I'm not a fan of Canon's recent decision to ban some third-party manufacturers from selling RF mount lenses. It's a smart short-term financial decision, but the long run is a different story.
Because of this decision, I invested in a Sigma lens (24-70mm and adaptor), and while the adaptor is one more piece of gear to lug around, I'd rather vote with my dollar. I don't support Canon's decision. Then, this week, I purchased another Sigma lens (35mm prime) instead of a Canon lens.
Maybe it won't make a dent in Canon's bank account, but that's two lenses sold that should have gone to Canon. I did it because I remember what younger Walid needed. I relied on third-party lenses because purchasing native lenses was out of budget, but I still needed to get the job done. Once I was able to afford more, I bought a small handful of lenses from Canon.
I was a loyal Canon user. I paused on buying another camera after my 5D Mark II purchase. I ran that camera into the ground with multiple repairs because I did not want to jump brands like many others! I did not feel anything sold by Canon for a number of years was worth the purchase, but I still stayed with the brand, counting on camera repairs to get me through.
Then, they released the R6 and I was impressed, felt it was worthy of making the purchase. My R6 needed lenses and my only option was the expensive selections from Canon because they won't allow other brands to create RF mount lenses.
They'll cash in, but in the long run, they lost a lot of brand loyalty. That's the biggest price tag. Here is how we can learn from Canon's decision as small business.
Here Is How Canon’s Decision Will Help You Do Better
- Canon customers have some options. Our clients have substantially more options, and behaving like Canon won't win any new clients. It's always important to remind yourself that clients have other options. They will go with the businesses who made them feel valued. Do you help your clients feel valued and appreciated?
- The market will make or break your business! If you treat your clients like they have no value, then the market will find another king of the hill (or queen)! As photographers, it's important to remind ourselves that ultimately the market will decide who wins. Canon's move is great for the short term, but in the long run it pushes new photographers to other competing brands. You and I may not have the luxury of waiting for the long run. Never feel entitled to anyone's business. We should be thankful and practice gratitude in our daily business happenings.
- Canon's move is pretty much "buy our lenses, and that's your only option" That doesn't sit well with me. When I started photography, the 3rd party lenses helped me! And when I was able to buy native Canon lenses, I did and Canon benefited from that. When you give your clients the "this way or the highway" treatment, they'll take the highway almost every single time. Always give your clients multiple options, never corner them.
- Younger me needed third-party lenses to learn and develop my photography business. Today's new photographer may not jump on Canon gear because of this limitation. They'll start with Sony or someone else and build brand loyalty over there. The lesson for photographers: don't ignore the people who are new to the market but have small budgets. Treat them well, give them options, and allow them to have a small sample of your work! If you treat them well, they'll build with you.
- Yes, they're making more money by forcing Canon lens sales, but it's leaving a bad taste with much of the community. I doubt I'm the only spiteful person who bought a Sigma lens. By now, we've read countless articles about Canon's decision. It clearly struck a nerve with the photography community! There's a lesson here: bad news travels fast, far, and wide. Treat your clients like gold. They could go elsewhere, but they choose to support you. It seems Canon forgot that, but it can serve as a lesson for you and me.
Its all about attitude, your general attitude towards other people on this article is poor at best, arrogance mixed with general elitism. Then you make a comment essentially admitting the account was created for that exact purpose, what are you expecting as a response, people to endear themselves to you?
No, but I wasn’t expecting some rando to show up outta nowhere in a 12-reply deep thread between two other people, buried in the comments of a three day old article.
What about your presence here is increasing the general quality of the discourse, exactly?
Wanna talk arrogance? How about showing up unrequested but where you decided your presence was required, waking up a dead thread to call a stranger a troll, then trying to dismiss them from participating in the website in general by, and I always find this hilarious, telling them to:
“Be gone, troll”
like you’re some M’lady Fedora Gandalf
No one asked you to insert yourself here. If you want to be a moderator then apply to be a moderator.
Otherwise, jumping out of nowhere on a cold thread to call other people trolls makes *you* no better.
