Latest activity

HeavyPiper · Apr 5, 2026

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

I replaced my foot with a RRS after market foot.

erader · Apr 5, 2026

blackcoffee17 said:
Extending the 14-35 to 14-50 would be even more amazing.

i'd rather see 20-70 L

erader · Apr 5, 2026

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.

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

dobiewancanobie · Apr 5, 2026

MSH411 said:
The used market for an R7 in excellent condition is $1200 to $1300, at $800 that body would be a steal.

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....

dobiewancanobie · Apr 5, 2026

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.

roby17269 · Apr 5, 2026

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.

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.

Old Man FL/FD · Apr 5, 2026

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.

Anyone remember Vivitar?

neuroanatomist · Apr 5, 2026

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?

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.

AlanF · Apr 5, 2026

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.

danfaz · Apr 5, 2026

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.

roby17269 · Apr 5, 2026

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.

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.

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.

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?

Click · Apr 5, 2026

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

Click · Apr 5, 2026

Nice shots, antonn.

mimbu · Apr 5, 2026

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.

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.

mimbu · Apr 5, 2026

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.

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.

candyman · Apr 5, 2026

P-visie said:
It is/ was a great lens……

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.

antonn · Apr 5, 2026

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

antonn · Apr 5, 2026

R1 + RF600/4, Accipiter nisus

P-visie · Apr 5, 2026

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……

ISv · Apr 5, 2026

Click said:
Great shots, ISv. I really like the second one.

Thanks! The water behind is doing nice background..

neuroanatomist · Apr 5, 2026

P-visie said:
I I agree with you that those costs are not the reason that Sigma does not market FF AF RF lenses.

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.

P-visie · Apr 5, 2026

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

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.

neuroanatomist · Apr 5, 2026

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.

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.

roby17269 · Apr 5, 2026

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.

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

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics