Canon taking action against Viltrox RF Mount lenses

cyvideo

cyvideo

Veteran
A few years ago, a couple of those third-party companies abruptly stopped producing their autofocus RF lenses, and we always wondered why but the speculation was Canon didn't want anyone else making RF lenses with autofocus.
 
I'd have more sympathy for Canon and their patent rights if they had a wider range of RF lenses. I own (and mostly like) a Canon C70, so I do care about this. But Canon doesn't have a full range of lenses, especially L-glass/USM primes with RF mount. Canon Rumors says there's a rumor that There are 4 wide-angle L prime lenses coming in the next 12 months. Great, but what about now?

Also, I have an X-Mount Viltrox 23mm f1.4 that I use with my Fujifilm X-T3. It's not a great lens, but it's pretty good and rather affordable. So ya, Vitrox and others can build decent cheap glass. Canon should look over their shoulder, I guess.... But they should also get out more RF lenses.
 
Canon clearly very confident about maintaining their user base without giving them everything they need for the time being

Ironically, 3rd-party lenses were one of one advantages I appreciated about the Sony system when I switched to it, but I'm gradually shifting to all-sony lenses because the autofocus is the best, so the advantage is moot. (And canon has out the one lens I'm waiting for from sony: an 85 f/1.2)
 
I haven’t bought a single RF lens, yet. I just use the Canon EF-to-RF adapter on my R5. I don’t know first hand whether they work(AF) better than native RF versions, but they work better than they did on native EF cameras.
 
Sony was coming up from a very low market share when they went with the e-mount, while dropping their Minolta legacy translucent mirror A-mount line. IMO, their open licensing did them a ton of good on the camera end, both APS-C and full frame. And they still do well with their G-Master selection, offering a bit more for consumers than their licensees.

BTW, Canon has quite a few RF lenses, splitting their lineup between the low and the high end. Plus, there are adapters for the "old" EF.
 
Run&Gun said:
I haven’t bought a single RF lens, yet. I just use the Canon EF-to-RF adapter on my R5. I don’t know first hand whether they work(AF) better than native RF versions, but they work better than they did on native EF cameras.
Click to expand...

I can virtually guarantee that the RF versions are superior optically and in terms of AF. I took a quick glance just now at descriptions of RF lenses and their EF counterparts. The focusing technology has changed, as well as coatings. I believe that optical formulas have improved.

On the Sony side, their lens designs just 5 or so years ago are measurably worse than their new releases. And some of the improvements are due to industry-wide technical advancements not specific to their company.

But all that being said, if the imagery looks good and the AF is handling what you throw at it, it's not like it needs to change... those lenses were good enough (the best in their class) just a few years ago...

The issue for me is that the best AF I can find still isn't perfect in terms of speed and reliability. At least not for the most demanding situations I encounter. So, I'd like the best AF available if I'm going to use AF

also, the wide-open performance of sony and canon f/1.4 and 1.2 mirrorless lenses seems to be head and shoulders above their dslr counterparts, and that's important to me as well
 
Even though I’m not effected I’m always in favor of more competition that’s why if I got a mirror less I’d choose Sony since such a large portion of money goes into lenses. Canon has always been more heavy handed with their cripple hammer so it’s not surprising including how they never openly state their position, we need piece together what they’re doing behind closed doors. Consumers should be able to decide if they can afford native glass with it’s usual performance and compatibility benefits. Not everyone has the same budget. I’ve heard lenses are the most profitable component. Feels like canon is squeezing extra hard out the high end pro market to make up for the loss of the consumer low end. So what’s next they going to start suing RF adapters?
 
Peter C. said:
Even though I’m not effected I’m always in favor of more competition that’s why if I got a mirror less I’d choose Sony since such a large portion of money goes into lenses.
Click to expand...

And certainly the value isn't there in the sense that you're not getting 3x as good of a lens if you pay 3x the price. Even the sub-$500 Viltrox lenses get quite good reviews. If a person won't really miss the capabilities of the more expensive lens, or won't use them that often, then it's a good place to save money. I don't plan on upgrading my Tamron 70-180 to the Sony gm 70-200 ii. The Tamron was actually better than the Sony gm first version in nearly every way. The Sony gm ii is better than the Tamron, but the Tamron is still a bit lighter, has pretty much good enough AF for me, and I don't use it enough to justify the high price of upgrading. Same story with my sigma 24-70 vs the new Sony gm 24-70 ii.
 
ahalpert said:
And certainly the value isn't there in the sense that you're not getting 3x as good of a lens if you pay 3x the price. Even the sub-$500 Viltrox lenses get quite good reviews. If a person won't really miss the capabilities of the more expensive lens, or won't use them that often, then it's a good place to save money. I don't plan on upgrading my Tamron 70-180 to the Sony gm 70-200 ii. The Tamron was actually better than the Sony gm first version in nearly every way. The Sony gm ii is better than the Tamron, but the Tamron is still a bit lighter, has pretty much good enough AF for me, and I don't use it enough to justify the high price of upgrading. Same story with my sigma 24-70 vs the new Sony gm 24-70 ii.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that there are always people who are willing to spend more for oem lens because of the peace of mind that they will not get any communication glitches. A wiser strategy would be allowing 3rd party lenses so it encourage more camera body sales, making up for any loss in lens sales. I don't believe in a scarcity view of the world. If your afraid your piece of the pie is too small then grow the size of the pie and your piece will be bigger. Instead of hiding from the competition do better Canon.
 
Last edited:
Relatedly, Nikon seems to be purchasing Tamron zoom designs and selling them as Nikons. (I suppose that the coatings and focus motors could be different, but the optical designs are identical.) First up they have the 17-28 f/2.8, with the 70-180 f/2.8 on the horizon. And I think also the 28-70 f/2.8

It's notable both as it relates to camera manufacturer strategy for (sort of) living with 3rd party lens manufacturers, and also because it indicates that the 3rd party lens designs are basically just as good as what the camera manufacturers could make themselves, at least in one tier of lenses
 
ahalpert said:
also, the wide-open performance of sony and canon f/1.4 and 1.2 mirrorless lenses seems to be head and shoulders above their dslr counterparts, and that's important to me as well
Click to expand...

On DXOMARK the Canon EF 85mm F1.4L IS USM is ranked higher and with higher sharpness than any of the tested RF lenses as well as the Sony's, and it includes optical stabilization. I realize you may come up with different results from different testing blogs but the "head and shoulders above dslr counterparts" is a bit of an exaggeration.

The older Canon FD lenses marked as S.S.C Aspherical used thorium dioxide to lower the refractivity index. It is radioactive in a significantly worrisome amount. The point is that low refractivity lens glass is not a recent breakthrough. Lens grinding and polishing has improved with CADCAM manufacturing but Canon was not waiting in the wings with lens breakthroughs. They made a new mount, and applied what they know, the improvements being evolutionary not revolutionary.

 
Tom Roper said:
On DXOMARK the Canon EF 85mm F1.4L IS USM is ranked higher and with higher sharpness than any of the tested RF lenses as well as the Sony's, and it includes optical stabilization. I realize you may come up with different results from different testing blogs but the "head and shoulders above dslr counterparts" is a bit of an exaggeration.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's an exaggeration at all. Check out thedigitalpicture's lens comparison tool of ef 85 1.4 vs rf 85 1.2. The rf at 1.2 smokes the ef at 1.4!!!

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...Comp=1508&Go.x=11&Go.y=12&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I don't know why. I had assumed that continued advances in computer-aided design plus taking advantage of whatever the shorter flange length could offer them had accounted for the difference.

The Sony gm 85 1.4, on the other hand, I don't think is THAT good (though not THAT bad either), just like other sony lenses of its vintage (just 6 years ago). But Sony's lenses have just gotten better and better.

I picked up the idea of superior wide-open f/1.4 and lower performance on mirrorless lenses from reading photographer blogs that drew that conclusion, and seeing their side by side comparisons. Whatever the underlying reason is, I'm pretty sure it's true.
 
The Canon RF85 1.2L is lovely but the Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM is obliterated by EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM. Flange distance is not the reason.

The sharpest lens is the one that bends light the least, a pinhole camera. By limiting the rays to the straightest incident angle by the pinhole, everything is sharp but the image is dark. Thus the purpose of the glass lens is to magnify light by concentrating light at the periphery into the center, which necessarily means bending light rays from the edge to concentrate at the center. The two factors in sharpness are thus the angle of refractance and angle of incidence. Minimizing both gives the sharpest image.

A short flange distance means a thicker, fatter ocular lens at the rear. A longer flange length means a thinner ocular lens because the rays have less angle of incidence to the focal point. All it means are that generalizations shouldn't be assumed from flange distance alone, the role of the objective lens at the front plays into it as well. So consider what you can see to be the most obvious difference in RF lenses, that I see in the field anyway, and you can see where Canon is going with RF. Not sharpness. Speed. Where else do you see a 24-70mm f/2.0 lens? The front objective is enormous. That's what I notice among the wedding photographers using RF, the size of the lenses are getting huge, low light, fast zooms. If it was just about sharpness, you'd have more of it from less glass, less refraction, less bending of rays, like the pinhole camera.

Photography 101 - Lenses and Focus (digital-photography-school.com)
 
forget the gm 85 for a moment. version 2 will be better. but look at the ef 135 L vs the fe 135 gm: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1421&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

not as big a difference as the earlier comparison I linked, but definitely the GM is better. and I would expect less of an advantage from a shorter flange distance for telephotos

I'm not saying that having a short flange distance makes for a better lens, just that it opens up options

and one corollary of being able to produce faster lenses is that you can probably produce lenses of the same speed at higher quality (at least as concerns the maximum aperture available in the older lens series)

and I think that aspherical lens elements are probably getting more sophisticated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top