neuroanatomist said:

The cumulative result of that is that the installed base for Canon is significantly larger than that for Sigma‘s other customers.

Click to expand...

Since we are specifically talking about FF cameras, I don't think this is true. Sony has been selling FF E mount cameras for a LOT longer than Canon has for RF, and most of those cameras are still out there being used. This is especially true when you look at when Canon got "serious" about RF with cameras like the original R8, R6, R5, and R3. That happened starting in 2020.

I'd also wager that the FF sales between Canon and Sony on a global scale are closer than the APS-C sales (where Canon dominates with the R100 and R50, as we have discussed before). Sigma and Tamron are already selling APS-C lenses on RF to those customers.

The most likely reality by far is that Canon is still blocking the sale of 3rd party AF FF lenses on RF, or they are making the terms so unattractive that no one is willing to do it.

candyman said:

I am still using it with great pleasure. A real joy. Since it performs so well, I am not motivated to replace it with the RF100-500.

Click to expand...

It might be a bit cliché to call a lens special, but this one, honestly, it’s the one with that mojo.

In my opinion, it is unreasonable to assume it is because of Sigma's production capacity. Sigma as a factory can do limited launch and adjust capacity based on demands, Sigma has launched plenty of L-mount lenses even though it doesn't sell very well, and because of that, they have scale back production on L-mount lenses and some lens you need to backorder from stores but you can still in the waiting list.

Another point to consider is that it is not limited to Sigma, Tamron and Samyang both have licences to sell RF-Mount lenses from Canon, to assume they face capacity as well is also unreasonable. That only means the limitation is on Canon's side.

There may be a chance that Canon and Sigma isn't lying, Canon and Sigma may have clause that state that sigma cannot produce FF lens until xxx date (likely after 10 years RF mount) but the contract signed by Sigma and Canon does not limit Sigma to produce FF lens after said date. I personally think 10 year is a likely timeframe because it gives Canon to recoup and makes plenty of profit from RF Mount R&D and also collect royalty from third party manufacturers. After 10 years time frame, i believe anyone who want to buy a canon brand would have already bought it and it is the time they want to attract more price conscious buyer who only want to use third party lens without them going to other brands.

Once the date is over, Sigma can produce FF lens with its Licence and Canon does not limit Sigma with FF lens production after said date. That said, it is my own prediction, and I hope it are true. However, it is also true that i only need few lenses and those lenses i really wanted I already went Canon brand which means Canon's tactics is working.

Sweet work danfaz.

AlanF said:

Yesterday, out with the R5ii/RF200-800mm, I was doing just that. A Mallard flew past the hide at its usual breakneck speed and I zoomed out to about 350mm, and I don't know how the camera was able to focus in the fraction of a second it was in view - I couldn't track it and I hardly saw it in the viewfinder. Then, I shot a Red Kite lazily soaring in the distance at 800mm. That lens is tack sharp at 600mm and below, and sharp enough at 800mm. I would be tempted by another Canon zoom, but it would have to be light enough for me to hike with and hand hold - I am most likely older than you.

View attachment 228707View attachment 228708

Click to expand...

Excellent shots! Honestly, I'll probably end up with a copy of the 200-800 when all is said and done lol. If the 300-600L is surprisingly affordable, I'll probably get it, but I don't really expect it to happen.

Z-06 said:

Since everyone is guessing - 14-100 F1.4 for $25,000 weighing sweet 5 lbs.

Click to expand...

for a size estimate tape two coffee cans together

HeavyPiper said:

I replaced my foot with a RRS after market foot.

Click to expand...

yeah because the OEM foot was terrible, and does anyone really use a polarizer with a lens hood? i hated that hood and glued the window shut

candyman said:

I am still using it with great pleasure. A real joy. Since it performs so well, I am not motivated to replace it with the RF100-500.

