opinion. If you know Canon is violating some laws please do let us know.

Of course, it is quite possible that they are doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Perhaps the patent laws and other proprietary codes permit Canon a certain period of exclusivity for selling RF mount products similar to how drug companies have a 6 year period of exclusivity for their new products before generic versions can be made. I hope you haven't been or never are in that situation, but for folks prescribed a non-generic drug it might mean the difference between serious illness and living a normal life if they can't afford the non-generic version and have to wait until the generics are available. For folks who have been in that situation, your seemingly over-the-top reaction to buying what amounts to a luxury item for most people totally lacks perspective. Every person can wait to buy a lens - either waiting until 3rd party lenses become available or waiting for used or refurbished RF lenses from Canon. No one needs to buy these lenses, a point you seem unable to come to grips with.

And, of course, the other obvious answer for anyone so annoyed or pissd off, or thinking unethical things are happening, you can buy another brand of camera. Buy another brand, buy whatever lenses are available for that brand. There is no monopoly. You have choices.



LogicExtremist said:


> Yes, totally agree with what you said, "_But the key point is - *you don't have to buy them*. Their R system cameras *do not require you to buy them*. All the EF lenses, whether made by Canon or made by Sigma, Tamron or others can be used on the R system cameras_." Precisely my point. If the lenses are less than ideal, people don't have to buy them - _if they have choice of third-party options_.



Not sure why you don't get the fact that THEY DON'T NEED A CHOICE 3RD PARTY OPTIONS. There, all caps so maybe you get it this time. *All EF mount lenses can be bought instead*.



LogicExtremist said:


> Yes, some of the new Canon lenses are cheap junk that's seriously afflicted by the Canon cripple hammer lol! No company is perfect, so there are bound to be a few duds in there, but it's the questionable cost-cutting measures are a bit much.


 For you, in your opinion. You keep stating these things as if they are objective truths




LogicExtremist said:


> Making RF lenses with darker apertures than were ever used on the EF and EF-S series because you can on mirrorless is hardly in the spirit of customer goodwill or technological process and actually regressive. That's on top of Canon's long history of mean-spirited miserliness which we all tolerate.



Again, in your opinion. Darker apertures allow lighter, smaller and cheaper lenses. I could just as easily call that goodwill on the part of Canon, as well as technologically progressive. Don't you get it? - you are applying your personal desires to your opinions. If someone was hoping that these new mirrorless lenses were smaller and lighter, than - if we apply their personal desires - these lenses are progressive. Somehow you keep assuming that the ability to make lenses smaller and lighter just doesn't count. Maybe for the majority of lens buyers, that counts more than keeping the same apertures as the EF versions.

We get that you don't like software corrected lenses. You don't have to keep repeating yourself as to how awful these lenses are. I think most would disagree that they are awful. In some cases corner sharpness after correction are better than similar EF lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Of course, it is quite possible that they are doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Perhaps the patent laws and other proprietary codes permit Canon a certain period of exclusivity for selling RF mount products similar to how drug companies have a 6 year period of exclusivity for their new products before generic versions can be made.


They have the standard patent length over their camera mount and any proprietary communication codes. But, they have no rights over anyone making and selling a lens mount to fit on their patented camera mount and similarly anyone is entitled to reverse engineer a communication protocol that works but not copy the Canon one.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 29, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Not sure why you don't get the fact that THEY DON'T NEED A CHOICE 3RD PARTY OPTIONS. There, all caps so maybe you get it this time. *All EF mount lenses can be bought instead*.


Many EF options are more expensive (depending on where you live), heavier/larger and not as good optically as Sigma DN lenses or Tamron’s newer lenses. But actually you’re right, who would want to buy a $1000 AUD Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DN Art when you could get a EF 16-35mm f/4L for $1800 AUD….


----------



## unfocused (Aug 29, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Many EF options are more expensive (depending on where you live), heavier/larger and not as good optically as Sigma DN lenses or Tamron’s newer lenses. But actually you’re right, who would want to buy a $1000 AUD Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DN Art when you could get a EF 16-35mm f/4L for $1800 AUD….


I think his point is that all EF mount lenses regardless of brand will work on R bodies, with a simple adapter.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 30, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I think his point is that all EF mount lenses regardless of brand will work on R bodies, with a simple adapter.


As I mentioned the issue with that is if you don’t already own EF lenses, many are more expensive than both first party options from Sony and much more than much newer DN lenses from Sigma. Plus not all people want to bother with adapters.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 30, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> You keep insinuating that Canon is doing something illegitimate but, as far as I know, have offered absolutely no evidence. Funny that you continue to insinuate that Canon is being unethical, while making false accusations is definitely unethical in my opinion. If you know Canon is violating some laws please do let us know.
> 
> Of course, it is quite possible that they are doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Perhaps the patent laws and other proprietary codes permit Canon a certain period of exclusivity for selling RF mount products similar to how drug companies have a 6 year period of exclusivity for their new products before generic versions can be made. I hope you haven't been or never are in that situation, but for folks prescribed a non-generic drug it might mean the difference between serious illness and living a normal life if they can't afford the non-generic version and have to wait until the generics are available. For folks who have been in that situation, your seemingly over-the-top reaction to buying what amounts to a luxury item for most people totally lacks perspective. Every person can wait to buy a lens - either waiting until 3rd party lenses become available or waiting for used or refurbished RF lenses from Canon. No one needs to buy these lenses, a point you seem unable to come to grips with.
> 
> ...


Just wow!  So much flawed logical thinking I just don't know where to start. Probably because it's all emotive...

Enjoy your wide range of choice of third-party AF RF lenses in the "non-monopoly" that Canon doesn't have. Oh that's right, there aren't any after four years and there might not be any!!! Cognitive dissonance is a nasty thing to deal with sometimes. Let's hope Sigma gets sold a license to the RF system soon, and it's not made too expensive intentionally to force their prices up and make them uncompetitive in an effort to make Canon's price gouging look more reasonable! 

Oh goodness, so using adapted EF lenses, which will eventually cease to be manufactured is your definition of choice? Why would anyone buy a brand new RF camera and buy legacy lenses from the previous mount? You're missing the difference between lack of choice and lack of funds here. Why even run a website like Canon Rumors if people don't want or need RF lenses for their RF camera bodies? Heck, why would people even bother posting about what they want in new RF camera bodies at all? Nice try to define away the reality of a lack of choice through some sematic summersaults. By your reasoning, they have a greater choice of EF, EF-S and EF-M camera bodies, and the first two work fine with EF-lenses, and they don't need a $100 EF-RF adapter either. Never mind that all is going to be phased out eventually, and at some point won't be replaceable or repairable, and that some people actually look to the future before shelling out hundreds or thousands of dollars in camera gear.

So darker apertures are a feature and a sign of technical progress, rather than a limitation, and a sign of technical regression, cost cutting and flagrant money-grabbing? Canon absolutely loves people who believe their hype. That's pretty good marketing spin doctoring that borders on to Orwellian doublespeak. Okay. lets follow through this line of reasoning. If you really want lightweight camera gear with dark apertures lenses for a really cheap price, that can take the wide choice of EF lenses which somehow eliminate the monopoly on RF AF lenses, I'll let you in on the secret. The perfect solution has been around for a while, they call it the Rebel series of APSC cameras in the US, and apparently it's extremely popular.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 30, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I think his point is that all EF mount lenses regardless of brand will work on R bodies, with a simple adapter.


So why would anyone buy RF lenses by that logic? The reasons why they would, the answers to that question, are the points that Czardoom is not addressing, or refusing to acknowledge.

I've seen so many posts on this forum with reasons why people either want to buy new RF lenses as first time buyers of a certain focal length/aperture combination, or want to change over their existing EF lenses to their RF counterparts. Kind of an inconvenient truth that...


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 30, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I think his point is that all EF mount lenses regardless of brand will work on R bodies, with a simple adapter.


Making a setup larger and heavier. Sigma have been working to improve their lenses by making them smaller, lighter and optically better to the point where their Art lenses compare very
well to Sony’s GM line. Plus their I series line includes lenses that Canon probably won’t ever make.

For Tamron they are doing some interesting things with their zooms. Coincidently this has been announced today https://www.tamron.com/news/press_release/20220830.html# - Tamron have just announced their 1st lens for Z mount.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 30, 2022)

Sony executives must soooo happy losing potential GM line customers to Sigma & co.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Sony executives must soooo happy losing potential GM line customers to Sigma & co.


Well, it is possible they may be happy enough about it. Sony is trying to maximise its profits, no doubt. If Sony would sell the same number of cameras if third party lenses were not available, presumably it would be better for Sony if there were no third party lenses available for the Sony platform, because then Sony would be getting all of whatever sales of lenses there were for Sony's mount. However, if the availability of third party lenses increases the sale of Sony cameras, it is possible Sony could end up doing better overall by virtue of selling more cameras and perhaps even selling more lenses (because of the increased number of Sony camera owners to potentially buy lenses). Assuming Sony sells its cameras and lenses at a profit, that could lead to higher overall profit than if the third party lenses were not there, notwithstanding the fact some people might end up buying a third party lens in preference to a Sony lens. 

How does/would it actually work out in practice? I don't know. However, I am going to assume that companies like Sony and Canon have a lot of data which is relevant to that question, and employ people to put a lot of time and energy into analysing that data and other market information to try to come up wtih an answer.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Sony executives must soooo happy losing potential GM line customers to Sigma & co.


Sigma make a mix of lenses that directly compete with Sony’s offerings and ones that Sony have no equivalent for at all and not every Sony shooter can afford or will pay GM prices even of they can.
So while its true that 1 user might choose the 85mm f1.4 DG DN over the 85mm GM that same user might also opt to buy the 35mm f1.4 GM over Sigma’s 35mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.2.

In my personal kit it’s mostly GM and G lenses but my 24-70mm is the Sigma because at the time it was the best option in that range on emount. I also own Voigtländer’s 50mm f1.2 Nokton, which I use for some of my street photography. Sony don’t and probably won’t make any manual focus lenses. I’m considering more Voigtländer lenses, waiting on a potential 105mm f1.4 DG DN and a potential 85mm f1.2 GM. The key thing here is that I and all Sony users can choose. On Canon it’s whatever they decide to release and that’s it.


----------



## gruhl28 (Aug 30, 2022)

Please stop confusing what you don't like with what is unethical or illegal. Yes, from the point of view of those of us who would like to buy Sigma or Tamron or other third party lenses for our R series cameras it sucks that Canon will not license the protocol to third party lens makers. And for people who own Sony, it's great for them that Sony does. This decision by Canon may be bad for their business, or it may be good for their business; presumably they believe that the money they make on lens sales will more than compensate for people who may chose not to buy Canon because they cannot get third party lenses for the R. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. It sucks for us, but that does not make it unethical for Canon, and it certainly doesn't make it illegal. Canon's priority is maximizing profit, just like most companies. It is within their rights to keep their lens protocols to themselves. Just because I don't like the way they do business doesn't make it unethical.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Sony executives must soooo happy losing potential GM line customers to Sigma & co.


You need a Sony body to use one of those Sigma lenses plus they get funds from the licensing so better than losing customer to another brand altogether, like Canon.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 4, 2022)

SNJ Ops said:


> In a strictly legal sense Canon do not have a monopoly



Canon does not have a monopoly in ANY sense.

If you want to take pictures with an ILC, you do not have to use a Canon body, or a Canon lens.

And as has been pointed out, even IF you WANT to use a Canon body, you do not HAVE to use a Canon lens.

The assertion that Canon has a monopoly in any sense in the ILC market is completely illogical.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 4, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Why would anyone buy a brand new RF camera and buy legacy lenses from the previous mount?



So then because you personally wouldn’t do that, you are discounting the competition that exists via that route by people who do choose to do that. Got it, thanks for clarifying your position on that.

As I previously stated, I did just that recently when I purchased a Sigma 12-24 for my R6. Why did I do it? Oddly enough, it was primarily a criticism that you yourself have leveled at some of the Canon lenses and that is their poor optical correction at wide angles. The Sigma 12-24 is better corrected optically at 12 than the Canon 14-35 is at 14, it weighs a bit more to achieve this of course, but I’m mainly going to be using it with a tripod so that didn’t factor into my decision too much. I’m hoping the Canon 10-24 will have better optical correction at UWA and I may consider it at that time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2022)

Johnw said:


> As I previously stated, I did just that recently when I purchased a Sigma 12-24 for my R6. Why did I do it? Oddly enough, it was primarily a criticism that you yourself have leveled at some of the Canon lenses and that is their poor optical correction at wide angles. The Sigma 12-24 is better corrected optically at 12 than the Canon 14-35 is at 14, it weighs a bit more to achieve this of course, but I’m mainly going to be using it with a tripod so that didn’t factor into my decision too much. I’m hoping the Canon 10-24 will have better optical correction at UWA and I may consider it at that time.


After optical correction using a good RAW converter (DxO PhotoLab), the Canon RF 14-35/4 14mm yields an FoV of ~13.5mm and corner sharpness equivalent to the Canon EF 11-24/4 (where the latter has almost no distortion).

Unless the extra 1.5mm on the wide end is critical to you, I think the Canon RF 14-35 is a better choice than the Sigma 12-24 Art. Similar cost, half the weight, takes 77mm front filters, and delivers slightly better IQ. 

I’m really not sure why people are so bothered by a lens needing digital correction for geometric distortion, if that correction yields image quality as good as the optical correction on other lenses.


----------



## Johnw (Sep 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unless the extra 1.5mm on the wide end is critical to you



Well that was part of it. I already have the 24-105L which does very well at 24+. The 14-35 is clearly optimized for the long end rather than the UWA end. The Sigma lens seems better designed for UWA rendering, and actually goes wider as well and I wanted a lens that was more focused on UWA. I had excellent results with the Sigma 14-24 as well which probably factored in to my decision. I can't afford the EF 11-24 or the notional RF 10-24 at present anyway even though one of those would probably be the one I most want out of Canon's UWA offerings.



neuroanatomist said:


> I think the Canon RF 14-35 is a better choice than the Sigma 12-24 Art



Totally fair of you to think so. I'm just pointing out there is room in the market for disagreement on that, and for someone to still favor a third party option over a Canon lens, if they so choose.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2022)

Johnw said:


> Well that was part of it. I already have the 24-105L which does very well at 24+. The 14-35 is clearly optimized for the long end rather than the UWA end. The Sigma lens seems better designed for UWA rendering, and actually goes wider as well and I wanted a lens that was more focused on UWA. I had excellent results with the Sigma 14-24 as well which probably factored in to my decision. I can't afford the EF 11-24 or the notional RF 10-24 at present anyway even though one of those would probably be the one I most want out of Canon's UWA offerings.
> 
> Totally fair of you to think so. I'm just pointing out there is room in the market for disagreement on that, and for someone to still favor a third party option over a Canon lens, if they so choose.


Of course! I do have the EF 11-24, but find myself taking the 14-35 unless I _know_ I’ll need wider. The combination of RF 14-35/4, 24-105/4 and 100-500 makes an excellent travel kit – broad range, relatively light, all take 77mm filters.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 5, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Just wow!  So much flawed logical thinking I just don't know where to start. Probably because it's all emotive...



