SIGMA will address the RF mount in 2022 [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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
Upvote
0
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.
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!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No RF AF lenses being made anymore, some retailers have stock left. Check the manufacturer's websites.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.
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.
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!
Upvote
0
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!
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
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.
Upvote
0
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!
Upvote
0
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.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!
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….
Upvote
0
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???
"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???
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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???
Having no competition for lenses on RF is great Canon’s profits but I would argue terrible for Canon’s RF shooters.
Upvote
0
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.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.
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.
Where is the monopoly????
Upvote
0
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...)
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
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.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???
Upvote
0
Similar threads