What are you smoking bruh! 105 always traditionally has been a Nikon thing, Canon gave excellent 135 f2 that’s better than anything on the market, canon may not had a 14mm but they have great 16mm. Canon has a great 50mm 1.4 and if you feel like you want more they give you a 1.2 version. Making every lens available for every camera brand isn’t a consideration for every camera manufacturer, especially when it pays you nothing. Canon have some lenses nikon doesn’t and vice versa
I’m sorry I don’t understand your point. Are you saying Canon users were/are somehow better off without a 105mm f/1.4? What if people wanted that lens? 135mm is a big difference, it’s a completely different lens, I guess the only option would be to switch to Nikon?
Evidently you also don’t understand that 16mm isn’t the same as 14mm. And you also don’t understand how big a difference f/1.8 is from f/2.8. It’s not even in the same universe. And the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 was for EF (among others) and back when I was shooting astro on 5D-series cameras Canon still only had slow 14mm options. Which you.. don’t know about? So you’re comparing to an RF lens? This point in particular doesn’t make any sense. “Who needs a great fast 14mm f/1.8 when we have a slow 16mm f/2.8?”
Wow. You really got me there.
Canon’s EF 50mm f/1.4 was released in 1993, bruh. What are You smoking? They were so lazy that they never bothered to design a modern lens. The optical formula is also apparently based on the FD version from 1971. Thank goodness EF mount allowed third party lenses, because without Sigma et al I would have never had access to a sharp enough lens to pair with my 5DSR.
Also, and I don’t know if you missed this, but all this is me explaining “why” it makes sense to license your mount to third parties, because we agree: Canon can’t fill every need for every body. They n.e.e.d. 3rd parties to do this for them.
If people really wanted 104 1.4 they should buy Nikon, it is not a secret lens, Nikon has been famous for that lense for like 40 years now. If I really wanted a great electric car, I would buy a Tesla no point in complaining my Dodge dealer about that. And you are right, no one deserves everything just because they bought something from them.
Having different things that are different from others is a core tenants of brand differentiation. You are thinking about what is advantageous to you without regard for others, You don't mind someone copy Canon's design which amounts to lost revenue for them as long as you get your lens. I mean that is fine, but are you ok with someone passing off your photos as their own and making money from it, It is advantageous for them with no regard about you. Does you principles stand firm on their own or do they waiver depending on how it affect you?
If you already own Canon, or Sony, or L-mount, “just buy a Nikon” to access one lens is bad, foolish, dumb advice. Especially when a third party option like the Sigma version is near perfect, and is available in the mount you already are invested in. Having the option is, get this:
Good
It’s Good to have the Option.
Without having to switch brands entirely. How is this contentious?
Modern lens designs cannot be copied, the optical formulas are patented. Including Sigma and Tamron’s.
Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Fuji, AND Canon with EF, EF-S, and EF-M, all licensed their mount to third parties. To give their consumers the benefit of choice.
If I want an electric truck, and I don’t want the one dumb option that Tesla still hasn’t delivered in significant quantities or for anything approaching affordability, I can get a Ford F-150 EV. Or if I’m rich AF, I get a Rivian, which is nice and doesn’t look dumb like the cyyyyybertruk. As a consumer I have choice. I can buy a gas, diesel, or EV truck, even from the same brand. What is this weird argument you’re making? You’re saying only Tesla should make electric vehicles? What even is this example?
And, this whole article, and my point of view, which mirrors the author’s, is that by not Legally Licensing their mount to third parties, Canon is making a dumb choice that screws over it’s own customers. The only ones who lose are people like me, who own Canon, who were intending to upgrade to RF, but who now realize that our lens choices will be woefully limited. I’m not saying it’s good for Viltrox to clone Canon lens protocols, I’m saying it’s Bad for Canon to create a situation where they couldn’t access them legally.
Exactly, like the truck, if canon isn’t offering what you want, buy something that offers what you want. Canon isn’t in the business of charity, just like you can buy something else canon has calculated they don’t want to lose money by letting others copy their design. Let’s see how many people actually switch, as opposed to crying about it. I predict it is a very small number.
Looks like you and I are never going to agree.
No matter, Canon will continue to do what you agree with, and they’ll shoot themselves in the foot like the rest of us are saying.
Yeah, I wish Canon would not restrict 3rd party lenses (OK, I’m kinda pissed that my stellar Samyang XP 85 f/1.2 won’t work on my new R7), but I also don’t understand the people who seem hell bent on using only RF mount lenses on RF mount cameras. One of the best things about mirrorless is all that extra space between the flange and where DSLR lenses expect to be. That lets us use drop in filters, add control rings, adapt to different systems, etc. How awesome is that? Yeah, it means the overall camera/lens size is bigger than it needs to be, but great glass is usually huge and heavy anyway. Besides, have you noticed that a lot of the 3rd party mirrorless lenses seem to just be DSLR lenses with an extra tube bolted on? What’s the benefit of that? My approach has been to love the R series bodies for what they do really well, go all adapted Sigma Art for my “serious” lenses, and only buy the non-L Canon RF glass when I want something that’s lightweight and a good value.
Exactly. I have the variable ND Canon RF to EF adapter... 1 ND for 12 EF L lenses we have. Absolutely love it... Long exposures are so much fun and video also with that.
.
David,
You say that your Samyang XP 85 f1.2 won't work on your new R7.
What do you mean by "won't work".
Do you mean that it works just fine, but doesn't offer autofocus?
Or do you mean that it works just fine, but that the aperture must be adjusted manually on the lens barrel itself, instead of being adjusted thru settings accessed via the camera body?
I mean, inconveniences are one thing, and sometimes a real time-consuming hassle that causes us to miss the shot in time-sensitive scenarios. But even if a lens is reduced to manual focus only, and must have the aperture adjusted manually, the lens still "works" so long as you can physically stick it on the camera and take a photo through it.
I would love to know in what ways the Samyang "doesn't work", because I am considering a pair of Chinese lenses, and also considering a Canon R7. It would be nice to know what automated functions will work, and which ones must be done manually, with this type of lens / body combination.
.
Of course it doesn't autofocus, it's manual focus only :-). What "doesn't work" is the aperture setting. The XP series of lenses are manual focus but electronic aperture. There is no aperture control ring on the lens. This lens does work extremely well on the original EOS R body. It even supports eye detection, and with the focus guide I can nail focus even at f/1.2. I can see what Samyang did, though, as EXIF reports the lens as a Canon EF 85 (naughty naughty.). On the R7, however, Canon apparently can sniff out the fake and will not allow aperture control. Samyang is aware of the problem and has posted a notice on their website but with no fix (for R3, but seems R7 has also inherited this "feature.")
For other manual lenses (Chinese or otherwise) that have manual aperture control and do not have any electrical connections, you will probably be OK since the camera won't even know a lens is attached.
.
David,
Thank you for explaining what you meant by "doesn't work".
Oh dang that would really suck to have no way to change the aperture. I didn't realize that there were lenses with no physical way to change aperture. Probably would've been really easy and cheap for Samyang to make an aperture ring on that lens, but simply didn't see any need to do so. But now that Canon's greed is rearing its very ugly head, I bet the Chinese lens manufacturers make sure to include a manual aperture control on any future lenses.
.
Nitpick, but Samyang/Rokinon is a South Korean manufacturer
Ah damn, too bad Canon played dirty and blocked the lenses in firmware.
Does the young Walid, steal other people’s photos and pass it as your own? Because that’s what you want other 3rd parties to do to Canon. And I won’t trust any photographer you can’t see it. I’ma lifelong Nikon fanboi, but it seems like I’m the only one who is sane enough to defend Canon here.
.
Don.
Nobody is trying to pass off Canon mount technology as their own, The 3rd party manufacturers are very clear that it is Canon's mount that they are using on their lenses.
I've never seen Sigma or Tamron or Samyang or Laowa or any of the others trying to say that the mount and the AF technology are their own. There's no plagerism of intellectual property going on here, because the 3rd party manufacturers are not trying to pass any of this off as if it was their own technology that they developed themselves. They are very up front and open about the fact that it is Canon's technology that they are using in their lenses.
I can not understand why or how you ever got the idea that they are trying to take credit for Canon's mount when they say right up front that it is Canon's mount. They are trying to profit from Canon's technology, not take credit for it. Big huge difference.
.
This is a classic example of not knowing what you are talking about. Canon isn't worried about a hole in a box, there are other software protocols that goes with the hole is the box that is proprietary. You cannot copy or infringe upon them to make your lens work with the RF bodies. Well come to think about, even the hole in the box is protected if Canon has patented the properties of that,
Doesn't matter how much "credit" others give canon, as credits cannot feed families of Canon engineers, just like exposure cannot pay for photographers time and effort. Your argument is the same as when youtubers post music videos and movies on their channel and slap "no copyright infringement intended" lol, giving credit don't absolve you of your sins.
.
Don,
I was not arguing agains the meaning that laid behind your comment. I was arguing against the way you worded it and the analogy that you used. Semantics mean everything. If you mean to say something, then it is worth wording it in a precise manner, so that the exact words you use are in line with exactly what you mean to say.
I did not say that it is okay for the 3rd party manufacturers to use Canon's intellectual property. I said that they are not trying to "take credit" for that technology.
The way you worded your comment, the one I replied to earlier, it makes it seem as though you think that the 3rd party manufacturers are trying to pass the mount off as their own. I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that this is not the case. What they are doing may be ethically wrong, and a violation of patent law, but they are not trying to take credit for it. They are simply trying to profit by it. Yes, they are taking Canon's patented technology and copying it so that they can profit. That, of course, is wrong, But they are not, technically, trying to take credit for that technology.
They want to take the money that is rightfully Canon's, but are NOT trying to take credit. What part of that do you not understand? How many times am I going to have to write the same thing in different words before you "get it".
It's okay to be humble and say, "Tom, I admit, I didn't word my comment as carefully and precisely as I should have. The analogy I used involving photographers plagiarizing another photographer's image is a poor analogy that does not directly parallel what 3rd party manufacturers are doing to Canon. You're right - they are not trying to take credit, and what I posted earlier implies that they are trying to take credit. I should be more careful about what I type. Thanks for calling me out on my carelessness. I'll think through the semantics more carefully the next time I post a comment."
.
This is just such a bad, silly argument that I don’t know what to say.
Canon should license its mount. It’s screwing over it’s own customers by trapping them in it’s walled garden and denying them choice.
If you really are a “Nikon fanboi” (I have my doubts), then you should agree with this, because Nikon itself is licensing it’s mount and is letting third parties join the Z-mount party. Or should I go look on recent articles announcing Nikon letting Tamron into the fold for your comments condemning Nikon’s decision to let third parties in?
Heck, I’ll just say it: I think it’s clear you’re a Canon person pretending to be a Nikon “fanboi”
I said nothing against licensing, Yea if Canon wants to licence that is fine, what is not fine is others exploiting canon's design without permission from Canon. Tamron is a good example, so tamron obviously pay a licensing fee to Nikon to make lenses and now come some Chinese lens maker who is putting lenses for Z system without permission nor payment, Which not only hurts Nikon it hurts Tamron who is legally paying to access Z eco system which hurts both and that is the core issue here.
If Canon wants to license it is their prerogative, and if they intend to license shutting down infringing parties are the right move which also benefits licensees. And if they want to keep it walled that is their choice, Apple runs a great walled garden where only people complaining is people outside the garden, maybe Canon wants to go that route. Who knows? but only thing that is clear is you should come down hard and fast on people infringing on your rights.
No one here is arguing for infringement. Everyone is saying Canon’s choices are anti-consumer and hurt their own customers.
The people who lose here are people who bought Canon cameras.
That’s hyperbole, Why would canon let someone else steal their profit? You wouldn’t shoot a job so you’re competing photographer can get paid? Would you? I’d say you are anti consumer to your clients. lol
People who bought Canon don’t lie as canon cater to all market segments, it’s just people who bought an r5 when they can’t afford to are the people crying I know many photogs who are professionals who has been doing this for years, all of them have first party lenses, maybe some Sigma or Tamron. But those are not their bread butter lenses. Never bullshit like viltrox or samyang. I really doubt this move harms lot of Canon shooters
Let the record show that you think it’s hyperbole to say that more choices are better for consumers, and less choices are worse.
Shine on, bud.
Canon’s lack of RF lens options in the mid range, overpriced EF lenses (at least in Australia) or third party support helped make my decision to swap to Sony which I’m much happier with.
I didn’t see the point in paying significantly more for either old and heavy EF lenses (plus an adaptor) or the overpriced RF options when I could get newer and lighter Sony G & GM lenses which are just as great optically.
The issue isn't if third party accessories enhance an OEM's quality reputation but rather how much they affect the value of the products to the purchaser.
This is mostly leveraged at the lower end of the market such as with the current R10 camera. Imagine a newcomer to the MILC world hoping to get a starter kit to launch his new hobby of serious photography. He wants to up his game over his camera phone so buys the R10, PS Elements and learns to use it a bit.
After a few weeks, he's ready to start buying lenses better than the indifferent 18-45 that came with his kit. To his shock, *every* lens he can buy in his interest envelope either cost more than the camera, often double, or are MF. MF lenses waste at least 50% of his camera's usefulness because he bought it mostly to get the superb AF that the camera has. He also wants to snap animals in motion which is impossible for him using MF.
*He will feel like a dupe* for having purchased Canon over Nikon, Fujifilm or Sony. AND HE WILL BE RIGHT TO FEEL THAT WAY.
Canon has just lost a customer for life. No, third party lenses should exist violating Canon's IP but Canon should offer reasonable licensing for that IP.
I'm not sure why a simple licensing agreement couldn't of prevented this decision.
BUT ask yourself why Sigma or any third party can sell a comparable or better similar focal length lens at a cost less than Canon? Why Canon couldn't cripple the functions of those third party lenses in some way or better yet WHY NOW ifs been going on for decades.
I used to shoot Canon had many of their fine bodies and lenses even the 500mm F4 I was always happy with all of their products, even the Powershot oh ya thinking back my first digital camera in 2000 was a Canon D30.
Canon said it is only because the RF mount is still in development. They didn't said that they would not allow other companies to design RF lenses in the future. Some people as always hearing something from others and making decisions based on "youtubers"..
30 years brand loyalty is now flushed down the toilet, NEVER Canon again, I'm going to a competitor on my next purchase.
.
I feel your pain. I am afraid that I am going to be forced to switch to Sony within the next 4 or 5 years, solely because of this policy of Canon's.
.
We used to call it pirat lenses and that what it is. Taping into a camera manufacturers system like a mosquito:) I have Tamron for my Sony but that’s made with a license I presume. Apple is charging for anything they can that can fit into there system. It’s just business.
To me the problem with Canon is that it’s expensive and there is a lack of reasonable priced lenses. So I am not switching. Canon is simply charging to much
Nikon seems better at this.
Still Canon made a good adapter for backwards compatibility and there is a huge amount of lenses on the second hand market.
People are buying Leica, Hasselblad and such brands also. Some of these offerings make Canon a bargin. So Canon is expensive. For those who want the good stuff they are making, just pay and be done with it:)
--- "People are buying Leica, Hasselblad and such brands also."
Yes, however:
1. people expect them to be expensive.
2. most, if not all, have s 3rd party lens options.
--- "For those who want the good stuff they are making, just pay and be done with it:"
Maybe it's a language barrier thing (or did not watch/read thing), but, I don't think you understand the complaints. You should consider watching and reading from the top. ;-)
Yes you are right. I did not get it. However by my measure Canon already is an expensive brand and the lenses they are making for there new system is both expensive and good. I think it’s clear they are position there self as a expensive provider of pretty high end gear. If you don’t want that then others might fit better. Still with a adapter you have access to legacy lenses.
Canon is in there right to protect there investments. In my opinion.
--- "However by my measure Canon already is an expensive brand and the lenses they are making for there new system is both expensive and good."
So are Sony and Nikon, sometimes even more so. However, between their brand and 3rd party lenses, they have a whole slew of NATIVE MOUNT quality options.
--- "If you don’t want that then others might fit better."
You're not understanding. The ones most pissed about Canon are existing customers.
--- "Still with a adapter you have access to legacy lenses."
You're not understanding. Folks are aware of adapters, but, presumably prefer native mounts. Do you use adapters on your Sony? :D
--- "Canon is in there right to protect there investments."
You're not understanding. That's easy to preach when you're with a brand (Sony) that gives you many options. lol
Canon is years behind Sony with mirrorless and lenses. A few years ago Sony did not have that many lenses and people tried to use adapters that sucked big time. I bought the first 24-105 Sigma for E mount. It was bad. Later Sony licensed there autofocus to Sigma and others. Tamron is partly owned by Sony. The Sigma lens I bought actually froze my camera due to a setting. I think Sony user have had there part of pain. Buying into Canon mirrorless now is jumping into something not yet completed.
Ok maybe I to would be mad if I where using Canon. :)
There are third party lenses for Leica. I own one. M mount lenses are plentiful. As to Hasselblad, if that company got near the volume of the Big Three, there'd either be third party lenses or we'd be hearing grumping from Hasselblad users.
It's not for any of us to judge how Canon buyers, either new ones or legacy users, view this policy. If someone shows up here saying he won't buy an R7 because there are no Sigma 60mm-600mm RF-s lenses, then he won't buy the R7. I haven't a clue what he'd buy that has these things instead, though.
I do find it interesting that many who say they'll switch brands are going Sony. IMO, this is less due to lenses than Sony and to some extent, Nikon, has been producing exciting prosumer bodies for years now while Canon's rather staid approach culminating in the tedious 5DIV induced customer frustration.
IMO, Canon's awake now and realizing it's the leader but will not remain there without some hustle. I see that in it introducing exciting lenses rather than losing customers to Sigma, Tameron and the many up and comers from China.
.
Bjarne Solvik said,
"We used to call it pirat lenses and that what it is. Taping into a camera manufacturers system like a mosquito ...
To me the problem with Canon is that it’s expensive and there is a lack of reasonable priced lenses ...
So Canon is expensive. For those who want the good stuff they are making, just pay and be done with it."
Bjarne,
It is not that simple at all.
For me and many others, the choice is not to buy a genuine Canon lens, or to buy a 3rd party alternative. Why is this not the choice we are facing? Because for many of the lenses we want and need, Canon doesn't make anything close.
The 3rd party manufacturers are the ONLY ONES making most of the lenses that I need.
If you need a wide angle lens that is a true macro with an actual 1:1 magnification ratio, then good effing luck trying to find a Canon lens that fits your needs. They don't make anything even remotely close. But Laowa makes a 15mm true macro with legitimate 1:1 reproduction ratio. And Laowa also makes a 24mm Macro Probe lens, with an unbelievable 1:2 reproduction ratio! Ultra wide angle and true macro in the same lens - where are you, Canon?
If you need a long telephoto zoom that has a really big zoom factor, with the ability to go from almost "normal" field of view to true supertelephoto field of view, Canon doesn't make anything fitting this description. But Sigma makes a 60-600mm f6.3 with awesome image quality, and Tamron makes a 50-400mm with equally excellent IQ. 8x and 10x zooms going to 400mm and beyond ... where are you, Canon?
Need a telephoto zoom that is extremely long at the long end? Canon doesn't make anything. Sigma makes a 300-800mm f5.6 with excellent IQ. Where are you, Canon?
We're not choosing 3rd party lenses because they are cheaper than Canon. We are buying them because we need those lenses, and Canon doesn't make anything that is even close. Canon is very conservative and don't offer many lenses that are truly innovative. I hope Canon gets better at being innovative and filling more of the extreme niche needs that some specialist photographers have. But for the time being, photographers who want lenses that differ drastically from "the norm" have no options other than the 3rd party offerings.
.
Yes there are always more then on side to a iissue. Still Canon have provided an adapter that gives access to a bundle of legacy lenses. I would expect you will find what you need. From a objective standpoint I still think Canon is in there right to license or not license there tech. Also to keep making cameras is a shrinking marked they should look after there profit.
Canon is protective to there business. Don’t expect a good selection of lenses to there new crop sensor line up. They want you to purchase the expensive gear if you are on that level you want pro lenses.