I did some googling and found this: https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq#faq6
Upvote
0
Don’t expect any third-party autofocus lenses in the near future
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I mean, I can see a difference in the 85s, looking at the center of the image. Plus the RF 85 1.2 L is brighter. Either lens can be used on the RF system if you use the EF adapter on the Sigma.
The Sigma 35/1.2 Art is only available on Sony, however. Its image quality is good, but I think the rendering is a little wonky. I daresay that once you get brighter than F/1.4, it gets harder and harder to make the bokeh look good and suit the image, both from a lens-making standpoint as well as a photography skill.
Upvote
0
What I found interesting is that any EULA plays a big factor. When you first start up a Canon camera or lens, you don't have to waive any rights. The camera starts right away.
Upvote
0
Tell us again why Canon should think it’s a bad idea to block 3rd parties from making RF mount lenses as good as OEM that sell for 1/3 the price.
Upvote
0
Yes, the pointing is the hardest part. For carrying I bought a wide camera strap and used it for the lens bag the camera came with. I did the same with the 70-200, which is not much lighter. The straps the camera bags come with are much too slim.
When I was younger I always carried around all lenses I had in a huge Lowepro backpack that was very ergonomic to carry heavy stuff, but not very comfortable on hot days. I stopped taking that backpack on journeys and now think carefully which of my lenses I take with me when I leave the hotel room in the morning.
I still like big and heavy cameras, but after I had the R3 in my hands that is still somehow large, but weighs so much less, I can understand the appeal of having to carry around much less. The combination with one of the very light 70-200 RF lenses must be so much easier to carry around without having to compromise image quality.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
So, to summarize. Canon is not going to change its long-standing policy of protecting its proprietary designs in the near term. Canon plans to release many more lenses in the next few years to build out its RF system and give buyers more choices. After it has had time to build out its system and recover its investment, Canon may or may not revisit or revise it's long-standing policy and negotiate licensing agreements.
Not stated, but can be inferred:
Canon will be looking at its sales, market position and customer satisfaction data to determine whether or not licensing agreements are in its best interest.
Sigma (and other third-parties) remain free to reverse engineer the RF mount provided they do not infringe on Canon's patents or they can seek discussions with Canon to see if it is possible to reach a license agreement that benefits both companies.
Given that Canon has released a selection of both expected, predictable lenses and "surprise" lenses (16mm f2.8, 800mm f11, Virtual Reality Fisheye, 28-70 f2, compact 70-200 f2.8 and f4. for example) third-party manufacturers might be cautious about rushing into the RF market anyway, as they run the risk of designing a lens that fills a "niche" that turns out to be non-existent, once Canon builds out its lens collection. It is far safer for established third parties like Sigma to wait until they can identify what, if any, holes might exist in the lineup, since they are in the business of niche marketing.
It might also be prudent for third-party manufacturers to move slowly because the R system is still immature and its user base is no doubt far smaller than the legacy EF user base. We do not know what minimum sales numbers might be for third parties to justify developing RF lenses. Additionally, we do not know if the same "one size fits all mounts" approach that Sigma followed with the legacy Canon and Nikon mounts lends itself to the new mirrorless designs.
Not stated, but can be inferred:
Canon will be looking at its sales, market position and customer satisfaction data to determine whether or not licensing agreements are in its best interest.
Sigma (and other third-parties) remain free to reverse engineer the RF mount provided they do not infringe on Canon's patents or they can seek discussions with Canon to see if it is possible to reach a license agreement that benefits both companies.
Given that Canon has released a selection of both expected, predictable lenses and "surprise" lenses (16mm f2.8, 800mm f11, Virtual Reality Fisheye, 28-70 f2, compact 70-200 f2.8 and f4. for example) third-party manufacturers might be cautious about rushing into the RF market anyway, as they run the risk of designing a lens that fills a "niche" that turns out to be non-existent, once Canon builds out its lens collection. It is far safer for established third parties like Sigma to wait until they can identify what, if any, holes might exist in the lineup, since they are in the business of niche marketing.