You haven't pointed out a single flaw in my logic. And I think most would agree that it is your posts that are overly emotive.



LogicExtremist said:


> Enjoy your wide range of choice of third-party AF RF lenses in the "non-monopoly" that Canon doesn't have. Oh that's right, there aren't any after four years and there might not be any!!! Cognitive dissonance is a nasty thing to deal with sometimes. Let's hope Sigma gets sold a license to the RF system soon, and it's not made too expensive intentionally to force their prices up and make them uncompetitive in an effort to make Canon's price gouging look more reasonable!


It is not a monopoly as has been explained both in my post and others. The fact thatayou don't know what a monopoly is does not make it so.

The fact that you think Canon's prices are unreasonable is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. My opinion is that - on the whole - they are not that much higher than similar lenses put out by Nikon and Sony. If Canon at some point sells licenses to others so they can make RF lenses, they can charge whatever they want. They are in business to make a profit. 




LogicExtremist said:


> Oh goodness, so using adapted EF lenses, which will eventually cease to be manufactured is your definition of choice?



Yes it is a choice. Lenses can easily last 20, 30 years or more. Since you can use adapted EF lenses on an RF camera and many RF camera users are doing so, means that it is a choice by definition. By definition - not just MY definition.



LogicExtremist said:


> Why would anyone buy a brand new RF camera and buy legacy lenses from the previous mount? You're missing the difference between lack of choice and lack of funds here.


1) Because they work just fine - or even better according to the many users who have made comments about it.
2) Because you have lenses for the EF mount that don't exist yet, and maybe won't ever exist, for the RF mount. 
3) Yes, because they are cheaper, which is, of course, one of your main arguments as to why 3rd party lenses should be allowed by Canon to be made for the RF mount.



LogicExtremist said:


> Why even run a website like Canon Rumors if people don't want or need RF lenses for their RF camera bodies?



No one ever said that people don't want RF lenses. All I said was that they don't need them. You have said absolutely nothing to prove in any way that people NEED them. you do understand the difference between want and need, I hope.



LogicExtremist said:


> Heck, why would people even bother posting about what they want in new RF camera bodies at all? Nice try to define away the reality of a lack of choice through some sematic summersaults. By your reasoning, they have a greater choice of EF, EF-S and EF-M camera bodies, and the first two work fine with EF-lenses, and they don't need a $100 EF-RF adapter either.



Well, sorry to say this is complete Bullcrap. They do need an adapter, as I stated. Nor have I ever said that eliminating 3rd party lenses doesn't reduce people's choice. Yes, no 3rd party lenses means less choice. But you do understand the difference between less choice and no choice, I hope.



LogicExtremist said:


> Never mind that all is going to be phased out eventually, and at some point won't be replaceable or repairable, and that some people actually look to the future before shelling out hundreds or thousands of dollars in camera gear.



Yes eventually. Neither you nor I know when that will happen.



LogicExtremist said:


> So darker apertures are a feature and a sign of technical progress, rather than a limitation, and a sign of technical regression, cost cutting and flagrant money-grabbing?



Again, you twisted my words. I said that some people may look at making lenses smaller and lighter as being technological progress. The drawback is darker apertures. Not sure why you can't understand that not everyone has *your point of view*. For some, smaller and lighter is progress. The fact that you don't agree - and that darker apertures are more important* to you* - does not make it a universal opinion, or a fact. Canon, let's not forget, is making lenses to make a profit.



LogicExtremist said:


> Canon absolutely loves people who believe their hype. That's pretty good marketing spin doctoring that borders on to Orwellian doublespeak.



You do seem to be an expert at doublespeak! Sorry, couldn't resist!



LogicExtremist said:


> Okay. lets follow through this line of reasoning. If you really want lightweight camera gear with dark apertures lenses for a really cheap price, that can take the wide choice of EF lenses which somehow eliminate the monopoly on RF AF lenses, I'll let you in on the secret. The perfect solution has been around for a while, they call it the Rebel series of APSC cameras in the US, and apparently it's extremely popular.


If you want lightweight lenses with darker apertures for a cheap price, you have numerous RF lenses to choose from. Apparently you forgot that has been one of your major gripes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Enjoy your wide range of choice of third-party AF RF lenses in the "non-monopoly" that Canon doesn't have. Oh that's right, there aren't any after four years and there might not be any!!! Cognitive dissonance is a nasty thing to deal with sometimes.


A lack of knowledge can be equally difficult to deal with. 









Canon RF


We make it easy to find the best Rokinon lenses online. Browse our entire collection of new Rokinon and XEEN lenses today.




rokinon.com





There are two 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount from Rokinon, at least. I’m pretty sure two is more than none.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I ordered some gear literally minutes before the prices went up, that was back-ordered for months, and when it finally showed up it was trading for more used than I paid old-price-new.


That’s the pandemic for you. I bought a new car in July, 2020 and it’s estimated value today is still more than I paid for it even though it’s >2 years old.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 5, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> You haven't pointed out a single flaw in my logic. And I think most would agree that it is your posts that are overly emotive.
> 
> 
> It is not a monopoly as has been explained both in my post and others. The fact thatayou don't know what a monopoly is does not make it so.
> ...


Looks like we have a knack for misunderstanding each other, no offence taken!  

Simply put, buying products from a superseded model range that is being gradually phased out and end-of-life is not the most attractive option for new buyers, nor does it inspire existing users to buy more of it, the reasons for which should be obvious. Yes, there are choices, and there are choices lol! There are choices to remain on EF and buy second-hand lenses only (Canon would love that) also choices to buy into other company's systems that have a more comprehensive range of native lenses too! 

I see we do agree that there's no universal opinion as to what suits everyone's needs, and since all designs are compromises, some compromises suit some more than others. Want a light, compact system? Great if you're hiking or travelling. Doesn't mean that people can use that as a defense that those lenses are great lenses. Great for what? Some people make the mistake that everyone else's needs should be like theirs, and if they're happy, nobody should complain. That's what I'm highlighting. It's the Canon R5 overheating denial saga all over again lol! In that case and here, we're just seeing lots of confirmation bias, which is typical human behaviour.

We're seeing lots of mixed emotional reactions and rationalisations that keep shifting these threads. 
"My favourite company would never do the wrong thing"
"My favourite company would never do the wrong thing to me"
"My favourite company may be doing something that I can't explain, but there's probably a simple explanation that everything is okay"
"My favourite company is doing something that I don't like, but there are good business reasons for it, which makes it justified"
The next line is predictable, like it was with the R5 overheat issue, it went from denying it was even possible to whining that the firmware update was taking too long. Fanboys will be fanboys, don't buy into this nonsense lol!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s the pandemic for you. I bought a new car in July, 2020 and it’s estimated value today is still more than I paid for it even though it’s >2 years old.


And out of control inflation around the world, and a shrinking camera market! All my EF lenses also appear to have appreciated in value!


----------



## Johnw (Sep 5, 2022)

dlee13 said:


> Plus not all people want to bother with adapters.



As neuro has also pointed out, for some lenses like the Sigma 12-24 and the Canon 11-24, the need for an adapter is actually an advantage because it provides a more robust option for filters than even existed when the lens was originally designed.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 5, 2022)

Johnw said:


> As neuro has also pointed out, for some lenses like the Sigma 12-24 and the Canon 11-24, the need for an adapter is actually an advantage because it provides a more robust option for filters than even existed when the lens was originally designed.


Well I never said no one has a use for them, simply that many don’t want to deal with an adapter. For example I wouldn’t wouldn’t use a lens that can’t take front filters and I personally wouldn’t bother with old EF lenses when there’s newer third party options being released constantly.


----------

