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

I feel actively deceived!

Canon apparently intentionally hesitated to clearly communicate their policy on the now supposedly exclusive RF mount, keep it vague so that people believe what was well established in the EF system would continue with RF - 3rd party lens availability.

I fully expected the new mount to be 'open' for third parties to manufacture lenses for as well.
Not for one second did I think that the RF mount would be a closed system when purchasing my R5!
Having been with Canon for 25 years I was used to the EF mount being "open" as in allowing others to manufacture lenses for it. I was aware that Canon didn't actively share they protocol for AF like Sony did, but that's it.

I held out until the R5 arrived and then I told myself "finally, that looks pretty good".
I actively decided to stay with Canon for many years not only but also BECAUSE OF the much broader ED lens choice also from 3rd party makers. I was certain the same would continue for RF mount. Until then I'd keep using my EF glass and slowly transition when needed.

I feel actively deceived and thus ripped off by Canon because they did NOT publicly state their mount was gonna be closed to third party. Instead they said nothing and allow few AF lenses like the Samyang AF 85mm F1.4 RF to exist and be sold for quite some time. I accuse them for actively deceiving everyone by allowing these sales to continue for some time so that a lot of people kept buying RF cameras who expected the 3rd party vendors would broadly enter the RF lens market any time now. If Canon did harshly force this issue two years ago and people were aware of their stance before the R5 and R6 even got announced, I'm sure I wouldn't have purchased another Canon camera.

I would have guessed though that due to 'common law' their vagueness on the issue could be seen as deceitful to the customers.
No matter the legal implications, if they remain and enforce their position on their RF lens exclusivity I'm done with them.

I'll give them half a year to come to their senses. Let's see how this plays out!

illadvisedhammer said:

meh. Olympus is interesting for sure, but their 300 f4 is not cheap. It's better than the EF 300 4L, but not cheap at all.

Click to expand...

You are comparing a EF 300mm with an equivalent 600mm Zuiko, in terms of field of view. I would say that the Olympus price of GBP 2399 is very fair.

Likewise, although the 150-400mm Zuiko costs GBP 6499, it's equivalent to a 300-800mm.

randfee said:

I feel actively deceived!

Canon apparently intentionally hesitated to clearly communicate their policy on the now supposedly exclusive RF mount, keep it vague so that people believe what was well established in the EF system would continue with RF - 3rd party lens availability.

I fully expected the new mount to be 'open' for third parties to manufacture lenses for as well.
Not for one second did I think that the RF mount would be a closed system when purchasing my R5!
Having been with Canon for 25 years I was used to the EF mount being "open" as in allowing others to manufacture lenses for it. I was aware that Canon didn't actively share they protocol for AF like Sony did, but that's it.

I held out until the R5 arrived and then I told myself "finally, that looks pretty good".
I actively decided to stay with Canon for many years not only but also BECAUSE OF the much broader ED lens choice also from 3rd party makers. I was certain the same would continue for RF mount. Until then I'd keep using my EF glass and slowly transition when needed.

I feel actively deceived and thus ripped off by Canon because they did NOT publicly state their mount was gonna be closed to third party. Instead they said nothing and allow few AF lenses like the Samyang AF 85mm F1.4 RF to exist and be sold for quite some time. I accuse them for actively deceiving everyone by allowing these sales to continue for some time so that a lot of people kept buying RF cameras who expected the 3rd party vendors would broadly enter the RF lens market any time now. If Canon did harshly force this issue two years ago and people were aware of their stance before the R5 and R6 even got announced, I'm sure I wouldn't have purchased another Canon camera.

I would have guessed though that due to 'common law' their vagueness on the issue could be seen as deceitful to the customers.
No matter the legal implications, if they remain and enforce their position on their RF lens exclusivity I'm done with them.

I'll give them half a year to come to their senses. Let's see how this plays out!

Click to expand...

You'll send the fanboys into MELTDOWN with a comment like that....

entoman said:

You are comparing a EF 300mm with an equivalent 600mm Zuiko, in terms of field of view. I would say that the Olympus price of GBP 2399 is very fair.

Likewise, although the 150-400mm Zuiko costs GBP 6499, it's equivalent to a 300-800mm.

Click to expand...

If you are going to use "equivalent", then to be fully consistent, it is equivalent to a 300-800 f/9, which would mean it is a narrow lens. And £6499 is incredibly expensive for an f/9 lens.

randfee said:

I feel actively deceived!

Canon apparently intentionally hesitated to clearly communicate their policy on the now supposedly exclusive RF mount, keep it vague so that people believe what was well established in the EF system would continue with RF - 3rd party lens availability.

I fully expected the new mount to be 'open' for third parties to manufacture lenses for as well.
Not for one second did I think that the RF mount would be a closed system when purchasing my R5!
Having been with Canon for 25 years I was used to the EF mount being "open" as in allowing others to manufacture lenses for it. I was aware that Canon didn't actively share they protocol for AF like Sony did, but that's it.

I held out until the R5 arrived and then I told myself "finally, that looks pretty good".
I actively decided to stay with Canon for many years not only but also BECAUSE OF the much broader ED lens choice also from 3rd party makers. I was certain the same would continue for RF mount. Until then I'd keep using my EF glass and slowly transition when needed.

I feel actively deceived and thus ripped off by Canon because they did NOT publicly state their mount was gonna be closed to third party. Instead they said nothing and allow few AF lenses like the Samyang AF 85mm F1.4 RF to exist and be sold for quite some time. I accuse them for actively deceiving everyone by allowing these sales to continue for some time so that a lot of people kept buying RF cameras who expected the 3rd party vendors would broadly enter the RF lens market any time now. If Canon did harshly force this issue two years ago and people were aware of their stance before the R5 and R6 even got announced, I'm sure I wouldn't have purchased another Canon camera.

I would have guessed though that due to 'common law' their vagueness on the issue could be seen as deceitful to the customers.
No matter the legal implications, if they remain and enforce their position on their RF lens exclusivity I'm done with them.

I'll give them half a year to come to their senses. Let's see how this plays out!

Click to expand...

How very unfortunate for you. What will you do if Canon doesn't 'come to their senses'? Switch brands? That's your prerogative, of course. Canon doesn't care what you do.

But take a step back... Canon made a decision to block Viltrox from infringing on their intellectual property, as is completely within their rights as the holder of the relevant patent(s). The reality is that Canon is being completely sensible about what is, after all, a normal and standard business decision. You're just ranting because you don't like it, which is nonsensical. But entertaining.

So many jumping ship, the M.S. Sony is at risk of sinking due to overload!

neuroanatomist said:

Canon made a decision to block Viltrox from infringing on their intellectual property, as is completely within their rights as the holder of the relevant patent(s). The reality is that Canon is being completely sensible about what is, after all, a normal and standard business decision.

Click to expand...

Bloody right, why the hell should other companies be allowed to benefit from Canon's R&D if it isn't in Canon's interests to let them do so!
... and I'd make the same argument if it was Sony, Nikon, Panasonic or any other company.

Del Paso said:

So many jumping ship, the M.S. Sony is at risk of sinking due to overload!

Click to expand...

Haha, those who jump ship, often drown....

entoman said:

Haha, those who jump ship, often drown....

Click to expand...

And cold water should help against deception- induced whining.

This is a (the?) Canon rumor site...a rumor site...full of fan-bois from all of the world...with lots of differing perspectives.

Some of those perspectives would have you believe they are right in there with Canon's decision-makers!

I have some awareness of how one particular high-profile set of businesses in the United States 'does business'...and to try to draw a parallel between that business and the 'imaging' business, it must be pointed out that all customer opinions in these high-profile businesses are noted (of course, some are noted more than others and some opinions are even valued).

Sometimes, in the enterprises I'm referring to, knee-jerk decisions are made in response to sentiments expressed in various public forums.

WIth the benefit of hindsight, some of those very decisions have not had the desired outcome...other than, at times, sort of changing the subject.

=====

I don't spend all that much time on YouTube when it comes to photography. I know about the Northrups more from reading criticism of their videos here and perhaps dpreview than I do from actually watching them.

But their latest showed up on my YouTube feed:


I watched it. All of it. I see why they've made it work.

But while I am rather ambivalent about the matter at hand (the RF Wall), I am quite interested in what Canon will (or won't) do. Why? Because I think the very existence of the internet changes things.

I did take note of the nearly 70K views of the Northrup video ("Canon's making a huge mistake. Speak up."), the 1.6K comments, and the 4K 'Likes'...all within 24 hours of posting.

Canon is getting scalded in the comments.

And as I read them, it became clear to me that some of those who posted had already purchased Canon's R5, with the expectation that third-party zoom lenses would be available for the RF mount.

The intensity of their posts reminds me of one of the neat terms to come from the 'net:

'The Streisand Effect': The Streisand effect is a phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of increasing awareness of that information, often via the Internet. The Streisand effect is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware that some information is being kept from them, they are significantly more motivated to access and spread that information.

So 'the internet' is, I think, speaking loud and clear on this subject (whether or not Canon intentionally hid anything).

And the internet is an amazing, almost living, thing...where amazing can mean, and lead to, just about anything you want it to.

Sometimes the 'amazing' helps lead to surprising...even shocking...outcomes and events...even for things that really matter (Jan 6 comes to mind).

I assume Canon has thought this through. I want to see the company fluorish. And the walled garden has worked out pretty well for Apple.

randfee said:

I feel actively self-deceived!...

Click to expand...

Ha! You win the prize for the funniest post so far. I hope you don't mind that I corrected your post. Any deception was self-deception.

Canon has never given away or sold their proprietary designs. Why would they now? As has been stated multiple times in these threads, third-parties can reverse engineer the RF mount, they just can't violate patents. Exactly the same situation as with the EF mount.

If you thought Canon was going to hand over their research and designs to competitors you were only deceiving yourself.

As for your conspiracy theory that somehow Canon cared enough about you to go to the trouble of not announcing that they were going to protect their legal rights just so a couple of third party manufacturers would violate their patents. Well, that's pretty convoluted. More rational and logical is that Canon had to study the copycats and determine if their lenses violated Canon patents. Then they had to decide what to do about it. All that takes some time. Sorry they didn't give you a call first.

Have fun holding your breath for the next six months while you wait for Canon to "come to their senses." Maybe Canon isn't the ones that need to come to their senses.

This thread devolving, as they often do, into deranged Canon boot lickers vs maniacal Canon bashers.

Oh, CR, never change!

randfee said:

I fully expected the new mount to be 'open' for third parties to manufacture lenses for as well.

Click to expand...

Based on?

randfee said:

I feel actively deceived and thus ripped off by Canon because they did NOT publicly state their mount was gonna be closed to third party.

Click to expand...

Are they required to by some law?

navastronia said:

This thread devolving, as they often do, into deranged Canon boot lickers vs maniacal Canon bashers.

Oh, CR, never change!

Click to expand...

Personally, I'd describe it as pragmatic and realistic individuals who actually understand that Canon is a for-profit business and delusional whiners who think that Canon exists solely to fulfil their personal desires.

But then, that's just me.

2 cents said:

Problem is, Canon's own line up is pathetic. I don't want weird, I want practical.

Click to expand...

What is your real expectation? How many RF lenses should Canon have released in the first 4 years of a new mount given covid/supply chain issues impacting all manufacturing? I think that 30 is a good number but could be better. There aren't any weird RF lenses but are very practical and generally add features on top of their closest EF counterparts. I agree that the RF100mm has pros and cons though

2 cents said:

I also DO NOT WANT to use adapters, I prefer a native lens.

Click to expand...

Native is great. Expensive and has more features but adapted opens up the ability to migrate rather than big bikkies up front. Keep an adapter on every EF lens (effectively weld it on) and you have a RF lens!

2 cents said:

I also want a decent NON zoom telephoto or a zoom that goes to 600mm, middle of the range, and not f-eleven. Nikon make some, Sony make some, Sigma make some, Tamron make some...... Canon, the world's biggest camera maker, loves f-eleven.

Click to expand...

Provide your feedback to Canon directly. Your demands encourage mirth in the forum
Switch to Sony/Nikon/Oly etc if you can't get what you want from Canon. We will be happy for you to go.

randfee said:

I feel actively deceived!

Canon apparently intentionally hesitated to clearly communicate their policy on the now supposedly exclusive RF mount, keep it vague so that people believe what was well established in the EF system would continue with RF - 3rd party lens availability.

I fully expected the new mount to be 'open' for third parties to manufacture lenses for as well.
Not for one second did I think that the RF mount would be a closed system when purchasing my R5!
Having been with Canon for 25 years I was used to the EF mount being "open" as in allowing others to manufacture lenses for it. I was aware that Canon didn't actively share they protocol for AF like Sony did, but that's it.

I held out until the R5 arrived and then I told myself "finally, that looks pretty good".
I actively decided to stay with Canon for many years not only but also BECAUSE OF the much broader ED lens choice also from 3rd party makers. I was certain the same would continue for RF mount. Until then I'd keep using my EF glass and slowly transition when needed.

I feel actively deceived and thus ripped off by Canon because they did NOT publicly state their mount was gonna be closed to third party. Instead they said nothing and allow few AF lenses like the Samyang AF 85mm F1.4 RF to exist and be sold for quite some time. I accuse them for actively deceiving everyone by allowing these sales to continue for some time so that a lot of people kept buying RF cameras who expected the 3rd party vendors would broadly enter the RF lens market any time now. If Canon did harshly force this issue two years ago and people were aware of their stance before the R5 and R6 even got announced, I'm sure I wouldn't have purchased another Canon camera.

I would have guessed though that due to 'common law' their vagueness on the issue could be seen as deceitful to the customers.
No matter the legal implications, if they remain and enforce their position on their RF lens exclusivity I'm done with them.

I'll give them half a year to come to their senses. Let's see how this plays out!

Click to expand...

Giving Canon a deadline is like shouting into a cyclone. Please don't wait 6 months to jump... I can tell that you really want to!
Others would love to buy your excellent second hand RF body/lenses at a reasonable price!

I hope not to expect any more stories like this in the near future either. This one’s been beaten to death.

David - Sydney said:

There aren't any weird RF lenses but are very practical and generally add features on top of their closest EF counterparts.

Click to expand...

Well, personally I find the RF 5.2mm f/2.8L Dual Fisheye lens to be a bit weird. I could dress that up as ‘esoteric’ if you prefer.

randfee said:

I feel actively deceived!

Canon apparently intentionally hesitated to clearly communicate their policy on the now supposedly exclusive RF mount, keep it vague so that people believe what was well established in the EF system would continue with RF - 3rd party lens availability.

I fully expected the new mount to be 'open' for third parties to manufacture lenses for as well.
Not for one second did I think that the RF mount would be a closed system when purchasing my R5!
Having been with Canon for 25 years I was used to the EF mount being "open" as in allowing others to manufacture lenses for it. I was aware that Canon didn't actively share they protocol for AF like Sony did, but that's it.

I held out until the R5 arrived and then I told myself "finally, that looks pretty good".
I actively decided to stay with Canon for many years not only but also BECAUSE OF the much broader ED lens choice also from 3rd party makers. I was certain the same would continue for RF mount. Until then I'd keep using my EF glass and slowly transition when needed.

I feel actively deceived and thus ripped off by Canon because they did NOT publicly state their mount was gonna be closed to third party. Instead they said nothing and allow few AF lenses like the Samyang AF 85mm F1.4 RF to exist and be sold for quite some time. I accuse them for actively deceiving everyone by allowing these sales to continue for some time so that a lot of people kept buying RF cameras who expected the 3rd party vendors would broadly enter the RF lens market any time now. If Canon did harshly force this issue two years ago and people were aware of their stance before the R5 and R6 even got announced, I'm sure I wouldn't have purchased another Canon camera.

I would have guessed though that due to 'common law' their vagueness on the issue could be seen as deceitful to the customers.
No matter the legal implications, if they remain and enforce their position on their RF lens exclusivity I'm done with them.

I'll give them half a year to come to their senses. Let's see how this plays out!

Click to expand...

Better call Saul!

AlanF said:

If you are going to use "equivalent", then to be fully consistent, it is equivalent to a 300-800 f/9, which would mean it is a narrow lens. And £6499 is incredibly expensive for an f/9 lens.

Click to expand...

Nikkon's Z 800mm f/6.3 VR is $6.5k. So a f/9 lens of that focal range is laughable.