GMCPhotographics said:

I played with one of these at “focus” at the Birmingham NEC a few years back on the Sigma stand. It was mounted on a massive fixed to the floor tripod. Because it was the trade / pro day, they let me put my own 5D3 on it, try it out and shoot a few frames. It was exciting to use but disappointing when I later looked at the files.
Guess what, it was a little bit soft at 500mm and it had noticeable back focus. Under the hall lights its af was a bit inconsistent. But hey…it’s a Sigma, what a surprise!
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...

Haha - but the image quality is not the point of the big green. It’s the Hulk, and no one watched the Hulk for the outstanding special effects.

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.

Click to expand...

I played with one of these at “focus” at the Birmingham NEC a few years back on the Sigma stand. It was mounted on a massive fixed to the floor tripod. Because it was the trade / pro day, they let me put my own 5D3 on it, try it out and shoot a few frames. It was exciting to use but disappointing when I later looked at the files.
Guess what, it was a little bit soft at 500mm and it had noticeable back focus. Under the hall lights its af was a bit inconsistent. But hey…it’s a Sigma, what a surprise!
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.

Dragon said:

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

Click to expand...

Not that big actually: I think it's 13-15 cm in length. I can't count the ## of the legs between the stones but it's probably Scolopendra subspinipes which "normally" gets up to 20cm. On Maui someone captured a specimen with length 36.6 cm (if it's the same species or it could be a very new species!) !

These from today.

Click said:

I especially like the first two. Excellent shots, Dragon.

Click to expand...

I kind of liked the 3rd one hiding in the salmonberry bush, but I really included that one to show dynamic range since it was very contrasty and I had to pull shadows a couple of stops. Topaz makes that possible.

I especially like the first two. Excellent shots, Dragon.

AlanF said:

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

Click to expand...

Only waiting for hummers since January. They accurately guessed that February was going to be nasty and bugged out (BTW, they almost always guess correctly - a skill our long-range forecasters could learn from). To your question, yes, the P1000 works pretty well for hummers, but it does take some practice, since the combination of the VC and the AF is a bit unpredictable at the long end of the lens. The R7 with the 200-800 is both better and much more consistent, but that is one of the few combos I have found that really outshines the P1000. The P1000 has much poorer pixel level performance, so you have to zoom in closer and also watch out for too much contrast given the limited dynamic range of the sensor and you need considerably more light to keep the ISO down (ISO 400 is about as far as you can push it). The P1000 also "needs" more help from Topaz to get really good results. The 200-800 does focus a few feet closer than the P1000 for equivalent useful magnification and the R7 is quite usable at ISO 6400. Those are both big deals when shooting hummingbirds. Here are a few P1000 shots as examples of what it can do. The lens on the P1000 is remarkably good, when you consider it is actually a 540mm f/8 lens at full reach and a 125:1 zoom to boot. The hawk shot was at 324mm (about 2000mm FF equivalent).

jeff89 said:

It’s my second favorite focal length behind 85mm, it was the first lens that I was able to get the shallow depth of field in portraiture photography and once I had great bokeh, it was hard to go back.

With my background, I enjoy the physics of optics, so you are spot on, that photography has developed into an opportunity to collect gear, and I suffer from GAS, as much as the next guy.

I don’t imagine the Sigma is on par with the Canon, but I don’t do a lot of wildlife photography and the ROI on the Great Whites isn’t there for me personally. I became fond of Sigma for their build quality when I wasn’t comfortable paying the price of L glass, and thought the Sigma was a better value than the non-L Canon lenses as far as optics and build quality. Sigma took that to a new level with the introduction of their Art and Sports line of lenses. Once I started buying L lenses, I still hung on to all my Sigma lenses. I was late to the mirrorless party, as was Canon.

Plus Canon had to do a great job in the ability to adapt EF lenses to the RF mount because of its late arrival, and the lack of RF lens options, so old personal favorites such as the EF 85 1.4L still held their magic for me. Is it as good optically as the RF 85 1.2L, no, but the sentimental attachment is still there. You stay with the girl that you brought to the dance.

Click to expand...

I have a EF 135mm f2.0 L and a EF 85mm f1.2 II L for that very reason, they are just amazing portrait lenses. The 135L is versatile and very easy to use, way easier than the 85IIL. The 85IIL needs careful use due to it's razor thin DOF, but in the right hands can produce beautiful results.

Well, if I ever need some one to ask 135mm advice from...I'll ask you! For me, I only want one lens of a certain type and for me and my personality type, I need that lens to simply be the "best of breed". The Canon Rf 135mm f1.8 LIS is a lens I greatly admire...but I actually prefer the smaller legacy EF f2.0 version.

I think the EF 85mm f1.4 LIS is actually a fair bit sharper than the older EF 85mm f1.2 II L (wide open). It's AF is vastly superior and you can crank out High Speed 12fps with it, where as the f1.2 is only 8fps and the AF struggles to keep up. However, I just love the images I get out of my f1.2 lens. I really should upgrade to the RF variant, but it's a difficult investment when the EF lens is still giving me great results.

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.

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...

A figure of 30% has been suggested.

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 doubt that anyone outside of a relatively minuscule handful of forum participants would even know…or care. The average lens buyer wouldn’t care beyond whether or not the lenses were available. “We” do not represent the market.

Bob Howland said:

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.

Click to expand...

Do you really think a 33% margin on a $600 lens is reasonable? Seems very far fetched.

But run with that…with a 30% license fee, your hypothetical lens would then have a 3.3% margin, $20 per lens. 2,500 units just to recoup the NRE. Do you think a company planning a 50% markup would be happy giving up 90% of that in licensing fees?

I really like this shot. Well done, ISv.

Beautiful shot, Dragon.

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...

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)?

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?

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'.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 228745View attachment 228746View attachment 228747

Click to expand...

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

ISv said:

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

View attachment 228749

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Dragon said:

My 90D is classic, not ancient!

Click to expand...

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.