A Small Sigma 180 f/2.8 OS Macro Issue

[heptagon]

typicall for sigma.
you wonder if they have a quality management at all.

how can such an issue not be noticed and fixed when developing a lens?

Maybe because it is Canon who broke the compatibility?

[traveller]

So Canon doesn't provide a proper way for other manufacturers to make EF lenses without paying horrendous licensing fees. Then it purpously breaks compatibility with existing 3rd party lenses with new bodies. That doesn't sound good to me. All Canon would have to provide would be a proper way to ID the lenses. A simple manufacturer ID + item ID would be sufficient.

I think that you're being a touch unfair on Canon here, why should Canon go out of their way to help third party manufacturers compete with them for lens sales? I don' think that you'll find many other manufacturers doing that.  The only exception that I can think of is Sony, who have 'open-sourced' the E-mount protocols.  If you think about the reason for this, you'll realise why it doesn't make sense for Canon: the NEX range is still very new and lacks lenses.  From Sony's perspective, they are seeking to trade future competitive advantage in lens sales for short term gain in market share of the system (assuming that having more lenses available makes NEX more attractive to potential buyers).  Canon on the other hand, has one of the largest lens ranges available and these are at the heart of the EOS system's competitive advantage.  Why would they jeopardize potential sales of their EF lenses just to assist a competitor?

As for "purpously breaks compatibility", I don't think they give it that much thought!

[Ellen Schmidtee]

This is a (more or less) funny example of our believing in data correction algorithms etc.
I see a tendency to suspend development for better lenses in terms of vignetting, chromatic aberrations, distortions because you can correct them easily AFTERWARDS.

I'd rather easily correct in post processing than face the sticker shock accompanying those new lenses.

[dilbert]

typicall for sigma.
you wonder if they have a quality management at all.

how can such an issue not be noticed and fixed when developing a lens?

This is NOT a Sigma problem.

It is a Canon problem.

[dilbert]

So Canon doesn't provide a proper way for other manufacturers to make EF lenses without paying horrendous licensing fees. Then it purpously breaks compatibility with existing 3rd party lenses with new bodies. That doesn't sound good to me. All Canon would have to provide would be a proper way to ID the lenses. A simple manufacturer ID + item ID would be sufficient.

I think that you're being a touch unfair on Canon here, why should Canon go out of their way to help third party manufacturers compete with them for lens sales? I don' think that you'll find many other manufacturers doing that.  The only exception that I can think of is Sony, who have 'open-sourced' the E-mount protocols.  If you think about the reason for this, you'll realise why it doesn't make sense for Canon: the NEX range is still very new and lacks lenses.  From Sony's perspective, they are seeking to trade future competitive advantage in lens sales for short term gain in market share of the system (assuming that having more lenses available makes NEX more attractive to potential buyers).  Canon on the other hand, has one of the largest lens ranges available and these are at the heart of the EOS system's competitive advantage.  Why would they jeopardize potential sales of their EF lenses just to assist a competitor?

Lets see. The last lens I bought for my Canon camera wasn't a Canon lens. It is quite possible that the next lens also won't be Canon. Why? Because Canon lenses fail to offer the same value as other brands.

Now if I couldn't use 3rd party lenses on Canon cameras but I could use 3rd party lenses on other cameras then that would be a very big disincentive to buy Canon cameras.

The main difference here is this:

Song gets consumer electronics.

Canon doesn't.

There's now talk of Sony allow 3rd party applications to be loaded onto the next NEX camera much like you do with smart phones. This is yet another sign that Sony understands the consumer electronics market and that Canon (and by extension Nikon) do not.

[YoukY63]

typicall for sigma.
you wonder if they have a quality management at all.

how can such an issue not be noticed and fixed when developing a lens?

This is NOT a Sigma problem.

It is a Canon problem.

You are very unfair and I totally disagree.

Canon's business is too sell Canon products, not Sigma or Tamron or any other brands.
When Sigma sells 1 lens, Canon does not receive any yen/dollar for that. Why should they care about them? Sigma should already feel happy that Canon doesn't try to definitely inactivate their reverse tech and making their products unusable --> end of business.

