Latest activity

Click · Apr 4, 2026

I really like this shot. Well done, ISv.

Click · Apr 4, 2026

Beautiful shot, Dragon.

Bob Howland · Apr 4, 2026

Ozarker said:
But Sigma has to make enough of those lenses to be PROFITABLE. That means more than "Sigma would simply sell as many lenses as they can make, be very happy with the revenue."

Revenue MUST cover expenses And return a profit. Obviously, Sigma hasn't figured out how to do that for RF yet. What if Sigma can only fit 500 lenses for ff RF into the current facility capacity and production schedule? Would that be PROFITABLE?

Sigma is in business to make money. Period. It is not in business to be altruistic.

Not as simple as people want to believe, then again, simple if you follow the $. "But demand would be through the roof! They'd make millions!" Nobody HERE knows that. Sigma would know better.

My guess is that RFs is a bigger market with much higher volume and potential sales/profit than ff.

Assume that a lens (1) costs $50,000 to bring it to market (also known as Non-recurring expenses or NRE) (2) but only $400 in RE (Recurring expenses) to make each additional lens (3) and sells for $600. How would an increase in demand cause Sigma to suffer a loss, assuming that production is simply ramped up and there are no additional (capital) expenses such as enlarging the factory or buying equipment to automate the manufacturing process (or paying an enormous one-time licensing fee to make as many lenses as they can)?

Bob Howland · Apr 4, 2026

Two questions, actually a two part poll. Assume that Canon want licensing fees from Sigma for Sigma to sell FF and APS-C lenses. Sigma's 300-600 f/4 lens currently sells for $6600 at B&H in both L mount and Sigma E mount.

First question: How much of a licensing fee would Canon want for Sigma to sell each lens in RF mount?

Second question: If that amount became public knowledge, what would be the effect on Canon's reputation as a good company to buy stuff from, with the choices being: Damage greatly, Damage slightly, Neutral, Benefit slightly, Benefit greatly?

Ozarker · Apr 4, 2026

Martin0815 said:
Sorry, I have the completely opposite opinion.
Why should Sigma (or any other 3rd party lens manufacturer) be 'required' to make enough RF lenses to fulfill a very high demand in short time?
and later they can decide to increase production capacity if the demand justifies it.

In a free market, any supplier can offer as many product units as he wants, while there is no obligation to produce a very large quantity, even if an initial short supply might disappoint some prospective buyers. After a while production capacities will adjust to the demand.

Additionally, all RF and RF-S cameras use the same RF mount, only the image circle of an RF-S (APS-C) lens is smaller than FF.
Consequently, there is no additional 'technical difficulty' to overcome or any 'reverse engineering' needed for FF RF compared to APS-C RF-S. Note that there are already several 3rd party autofocus RF-S lenses available, e.g. Sigma 15mm f/1.4 DC, so 3rd party manufacturers have already solved the 'technical difficulty'.

But Sigma has to make enough of those lenses to be PROFITABLE. That means more than "Sigma would simply sell as many lenses as they can make, be very happy with the revenue."

Revenue MUST cover expenses And return a profit. Obviously, Sigma hasn't figured out how to do that for RF yet. What if Sigma can only fit 500 lenses for ff RF into the current facility capacity and production schedule? Would that be PROFITABLE?

Sigma is in business to make money. Period. It is not in business to be altruistic.

Not as simple as people want to believe, then again, simple if you follow the $. "But demand would be through the roof! They'd make millions!" Nobody HERE knows that. Sigma would know better.

My guess is that RFs is a bigger market with much higher volume and potential sales/profit than ff.

Aldherrian · Apr 4, 2026

My best guess would be to get an offer from MPB or another like them.

That would be the current price knowing you can probably sell it for a bit more privately. That's how I gauged the price when I sold my R7

AlanF · Apr 4, 2026

Dragon said:
While waiting for the hummingbirds to return (saw a couple the other day), here is a shot of a Red Shouldered Hawk taken 6 years ago with the P1000. Yes, Canon could beneficially add a super zoom back into the line.

View attachment 228748

6 years is a long wait. Was the P1000 any good for hummingbirds?

Del Paso · Apr 4, 2026

Dragon said:
And then there are those that are declared classics before they even leave the showroom. At this point, all DSLRs are heading into classic territory. My 5D II must qualify.

I once was in a pharmacy in Switzerland, proud owner of a 2 years old Leica digital M 240. The black enamel had already suffered from use, showing shining brass underneath. The pharmacist asked me if I enjoyed collecting classic cameras...

You see, "classic" is no rigid definition.

foda · Apr 4, 2026

ISv said:
White-rumped Shama is pretty common on Oahu (incl. Honolulu town) too. Not as common as the Japanese white eye but still common.
Theese are from today - Foster Botanical garden.

View attachment 228745 View attachment 228746 View attachment 228747

Yeah, that's why I posted that photo. Thought you might enjoy a shot of it in its native habitat.

Dragon · Apr 4, 2026

ISv said:
The Small Indian mongoose. I noticed the centipede at home...

View attachment 228749

Nice detail. That's a big centipede. Mongoose is thinking "lunch".

ISv · Apr 3, 2026

The Small Indian mongoose. I noticed the centipede at home...

Dragon · Apr 3, 2026

Michael Clark said:
It's not old enough to be a classic yet, much less ancient. For cars the "classic" qualifier is generally 25 years. For digital cameras I'm willing to go half that, or 12.5 years. It won't be a "classic" until February of 2032.

And then there are those that are declared classics before they even leave the showroom.

At this point, all DSLRs are heading into classic territory. My 5D II must qualify.

