Canon Says it’s up to Sigma to Make Full-Frame RF Lenses

[roby17269]

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

 

[P-visie]

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]

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.

 

[mimbu]

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.

 

[roby17269]

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)

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?

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?

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

 

[roby17269]

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.

 

[tattwah]

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.

 

[mimbu]

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

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Since we are specifically talking about FF cameras, I don't think this is true.

No, “we” aren’t…you are. The discussion is about full frame lenses.

Why would anyone who put even a modicum of logical thought into the matter assume that those lenses would be bought solely by those with a FF camera? Oh, yes…now your statement makes perfect sense.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

And if Sigma had the capacity, and believed ff RF would make them money, they'd already be doing it then, right? How long has RF been out? 8 years?

Having worked in factories as a facilities manager and industrial electrician in both the food and printed circuit board industry, I can tell you that the idea that it's as simple as you make it, isn't correct. I've sat in on too many production planning meetings to be swayed. Sitting on the outside and looking in, it's easy to make things simplistic because we don't know what's happening inside.

 

[roby17269]

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.

You may be right, but that would imply that Canon is, in fact, lying.
The quote from Canon representatives was along the lines of

The quote in question from Go Tokura says that Canon doesn't differentiate between APS-C and full-frame lenses when it comes to their approval process for third-party manufactuers.

Since Sigma is already selling RF-S AF lenses, that means that there is no time constraint on RF-S.

 

[roby17269]

And if Sigma had the capacity, and believed ff RF would make them money, they'd already be doing it then, right? How long has RF been out? 8 years?

Having worked in factories as a facilities manager and industrial electrician in both the food and printed circuit board industry, I can tell you that the idea that it's as simple as you make it, isn't correct. I've sat in on too many production planning meetings to be swayed. Sitting on the outside and looking in, it's easy to make things simplistic because we don't know what's happening inside.

I'm not saying it is necessarily easy, but that it is doable.
We're not talking about creating brand new lenses, but tweaking existing ones.
You are correct that we do not know how easy / difficult this would be for Sigma, but since they have been making lenses for multiple mounts for quite some time, my Occam's razor says that the most likely cause for the lack of Sigma RF FF AF lenses is that Canon doesn't want them to

 

[InternalRevenue]

I'm not saying it is necessarily easy, but that it is doable.
We're not talking about creating brand new lenses, but tweaking existing ones.
You are correct that we do not know how easy / difficult this would be for Sigma, but since they have been making lenses for multiple mounts for quite some time, my Occam's razor says that the most likely cause for the lack of Sigma RF FF AF lenses is that Canon doesn't want them to

I’m not well versed in lens manufacturing, but for the latest APS-C lenses (12mm f/1.4, 15mm f/1.4, 17-40 f/1.8) Sigma changed the aperture ring to a generic control ring for the RF mount only (perhaps the reason why these lenses were delayed compared to the other versions) but it came at no additional cost to consumers. Tamron’s RF version of their 18-300 comes with a bunch of extra buttons and switches (even compared to the Z mount version that was announced alongside it) again, at no extra cost to consumers. These manufacturers are clearly willing to go extra steps for the Canon versions and whatever licensing fee they’re being charged is not enough require a premium being charged to consumers.

 

[Bob Howland]

And if Sigma had the capacity, and believed ff RF would make them money, they'd already be doing it then, right? How long has RF been out? 8 years?

Having worked in factories as a facilities manager and industrial electrician in both the food and printed circuit board industry, I can tell you that the idea that it's as simple as you make it, isn't correct. I've sat in on too many production planning meetings to be swayed. Sitting on the outside and looking in, it's easy to make things simplistic because we don't know what's happening inside.

If I made it seem simplistic, I'm sorry. I've never been in a production planning meeting. I have, however, heard a production planner state that a critical part of a radio requiring over 500 parts had an 18 month lead time. As I recall, one vendor had stopped making it, another had a factory fire and the third was swamped with orders.

 

[Del Paso]

I know from my own experience that even a "slight" modification of a product, in, my case, replacing a belt-drive with a chain -drive can take lots of time and even a huge amount of money, spent in modifying machinery, tooling, training staff, calculating cost, testing, informing, etc... etc...
For Sigma, it is not simply about paying licensing fees, adapting software and replacing the bayonet.
And, the article on (hugely biased and Sony friendly !) PhotoTrend was, in my opinion, more than vague...Nothing concrete!
I may add that I am more than happy with Canon's RF lens range, hoping for a few missing ones like TS and 24-70 II and 35mm f/1,2.
Sure, I wouldn't mind having more 3rd party choices and understand why some reasonably criticise Canon. Not speaking of the aggressive Sony trolls with their redundant and silly Canon-doom statements...
Yet, even in EF times, I've never bought Sigma or Tamron lenses. Only Zeiss (20mm f/2,8), since Canon's UWA were for a long time underwhelming.
I just expressed my personal and very subjective opinion.

 

[nadroj]

My Sigma RF-S 10-18 f2.8 and 18-50 f2.8, when mounted on my R7, show "Not available with the attached lens" for distortion correction, and "Cannot correct - no data" for Digital Lens Optimizer, in the Lens aberration correction menu. This doesn't bother me much, as I shoot raw and process in Lightroom, which does apply the corrections.

I did quite a bit of research on this when I bought the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 and while it's difficult to find solid answers, what I found seemed to indicate:

• "Not available with the attached lens" for distortion correction is actually because it's force to be ON, similar to many Canon recent lenses. It's a very confusing message because it seems like it's off, but from what I read (and have experienced), it's actually on.
• "Cannot correct - no data" for Digital Lens Optimizer is actually OFF because Canon does not provide the physics mapping provided for these more advanced corrections (which include diffraction, low-pass filter blur, and more specific optical aberrations).
• Peripheral illumination and Chromatic Aberration corrections are ON for the Sigma lenses (not sure which menu this option this is covered under, but it seems to work).

My experience with the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 has reflected those findings, the JPEGs seem to be very well-corrected. Why Canon has made the menu so confusing, I'm not sure. I can't speak to Contemporary Sigma lenses that may need more advanced corrections and could benefit from the DLO mapping, but the 17-40 is beautifully corrected with the available correction profiles.

 

[zapper]

I did quite a bit of research on this when I bought the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 and while it's difficult to find solid answers, what I found seemed to indicate:

• "Not available with the attached lens" for distortion correction is actually because it's force to be ON, similar to many Canon recent lenses. It's a very confusing message because it seems like it's off, but from what I read (and have experienced), it's actually on.
• "Cannot correct - no data" for Digital Lens Optimizer is actually OFF because Canon does not provide the physics mapping provided for these more advanced corrections (which include diffraction, low-pass filter blur, and more specific optical aberrations).
• Peripheral illumination and Chromatic Aberration corrections are ON for the Sigma lenses (not sure which menu this option this is covered under, but it seems to work).

My experience with the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 has reflected those findings, the JPEGs seem to be very well-corrected. Why Canon has made the menu so confusing, I'm not sure. I can't speak to Contemporary Sigma lenses that may need more advanced corrections and could benefit from the DLO mapping, but the 17-40 is beautifully corrected with the available correction profiles.

Thanks for the clarification - this helps a lot. I've noticed that the lens corrections appeared to be working despite what I thought the menu was saying. I know that the Sigma Contemporary lenses lean heavily on digital corrections, and the embedded jpegs don't show noticible distortion. It makes sense that the distortion correction is forced on, because it's an integral part of the design of these lenses.