It might also be prudent for third-party manufacturers to move slowly because the R system is still immature and its user base is no doubt far smaller than the legacy EF user base. We do not know what minimum sales numbers might be for third parties to justify developing RF lenses. Additionally, we do not know if the same "one size fits all mounts" approach that Sigma followed with the legacy Canon and Nikon mounts lends itself to the new mirrorless designs.
Upvote
0
I think both these sections I bolded are worth visiting in light of obvious cost differences in 1st party and 3rd party RF glass. The niche you say might turn out to be "non-existent," and which Canon has not addressed and likely will not address any time soon, is inexpensive, fast primes. We are already aware these lenses sell quite well across platforms with a "one size fits all mounts approach" if, for instance, the number of images uploaded to their Flickr group pages is any indication (someone can link actual sales figures if they have them), and I see no reason why this would be different, now.
The Samyang RF 85/1.4 was on sale for over a year at $629 before it was discontinued. The Canon 85/2.0 sells for approximately the same price and is a full stop slower, with somewhat cheaper build quality and reportedly a pokey autofocus motor (yes, and it has some macro utility and IS, for those that want these features).
The RF system is now in its 5th year and Canon wants us all to either 1) buy a cheap-ish, slower starter primes, or 2) buy f/1.2 monsters.
Sigma, Samyang, and others offer a way out of this binary, and that's precisely why Canon has disallowed it. I am exactly the kind of customer that wants this illicit glass, lol, and I have a lot of company.
Upvote
0
Yes, it's when hand holding and pointing at a target, that I feel the weight, especially if I have to hold in that position for a couple of minutes. A monopod can help in some situations, but is very difficult for BIF and other subjects with unpredictable movement.
There's a product, the name of which I can't remember which is basically a harness with a holster at the front. The idea is to use a short monopod and have the foot of the pod in the holster. This also takes the weight off the arms, and allows the camera to be manoeuvred and panned easily.
As Alan stated, the RF 100-400mm is a great alternative when a compact and light weight lens is needed, although it won't be much use to you at the moment, as you're still using a DSLR. Your best option if you intend to stay with your DSLR, is probably a Tamron, as they are generally much lighter than Canon (or Sigma) equivalents.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I mentioned the newer 85mm f1.4 DG DN for mirrorless cameras that’s much smaller and lighter. Here’s a real world comparison of them here.
For many the Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 has wonderful rendering but that’s a subjective thing.
For me I shoot with at f1.4 with a 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and I don’t have issues with OOF areas at all. As for manufacturing we are in probably the best ever era for lens design at the moment. Canon, Fuji, Sony, Nikon, Sigma and Leica are all making amazing fast glass.
Upvote
0
It's fine to reverse engineer stuff, but you still can't reproduce what you've reverse engineered if it's patented. You can figure out a *different* way of doing the same thing. That's what reverse engineered alternatives typically are.
More RF stuff was patented than EF stuff back in the day. So there might be a communications protocol related patent or the like that could be violated if people weren't careful to avoid just that in reverse engineering.
All that said, I suspect that what Canon could most successfully enforce (and this is hinted at in the Canon Germany statement) against the others is a claim that they are falsely calling their lenses RF mount, a Canon trademark.
The third party lenses mostly are not really RF mount. They're EF mount autofocus protocol lenses in most cases, with extra pins to make them look like RF mount lenses. When they are marketed as RF lenses, they could be violating Canon's trademarked mount name and causing consumer confusion, which is the the key legal standard to prove in those types of cases).
Canon can argue that the lame version of RF is denigrating the rich RF goodness that comes with all the various additional features.
If I'm right, you could create an RF mount lens with EF mount protocols and *not call it an RF lens* and be fine. You'd have to indicate that it would "fit cameras that use the RF mount", rather than call in at RF mount lens, etc. I very much hope Sigma and Tamron will do so.
