p.5 #1 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
You are talking about 1799 dollars vs 2100 dollars....Things are always more favourable in the USA; don't forget, here in Europe, things are way more expensive and way less availability.
If this new lens would be 1799 dollars for you, for us Europeans it would be (way) over that. But for argument sake, let's go with 1799 euro's.
The RF 50/1.2L is around 2750 euro (2930 dollars) here. Cheapest I can find is 2629 euro. We would have a difference of almost 900 euro (= 960 dollars).
Feb 21, 2023 at 02:36 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.5 #2 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Looks like it's on sale, normally $2300. Kinda surprised to see it at $2100. Europe could be a lot different
p.5 #4 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
burningheart wrote:
I think Canon is more focused on license agreements where Canon makes a good rate of return on a license agreement with companies that will uphold the license agreement, possibly the quality of the lens manufactured and where the manufacturer doesn't directly compete with Canon. Voigtlander being MF won't be competing in the AF realm.
Many people in the conversation focus on the monetary aspects (even though we know nothing of the arrangements), valid points mostly but it is not just about that. Licensing an interface is in fact a hugely complex matter, and it is initially time-consuming and resource-consuming to put in place.
When a team of Canon engineers are developing a new lens, they are already familiar with the mount and the new electronic interface, and if there is a question there are colleagues on hand to lift any doubt or confusion. An interface description written for unknown third parties needs to be very detailed and void of any ambiguity so that there is no room for misunderstandings for the person using the document to design a new lens. Test procedures need to be described as well, so that a new design can be validated. We have heard from day 1 that the RF design, beyond the slightly larger physical opening, is mostly about a new high-speed bus and new data being traded across the contacts. Canon may have built in some future-proofing items, requirements that are not needed by the present camera bodies but that lenses need to adhere to so that they are compatible with future cameras.
Ideally, you would want to have a certification process, i.e. every new lens design that is meant for the RF mount should be vetted by Canon before release. Why? When licensing an interface, it is necessary that the third-party product is fully compliant with all the requirements of the mount / interface, for all the cameras past and present (and future?). For an electronic interface, even without AF or IS, the interface is drawing power from the camera, maybe closing the aperture when a picture is taken, and the lens is probably providing digital information to the camera. If the interface is poorly implemented it could drain or short the battery, provide garbled information for the EXIF, corrupt the data registration process in the camera, etc.. and in such cases it is not always clear to the user who is at fault.
This may seem burdensome and protective, but as a consumer you would like to know that a third party lens you buy is going to work as specified and not damage your camera(s).
p.5 #5 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Fully agree with you. All part in parcel of the license agreement. If a licensee put out a garbage product although Canon only granted a license agreement it would reflect badly on Canon even though it was a third party that built a lens.
I agree Canon has future plans not yet made known with the electronics.
One positive thing is down the road it is less likely a lens that is 3rd party that has an agreement with Canon and follow Canon specifications that the lens would run into a problem with future cameras.
These type of agreements are much better for photographers/videographers than those companies who reverse engineer.
Too bad they seem to have chosen a Canon RF style focusing ring...The classic Voigtlander focusing ring is sooooo good (yes, I'm saying it: better than Zeiss focusing rings )....
Makes one wonder: is the design/appearance of this lens part of agreements between Cosina and Canon, or is its design fully decided by Cosina themselves? ...Show more →
Biggest booboo IMO is that the aperture ring is in the opposite direction of Canon's traditional direction (FD and earlier). Also in the opposite direction of Leica M. I'd probably be adapting some M lenses on RF and if using some of these new Voigtlanders, it would be a bit of an inconvenience.
Time will tell if the focus ring diamond pattern will work well. May depend on how much friction is in the focus-feel.
---------------------------------------------
Tom_W wrote:
I might be off base here, but I have a feeling that the RF mount lenses will be mostly the same as what's being presented for the Z mount over on the "dark side".
50 f/1 - interesting.
I also expect this. Therefore we will probably eventually see the APO Lanthars, too.
---------------------------------------------
AmbientMike wrote:
$1799 for the Voightlander 50/1, which can already be adapted to Canon in leica m mount I'd think. And I said similar about 50/1 L vs EF 50/1.2, I'd probably just get the Rf 50/1.2. Has af, great lens, 1/2 stop not that big of a deal, really. $300 more.
Yes, you can adapt the M mount version but at least when it's adapted to Sony, there is some reduction in image quality because Sony's sensor glass thickness is more than Leica's. This introduces some detail smearing off-center and increased astigmatism, which also affects bokeh character. One would hope that this version will be tweaked for Canon's sensor glass thickness (which is somewhere between Sony and Leica and seemingly closer to Leica).
For the niche I'm in, shooting both Canon and Leica M, the question is whether the benefit of the electronic mount and viewfinder focus assist outweighs the loss of use on the M, but It would certainly be easier to consistently focus such a fast lens on mirrorless.
I agree though, if AF is a priority, the Canon 50/1.2 is the way to go, though in a much larger package (which is a factor for some). Also, this Voigtlander 50/1 is not a technically excellent, but pretty close. Fred compared it against the excellent Sony 50/1.2, which can be found over in the Leica/Alt forum.
p.5 #7 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Canon shipped more than 48% of all ILC cameras among all CIPA members.
This makes them #1 brand.
What is the incentive for them to license out their RF mount to 3rd parties that will only take away sales from them?
No licensing fee will ever make up for that margin.
It is a bad business decision to do so when all other competitors are merging, shrinking and other things.
Odds are likely that Canon & Sony will make up ~80% of the digital camera market before 2028.
All brands except Canon would likely outsource all their image sensors to Sony. Making the only differentiator among the brands be their lens, accessories, software, ergonomics and color science.
p.5 #8 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Well one reason would be potentially greater adoption of the R mount cameras... If one could get a decent lens or two at good prices from 3rd parties, they might buy 1 or more R bodies. If there was an unusual lens offering from a 3rd party, it might entice adoption of the R bodies. There are a number of reasons it doesn't have to be a bad thing for Canon to allow 3rd party manufacturing.
Whatever marketshare Canon has doesn't really matter, their marketshare numbers have been pretty stable, it might swing back and forth a bit by about 10% or so, but in the end, lens sales is a bit different than camera body sales. Not sure if there is site that tracks lens marketshare?
However in this early stage of RF mount lens development, it is in Canon's best interests to give them that head start from the gate, and at some point, once they have enough of a lead, they may allow more 3rd party options.
Fortunately... EF lenses work beautifully and even better in some cases on the R bodies, so we can have our cake and eat it too.
But hey, I am sure all of us with MBAs and business acumen can certainly make decisions for Canon and other manufacturers, I am sure they are happy to hear our ramblings on the matter and will change their course shortly, lol
p.5 #9 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
dolina wrote:
Canon shipped more than 48% of all ILC cameras among all CIPA members.
This makes them #1 brand.
What is the incentive for them to license out their RF mount to 3rd parties that will only take away sales from them?
It would be good to have a deeper breakdown of the numbers that put them at #1 overall. Which segment leads their sales? I suspect for the average non-enthusiast buying a mirrorless camera right now, access to third party lenses is probably not a high priority if the manufacturer has options at their desired price point. It's more the enthusiast market, dominant here at FM, that is impacted by Canon's apparent decision to restrict third party options. It limits experimentation with potentially interesting third party lenses and/or price points. Those at the pro/high end may care less as long as Canon has options they want at the performance level they expect. My take from the perspective of the latter is that cheaper third party options don't really make a significant cost impact over the period of time I will use the equipment, which will be depreciated annually. The OEM gear is pretty much guaranteed to be future compatible and will receive service support (plus the benefits of CPS service support). That's not to say third party lenses aren't interesting and potentially address niche uses. But IMO it's fairly rare there isn't also something reasonably similar available from the OEM.
The impact of Canon's decision really is IMO at the advanced enthusiast level and I don't think it benefits Canon to keep RF indefinitely closed to third party AF/electronic mount products. As we've seen here, it can create animosity towards Canon's brand, risks alienating a subset of existing users and deters some who might otherwise have interest in Canon products if Canon was more third party friendly. All of the brands want to encourage photographers to advance within their respective product categories. IMO it would be shortsighted to support them in the early stages, then as they become more inquisitive about photography equipment options, force them down a rigidly imposed course of product options only available through the OEM. It might be one thing if all the OEMs banned third parties and therefore swathing systems offered no better options (in this regard). But that's not the case thanks to Sony's relative openness to third parties. Canon needs to keep this in consideration and not be excessively dictatorial. People will rebel and move on to other brands they feel those give them the broader options they desire. What we don't know is just how many feel this way and have indeed moved away from Canon. As I suggested in another thread, someone at Canon is taking a calculated risk that the benefits to Canon outweigh those risks, at least for now.
p.5 #10 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
I think because Canon is the biggest player in the ILC/MILC market they have been the ones to react the contracting market first. They did the math and there is simply no room for a 3rd party to leech profits from them if they hope to survive the devastation that the smartphone has done.