[janvehrenkamp]

This issue might be more of an 5D3 issue than a lens one.
I did some night shots yesterday and just now noticed similar issues with my 5D3+24-105, it's almost not visible in the untouched raw file(I didn't notice it, until I accidentaly found it), but once I crank up the dials it becomes clearly visible.
I think it's visible all the time, but at least I couldn't tell until I dialed up almost all the development settings to the max, where I suddenly started to see a white circle in the frame.
Might not be an issue though, as I can't think of a scenario where I'd push the processing to the extend that I did in my tests (trying out new stuff). But if you search for it I'm sure you'll be able to find the white circle too.
Funny that I found this now.. :|

[dilbert]

typicall for sigma.
you wonder if they have a quality management at all.

how can such an issue not be noticed and fixed when developing a lens?

This is NOT a Sigma problem.

It is a Canon problem.

You are very unfair and I totally disagree.

Canon's business is too sell Canon products, not Sigma or Tamron or any other brands.
When Sigma sells 1 lens, Canon does not receive any yen/dollar for that. Why should they care about them? Sigma should already feel happy that Canon doesn't try to definitely inactivate their reverse tech and making their products unusable --> end of business.

Does that then mean that you should buy Canon tripods, Canon monopods, Canon camera bags, etc?
Where do you draw the line?

Canon need to realise that it is the ecosystem around their products that keeps them alive.

[heptagon]

typicall for sigma.
you wonder if they have a quality management at all.

how can such an issue not be noticed and fixed when developing a lens?

This is NOT a Sigma problem.

It is a Canon problem.

You are very unfair and I totally disagree.

Canon's business is too sell Canon products, not Sigma or Tamron or any other brands.
When Sigma sells 1 lens, Canon does not receive any yen/dollar for that. Why should they care about them? Sigma should already feel happy that Canon doesn't try to definitely inactivate their reverse tech and making their products unusable --> end of business.

Does that then mean that you should buy Canon tripods, Canon monopods, Canon camera bags, etc?
Where do you draw the line?

Canon need to realise that it is the ecosystem around their products that keeps them alive.

If Canon makes a good lens, it will sell. If the competitor is better, Canon needs to "protect their market". If they fall behind not only in the Sensor development but also with the lenses, Canon will have a big problem, because then there's little reason to buy a Canon camera. The lens prices are still up and it's a good time to sell now.

[traveller]

So Canon doesn't provide a proper way for other manufacturers to make EF lenses without paying horrendous licensing fees. Then it purpously breaks compatibility with existing 3rd party lenses with new bodies. That doesn't sound good to me. All Canon would have to provide would be a proper way to ID the lenses. A simple manufacturer ID + item ID would be sufficient.

I think that you're being a touch unfair on Canon here, why should Canon go out of their way to help third party manufacturers compete with them for lens sales? I don' think that you'll find many other manufacturers doing that.  The only exception that I can think of is Sony, who have 'open-sourced' the E-mount protocols.  If you think about the reason for this, you'll realise why it doesn't make sense for Canon: the NEX range is still very new and lacks lenses.  From Sony's perspective, they are seeking to trade future competitive advantage in lens sales for short term gain in market share of the system (assuming that having more lenses available makes NEX more attractive to potential buyers).  Canon on the other hand, has one of the largest lens ranges available and these are at the heart of the EOS system's competitive advantage.  Why would they jeopardize potential sales of their EF lenses just to assist a competitor?

Lets see. The last lens I bought for my Canon camera wasn't a Canon lens. It is quite possible that the next lens also won't be Canon. Why? Because Canon lenses fail to offer the same value as other brands.

Now if I couldn't use 3rd party lenses on Canon cameras but I could use 3rd party lenses on other cameras then that would be a very big disincentive to buy Canon cameras.

The main difference here is this:

Song gets consumer electronics.

Canon doesn't.

There's now talk of Sony allow 3rd party applications to be loaded onto the next NEX camera much like you do with smart phones. This is yet another sign that Sony understands the consumer electronics market and that Canon (and by extension Nikon) do not.

