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.

R1/R52/R1 + RF600/4, Falco tinnunculus in the city )

R1 + RF600/4, Accipiter nisus

It is/ was a great lens, except for the removable foot of the tripod collar. Mine had to be repaired within a year. The same intern who designed this removable foot went on to design lens and body caps that can only be attached in one way and the R5 Mk II hot shoe cover……

Click said:

Great shots, ISv. I really like the second one.

Click to expand...

Thanks! The water behind is doing nice background..

P-visie said:

I I agree with you that those costs are not the reason that Sigma does not market FF AF RF lenses.

Click to expand...

Agreed. IMO, the most likely reason isn’t capacity, either (they could make fewer lenses than demand and charge more for them because of that).

I think the most likely reason is Canon setting license terms that make it unreasonable for Sigma to agree to them, so Sigma chooses not to make farfs.

roby17269 said:

Sigma have been selling lenses for multiple mounts for most if not all of their existence. I assume they are efficient at doing that by now and I would not believe that that'd be the reason preventing them to sell RF AF FF lenses

Click to expand...

I reacted to your “the only additional investment” which is (IMO) not correct. I agree with you that those costs are not the reason that Sigma does not market FF AF RF lenses.

roby17269 said:

If Sigma is selling them now to L and FE clients it means that they are already (or believe they will be) making money on those lenses.

So, again, I don't think that the capacity argument holds any water.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

P-visie said:

Those are not all additional costs: production and testing of the RF mount lenses must be arranged, packaging, marketing, add SKU to ordering and shipping systems, distribution, service/ repair organization etc. etc.

Click to expand...

Sigma have been selling lenses for multiple mounts for most if not all of their existence. I assume they are efficient at doing that by now and I would not believe that that'd be the reason preventing them to sell RF AF FF lenses

justaCanonuser said:

Leica's M series cameras at least are mainly a luxury gadget for rich people, so Leica may have more Louis Vuitton bag like profit margins per camera (but making the mechanics of such cameras isn't cheap). I am always amused when I meet rich Chinese guys in the streets of Frankfurt where I live (we have a big Leica store): they proudly have their brandnew Leica with a sort of Noctilux lens attached hanging around their necks - and use their smartphones for taking images But, of course, marketing wise it was a smart move that saved Leica from bankruptcy. In fact, Andreas Kaufmann, a smart rich guy, was the one who saved Leicy, and as German I am grateful that this legendary company survived thanks to him - despite the fact that I'd never buy a Leica, too expensive for what it offers.

Click to expand...

I often bought new Leica gear in the -distant- past. They were expensive, but still not in an excessive way. And quality, apart from the R4, was top. Few Japanese lenses could compete.
But in more recent years, quality and features no longer reflected in the exaggerated sales prices. Also, more and more "Leica" lenses were rebranded Panasonics and Sigmas.
Service is the slowest one you could imagine.
More and more, Leicas are becoming expensive, often unreliable toys (sensors, ISO selector, freezing etc...) for collectors or rich people.
I wonder if real photographers are the ones who spend $12000 on a portrait tele 90mm lens.
There are certainly still "real" M users, I'm one of them, yet I can't help regretting that this glorious camera company is rapidly becoming a member of the luxury industry.
Edit: As I wrote in another post, I am more than happy that I can now use even the Leica M UWA lenses without issues on the R5 II. "Italian flag": Gone!
Sorry, but for the price of one single M11, I can get two R5 II + an RF 50mm f/1,4...
I still like the M, but not what it is now meant to represent.

roby17269 said:

The only additional investment would be to change the mount and the comm protocols.

Click to expand...

Those are not all additional costs: production and testing of the RF mount lenses must be arranged, packaging, marketing, add SKU to ordering and shipping systems, distribution, service/ repair organization etc. etc.

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.

Bob Howland said:

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

Click to expand...

How can any of us possibly know?

Bob Howland said:

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?

Click to expand...

I don't see how it would make a difference, other companies do it don't they? Or at least people claim they do.

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.

Click to expand...

But a lot of the expenses to develop those lenses have been already incurred into by Sigma. The only additional investment would be to change the mount and the comm protocols. Lens design and productionalization has happened already.

If Sigma is selling them now to L and FE clients it means that they are already (or believe they will be) making money on those lenses.

So, again, I don't think that the capacity argument holds any water.

Great shots, ISv. I really like the second one.

justaCanonuser said:

I also had the opportunity to test this massive lens (I think it was nicknamed "Sigmonster") with a Canon DSLR attached (forgot which one) on a Sigma booth that - strangely - was set up on Frankfurt book fair about 10 years ago. Results were soft, out of focus and completely disappointing even stopped down to f = 8. No match for my old EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM lens with a 1.4x TC III attached (my standard combo for birding back then), which was getting with effectively 700mm focal length close to 800mm and could deliver decently sharp images @ f = 6.3.

Click to expand...

You have mentioned the EF 400/4.5 a couple of times. I got intrigued a few months ago when one was on sale from WEX. It was priced too high at about £1500 or so. At 25+ years old and focus by wire with no recourse to repair, I passed it by. At £500, I might have bought one for fun. I would guess that at the sacrifice of 1.3 stops, the RF 100-500mm is clearly sharper, and I would further guess that the RF 200-800mm is far sharper at 700mm.

justaCanonuser said:

Leica's M series cameras at least are mainly a luxury gadget for rich people, so Leica may have more Louis Vuitton bag like profit margins per camera (but making the mechanics of such cameras isn't cheap). I am always amused when I meet rich Chinese guys in the streets of Frankfurt where I live (we have a big Leica store): they proudly have their brandnew Leica with a sort of Noctilux lens attached hanging around their necks - and use their smartphones for taking images But, of course, marketing wise it was a smart move that saved Leica from bankruptcy. In fact, Andreas Kaufmann, a smart rich guy, was the one who saved Leicy, and as German I am grateful that this legendary company survived thanks to him - despite the fact that I'd never buy a Leica, too expensive for what it offers.

Click to expand...

There are those who use Leica for their photographic pluses but there those, as you describe, who display them as "Positional Goods"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_good

GMCPhotographics said:

I enjoyed the 300-800mm they had on display too, but it needed stopping down 2/3’s of a stop to be really sharp.

Click to expand...

I also had the opportunity to test this massive lens (I think it was nicknamed "Sigmonster") with a Canon DSLR attached (forgot which one) on a Sigma booth that - strangely - was set up on Frankfurt book fair about 10 years ago. Results were soft, out of focus and completely disappointing even stopped down to f = 8. No match for my old EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM lens with a 1.4x TC III attached (my standard combo for birding back then), which was getting with effectively 700mm focal length close to 800mm and could deliver decently sharp images @ f = 6.3.

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...

Looooove that photo of the Mallard

Was sitting on the beach one day and there was these gulls beside us. Suddenly a couple of them got in a fight and I quickly grabbed the camera and started shooting (I had the 100-500mm on at the time). I didn't have a clue what I was shooting but just pointed in the direction and amazingly some of the photos came ok.

Canon Rumors said:

Take a company like Leica (yes, they do it different). They make 40 cameras a day. Major products usually take about a year to meet the demand. How much would it cost them to increase production to 60 a day? A boatload. Sigma is closer to Leica than they are to Canon. Leica's revenue is actually higher than Sigma's.

Click to expand...

Leica's M series cameras at least are mainly a luxury gadget for rich people, so Leica may have more Louis Vuitton bag like profit margins per camera (but making the mechanics of such cameras isn't cheap). I am always amused when I meet rich Chinese guys in the streets of Frankfurt where I live (we have a big Leica store): they proudly have their brandnew Leica with a sort of Noctilux lens attached hanging around their necks - and use their smartphones for taking images But, of course, marketing wise it was a smart move that saved Leica from bankruptcy. In fact, Andreas Kaufmann, a smart rich guy, was the one who saved Leicy, and as German I am grateful that this legendary company survived thanks to him - despite the fact that I'd never buy a Leica, too expensive for what it offers.

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...

Alan, I like the red kite in particular - and it looks like the cloudy overcast weather in which I catched one about a week ago, but not with the RF 200-800. So the zoom served you well...

Celts88 said:

My EF 800m f/5.6 gave great photos but due to the size I got rid of it (not helped with arthritis in my wrist).

Click to expand...

4.5 kg was always to heavy for me, because I prefer to shoot birds hand-held. I found out, that a 3 kg lens for me personally sets the limit for shooting BIF in useable time frames before I have to put the lens down, in particular because I often pair it with a 1.4x TC III. That's why I used an old EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM for many years, before I upgraded to an EF 600mm f/4.0 III past year, which has about the same weight but is less front heavy, a gorgeous fast lens for hand-held shooting. I bought that lens used from MPB.com, btw. I buy the big glass always used, also my EF 500/4.5 many years ago. Back then, this lens already looked quite battered but was optically and technically in perfect condition (I could test it), so I got it for a decent price. It then served me through literally many 100.000s, I guess far more than a Million, shots, w/o failing (crashes, very dusty environments, combined sand & salt water spray storms on shores etc.). Canon's rugged quality turned out to be much better than Nikon's in our experience. My wife uses Nikon, and and we had so many failures with that gear, DSLR mirror stuck, several AF drives broken, failed buttons on a rainy trip that this can't be just bad luck - my wife caresses her gear much more than me; only Nikon's D500 seems to be up to Canon's quality, it never failed.

Celts88 said:

A couple of youtubers here in Oz took out the 200-800 for a spin when it first came out and did a great video on the benefits of the zoom. Yes, it needs a few turns to go from 200-800 but just the fact having the flexibility meant they could shot birds close up, but then catch BIF's at a greater distance.

Click to expand...

Some early videos of Duade Paton and his Buddy Jan Wegener convinced me to take a plunge with the RF 200-800, since their videos are about real life wildlife photography, and they know how to shoot good images.

Del Paso said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's a very good point. One could say, even now, they keep "the classic Leica design."

GMCPhotographics said:

I have a friend here in Wiltshire who is a Canon gear collector and he as pretty much every variant of every white Canon lens. It's what he does and it's his hobby. We all have our different reasons / use case scenario to buy and have certain kit and this is his. He's a really nice guys and he knows everything there is to know about each lens. Each one is pampered and looked after. He's an amazing resource and he's often keen for me to take out some of his lenses to see how I would use them. For me, it's great way of trying out some lenses for a few hours and see how they fare. He's not bothered with the RF 400L and RF 600L because they are so similar to the EF mkIII's.

Click to expand...

Ooookkkaaayyyy. I seem to need to discuss with my friends how they seriously need to step up their hobby game.