Smartphone devastation:
Since 2010 the ILC/MILC market has dropped around 93%. That is a massive decline in the addressable market. This math is why I think Nikon has recently also stated that they will block 3rd parties from making lenses that compete with their own offerings.
Avoid a Kodak moment:
Canon/Nikon are attempting to avoid being like Kodak.
Kodak died because they refused to change, and by the time they realized their mistake the market had moved on to digital and they could not innovate fast enough to keep up. The engineers that only a few years before were lining up to work at Kodak were working for the likes of Canon and Nikon.
In the early 2000's the ILC market was so big that there was loads of profits to share but, since 2010 that market has dropped around 93%. The smartphone has negatively impacted Camera sales and will continue to cut into those sales year over year. The major Camera companies simply cannot afford to let companies like Sigma and Tamron cut into there profits anymore.
I also do not see this as short term gain or short-sighted, the market has shifted and Canon/Nikon are reacting to that fact. The real Kodak moment is facing Sigma and Tamron and all the 3rd party manufactures. If they cannot make lenses for more than 50% of the market how long can they stay afloat? Time will tell.
Sony:
Sony is the "canary in the coal mine" for the MILC market. Sony currently makes both products (Camera/Lenses) and components that other Camera manufactures require to make their own products (Cameras/Lenses). When Canon sells a Camera Sony is also selling an EVF because it is a Sony EVF. This makes Sony the company to watch to truly gauge the health of the MILC market. Their recent move from making Cameras in China to Thailand has been reported as political move but I do wonder if there is also some cost savings as well.
p.5 #11 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
I think the main problem with Kodak is they went from being run by engineers to being run by marketers.
Anyway, as phones get better, camera sales suffer. But another factor is "the enthusiast" needs a reason to upgrade. A landscape photographer with a 5dIII, 5DIV, 5DR doesn't have a big reason to buy an R camera. Yeah, the EF lenses work fine with an adaptor, but if you have enough lenses, why switch. The R5 and R6 are only slightly lighter. The new lenses aren't any lighter and they're more expensive. Enter third party lenses. They offer a route to a lightweight system. Canon may think that "adequate" lenses with digital correction will satisfy guy looking for light weight, but I'd say no. Maybe they've given up on the "Sony user," meaning a light weight, and a high optical quality system.
p.5 #12 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Deathchant wrote:
You are talking about 1799 dollars vs 2100 dollars....Things are always more favourable in the USA; don't forget, here in Europe, things are way more expensive and way less availability.
If this new lens would be 1799 dollars for you, for us Europeans it would be (way) over that. But for argument sake, let's go with 1799 euro's.
The RF 50/1.2L is around 2750 euro (2930 dollars) here. Cheapest I can find is 2629 euro. We would have a difference of almost 900 euro (= 960 dollars).
Can you take a trip to Switzerland to buy your Canon lenses?
Prices for lenses are the same or lower than in the USA.
p.5 #13 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
jay w wrote:
Canon may think that "adequate" lenses with digital correction will satisfy guy looking for light weight, but I'd say no. Maybe they've given up on the "Sony user," meaning a light weight, and a high optical quality system.
All mirrorless systems are increasingly relying on software-based lens corrections. This isn't unique to Canon. Even Leica does it. You should see what images from the $5K Q/Q2 with 28/1.7 look like without lens corrections applied.
These are evidence pointing to consumer digital cameras approaching death because of smartphones that shipped last year over 1.2 billion units worldwide vs a little over 8 million digital cameras from CIPA members.
So what we are left that remained relatively unchanged are independents and companies that provide photography as a service & enthusiasts like >50% of Fred Miranda users.
I suspect for the average non-enthusiast buying a mirrorless camera right now, access to third party lenses is probably not a high priority if the manufacturer has options at their desired price point. It's more the enthusiast market, dominant here at FM, that is impacted by Canon's apparent decision to restrict third party options. It limits experimentation with potentially interesting third party lenses and/or price points. Those at the pro/high end may care less as long as Canon has options they want at the performance level they expect. My take from the perspective of the latter is that cheaper third party options don't really make a significant cost impact over the period of time I will use the equipment, which will be depreciated annually. The OEM gear is pretty much guaranteed to be future compatible and will receive service support (plus the benefits of CPS service support). That's not to say third party lenses aren't interesting and potentially address niche uses. But IMO it's fairly rare there isn't also something reasonably similar available from the OEM....Show more →
This is the product mix of the RF system as of 2018-today
13 RF Bodies
- 8 full frame priced between $999-5,999
- 3 APS-C priced between $679-1,499
38 RF Lenses from 2018-2022 vs 80+ EF lenses from 1987-2018
- 24 RF L lenses priced between $1,199-19,999
- 11 RF non-L lenses priced between $179-899
- 3 RF-S lenses priced between $299-499
My interpretation above is that Canon is prioritizing users who make revenue from providing photos as a service. Enthusiasts who prioritize spending on cameras.
From today & onward Canon may start filling up a lens release that leans more on enthusiasts.
The impact of Canon's decision really is IMO at the advanced enthusiast level and I don't think it benefits Canon to keep RF indefinitely closed to third party AF/electronic mount products. As we've seen here, it can create animosity towards Canon's brand, risks alienating a subset of existing users and deters some who might otherwise have interest in Canon products if Canon was more third party friendly. All of the brands want to encourage photographers to advance within their respective product categories. IMO it would be shortsighted to support them in the early stages, then as they become more inquisitive about photography equipment options, force them down a rigidly imposed course of product options only available through the OEM. It might be one thing if all the OEMs banned third parties and therefore swathing systems offered no better options (in this regard). But that's not the case thanks to Sony's relative openness to third parties. Canon needs to keep this in consideration and not be excessively dictatorial. People will rebel and move on to other brands they feel those give them the broader options they desire. What we don't know is just how many feel this way and have indeed moved away from Canon. As I suggested in another thread, someone at Canon is taking a calculated risk that the benefits to Canon outweigh those risks, at least for now....Show more →
I think Canon wants to enjoy 1st to market advantage for at least the 1st decade of RF system.
In 2011 Sony had little choice but to offer their E system for a no-fee license to gain market share from scratch. The Minolta A-mount they bought into in 2006 did had near zero market share relative to Canon EF & Nikon's F mount. So that was of little help other than for the IPs and other assets Minolta sold to them.
Now Nikon and Fuji have no choice to license out their mounts to select partners and lens SKUs as they are #3 and #4 brands respectively.
As the CIPA numbers above shows digital camera market is shrinking YoY. The best Canon could hope for is to keep to the shipping numbers they have gained so far and let other brands suffer the shrinking market further.
Pentax decided not to join in the migration to mirrorless and digging into dSLR. They even went to put in R&D for future film SLR production.
Fuji had an inspired solution. Create a new mirrorless body system that copies everything Canon/Sony/Nikon are doing but with a 0.79x medium format image sensor. Their price points mirror that of $5999 R3 and RF L lenses. The physical dimension and weights are the Fuji medium format are of the 1-Series & 5-Series bodies and EF L lenses.
So if you are not into sports/wildelife photography then sidegrading to Fuji makes a lot of sense for people photography.
p.5 #15 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Canon's explicit stance against third party AF lenses made me exclude the RF system from the list of potential paths, it was that simple. Now, I'm dual using Nikon Z and Canon EF cameras with all the EF mount lenses that I have accumulated over the years. Cue the announcement of the first Z mount lenses by Sigma.
Of course the changes to the ergonomics of the RF cameras compared to EF also made me think that I might just as well look elsewhere. The fact that the Z9 cost less than the R3 while having almost double the resolution has sealed the deal for me. (Admittedly I'm not shooting in the full resolution a lot, because it's just overkill for the usual day to day stuff, but having it for the special occasions is nice).
BTW speaking of the Kiss branding that was recently announced to be discontinued by Canon... While I've always been finding the three separate brandings ridiculous - and the Rebel line was downright confusing for a time (Xt, Xs, Xsi... Which one is supposed to be better or at least newer?) - I have had some giggles while using a borrowed Kiss X2 camera (450D). A friend bought it in Japan in the days of yore, and lent it to me a decade+ later when my own unit was in the repairs. Still have some great and memorable shots from that one.
p.5 #16 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
BTW speaking of the Kiss branding that was recently announced to be discontinued by Canon... While I've always been finding the three separate brandings ridiculous - and the Rebel line was downright confusing for a time (Xt, Xs, Xsi... Which one is supposed to be better or at least newer?) - I have had some giggles while using a borrowed Kiss X2 camera (450D). A friend bought it in Japan in the days of yore, and lent it to me a decade+ later when my own unit was in the repairs. Still have some great and memorable shots from that one. ...Show more →
To me the standardizing to a worldwide naming scheme is an indicator that the quantity of consumer ILC bodies shipped worldwide annually have dropped to that as little as 1-Series, 5-Series, 6-Series, 7-Series or even xxD cameras.
Between 2018-today why are there 8 full frame vs 3 APS-C bodies? Based on that I read it as ~73% high-end & ~27% low end.
It is reflective of how all brands see things going forward to the next decade or 3.
By now >20% of photo agencies, independent sports/wedding/events/etc photographers and enthusiasts have largely upgrade to mirrorless. While nearing 100% by 2028.
p.5 #17 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
Yes, I'm seeing a lot of pros over here switch, although many are still using adapted DSLR lenses. The most interesting was the gear set used by the local AP staff photographer: 2x Sony A1, 12-24G, 28-60, 18-200 PZ. O_o
While I'm not as diehard a pro as he is, I'm content at (semi-) switching to ML. Actually the viewfinder is a revelation. Though when the shoot warrants it, I'm dual wielding the Z9 with 1D Mark IV, and I can't say the 1D has become an afterthought - no, the photos from it still get a healthy representation.
p.5 #18 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
ramage wrote:
This math is why I think Nikon has recently also stated that they will block 3rd parties from making lenses that compete with their own offerings.
Didn't Nikon selectively license out Z mount to Tamron? This isn't the same as Sony's no-fee license for the E mount.
Sony:
Sony is the "canary in the coal mine" for the MILC market. Sony currently makes both products (Camera/Lenses) and components that other Camera manufactures require to make their own products (Cameras/Lenses). When Canon sells a Camera Sony is also selling an EVF because it is a Sony EVF. This makes Sony the company to watch to truly gauge the health of the MILC market. Their recent move from making Cameras in China to Thailand has been reported as political move but I do wonder if there is also some cost savings as well.
It appears that Sony is the preferred image sensor vendor of all the digital camera brands excluding Canon.
This essentially makes them at parity with Canon in terms of digital camera image sensors.
Sony branded cameras are a far distant #2 to Canon.
I am thinking the move to Thailand has more to do with less disruption to operations. China's COVID lockdowns drove Apple to move operations to Vietnam & India earlier.
p.5 #19 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
It's probably political and economic. But of course they won't confirm the political reasons because everyone still wants to sell their products in China.
Today Sigma announced their first three lenses for Nikon Z. All previously existing APS-C designs. My guess is Canon and Nikon are being picky about what third parties will be allowed to release.
p.5 #20 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23
ramage wrote:
This math is why I think Nikon has recently also stated that they will block 3rd parties from making lenses that compete with their own offerings.
dolina wrote:
Didn't Nikon selectively license out Z mount to Tamron? This isn't the same as Sony's no-fee license for the E mount.
ramage wrote:
Sony:
Sony is the "canary in the coal mine" for the MILC market. Sony currently makes both products (Camera/Lenses) and components that other Camera manufactures require to make their own products (Cameras/Lenses). When Canon sells a Camera Sony is also selling an EVF because it is a Sony EVF. This makes Sony the company to watch to truly gauge the health of the MILC market. Their recent move from making Cameras in China to Thailand has been reported as political move but I do wonder if there is also some cost savings as well.
dolina wrote:
It appears that Sony is the preferred image sensor vendor of all the digital camera brands excluding Canon.
This essentially makes them at parity with Canon in terms of digital camera image sensors.
Sony branded cameras are a far distant #2 to Canon.
I am thinking the move to Thailand has more to do with less disruption to operations. China's COVID lockdowns drove Apple to move operations to Vietnam & India earlier.
Yeah, I do think the politics of China are playing a roll here but I would not be surprised if there was also some kick backs from Thailand in the form of tax breaks.
)....
