"Canon is not happy with third party lens makers" is now officially confirmed

[ND64]

Some of us knew its coming tho

[FHDcrew]

3 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

Some of us knew its coming tho

This sucks 

[Kisaha]

Canon is a lens's company..maybe RF is too new for them, but I hope they will change policy soon. 

[Django]

Yeah bummer but not really surprising considering Canon is trying to hard sell its RF lenses. They even quit EF production in effort to push RF sales..

[Andrew Reid]

What about adapters with electronic connections, also banned by Canon?

They are a very litigious company.

[ND64]

5 hours ago, Django said:

Yeah bummer but not really surprising considering Canon is trying to hard sell its RF lenses. They even quit EF production in effort to push RF sales..

Continuing EF would send a mixed message to their customers, also glass production capacity is very limited these days. Otherwise a $2500 EF lens profit margin is not lower than equivalent $2500 RF one. 

[MrSMW]

I don’t see why Canon ‘needs’ to open up their mount to any third party.

It’s potentially their loss. Or maybe it isn’t…

 

[newfoundmass]

What exactly is the difference between third parties being able to make EF lenses but not RF ones? I mean, I understand it's because they really want to push their RF lenses, but were they OK with companies making EF lenses solely because of the age of the mount? And are the Viltrox's of the world REALLY a threat and cutting into their business THAT much?

[Ty Harper]

41 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

are the Viltrox's of the world REALLY a threat and cutting into their business THAT much?

Well I can say for example that for someone like me who has an R5-C and is actively looking to pick up one of those RF-EF adaptors that come with the drop-in ND filter, that the Meike and Kolari offerings are just better. And that's using every metric that matters, including price. So from that perspective I can see why Canon would not want this type of smoke from third party companies.

[Andrew Reid]

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

I don’t see why Canon ‘needs’ to open up their mount to any third party.

It’s potentially their loss. Or maybe it isn’t…

The Canon RF lenses are a big turn off for me.

On E-mount there is more choice of native lenses. Sigma to name just one.

Similarly with L-mount there are many ways into the system.

The native Canon RF lenses are almost all massively expensive and enormously heavy, and not a single one is really much better than the EF equivalent it replaces.

In fact if it wasn't for the popularity and dominance of EF & some very good adapters, I dare say Canon wouldn't have sold quite so many camera bodies.

However they have always been a lenses company first and foremost, it's where the big profit margins are.

It's just that they prefer to line the pockets of their shareholders, through us, whereas Sigma prefer to focus on engineering better lenses than Canon at half the price.

Different company philosophies.

[MrSMW]

Well as a consumer, of course I’d like more choice but I can understand from a commercial viewpoint why they would wish to preserve their own interests.

Unless opening up the mount brings more sales of bodies above bodies and native lenses combined?

Who knows… 

I think Nikon are so far preserving their own native lens lineup also?

This is partially why I am going in that direction (Nikon) as it seems to be the only other mount you can get an adapter for Tamron’s 35-150 for.

I never previously subscribed to the ‘lenses first, bodies second’ line, but have come to the conclusion I do want to build a system around primarily one single ‘do it all’ lens.

I did look to see if there was an opportunity to use this lens with Canon, but it seems not, so it’s Nikon or Sony and Sony don’t have any cameras that fit my needs, but Nikon ticks more boxes anyway so…

There’s always a compromise somewhere!

Probably Canon’s loss (to Sony I guess) if they don’t open the mount up, but Canon seem to get away with a whole load of shenanigans that most consumers are probably not even aware of in the first place.

Or don’t care even if they did know.

I’d be in that camp if the thing met my needs better than anything else… I also shop from Amazon. All the time 😜

[herein2020]

8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

What about adapters with electronic connections, also banned by Canon?

They are a very litigious company.

 

I noticed when I was going to buy the Viltrox speedbooster for the R7 that B&H and Amazon did not have it at all. They didn't even say out of stock, it says discontinued which I found very odd and I think was the first indication of what is going on behind the scenes. The Metabones speedbooster on the other hand is over 2x more and is still readily available so I suspect Metabones is paying Canon a licensing fee whereas Viltrox is not.

I am on the fence as to whether I agree with their business practices in this regards; on the one hand it had to have taken a massive investment on Canon's part to develop, market, and distribute all of these new camera bodies, sensors, and lenses; all during a time when the camera market is in a serious contraction with no end in sight. If they don't make a profit they won't survive.

On the other hand, they are really alienating their customer base who is like me with a large EF glass collection and who simply does not need a single RF lens that they have to offer.  I was planning on picking up the Viltrox adapter, but for all I know a future FW update from Canon may disable it at some point so now I am on the fence regarding if I should go for the Metabones adapter or just make do with the straight through EF to RF adapter. I do still have the Sigma 18-35mm EF-S lens which would be a great match with the R7.

[independent]

Companies will do what they think they need to do to stay in business. Doesn't bother me too much because the EF/RF adapters, especially the ones that include CDs and speed boosters, are quite functional, even essential. The moment Canon makes a full frame version of the C70 (internal NDs+Full frame), then yeah, you'll really feel the pressure to go RF.

At this point, Canon's decision doesn't adversely affect innovation and buyers the way Red's patent does. Canon will continue to support EF lenses, which is still the most widely supported mount.

The real immediate loss is the hope of Sigma RF lenses because they're both good and affordable. RF lenses are unquestionably expensive, but Canon will have to keep innovating to justify the price, which to their credit, they have--for the most part. The 50mm 1.2 RF version destroys the EF. It's like an Otus with autofocus. Also, the 24-70 zoom adds IS to the 2.8 - and is much quieter. Two significant improvements to the EF versions. There are real innovations being made, but like anything, vote with your wallet. 

 

[ND64]

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

I think Nikon are so far preserving their own native lens lineup also?

Nikon is no different. They have filed a lot of patents for Z mount communication. They wouldn't do that if they wanted to make it open, or less restrictive. Even the content of the patents indicates a long term plan is integrated into the mount, since they have defined a generation compatibility. Its like Gen2 body uses the most potential capabilities of Gen2 lens, but can't use all capabilities of Gen3 lens, or something like that.  

 

[Kisaha]

I have both the Meike vND and the Viltrox Speedbooster, plus the simple EF to RF Canon adapters and that move worries me a lot.

I would be very sceptical about any firmware updates from now on.

The Meike vND is by far better than the Canon one, and a lot cheaper also. I mean, ok, you sell something for gold Canon, at least make it worthy!

Less options is also a bad thing for any system, less options make a system smaller, and Canon is not Canon of 2014. I believe Sony is making all the right moves lately and having more lenses options is one of those.

[newfoundmass]

Looking at it from Canon's perspective I get it. And maybe it won't hurt them if they crack down on third party lens makers. It's hard to tell how many people would really care if they do, because I don't know that we're representative of the majority of their users. To us the ability to use third party lenses and adapters is a big deal, but most professional photographers aren't going to use a Viltrox lens anyway. They'll stick with their Canon lenses. And most lower end users I feel probably will stick with Canon lenses because it's the easiest / most convenient option. 

Assuming I'm right about that, then the question is "if the majority of Canon users are going to invest in Canon lenses then why do they care about these small third party companies to begin with?" 

I think one of the big things that helped Sony, I think, was their lens options, which is kinda funny given how long it took them to flesh out their lenses. 

[Phil A]

I think that 3rd party lenses are a huge draw into a system. For video creation, the Viltrox primes are quite a bit better than the Fujifilm primes at cheaper prices. The same way I think a lot of people like the 3rd party options for zooms like the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD for Sony & Fuji APS-C or the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN that is way smaller and lighter than the 24-70mm from the camera makers.

You could argue that a 2500€ lens from Canon/Sony/Nikon is a lot better than a 999€ 3rd party lens... but then when does it really matter? When has the hint of less sharpness/resolution or the higher artifacts (CA, etc.) actually detracted from the work you produce? 

[gt3rs]

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The Canon RF lenses are a big turn off for me.

 

The native Canon RF lenses are almost all massively expensive and enormously heavy, and not a single one is really much better than the EF equivalent it replaces.

One can absolutely live with EF lenses plus adapter as they most all work better on the R cameras than on the DSLR, so no rush to move to RF. 

But I do not agree that RF ones are not much better than the EF versions actually it is the opposite other than price(for the L series) they are mostly all a big improvement:


RF 70-200 2.8, much more compact and quite a bit lighter than the EF version. Only downside is no TC support.

RF 70-200 4, incredibly compact and light weight compared to the EF.

RF 100-500, lighter, sharper, longer than the EF 100-400, only downside with TC it starts at 500mm

RF 24-70 2.8 IS, has IS and a tad lighter weight than the non IS EF version

RF 15-35 2.8, wider, sharper and has IS compared to 16-35 2.8 III EF. Not even a fair comparison.

RF 85 2 IS, sharper and with IS compared to the old (imo junk) 85 1.8

RF 50 1.8, a tad sharper than the EF version

RF 50 1.2, much bigger and heavier but just in another league from the old EF 50 1.2.

RF 85 1.2, much bigger and heavier but just in another league from the old EF 85 1.2.

 

Unique and no equivalent from Canon in EF mount:

RF 16 2.8, affordable, very compact and quite sharp

RF 35 1.8 IS, affordable, very compact super sharp, but noisy AF

RF 24 1.8 IS, too early to tell

RF 28-70 2, heavy and big but very sharp and unique, challenging for video due to the 95mm filter size

RF 600 and 800 F11, very affordable long tele with quite good image quality

RF 24-240, surprisingly good image quality for such zoom range

RF 100-400, affordable and very light weight long zoom with an ok image quality

 

A let down:

RF 400 2.8, no included TC as Nikon now does, just the EF version with glued on R-EF adapter

RF 600 4, no included TC, just the EF version with glued on R-EF adapter

RF 800 5.6, no included TC, sharpness so similar to the RF 400 + 2x with an insane price, it makes no sense

RF 1200 8, no included TC, sharpness so similar to the RF 600 + 2x with an insane price, it makes no sense

[ntblowz]

9 hours ago, gt3rs said:

 

RF 24-70 2.8 IS, has IS and a tad lighter weight than the non IS EF version

 

Rf 24-70 2.8 is heavier than 24-70 ii at 900g vs 805g

[ntblowz]

10 hours ago, Phil A said:

I think that 3rd party lenses are a huge draw into a system. For video creation, the Viltrox primes are quite a bit better than the Fujifilm primes at cheaper prices.

Canon RF 1.8 primes are quite light and compact too (except 85 f2 which is not as compact or light), the RF 50 can be had for $110 used which is a bargain, though I do miss 3rd party's cheap and compact 2.8 zoom but it's not end of the world as I can use 3rd party 2.8 ef lens.