Upvote
0
From Canon's perspective, an RF buyer has 3 valid choices for an 85 prime:
- RF 85 f/1.2 for $2,500
- EF 85 f/1.4L IS for $1,500 and adapter
- RF 85 f/2 for $500
Time will tell if Canon will eventually replace the EF f/1.4 primes with RF versions and maintain the $1000 spread between lenses, I'm guessing they will, since as you mentioned, the gap is too big if they don't.
Upvote
0
The lens in this comparison (f1.4 DG DN) doesn't hold up when checking charts, either, but you're quite right that in the real world, there is no noticeable difference (and certainly no difference any client can see!).
I find that my Sigma 35/1.4 renders busy OOF foregrounds a little harshly, but alas, I won't be trading it for something else anytime soon.
Upvote
0
If I were an enterprising young man with a great staff of optical engineers, I'd develop an EF lens that was designed to be used with the EF-RF converter, and in fact used the space in the adapter to get the rearmost element closer to the sensor. But that might be cheating too. Still, it'd be an eF lens, but not compatible with an EF camera.
Upvote
0
In Australia the pricing is quite different.
RF 85 f/1.2 - $3730 (on sale from $4300)
EF 85 f/1.4L IS - $2299 AUD plus adapter which is around $200AUD
RF 85 f/2 - $934 AUD (on sale from $1099 AUD)
If Sigma DN lenses were available, the 85mm f/1.4 DN Art was available for $1155 AUD on sale.
Upvote
0
The comments here are quite interesting:
fstoppers.com
…and not a net positive for Canon, I think…at least in terms of growing their user base.
Undoubtedly Canon management have a plan and they aren’t sharing…their lens mount or their plan.
Canon Breaks the Silence on Viltrox Lenses
News recently broke that Viltrox, a brand known for their affordable lenses, has stopped manufacturing for the Canon RF mount after rumors that Canon had asked them to pull their products. Canon recently confirmed that news, and it certainly raises questions about the future of third-party...
…and not a net positive for Canon, I think…at least in terms of growing their user base.
Undoubtedly Canon management have a plan and they aren’t sharing…their lens mount or their plan.
Upvote
0
I agree with this point of view.
Once Canon reaches near 70 lens SKUs after year 2026 then odds are that 3rd parties may not receive legal action for patent infringement.
Many forget that in spite of the world population growing YoY the worldwide shipment of digital still cameras has been declining YoY because of smartphones.
What remains are customers who are professional photogs & enthusiasts with discretionary spend for cameras.
The table below is for 1999 (when records were started being kept), 2010 (all time high) & the past 6 years of worldwide shipment of digital still cameras within the context of worldwide population growth.
| Year | 1999 | 2010 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 forecast |
| Total Cameras | 5,088,207 | 121,463,234 | 24,978,486 | 19,423,371 | 15,216,957 | 8,886,292 | 8,361,521 | 7,850,000 |
| Point & Shoot | - | 108,576,298 | 13,302,797 | 8,663,574 | 6,755,467 | 3,578,643 | 3,013,250 | 2,560,000 |
| Total SLR & Mirrorless | - | 12,886,936 | 11,675,689 | 10,759,797 | 8,461,490 | 5,307,649 | 5,348,271 | 5,290,000 |
| SLR | - | 12,886,936 | 7,595,708 | 6,620,999 | 4,504,987 | 2,374,569 | 2,241,772 | - |
| Mirrorless | - | - | 4,079,981 | 4,138,798 | 3,956,503 | 2,933,080 | 3,106,499 | - |
| Worldwide population | 6.034 billion | 6.922 billion | 7.509 billion | 7.592 billion | 7.673 billion | 7.753 billion | 7.9 billion | 8 billion |
| % of worldwide population relative to cameras bought that year | 0.0843% | 1.7547% | 0.3326% | 0.2558% | 0.1983% | 0.1146% | 0.1078% | 0.1013% |
As #1 interchangeable lens camera brand, Canon sees 3rd parties as cannibalizing their RF lens sales. If they charge a licensing fee it would never provide the exact same margin as them selling 1st party lenses.
Also there are ways to cheat licensing fees if the charge is on a per unit basis. Extra work for their legal department that does not creat meaningful revenue for Canon.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