Click to expand...

famous last words haha? i made the swap in december after buying an R5 and selling all my ef lenses. wow I love the extra reach with no weight/size/IQ penalty but do dump the bucket hood for the 50L f1.2 hood for much improved packability. and while you're at it dump the bucket hood on the miniscule 70-200L F4 for the RF 24-105 hood

P-visie said:

It is/ was a great lens, except for the removable foot of the tripod collar. Mine had to be repaired within a year

Click to expand...

I replaced my foot with a RRS after market foot.

blackcoffee17 said:

Extending the 14-35 to 14-50 would be even more amazing.

Click to expand...

i'd rather see 20-70 L

m4ndr4ke said:

The RF 28mm f/2.8 is good, but I'm not bringing it out for low light situations, and I'm not very fond of pancake lenses. The lens vignettes heavily at f/2.8, an aperture that would be stopping down with most prime lenses, but it is not with this one.
I'm mostly okay with software corrections, that's not my point, but I'd prefer having that level of vignette at f/1.8 or wider, and being able to stop down to f/2.8 for a cleaner image, like many lenses allow us to.

A regular 28mm, with a proper lens hood, would do. I wouldn't necessarily want f/1.4, I'd be glad with a RF 28mm f/1.8 STM, but the 45mm is setting a precedent for extremely wide apertures, so I guess one can dream. Also, it could make an amazing standard lens for APS-C users, since a RF-S 32mm f/1.4 is nowhere to be found, so I think there may be a market for a budget, but fast, 28mm, specially with a price and form factor similar to that of the 45.

As for a L-series 28mm...yeah, at this point, I doubt it.

Click to expand...

the sigma 28 f1.4 art is an outstanding lens. i did sell mine tho when i switched to mirrorless in december because i got the 24 f1.4 VCM. i shoot lots of milky way

MSH411 said:

The used market for an R7 in excellent condition is $1200 to $1300, at $800 that body would be a steal.

Click to expand...

MPB would obviously mark it up. that is the price to me as a seller. And I noticed a couple sites have it at 1000 now....

thank you. I am worried about EBAY and the other consumer driven sites for an expensive item. But I am not feeling 50% for an item but I guess that's what a used new camera is worth. I'll try KEH MPB I have sold stuff through and they gave me that quote. Is it worth hanging onto or will tech obsolescence eventually cause further devaluation especially with the new 7 being announced. I don't want to be caught with a dinosaur. I sold several lenses to MPB and that is another question the 100 cannon rf I have which I used oh 5 times, I find it easier now to get those results through ai.

neuroanatomist said:

I don’t believe it’s the reason, but that doesn’t mean that Sigma’s production capacity is not relevant. Even if Sigma were suddenly free to sell FARFs, for example, it seems unlikely they’d port their full FF MILC lens catalog to RF at once…because they don’t have the capacity for that.

Click to expand...

Sure but I've never ever made any claims about Sigma's capacity or how many models they'd port to RF should Canon allow them.
I've just been saying that, as you seem to agree, this is not likely to be a reason for the current status of affair.

Askeladden said:

This rebadging of lenses was quite common with lenses from the 70s to the early 90s. The other day I was researching a somewhat obscure lens I came across and found out that it had been sold as Edixon, Hanimex, Chinon, Prinzflex, Pentor, Porst and finally Tomioka who were the manufacturers of said lens.

Click to expand...

Anyone remember Vivitar?

roby17269 said:

You yourself wrote a couple of messages after that you do not believe that capacity is the reason, so not sure why you replied to me this way?

Click to expand...

I don’t believe it’s the reason, but that doesn’t mean that Sigma’s production capacity is not relevant. Even if Sigma were suddenly free to sell FARFs, for example, it seems unlikely they’d port their full FF MILC lens catalog to RF at once…because they don’t have the capacity for that.

The EF 400mm f/5.6 L had quite a following, who thought it very sharp. Then along came the EF 100-400mm ii that was sharper than the prime, had excellent IS, not much heavier and was a zoom. A splendid lens, fully worth its price. Fortunately, it morphed into the RF 100-500 so I don't miss my two 100-400s.

A few pics taken yesterday from the top of Horsetail Falls in California, west of Lake Tahoe.
This hike was a bit strenuous, with literal rock climbing in parts to get to the top, but was worth it.

neuroanatomist said:

Canon has sold more cameras than Sony and far more cameras than the L-mount alliance for many years. The cumulative result of that is that the installed base for Canon is significantly larger than that for Sigma‘s other customers.

Click to expand...

True... and a larger user base makes the RF market simply more interesting for Sigma (or any other 3rd party vendors for what matters)

neuroanatomist said:

So what you’re saying is that it would be no problem at all for Sigma to double or triple their production of those lenses. Sure, any manufacturer can do that easily.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that at all, please point me at a message of mine saying that.
What I am saying is that by adding RF Sigma would simply sell more of lenses they are already making. I fail to see the downside of that for Sigma.
That's not a bad problem to have (more demand that you can satisfy)
Otherwise where would that leave Canon that seems to be consistently underestimating demand and delivering less lenses that required?

neuroanatomist said:

Of course, that assumes Canon users will want to buy significant numbers of Sigma full frame RF lenses. It could be that Sigma’s market research suggests that is not the case. Once again, the wishes expressed on this forum in no way represent the broader camera market.

Click to expand...

True but again, you seem to assume that Sigma needs to sell over a certain high threshold to make it worthwhile for them to enter the RF FF fray. I assume on the other hand that that threshold is pretty low since most of the investment for the latest Sigma lenses has already been budgeted.

You yourself wrote a couple of messages after that you do not believe that capacity is the reason, so not sure why you replied to me this way?

I definitely prefer to see this bird in its natural habitat.

Nice shots, antonn.

Snapster said:

I think Sigma lenses like the 35mm 1.4 Art II for ~1000€ would sell like crazy on the RF mount. So my guess would be that Canon is in fact asking for a licensing cut that is simply too greedy for it to be a profitable business proposition for Sigma.

Click to expand...

Not just a licensing fee, but probably a contractual requirement that Sigma not pass that fee along to consumers. Having an the E mount 35/1.4 II sell for $1060 but the RF one sell for $1400 would probably result in a lot of questions to Canon that they do not want to answer.

David - Sydney said:

Brand identification/ marketing would be hard if phoenix legal structures were used.
It is possible that these lens would only be available within China where it would be harder for Canon to enforce any copyright/patent infringements.

Entirely likely that they use EF autofocus with RF physical mount.
The lenses don't have to have the fastest or quietest AF motors and still be competitive vs native lenses.
AF Meike lenses are relatively inexpensive eg 35-85mm f1.4-f2 models range from USD135-USD400 on B&H. The price would be cheaper within China.

We are seeing more hardware eg phones that are only available in China where the middle class market is becoming a big enough segment to support volume - especially at the price points vs native lenses.
Xiaomi, Vivo and Oppo all have china-excluding models for instance and these are not low end models.

For perspective, 2% of China's population is about 30m people who have >USD50k personal disposable income ie prosumers.
Add the number of professionals eg wedding photographers then the addressable market is larger.

Canon may also not go for them as it would mean more MILC body sales in China.

Click to expand...

Yes, all these Chinese lens companies are focused much more on the Chinese market than anywhere else. There is explosive growth there because for the first time since the establishment of the "modern China" in 1949, a significant number of people have actual real disposable income. They can afford hobbies that cost money, which wasn't a thing before.

But, Nikon is currently suing Viltrox in China over Z mount patent infringement, and Canon made serious enough threats to Viltrox over past RF lenses that they pulled them all from the market and nuked any mention of them from their website. So, clearly there is risk within China of these types of lawsuits now.

We'll see what will happen to these "Vistilen" lenses but I don't think Canon will ignore them. One thing about patents is that if you fail to defend your patent it can be invalidated. So if Canon wants to keep RF locked down they have little choice but to go after each and every infringement.

P-visie said:

It is/ was a great lens……

Click to expand...

I am still using it with great pleasure. A real joy. Since it performs so well, I am not motivated to replace it with the RF100-500.