SIGMA will address the RF mount in 2022 [CR3]

[koenkooi]

But we've already seen that Canon releases new firmware right before releasing a heavily distorting lens. (I'm not talking about the very minor distortions the top end lenses produce, I'm talking about lenses like the 24-240.)

Canon has said that RF lenses will communicate 'DLO' information to the body. On EF-M, Sigma lenses already do this.

What I think is happening with the firmware updates for the body is that the distortion parameters for those lenses couldn't be described with the existing standard, so Canon needed to update the correction algorithms in the body.
I've found it amusing that the RF white paper is very proud of RF lenses being able to provide the needed info, so you don't have to use a computer to register new lenses, but then require a body firmware update for pretty much every new lens they released. The fact that the RF16mm "Just Worked" was a pleasant surprise, so I hope we don't need any more body firmware updates for 'novel' designs.

 

[deleteme]

Seems to me that it's time for a lawsuit against Canon to open up the RF protocol. USA vs Microsoft (with regards to Internet Explorer) could be a precedent.

Won’t happen.
Microsoft was deemed having a monopoly on Operating Systems and thus was vulnerable on that score. Canon can scarcely be demonstrated to have a monopoly on lenses.
It would be easily demonstrated that camera companies have traditionally walled off their platforms via patented lens mounts.

 

[dlee13]

The manager of my local camera shop was told something very similar by a Sigma UK rep. He also mentioned that that Sigma had an agreement with Canon to NOT produce RF lenses for the 1st 3 years of the RF mount.

If true this makes me wonder if they made some sort of agreement that if Sigma did hold off on it, Canon would license their AF algorithm to them. I’ve always thought it’s smarter for them to do that as if the third party is going to make the lens anyways, you might as well get a slice of the pie instead of nothing.

I also wondered if Sony made exclusivity deals with the third parties since they own part of Tamron and for gaming it’s quite normal to have an exclusive release on one platform for a set period of time. For example Sony exclusives like Horizon Zero Dawn were Sony exclusive for years then finally made their way to PC.

 

[slclick]

This is one of the things I love about this site. @Canon Rumors Guy posts that manufacturing capabilities have held Sigma up. So then we get four pages of forum experts making up the “real” reasons. Don’t confuse anyone with the facts.

But they 'Did their own research'. Like Aaron Rodgers.

 

[Bob Howland]

This is one of the things I love about this site. @Canon Rumors Guy posts that manufacturing capabilities have held Sigma up. So then we get four pages of forum experts making up the “real” reasons. Don’t confuse anyone with the facts.

"Facts"? I think you're underestimating people's willingness and ability to lie, especially corporate managers who do so when lying helps them and their company but doesn't appear to hurt others. And what is the Sigma CEO supposed to do when there are (probably) several reasons for his actions, explain them in detail to the whole world?

 

[Ruiloba]

They said the same for 2021

 

[SNJ Ops]

If true this makes me wonder if they made some sort of agreement that if Sigma did hold off on it, Canon would license their AF algorithm to them. I’ve always thought it’s smarter for them to do that as if the third party is going to make the lens anyways, you might as well get a slice of the pie instead of nothing.

I also wondered if Sony made exclusivity deals with the third parties since they own part of Tamron and for gaming it’s quite normal to have an exclusive release on one platform for a set period of time. For example Sony exclusives like Horizon Zero Dawn were Sony exclusive for years then finally made their way to PC.

In this case I don’t think so.. It would be in Sony’s interest for Tamron to be available on the other mirrorless mounts as it would mean more revenue for them. Hence the recent Tamron options made available for Fuji X.

Personally I think both Canon and Nikon are acting in similar ways and up until now have not provided protocols to 3rd parties. For all we know there aren’t just technical issues to overcome with reverse engineering (which again Sigma allegedly refuse to do) but more importantly there are possible legal ones which the 3rd parties rightly don’t want to deal with.

Then there’s the simple matter of competition from 3rd parties on your platform. Take for one example the Sigma Art 35mm f1.2 DG DN available for E and L mount. A LOT of Canon shooters want a 35mm that completes the f1.2 trinity of primes, at the moment it sells for £1459/$1499. I doubt a Canon RF 35mm f1.2 L USM comes in at that based on previous RF lens prices.

 

[binary]

In this case I don’t think so.. It would be in Sony’s interest for Tamron to be available on the other mirrorless mounts as it would mean more revenue for them. Hence the recent Tamron options made available for Fuji X.

Personally I think both Canon and Nikon are acting in similar ways and up until now have not provided protocols to 3rd parties. For all we know there aren’t just technical issues to overcome with reverse engineering (which again Sigma allegedly refuse to do) but more importantly there are possible legal ones which the 3rd parties rightly don’t want to deal with.

Exactly, It's what Fuji did. https://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm...line-continues-no-gfx-fixed-lens-camera-more/

"The closed mount was also a problem, that lead Sigma CEO to say here that they would like to make X mount lenses, but Fujifilm does not share the protocols with them."

I bet the only reason why we don't see 3rd party lenses from Sigma or Tamron is because they are not allowed to do it.
Someone posted here before on CR that his local retailer told him that after release of R5/R6 there is 2 years embargo between Canon and Sigma or Tamron (I don't remember) and they can't release any RF lenses.

 

[SNJ Ops]

Exactly, It's what Fuji did. https://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm...line-continues-no-gfx-fixed-lens-camera-more/

"The closed mount was also a problem, that lead Sigma CEO to say here that they would like to make X mount lenses, but Fujifilm does not share the protocols with them."

I bet the only reason why we don't see 3rd party lenses from Sigma or Tamron is because they are not allowed to do it.
Someone posted here before on CR that his local retailer told him that after release of R5/R6 there is 2 years embargo between Canon and Sigma or Tamron (I don't remember) and they can't release any RF lenses.

I was told this by the manager of my local camera shop.. A Sigma UK rep told him they have an agreement with Canon not to make any lenses for the 1st 3 years of the RF mount. Even if that is true Sigma still may well want/need protocols from Canon before they make any.

Until Canon address this publicly like Fuji did I think the situation will continue.

 

[blackcoffee17]

People's allergy to the R mount adaptor is hard to understand except maybe for the big whites.

It's the extra size and weight + have to carry the adapter too. When you have a small lens, the adapter adds significant extra size.

 

[tangerine_sedge]

This is all about licensing the RF mount. Sigma reverse engineered the EF mount (rather than license it) and ended up with a bunch of incompatible lenses because they weren't able to reverse engineer it perfectly.

I doubt Sigma want to make the same mistake with the RF mount so will likely only start producing lenses when they have a licensing deal in place. The RF information is a very valuable asset for Canon, so rightly they are protecting it and ensuring they get maximum return on their investment.

I should imagine that Sigma have approached Canon about this and decided not to license the format (yet). Either Canon didn't want to open up the propriety format or Sigma didn't want to pay the licensing costs.

At some point, the cost/benefit for both Sigma & Canon will align and we will get 3rd part lenses, although it's a very strong possibility that this may never happen and Sigma will have to reverse engineer the mount, with all the associated risks found when they go the EF mount wrong. If Sigma do go this route, then I expect all their lenses will support upgrade/Rom flashing to account for changes in the spec.

 

[KrisK]

Lemme guess: another 35, 50 and 85. Sigh.

Though I do remember Sigma saying that they were aware of the demand for small primes, so maybe there's hope for something more interesting. Personally, I'd love a compact 28mm.

 

[unfocused]

This is all about licensing the RF mount...

Umm...No

@Canon Rumors Guy

The biggest roadblock for SIGMA is apparently manufacturing capabilities beyond just the issues from the pandemic.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Lemme guess: another 35, 50 and 85. Sigh.

Though I do remember Sigma saying that they were aware of the demand for small primes, so maybe there's hope for something more interesting. Personally, I'd love a compact 28mm.

How would that be a problem if Sigma can deliver the most used prime focal length lenses either at a better price, or at a higher quality?

Many people here are complaining rightly that Canon is only offering budget entry-level lenses and super-expensive overpriced zooms with nothing in the mid-range. Sigma Art versions designed for RF mount perhaps?

 

[tangerine_sedge]

Umm...No

@Canon Rumors Guy

so let me get this straight....Sigma can produce lenses for Nikon, EF. Sony using plastic, glass, metal and processors, but cannot make them for RF using plastic, glass, metal and processors?

 

[unfocused]

so let me get this straight....Sigma can produce lenses for Nikon, EF. Sony using plastic, glass, metal and processors, but cannot make them for RF using plastic, glass, metal and processors?

If your production facilities are already running short of needed parts and materials while trying to meet current demand, adding a new product line that will increase demand and further strain your available resources isn't a good business decision. If that new product line also requires changes in design and modifications in your production lines, it might not be a good idea to make those changes in the middle of a supply shortage. If you are making those changes to meet potential demand for a relatively new product, exercising some caution and not diverting resources from already successful products also makes sense.

In case you haven't noticed, getting product to market is the single biggest challenge facing manufacturers today. Thus, what @Canon Rumors Guy 's sources have told him makes sense. He has a lot more experience and a lot better sources than random people on this forum. I have no reason to doubt him. Why do you think you know more about the situation than his sources do?

 

[SNJ Ops]

Lemme guess: another 35, 50 and 85. Sigh.

Though I do remember Sigma saying that they were aware of the demand for small primes, so maybe there's hope for something more interesting. Personally, I'd love a compact 28mm.

Sigma’s DG DN lenses designed for mirrorless and currently available for E and L mount.

14-24mm f2.8 Art
24-70mm f2.8 Art
28-70mm f2.8 Contemporary
150-600mm Sport
100-400 Contemporary

I-Series

24mm f2
24mm f3.5
35mm f2
45mm f2.8
65mm f2
90mm f2.8

35mm f1.4 Art
35mm f1.2 Art
85mm f1.4 Art
105mm f2.8 Macro Art

That above list excludes the DG HSM options that fit natively but are the older DSLR designs. That’s a lot of options that Canon shooters are missing out on.

 

[unfocused]

Another factor that people on this forum are conveniently ignoring is the risk of trying to compete with an immature product line. Third party lens makers survive by offering niche lenses not offered by the big guns. With a mature line like EF, it was much easier to identify the holes and try to fill them. But with RF, they don't yet know where those holes are.

Case in point: for years, the 600mm zooms have been cash cows for both Sigma and Tamron. They met a need that Canon didn't seem interested in filling.

Now, here comes the RF lineup and Canon nuked the market. A 100-500 zoom closes much of the gap between 400 and 600 plus it's lighter than the third party zooms and super responsive and sharp. Canon follows that up with low cost 600 and 800 mm primes and a super light, low-cost 100-400 zoom. It's hard to see where the 600mm zooms fit in and if I were Sigma or Tamron, I wouldn't be spending a penny adapting those lenses for RF.

Another example, the 16mm f2.8 lens that is finding its way into the bags of virtually every R system owner.

As long as Canon is willing to come out of left field with incredibly popular and unexpected lenses, the risks to Tamron, Sigma and Tokina are huge. Makes perfect sense for them to proceed with caution.

 

[David - Sydney]

It's the extra size and weight + have to carry the adapter too. When you have a small lens, the adapter adds significant extra size.

The size/weight reduction of the R5/6 would offset the adapter when compared to the 6D/5D.
I concur that the adapter doubles the size/weight of the 40mm pancake if you take that as a part of the system but there is no RF equivalent (yet)
For any EF lens of reasonable cost, then "weld" the adapter to the lens (don't take it off) and you can't forget it.

 

[David - Sydney]

Not really. If third parties can reverse engineer the lens mount they can reverse engineer the control ring.

Is the control ring patented? I can't recall. Yes, they may be able to reverse engineer the function of the control ring.
If I was Canon and adamant about restricting 3rd parties then I would encrypt the communications end to end. Reverse engineering would be extremely difficult - if not impossible then.