Whilst the issue of making a lens mount open or closed is an interesting argument, the fact of the matter is that you know full well that the EF mount is currently a closed system.  On that basis, it is not fair to bang one's fists on the table and demand a solution to a problem caused by a competitor's unauthorised reverse engineering of Canon's product.  Dare I quote the old phrase: "you get what you pay for"...? Should it seems that I'm being arrogant and heartless, I also own third party lenses, which were bought on cost grounds.  In return for the lower purchase price, I accepted that there were long term compatibility questions; it is part of the deal and one reason why Sigma et al. cannot charge as much for their lenses. 

Suggesting that Sony has some deep understanding of the consumer electronics industry is laughable; this is a company that has suffered massive retrechment of its market share (and big financial losses) as the competition has outperformed it in key markets.  I see Sony's decision to open-source the E-mount specification as an indictment of their commitment to produce lenses for the system. 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

If Canon makes a good lens, it will sell. If the competitor is better, Canon needs to "protect their market".

That would stifle competition, which is bad for consumers. Canon should compete by making a better lens.

That's beside the fact that the above statement simplifies things, e.g. there's a competition on price/performance.

[Lawliet]

[quote author=traveller link=topic=8569.msg156139#msg156139 date=1344694383

Whilst the issue of making a lens mount open or closed is an interesting argument, the fact of the matter is that you know full well that the EF mount is currently a closed system.  On that basis, it is not fair to bang one's fists on the table and demand a solution to a problem caused by a competitor's unauthorised reverse engineering of Canon's product.   
[/quote]

Canon also has to take care not to create precedence - include a fix for one lens and you'll be asked why all the other stuff doesn't get the same treatment. Suddenly the blame for flaky behavior gets shifted from the manufacturer to a 3rd party who doesn't even want to be involved or has the means to solve them as they can
t fix problems on the far side of the mount.
I wonder how long it will take until some lens declares itself capable of working with all 61Points without restrictions when in reality less optimism would be prudent. Same basic problem, but much subtler yet more troublesome effect...

[dilbert]

Whilst the issue of making a lens mount open or closed is an interesting argument, the fact of the matter is that you know full well that the EF mount is currently a closed system.  On that basis, it is not fair to bang one's fists on the table and demand a solution to a problem caused by a competitor's unauthorised reverse engineering of Canon's product.

Reverse engineering when done properly is 100% legal and does not need to be "authorised".

And we as consumers are definitely within our rights to demand that Canon open up their lens communication protocol to make it easier for 3rd party integration.

[Random Orbits]

Whilst the issue of making a lens mount open or closed is an interesting argument, the fact of the matter is that you know full well that the EF mount is currently a closed system.  On that basis, it is not fair to bang one's fists on the table and demand a solution to a problem caused by a competitor's unauthorised reverse engineering of Canon's product.

Reverse engineering when done properly is 100% legal and does not need to be "authorised".

And we as consumers are definitely within our rights to demand that Canon open up their lens communication protocol to make it easier for 3rd party integration.

It's your right to give your opinion.  It is Canon's right to protect their IP, and it is their right to change their protocols without letting unlicensed users know.  Ultimately, you have the choice of where you spend your money whether it be on Sony, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, etc.  Unless you have some legal ground to force Canon to make their IP open, then that's the way it is and you can only "vote" with where you spend your money.  If enough people agree, then Canon might be persuaded if it starts affecting sales/profits, but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Whilst the issue of making a lens mount open or closed is an interesting argument, the fact of the matter is that you know full well that the EF mount is currently a closed system.  On that basis, it is not fair to bang one's fists on the table and demand a solution to a problem caused by a competitor's unauthorised reverse engineering of Canon's product.

Reverse engineering when done properly is 100% legal and does not need to be "authorised".

I'm not a lawyer or U.S. citizen, so I might very well be missing something, but doesn't the DMCA put some limits on reverse engineering?


As Sigma completes Canon's line of lenses, IMHO, Canon would benefit from having their cameras avoid such SNAFUs. Examples would be fisheyes - until the 8-15mm, Canon made only a diagonal fisheye for FF, and Sigma made circular fisheyes for APS-C & FF + diagonal for APS-C.