Don’t expect any third-party autofocus lenses in the near future

navastronia said:

Strong statement. I think you're exaggerating a little, but the point remains that they're extremely competitive.

Click to expand...

Maybe a little. But I do think Sigma has become so good that any system without them is rather unattractive. Canon + Sigma would have been great, both exclusively made in Japan as well. Hopefully Nikon will sell them a licence soon... (I don't like Sony and the L-Mount can't really be taken seriously imho).

Show me the patents. Everyone reports about patents but I’d welcome a report on what the pertinent patents were (I’m a patent attorney).

InchMetric said:

Show me the patents. Everyone reports about patents but I’d welcome a report on what the pertinent patents were (I’m a patent attorney).

Click to expand...

That’s funny. When I need information on the IP portfolio of a company, the IP landscape for a particular technology, or to access the full text of a specific patent, I reach out to one of my patent attorneys. Every one of them that I’ve worked with has had access to databases and search tools beyond what idly curious people can utilize.

Here you are, a patent attorney yourself, yet you’re asking others to provide you with the information you seek. If there is a point you’re trying to make regarding Canon’s patents, why don’t you look them up yourself and make the point?

InchMetric said:

Show me the patents. Everyone reports about patents but I’d welcome a report on what the pertinent patents were (I’m a patent attorney).

Click to expand...

I asked a question that you may be able to answer. Do companies like Canon actually patent and publish the code for their communication protocols?

KirkD said:

Although I have a Canon R5 and am heavily-invested in Canon RF glass, Canon's approach to third-party lenses really does limit my glass options. In my own view, this is a strong reason for a person to not purchase a Canon camera, but to go with a manufacturer that has both a) excellent cameras and glass and b) accepts third-party lenses, some of which are outstanding in terms of optics and value.

Click to expand...

Why are adapted EF lenses (including 3rd party ones) not an option for you?

Skyscraperfan said:

I just bought the Canon EF 100-400 II a few weeks ago and my plan is to keep using that even if I switch.

Click to expand...

Loved that lense. Works great, even better on mirrorless. I still opted for to "upgrade" to the 100-500mm because in the US the price for the upgrade is basically what I would have paid for an extender. I sold my 100-400mm and got real money for it, so the upgrade wasn't too expensive.
The main reason was that I often use the 100-400/500mm for landscape pics, but when you use it with an extender at focal lengths such as 700mm there is so much air between the lense and the subject, the pics just turn out as nice. Therefore, I mostly stick to 500mm at most and I didn't want have to use an extender just to get to 500mm

First thought:
Canon will now feel the heat because the chatter and the (bad) PR is out. They can...
1,)...simply not care about (bad move) and see if actually more people chose Sony, Nikon whatsoever. If they do, they'll answer to that. If they don't, their strategy worked.
2. answer by releasing a huge amount of lenses in the next 12 months and show people: we're all you need.
3. they can start by licensing and earning money of third party sales

Second thought:
What if Canon went for a "killer" move:
They license Sigma lenses for free, in return Sigma exclusively produces lenses for RF and L-mount. No other mount will be supported from that point on. Sigma would make a killing as Canon only third party option, they could easily afford losing the others.

Some people will rip this comment to pieces But I thought this strategy could have some merits.

Exploreshootshare said:

Second thought:
What if Canon went for a "killer" move:
They license Sigma lenses for free, in return Sigma exclusively produces lenses for RF and L-mount. No other mount will be supported from that point on. Sigma would make a killing as Canon only third party option, they could easily afford losing the others.

Some people will rip this comment to pieces But I thought this strategy could have some merits.

Click to expand...

I don't think Sigma would go for it.

Skyscraperfan said:

I just bought the Canon EF 100-400 II a few weeks ago and my plan is to keep using that even if I switch. For the RF mount there only is the cheap RF 100-400 that has a much lower image quality than the EF version and the RF 100-500 that is VERY expensive, made of plastic and only accepts converters from 300mm up.

Click to expand...

I've read several reviews of the RF 100-400mm.

To summarise:

Most reviews focus on the positives i.e. good sharpness, excellent stabilisation, close-focusing, light weight, compactness and affordability.

A few negatives have been mentioned, e.g. modest build quality, lack of supplied lens hood, lack of supplied case, lack of rotating tripod collar, and limited maximum aperture. Most of these are perfectly acceptable in view of the modest price. The only concerning negative is that you are stuck with an effective fixed F8 aperture, because you allegedly need to stop down to F8 to get sharp images, and if you stop down to F11 or beyond the image quality becomes quite soft due to diffraction.

I haven't used the RF 100-400mm myself, so I can only judge from reviews. I have had the EF 100-400mm and now have the RF 100-500mm. Both are (for me) heavy to hold, and consequently a bit cumbersome, but someone younger and/or fitter should have no trouble with either. Personally, although the RF 100-500mm is a tad sharper, focuses a tad faster and has a bit of extra reach, I don't think I gained enough to justify the expense. The EF 100-400mm with 1.4 extender is arguably a better choice for some.

We’re hoping that this run of stories will push Canon to be more transparent on the topic in the near future.

Click to expand...

Canon, a Japanese company, be more transparent? That's extremely naive to hope so.

HMC11 said:

Fair game to Canon. Also don't really see a need for Canon to be 'transparent', as I suspect they would prefer to play the cards closer to the chest rather than give competitors an advantage. Besides, they might not even be sure what is the best way forward and probably not want to tie themselves up with public promises. As consumers, we generally do what makes sense for us - stay with Canon or go? Use existing EF lenses with adapters or wait for new RF lenses? etc.

Click to expand...

Unfair game to canon, while investing hard earned money in a company's ecosystem it would be nice if they let us in on there plans

danfaz said:

I don't think that's accurate. Why do we have firmware updates for RF lenses?

Click to expand...

As I stated, some of the electronics are in the body (hence camera firmware updates), and some of the electronics are in the lens (hence lens firmware updates).

Different RF lenses probably benefit from different AF algorithms due to the differing weight of the elements, the differing torque of the AF motors, and differing optical characteristics.

Camera bodies need different firmware, to handle things such as AF zones, button customisation, IBIS etc. - and bug fixes...

It isn't possible to update firmware in older EF lenses, because the practice of updating firmware (in bodies and/or lenses) is a development that only came into existence when MILCs became popular. I think Fujifilm were the first to provide firmware updates to bodies, or was it Sony?

Feel bad for anyone waiting for these third party RF lenses. Sony has the top spot in FF Mirrorless and I don’t see that changing any time soon with their lens selection. Hopefully Nikon have indeed opened their mount to Sigma as well, then Canon can be the only major manufacturer that doesn’t provide new and affordable lens options to their customers and they’ll be pressured to come to their senses.

Bob Howland said:

I don't think Sigma would go for it.

Click to expand...

I agree, they wouldn't. Still a fun thought

I'm wondering if the ILC market is moving (or has moved) towards the Playstation/Xbox model, where the console makers make nothing on the consoles but get all the profits from the games, meaning make nothing on the camera bodies but get all the profits from the lenses and accessories. This is because the development cycle on processor chips is too fast and costly for any reasonable ROI, and mirrorless camera bodies are now primarily processor driven (no more mechanical shutter, or increasingly less importance on mechanical components, rather the emphasis on autofocus features and performance, sensor read-out speed and data throughput, higher and cleaner megapixels, raw high-res video, etc. all of this hinges on the processor).

No one but Canon knows the profits for camera bodies and lenses, but if I had to guess, it wouldn't surprise me if the profits are going down on the bodies and going up on the lenses over the years. If this is true, it wouldn't make sense to share their primary profits to third-party lens makers.

dlee13 said:

Feel bad for anyone waiting for these third party RF lenses. Sony has the top spot in FF Mirrorless and I don’t see that changing any time soon with their lens selection. Hopefully Nikon have indeed opened their mount to Sigma as well, then Canon can be the only major manufacturer that doesn’t provide new and affordable lens options to their customers and they’ll be pressured to come to their senses.

Click to expand...

I don't expect anything less than a stalemate over the next 5 years. Nikon will stay in last place (hardly gaining market share for allowing 3rd parties), Sony will retain its top spot, and Canon will hang out in 2nd place with maybe a modest bump in profit as a result of this decision.

navastronia said:

Strong statement. I think you're exaggerating a little, but the point remains that they're extremely competitive.

Click to expand...

Its not an exaggeration at all. Sigma’s 85mm f1.4 DG DN has IQ that rivals the RF 85mm f1.2 L but costs a 3rd of the price.

Then there’s their 35mm f1.2 Art which costs less than the 35mm f1.4 L II and will definitely be less than Canon’s premium 35mm prime.

entoman said:

I have had the EF 100-400mm and now have the RF 100-500mm. Both are (for me) heavy to hold, and consequently a bit cumbersome, but someone younger and/or fitter should have no trouble with either.

Click to expand...

Actually after having tested the EF 100-400 for a few hours, I found it to be so heavy that I have to do more workouts just to get more strength for hand holding it over a longer period of time. My plan is do not a longer journey next summer and until then I have to be strong enough to carry that lens - and a few more - around all day.

Skyscraperfan said:

Actually after having tested the EF 100-400 for a few hours, I found it to be so heavy that I have to do more workouts just to get more strength for hand holding it over a longer period of time. My plan is do not a longer journey next summer and until then I have to be strong enough to carry that lens - and a few more - around all day.

Click to expand...

Try what I do for carrying it. I use a Black Rapid strap with two carabiniers, one attached to the base of the camera and the other to the tripod foot, as in the picture. I can go on reasonably long walks with this over my shoulder, and I am really getting on in years. Hand holding when pointing at a target is still a little tiring. If it's still too heavy, get the RF 100-400mm - it is so light that you won't notice you are carrying it. I really do recommend it, and I don't recommend anything unless I know it well.