Dragon · Apr 3, 2026

While waiting for the hummingbirds to return (saw a couple the other day), here is a shot of a Red Shouldered Hawk taken 6 years ago with the P1000. Yes, Canon could beneficially add a super zoom back into the line.

ISv · Apr 3, 2026

foda said:
@ISv No luck yet on the Orange-cheeked Waxbill. But here's a White-rumped Shama I photographed last month on a trip to Vietnam.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

View attachment 228729

White-rumped Shama is pretty common on Oahu (incl. Honolulu town) too. Not as common as the Japanese white eye but still common.
Theese are from today - Foster Botanical garden.

Michael Clark · Apr 3, 2026

Dragon said:
My 90D is classic, not ancient!

It's not old enough to be a classic yet, much less ancient. For cars the "classic" qualifier is generally 25 years. For digital cameras I'm willing to go half that, or 12.5 years. It won't be a "classic" until February of 2032.

Michael Clark · Apr 3, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
I don't have a camera that hasn't been launched yet.

Exactly the point.

erader · Apr 3, 2026

Ian K said:
I find 24mm fine for walk around work. 70mm is ok, but the 105mm is a better top end. That said the 23-105 f2.8 is too heavy for my liking. I found the 24-105 f4 to fail to focus correctly in low light on the R5 Mark II, so I stuck with the 24-70 f2.8. Perhaps that was an early focus issue with the mark II, which has been fixed? Anyone having problems with that combo (R5 II, 24-105 f4 at night time with lit buildings or bridges)

24mm seems plenty wide enough, unless you go indoors, when the 10-20mm is king.

i'm a landscape shooter. many of my landscapes with 24-70 are at 24mm. that tells me 20mm would be very useful

erader · Apr 3, 2026

Hector1970 said:
20-70mm would certainly be quite useful. I'm sure Canon will have to do something to get people to buy new lens. The existing ones are so good. Maybe they will eventually get around to a 16-600mm 2.8 that's less than 1KG in weight

"I'm sure Canon will have to do something to get people to buy new lens."

lower the price, weight, size (VCM)

neuroanatomist · Apr 3, 2026

AcaPixus said:
Well, with that barrel diameter on the AI generated camera+lens image there should be no problem for Canon, as the barrel seems rather to small to fit the RF mount ....!!
I am not a super fan of AI generated images for that sort of things.

Edit: On second inspection it may not even be AI generated, but just a composite where lens and camera are not to scale??

neonlight said:
Are you talking about the big green thing in post #50?

No, @AcaPixus was referring to the anorexic lens mount on the image in the main site post for this topic. Here’s that image compared to the real thing…

AlanF · Apr 3, 2026

Bob Howland said:
The big green is the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8. It was introduced after Sigma introduced their 120-300 f/2.8 and 300-800 f/5.6 lenses, weighed 35 pounds and, the last time I saw it listed, had a price of $27,000. I was posting on DP Review when it was introduced and the ridicule it got at introduction was severe. I was extremely disappointed because I wanted a 200-500 f/4. The Sigma CEO said that it was a dream of his father's and it had to be made or the father would haunt him..

It seems that this generation's oddity is the BF. Maybe they should have considered a very compact APS-C L-mount body to compete with Sony's 6X00 series and provide a market for APS-C L-mount lenses..

If Neuro is correct about the Canon-Sigma RF-mount licensing agreement, and he probably is, there is probably also a penalty clause if Sigma releases the details of that agreement, specifically the amounts of the licensing fees. Canon is hardly blameless in this situation. Buyer-seller relationships are inherently adversarial.

It's currently available as a special order at £15,000, and has dedicated TCs. I know someone who has one for astrophotography.

AlanF · Apr 3, 2026

The crew is using the D5 as proven technology and introducing the Z9 for future standard use.

The NASA Artemis II Crew's Stunning First Photos of Earth

Hello, Earth.

petapixel.com

Bob Howland · Apr 3, 2026

neonlight said:
Are you talking about the big green thing in post #50?
A real lens, used to be the most expensive (apart from Canon's 1200 f/5.6 that is a rarity) but Canon's RF800/1200 make it look cheap.

The big green is the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8. It was introduced after Sigma introduced their 120-300 f/2.8 and 300-800 f/5.6 lenses, weighed 35 pounds and, the last time I saw it listed, had a price of $27,000. I was posting on DP Review when it was introduced and the ridicule it got at introduction was severe. I was extremely disappointed because I wanted a 200-500 f/4. The Sigma CEO said that it was a dream of his father's and it had to be made or the father would haunt him..

It seems that this generation's oddity is the BF. Maybe they should have considered a very compact APS-C L-mount body to compete with Sony's 6X00 series and provide a market for APS-C L-mount lenses..

If Neuro is correct about the Canon-Sigma RF-mount licensing agreement, and he probably is, there is probably also a penalty clause if Sigma releases the details of that agreement, specifically the amounts of the licensing fees. Canon is hardly blameless in this situation. Buyer-seller relationships are inherently adversarial.

EOSEFSRFISUSMDIGIC · Apr 3, 2026

I see postings around $700 for a used body but am looking for a reality check.

Also what are the best places to sell in person according to you? Used to do Craigslist but not sure if it still is the best way to do so.

Thank you.

Apr 3, 2026

RF lenses are outrageously expensive for what they offer, and it's all thanks to the monopoly that Canon enforces on the mount. These kind of things should not even be legal in my opinion.
Sigma lenses are great. I have two Art ones and no complaints. I very much doubt that they are allowed to do full frame ones since nobody else did either.
Also, to be totally fair, Sigma is not producing the lens that I want for other mounts either. So at this moment I am good in general. There are tons of EF lenses that work great. Buying new lenses make no sense.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics