p.16 #1 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
No one is advocating for IP theft, many photographers just like having creative options. Ideally canon would figure out a way to license their mount so that photographers would retain those options while canon would continue to remain profitable. I shoot a bunch of different systems, so I don’t have a dog in the fight, I just enjoying having the creative flexibility to use different lenses. But I’m the weirdo who owns double digit 35mm/50mm lenses…
Sep 10, 2022 at 08:12 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.16 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I post to the Sony board fairly regularly. Which lens to take on vacation is more a FL and weight question than brand specific. You'd hope people spending thousands of dollars on camera gear would know which lens they are thinking about taking performs better, granted spending a lot isn't necessarily indicative of any kind of photographic knowledge. But you see the gapping people are using on the primes. It looks kinda bad on a regular basis. And now the Canon board is going to get trashed by Sony fans, fanboys and users, yet again, over that?
OK so I've used tons of 3rd party over the years. And I've actually been annoyed that there's rarely any mention of it on here at least on Canon . I really need to get caught up on 3rd party even though I hang out on here a lot. In the last 2 weeks it's all of the sudden the number one priority. Tony Northrup couldn't have a photography career (sniff, sniff) if he hadn't had 3rd party lenses (not true BTW.) Thom Heaton lost his mind over 3rd party canon even though he apparently shoots OEM Nikkors according to a video posted to the nikon board. You just wonder what's going on.
p.16 #3 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
I post to the Sony board fairly regularly. Which lens to take on vacation is more a FL and weight question than brand specific. You'd hope people spending thousands of dollars on camera gear would know which lens they are thinking about taking performs better, granted spending a lot isn't necessarily indicative of any kind of photographic knowledge. But you see the gapping people are using on the primes. It looks kinda bad on a regular basis. And now the Canon board is going to get trashed over that?
OK so I've used tons of 3rd party over the years. And I've actually been annoyed that there's rarely any mention of it on here. I really need to get caught up on 3rd party even though I hang out on here a lot. In the last 2 weeks it's all of the sudden the number one priority. Tony Northrup couldn't have a photography career (sniff, sniff) if he hadn't had 3rd party lenses (not true BTW.) Thom Heaton lost his mind over 3rd party canon even though he apparently shoots OEM Nikkors according to a video posted to the nikon board. You just wonder what's going on....Show more →
You lost me with your first paragraph, but in regards to your second, I don’t think it’s suddenly “the number one priority,” as much as a lot of people expressing shock and disappointment. Many have been patiently waiting for more third party options, for whatever their reason, many with the assumption that they would be coming soon. Now we hear that we might be waiting a number of years to have access to some of the new Sigma primes, for example, and that’s super disappointing for a lot of us. Third party lenses can certainly be hit or miss, but they typically offer something that first party lenses don’t (price, random focal length).
Sep 10, 2022 at 12:29 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.16 #4 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I kinda get that, however like I mentioned in the 1st paragraph above it looks kinda bad how people are shooting these anyway. Another thing is you have 15+ years of 3rd party primes. I have one on my camera right now. And 30÷ years of ef.
Also no one seems to be considering maybe Canon doesn't want to share something with Tamron since the biggest shareholder is Sony.
But anyway Tamron quit making 90 & 180 macros so that cools interest to some degree. No one is making an af macro 150/180 AFAIK.
p.16 #5 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
No one is saying Canon shouldn’t defend their patents. But when your two main competitors have strategic partnerships to license their mount and are building user-friendly ecosystems, not doing the same makes no sense.
Now perhaps Canon will change their mind, but it doesn’t sound likely. Personally I’m really glad I’ve been patient and waited for these systems to flush out before deciding which one to invest in.
Sep 10, 2022 at 01:04 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.16 #6 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
It's odd how quickly it gone from little interest in 3rd party to Canon is bad for not having them
And one of the major players is Tamron. Is Sony even going to let Tamron build Rf 3rd party lenses? The good ones?
Sep 10, 2022 at 01:11 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.16 #7 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
No one is saying Canon shouldn’t defend their patents. But when your two main competitors have strategic partnerships to license their mount and are building user-friendly ecosystems, not doing the same makes no sense.
Now perhaps Canon will change their mind, but it doesn’t sound likely. Personally I’m really glad I’ve been patient and waited for these systems to flush out before deciding which one to invest in.
You were bragging how much you spent on Nikon yesterday anyway
p.16 #8 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
It's odd how quickly it gone from little interest in 3rd party to Canon is bad for not having them
You keep saying this, but I reject your premise. The Canon forum has been trending RF for the past several years, so of course there hasn't been that much discussion of third party glass, since there isn't any for RF. And I have seen plenty of times where people have expressed that they wish they could have some of the excellent third party lenses available for E mount.
p.16 #9 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
No one is saying Canon shouldn’t defend their patents. But when your two main competitors have strategic partnerships to license their mount and are building user-friendly ecosystems, not doing the same makes no sense.
Now perhaps Canon will change their mind, but it doesn’t sound likely. Personally I’m really glad I’ve been patient and waited for these systems to flush out before deciding which one to invest in.
The only verifiable data on this issue appears to be Canon has asked Vitrox to stop making lenes that violate Canon's patents.
The mental gymnastics required to make the leap from "Viltrox stop stealing our stuff" to Canon will never allow 3rd party lenes is EPIC!!!
@jwolfe While I cannot begin to understand how you and others have made the leap that Canon taken potential legal action against one bad actor equals the death blow to 3rd party licensed glass. It sure has made for some interesting discussions on this and other sites. It has also been a real boon for those that create content that generates ad revenue via clicks and likes.
p.16 #11 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
ramage wrote:
The only verifiable data on this issue appears to be Canon has asked Vitrox to stop making lenes that violate Canon's patents.
The mental gymnastics required to make the leap from "Viltrox stop stealing our stuff" to Canon will never allow 3rd party lenes is EPIC!!!
@jwolfe@ While I cannot begin to understand how you and others have made the leap that Canon taken potential legal action against one bad actor equals the death blow to 3rd party licensed glass. It sure has made for some interesting discussions on this and other sites. It has also been a real boon for those that create content that generates ad revenue via clicks and likes.
There’s a lot more to it than that, actually. The first signal was when Samyang quietly pulled their RF AF lenses, and people started to wonder. Then as third party manufacturers started releasing new lenses, for a bunch of other mounts, but no RF, people started to wonder more. Now, with the Viltrox report, things are starting to point in a direction that canon is involved, limiting their release. Do we know for sure, and what their long term strategy is? No, but it’s leading to a lack of options in the RF mount, and that’s bound to frustrate some photographers, and understandably so. It’s not a big deal to some, and that’s fine too, but I can understand why a lot of people are upset, even if the report is still unconfirmed.
p.16 #12 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
It's odd how quickly it gone from little interest in 3rd party to Canon is bad for not having them
And one of the major players is Tamron. Is Sony even going to let Tamron build Rf 3rd party lenses? The good ones?
The more lenses Tamron sells the more money Sony makes as a shareholder. Its actually in their instrests for Tamron to have lenses available as on many mounts as possible. Hence the recent news that Tamron will now be releasing lenses on Z mount would have been welcomed at Sony HQ I imagine. Like it would have been when Fuji opened up X mount.
p.16 #13 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Nikon has a long history of disabling 3rd party gear through FW updates. They don't come out and do it publicly, but hide it in FW updates. Now I do not update FW in cameras. Been bitten too much by nikon.
Sep 10, 2022 at 04:32 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.16 #14 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Jman13 wrote:
You keep saying this, but I reject your premise. The Canon forum has been trending RF for the past several years, so of course there hasn't been that much discussion of third party glass, since there isn't any for RF. And I have seen plenty of times where people have expressed that they wish they could have some of the excellent third party lenses available for E mount.
OK. Seems like an odd comment though from someone who actually did a couple of reviews including 17-35 ef mount, using adapter IIRC. You just don't see much of that on fm anymore and I am not sure how much you can attribute to R
p.16 #15 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Wide angle lenses can be smaller with a shorter flange distance. Look at the Loxia 21 vs the ZE 21. E mount lenses can be adapted to Z mount, but not RF (due to flange distance.) So it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that some people were expecting 3rd party choices, just like they had with EF mount. And if that isn't coming to pass in the near future, after seeing some 3rd party lenses now being pulled, some angst should be expected. Even if you can readily adapt EF lenses (which I believe will be limited to current models), you are bound to Canon mirrorless designed lenses only.
Outside looking in, but options are rarely a bad thing, from a consumer perspective. And quite a few people commenting here are shooting RF and say they'd like to have 3rd party options available.
Not sure what a "win" looks like in this argument. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though obviously.
AmbientMike wrote:
OK. Seems like an odd comment though from someone who actually did a couple of reviews including 17-35 ef mount, using adapter IIRC. You just don't see much of that on fm anymore and I am not sure how much you can attribute to R
p.16 #16 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
runamuck wrote:
Nikon has a long history of disabling 3rd party gear through FW updates. They don't come out and do it publicly, but hide it in FW updates. Now I do not update FW in cameras. Been bitten too much by nikon.
I believe their point was that Sony doesn’t seem to be restricting Tamron to releasing only E mount lenses, as some have implied.
p.16 #17 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Obviously those people don’t understand business, and specifically Japanese business. Sony doesn’t own Tamron, they have an investment. And they own around 15% not 20%. It’s a very common practice in Japan.
comotionfilms wrote:
I believe their point was that Sony doesn’t seem to be restricting Tamron to releasing only E mount lenses, as some have implied.
p.16 #19 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
The thing I don’t get is, even if you are a diehard Canon fanboy and hate third party lenses, you should still want them on RF mount as that competition will force Canon to be competitive with their pricing, just like they were on EF mount.
It’s not like Canon having a complete monopoly and 70% market share will equal cheaper prices for Canon users, it would be the opposite. The lower their market share goes the better for Canon shooters as the pricing will go down as they’ll need to compete on many different levels.
Canon tolerated reverse engineering as SLR & dSLR sales from 1987, the year EF mount was released, grew and peaked in 2012.
The last decade has dSLR sales tumble YoY because consumer dSLRs were being out competed by smartphones. This is more pronounced in point & shoot global shipping numbers.
So it isn't unsurprising that Canon being #1 in ILCs will be territorial in a shrinking market.
This tells me that a typical consumer EF system owner will buy a Rebel + kit lens that will never be detached from the body. This will only be replaced if it is too expensive to repair or isn't fashionable anymore. Odds are the replacement may be a smartphone as utility is higher, easier to buy on a carrrier plan of 2-4 years and you'll never leave it at home.
Canon licensing out the RF mount to 3rd parties before they rolled out their complete RF lens line up will negatively impact their bottom line as not everyone have the $$$ or the inclination to upgrade from 3rd party lenses when 1st party lens equivalents come out.
Canon & any 1st party maker wants the 1st lens sale.
So say yesterday Sigma released a E, RF or Z mount
Will E, RF or Z body owners get the Sony, Canon or Nikon SKUs within the next 5-10 years?
I think of it as buying a car. Unless you get a windfall odds are you'll keep the car until it isn't economical to repair further.
Only on forums do you see a concentration of serial upgraders so it comes across as "normal" when everyone else sees it as as addiction to glass.
This is why pointing out CIPA global shipping numbers frames the conversation on what is actually happening.
I would not hold my breath but the earliest I can see Canon considering licensing the RF mount would be late 2020s or even into the 2030s. It is more likely they'll tolerate 3rd parties with partially functioning lenses like what they did with the EF mount.
FujiFILM, that I believe has the dominant APS-C mirrorless camera body market share with 6 bodies, only selectively licensed their 2012 X-mount in 2020. My guess is they've hit a wall in 1st party lens sales and want to now appeal to buyers who prioritize 3rd party lenses.
I love 3rd parties and competition. What is critical for me is that they innovate and output pioneering focal lengths & apertures so they prove the market viability of the lens SKU.
I credit Sigma & Tamron for proving the saleability of long-slow super teles like the 150-600mm f/5-6.3 that Tamron first released in 2013. It ranges in price between $900-2230.
It inspired these relatively cheap & light weight long-slow lenses
Canon
- $20k RF 1200mm f/8 L IS USM
- $2.9k RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM
- $900 RF 800mm f/11 IS STM
- $700 RF 600mm f/11 IS STM
Nikon
- $6.5k Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S
- $3.25k Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S
- $1.4k AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Sony
- $2k FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS
FUJIFILM
- $2k XF 150-600mm f/5.6-8 R LM OIS WR
They're all cheaper & weigh less than their faster counterparts.
