Canon is in deep talks with third-party lens manufacturers

#2
It seems to me that the key sentence is "コミュニケーションの深さは（製品化までの）半分以上は行っているのでは」とコメント。" I double checked with a friend about translation which would be, "The depth of it(their communications) is more than halfway to being able to productize, I suppose" I take it to mean only negotiations and whether or not any manufacturer has begun development of the rf mount physically or in regards to software isn't said. This could explain the previous story or simply they can't announce something before everything is ironed out.

Still, good news, except for the people who already sold every bit of Canon gear...:cry:

Edit, a second friend explained more clearly:
The Canon man's words are a little vague, probably on purpose, but it sounds like, "It is said Canon doesn't want to share the technique of the RF mount lenses but it's not like that, actually, we have a communication with the third parties such as Tamron or SIGMA, and the depth of the communication with them has come already more than half of making into a product."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#3
I think Canon is in no rush to let third-party manufacturers in the ecosystem at this stage of the RF mount. Sales are booming and CANON is still the top G, baby!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#4
My hope is that any 3rd party lenses will fill gaps that canon doesn’t want to release lenses in eg wide/fast or long/macro or 50/1.4 :)

I still don’t get 3rd party lens not being released in Ef mount - even with manual focus

I guess the point of the negotiations is to have combined OIS/ibis af work well but probably not at full speed (similar to Sony).

It probably isn’t worth canon’s time/money to worry about the Chinese rf lenses
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#5
"So if vendors wanted to release EF protocol-based RF lenses tomorrow Canon would be okay with that."
Yongnuo seems to have been doing this since 2020 and Canon does not seem to have a problem with it.
That is completely different from 3rd-party lenses that are specifically designed to use the RF protocol which would be granted case by case.
 
Upvote 0
#6
EOS 4 Life said:
"So if vendors wanted to release EF protocol-based RF lenses tomorrow Canon would be okay with that."
Yongnuo seems to have been doing this since 2020 and Canon does not seem to have a problem with it.
That is completely different from 3rd-party lenses that are specifically designed to use the RF protocol which would be granted case by case.
Click to expand...
Did Yongnuo ever release their RF 85 lens in the US? I see that it is listed on B&H but it seems perpetually back ordered.
 
Upvote 0
#7
Get the bugs ironed out of mirrorless FF while keeping the RF mount effectively proprietary. Keep restricting the mount as long as possible to maximize profit and build a market base. Then, as the market softens, consider "good will" as a factor, along with continuing to expand the customer base with bodies. I don't see any problem with this strategy as long as it's working.

As far as Sigma being "noncommittal," if licensing fees and marketing policies are still being negotiated, seems expected.
 
Upvote 0
#8
EOS 4 Life said:
"So if vendors wanted to release EF protocol-based RF lenses tomorrow Canon would be okay with that."
Yongnuo seems to have been doing this since 2020 and Canon does not seem to have a problem with it.
That is completely different from 3rd-party lenses that are specifically designed to use the RF protocol which would be granted case by case.
Click to expand...

Based in China perhaps?

BUT - That sounds like a restriction to me, which was the point.

Samyang pulled their AF lenses, and I don't believe they were RF protocol but they are from South Korea.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#9
David - Sydney said:
[…]I guess the point of the negotiations is to have combined OIS/ibis af work well but probably not at full speed (similar to Sony).
[…]
Click to expand...
I think Canon is very proud of the performance of their RF cameras and doesn’t want users thinking that the body is ‘slow’. So Sony style feature removal is not something I think Canon will do.
I also think Sigma would be happy to NOT agree to a deal if Canon insist on acting like Sony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#10
EricN said:
It seems to me that the key sentence is "コミュニケーションの深さは（製品化までの）半分以上は行っているのでは」とコメント。" I double checked with a friend about translation which would be, "The depth of it(their communications) is more than halfway to being able to productize, I suppose" I take it to mean only negotiations and whether or not any manufacturer has begun development of the rf mount physically or in regards to software isn't said. This could explain the previous story or simply they can't announce something before everything is ironed out.

Still, good news, except for the people who already sold every bit of Canon gear...:cry:

Edit, a second friend explained more clearly:
The Canon man's words are a little vague, probably on purpose, but it sounds like, "It is said Canon doesn't want to share the technique of the RF mount lenses but it's not like that, actually, we have a communication with the third parties such as Tamron or SIGMA, and the depth of the communication with them has come already more than half of making into a product."
Click to expand...

thank you for this. translations are always difficult - especially from Japanese. You should try a patent application ;)

I'm encouraged that Canon seems to be learning from a prior mistake - I'm going to add something to the article right now that has been fomenting in my noodle brain since I wrote the article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#11
David - Sydney said:
My hope is that any 3rd party lenses will fill gaps that canon doesn’t want to release lenses in eg wide/fast or long/macro or 50/1.4 :)

I still don’t get 3rd party lens not being released in Ef mount - even with manual focus

I guess the point of the negotiations is to have combined OIS/ibis af work well but probably not at full speed (similar to Sony).

It probably isn’t worth canon’s time/money to worry about the Chinese rf lenses
Click to expand...

Canon's IBIS patent literature is freaking complex. if they desire that their supported third party vendors have complete IBIS + OIS support, then yeah, that's a lot of heavy lifting for sure. that's not just a reverse engineer and we are up and running.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#13
Richard CR said:
The article has a bit of my thoughts now at the end... don't worry, I'm nice. No need for Neuro to take me out to the woodshed over it ;)
Click to expand...
Well, now you’ve gone and spoiled my fun. :p

I will say, as I consistently say, that Canon will make decisions based on what’s best for their business. That some people are clamoring for 3rd party RF lenses means nothing to Canon, unless and until it affects their bottom line. So far, the data suggest it hasn’t in this case.

I can certainly imagine scenarios in which allowing select 3rd party lenses benefits Canon, especially if they can restrict them to lenses that don’t directly compete with RF. Of course, from the 3rd party manufacturers’ viewpoint, it’s probably exactly those ‘bread-and-butter’ lenses where they want to undercut Canon’s prices and move lots of units. I can easily see that leading to an impasse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#14
The lens I am hoping is RF bound is the Tamron 20-40 2.8. I bought an A7c and this lens to have a small, light, take anywhere, combo. This lens had the goods for that. The a7c, however, was an ergonomic mess. I really hated it. Then Canon released the R8. I sold the a7c and the Tamron and picked up an R8. This was a much better camera to compliment my r3 and also have a light camera to carry around. I just don't have a small and light lens to pair with the R8. This Tamron would be perfect if they added image stabilization to the RF version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#17
koenkooi said:
I think Canon is very proud of the performance of their RF cameras and doesn’t want users thinking that the body is ‘slow’. So Sony style feature removal is not something I think Canon will do.
I also think Sigma would be happy to NOT agree to a deal if Canon insist on acting like Sony.
Click to expand...
Sony simply ask that a manufacturer apply for a license and if granted they are given emount’s basic protocols which Sigma have so no reverse engineering. Details for applying can be found here. https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...e will not be any,English or in Japanese only.

Aside from no TCs and a max of 15fps Sigma can and have released a wide variety of lenses including the recent 500mm prime. These days I would imagine emount is where the bulk of their revenue comes from. They have released 0 products for Canon in recent years so a deal for RF lenses similar to what is in place for emount ones I imagine Sigma would sign gladly.
 
Upvote 0
#18
I am firmly a Canon shooter and nothing is going to change that. However, I am also an astrophotographer. With Sigma introducing some transformative nightscape optimized lenses that no one else is competing with on performance, features, or price, I am very frustrated that these lenses do not exist for the Canon RF mount. For that reason I am now considering ADDING the cheapest Sony full frame body and the Sigma 20mm DG DN Art lens to my kit, at least until the day that lens (or something at least as well featured and optically capable) might become available in native RF mount. I suppose there could be some other compelling 3rd party options out there too but for my use cases this is the lens I really want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#20
David - Sydney said:
My hope is that any 3rd party lenses will fill gaps that canon doesn’t want to release lenses [..] or 50/1.4 :)
Click to expand...
Speaking about that, last week I got myself an used Eos R on eBay; it came with some extra stuff, as the EF-RF adapter, an EF-S 24 STM, and especially an EF 50 f1.4 USM which was quite interesting to me, as the last time I got a Canon 50 f1.4 in my hand it was 15 years ago, in 2009 on a 5D classic, as discovered in my archive (and pictures weren't as bad as I remembered, to be fair).

So I gave the 50 f1.4 a special treatment, and brought to "the wall of shame", as in the external wall of my condo, which is my testing ground for how a lens behave, without any scientific pretence of course, it's just let's see if the lens work properly, and if I have two identical lenses, or two or more identical (or so) focal lengths from different manufactures, let's see a quick and unscientific comparison.

So, the wall of shame saw a three lens competition, tested on the 30mpx Eos R on a tripod and remote release:
EF 50 f1.4
RF 50 f1.8
Sigma 40 f1.4 Art (reframed to match the two 50's)


Sigma vs Canon @ f1.4 100% centre frame
Screenshot 2024-02-25 alle 21.47.38.png


The two Canon at their widest common aperture @ f1.8 100% centre frame
Screenshot 2024-02-25 alle 22.06.00.png


...now I soon enough remebered why I always hated that terrible EF 50 f1.4 :eek:

(In both comparisons, made in AV, the EF 50 f1.4 has 1/3 stop faster shutter, so it seems it has a slight better light transmission, at the same aperture, then both RF 50 1.8 and the 40 1.4 Art. At any narrower aperture, shutter was identical, so it seems this light transmission advantage kicks in only below f2)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes
Replies
535
Views
40K
mimbu
M
Diko
Blindly pre-order 5D4 - Why NOT
Replies
34
Views
17K
Diko
Diko
axtstern
  • Locked
4 weeks in South East Asia with the EOS M as 2nd Body
Replies
26
Views
18K
EchoLocation
E
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu