SIGMA will address the RF mount in 2022 [CR3]

Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
2) Canon notoriously does not talk about specific lens sale numbers. However, there are far more user reviews on popular photo sites and at large photo stores for the 300mm than the two others. There is also no comparison in the number of pictures posted online between the three. So in addition to more anecdotal evidence such as discussions in photo forums etc. we have very strong evidence that 300mm is by far the most popular of the three.
The 300/2.8 is a ‘cheap’ great white so it makes sense that it’s more popular. IIRC, in an interview Canon indicated that the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 were developed ahead of schedule based on requests from professional photographers.
 
Upvote 0

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,164
641
Southwest USA
The 300/2.8 is a ‘cheap’ great white so it makes sense that it’s more popular. IIRC, in an interview Canon indicated that the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 were developed ahead of schedule based on requests from professional photographers.
My EF 300 f/2.8 ii works well with a 2xTC and EF to RF adapter. Agree that is was "cheap" compared to other great whites in that era. I am not anxious to change this to an RF mount, were it to be produced. I wonder if others feel the same way and suspect that's why Canon has not yet done an upgrade.
 
Upvote 0

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,164
641
Southwest USA
I get decent results with my Signa 15mm f/2.8 EX DG. Worked fine on my DSLR but now, using it on the R5 with an adapter, I need to use MF and shut down IBIS to get clear images. Fortunately, was able to set up a Custom Mode for this so now I just need to remember to move from M to C3 (actually made a label for the lens case :rolleyes:). Although the EXIF transmits and although the lens works with AF (slow and really hunts a lot to fix on a focus point), do wonder if a native RF lens would do a better job. But, I think the Fisheye demand is relatively small so I am not holding my breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Interestingly he also said once Canon issue a licence, Sigma will offer a service to convert certain Sigma EF mount lenses to a standard RF mount.
!! I hope this is true! I just got the RF85 1.2 and manual focusing is somewhat sloppy - not as bad as the Sigma 70mm Art - but sloppy compared to all my non focus-by-wire glass. To convert all my Sigma Art glass to RF would be wonderful!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Since you state that "the evidence shows", then please show the evidence that Canon has gone to court (or tried to) in China and got ignored or refused.

LEGO (the toy building brick company) have successfully taken Chinese copycats to court and won. First time was around 15 years ago. Note that I didn't say that China has become 'perfect', has become a 'rechtsstaat' or that it treats foreign and domestic companies equally. I'm only saying that China has gotten 'better' over the last 10-15 years. (there's possibly an argument somewhere for the statement that they couldn't any get worse).

A lot of people claim things like "China does X" or "China is Y" when they have in fact never set foot there, haven't worked there, haven't spoken with the people, don't speak the language, and don't understand the culture. That includes some fairly well-known journalists and self-proclaimed 'China experts' in the US and in Europe.

I'm not an 'expert' on China in any way, but I have lived and worked there for 2½ years and can speak/read and write a bit. That probably puts me ahead of 90-95% of everyone else.
I spent a year there working in factories; not corporate offices. I also am not an expert, but I avoid buying anything made there and I have yet to buy a Chinese lens. I did buy a Nisi ND filter and found it to strongly red-cast images.

I am sure some Chinese lenses are unique. In fact, the 'Venus Optics LAOWA Argus 33 mm f/0.95 CF APO' intrigued me until I looked at the poor resolution wide open. Why design a lens of that aperture that cannot be used wide open?
 
Upvote 0
Apr 21, 2015
68
44
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.
You'd only need to make the special not found elsewhere lenses exclusive as incentive to invest in the system.
 
Upvote 0

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
352
No rumblings from Tamron, Sigma or Tokina?
Whatever disincentive Canon provided them with to not to produce any new lenses on a RF platform that needs so many more lens choices must have been pretty effective!

Rather interesting how all the big third-party players are nicely and conveniently sitting idle (while producing lenses on every other lens mount platform), giving Canon time to release its mostly overly expensive new premium lenses and its new budget/entry level narrower aperture and/or heavily software corrected lenses, limiting choice and forcing RF lens buyers to buy Canon's offerings or go without. Quite a curiosity also how its nearly only Chinese lens manufacturers that are putting out RF compatible lenses. The Canon fanboys and brand loyalits tell us it's purely coincidental, and there's nothing to see here... :unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
352
Who said that? I haven't say anyone say that. All the Canon users I know, and that I see on this forum, see it as regrettable and most likely a purposeful move by Canon.
Hi SwissFrank, I wish that was the case, please feel free to look up some of the replies to my posts in earlier threads on this topic. I've read every rationalisation imaginable, some so convoluted and improbable that they were screaming justifications for the principle of Ockham's razor - where there are two competing theories, the simpler explanation (which is the one you've stated) is the preferred one. :)
 
Upvote 0

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
352
Did you do so? If not, I got a 28/1.4 last month and that's sure to precipitate some action...
I've was thinking on similar lines, do I buy the Sigma Art 85mm EF lens, or hold off? Similarly, do I try the Rf 100-400mm lens, or will the promised RF150-600mm be a more attractive option if/when it materialises? :unsure:
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
I'd love an economics teacher to explain canon's strategy, "if your customers want something, don't give it to them, make them switch to other competitors".
I’d love to have you explain your logic. “I want something that there is no demand for, so someone should make it just for me.”
 
Upvote 0

dlee13

Canon EOS R6
May 13, 2014
325
227
Australia
I see in your sig that you really like primes!

I finally gave in and bought an EF-mount Sig 28/1.4, 1) because Canon is taking forever with the 35/1.x, 2) if 1.x=1.2 it'll probably more than I want to budget, 3) I had the EF 35/1.4 and I felt it was slightly too normal an angle while 24/1.4 was too wide, 4) given the 35/1.x Canon's probably never going to make a 28/1.4, 5) while I had heard this rumor of Sig coming to another platform, I think I heard it did and wasn't RF, so that was the end of that.

I got the 28/1.4 at Adorama for $539 + $50 shipping to Japan + $50 import duty (!) a couple months ago. Still a lot cheaper than buying it at Bic Camera even after counting the resulting "point card points" at their cash value. Note that while this site does mention sales deals on this lens (among others) several times, it didn't mention the sale I bought mine at. I almost was forlornly checking the adorama website again, "knowing" the sale was over, and seeing it again at the cheap price.

As for primes, I'm shooting the 16/2.8, Sig 28/1.4, 50/1.8, 100/2.8Mac, and EF 135/2.0. I do like 85mm but I figure I can pretty much either crop the 50mm or step back and use the 100 or 135. The 16mm and 50mm are always in my backpack and many of the shots I take with the 16mm are meant to be cropped smaller, so in effect I'm using it as the world's smallest 16-35 zoom.
Yeah it’s a bit outdated as I sold the M gear and replaced it with Fuji (also primes only) but I do own the RF 100-400mm and I’m somewhat interested in the 14-35mm L.

If/when Sigma do release their lenses, their 85mm will replace the Canon F/2 and I’ll likely get that 105mm Macro as well.

Whatever disincentive Canon provided them with to not to produce any new lenses on a RF platform that needs so many more lens choices must have been pretty effective!

Rather interesting how all the big third-party players are nicely and conveniently sitting idle (while producing lenses on every other lens mount platform), giving Canon time to release its mostly overly expensive new premium lenses and its new budget/entry level narrower aperture and/or heavily software corrected lenses, limiting choice and forcing RF lens buyers to buy Canon's offerings or go without. Quite a curiosity also how its nearly only Chinese lens manufacturers that are putting out RF compatible lenses. The Canon fanboys and brand loyalits tell us it's purely coincidental, and there's nothing to see here... :unsure:
Not sure how true it is but I remember reading once that Sigma a rep told someone Canon would share the AF algorithm with them if they waited a certain period before releasing anything.

The RF mount is coming up on 4 years soon so maybe at either that point or 5 years if it’s true. Sigma licensing the algorithm would be great too, they perform like native on Sony bodies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

jd7

CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
1,064
418
Whatever disincentive Canon provided them with to not to produce any new lenses on a RF platform that needs so many more lens choices must have been pretty effective!

Rather interesting how all the big third-party players are nicely and conveniently sitting idle (while producing lenses on every other lens mount platform), giving Canon time to release its mostly overly expensive new premium lenses and its new budget/entry level narrower aperture and/or heavily software corrected lenses, limiting choice and forcing RF lens buyers to buy Canon's offerings or go without. Quite a curiosity also how its nearly only Chinese lens manufacturers that are putting out RF compatible lenses. The Canon fanboys and brand loyalits tell us it's purely coincidental, and there's nothing to see here... :unsure:
I have seen claims on the internet about Canon doing deals with third parties such as Sigma not to produce RF mount lenses for a certain period, but frankly I think that is unlikely to be true. Deals, especially between competitors (such as Canon and lens manufacturers such as Sigma / Tamron / Samyang), which prevent or limit one or more of the parties from competing tend to fall found of anti-competitve conduct (anti-trust) laws. Those laws are often complex, and the laws of multiple countries may be relevant here which could further complicate things, but I suspect any deal between Canon and third party lens manufacturers not to compete would be a dangerous game to play.

So, if there is no deal prevening third party lens manufacturers making RF mount lesnes, two obvious possibilities to explain the very limited range of third party RF mount lenses are:

1. Canon has designed the RF mount / R system such that it is very hard, or impossible, to make auto-focusing lenses which work without infringing Canon's intellectual property, ie presumably one or more of Canon's patents. (Given we have seen a number of manual focus lenses, it seems AF is probably the difficult issue). If that is the case, whether we see many third party RF mount lenses is likely to come down to whether Canon is willing to grant licenses to use its IP ... and I understand Canon doesn't have a history of doing that very often. However, if this is the situation, you would think Canon would be putting a stop to any third party lens which infringes Canon's IP, yet there are a few RF lenses out there with AF (the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 and the Yongnuo 85mm f/1.8 to name two). For all I know they are using the AF system/protocols from EF days and avoiding infringing Canon's newer IP that way (albeit that would mean they are not taking advantage of all the RF mount has to offer), but if that is the only way third party lens manufacturers can make RF lenses without infringing Canon's IP, why wouldn't they all just do that? After all, EF lenses seem to AF well on R camera bodies even if RF lenses can be better still.

2. The commercial reality is there just aren't enough RF mount bodies out there yet to make it worthwhile for a third party manufacturer to produce RF mount lenses, ie they are commercially better off spending their time and money producing lenses for other mounts. Reading a forum like CR it is easy to get the impression almost everyone has bought an RF camera, Canon talks a good game about the RF system, supply shortages tend to create an impression of high demand (even if it is possible they simply reflect supply problems meaning only very few products are being produced rather than high demand), and of course Canon's market share is strong at least in general terms. However, does anyone outside Canon know how many R bodies have actually sold? The RF system is obviously still relatively young, so perhaps there really just aren't RF bodies out there yet to convince third party lens manufacturers its worth spending too much time on RF mount lenses at this stage of the game? If that is the case, whether/when we start to see more third party RF mount lenses will presumably depend on whether/when there are a critical mass of RF mount bodies out there in the wild.

At this point, I'm going with the theory that there simply aren't enough R bodies out there to entice third party manufacturers to be very interested in making RF mount lenses, simply becasue the other possibilities I can think of seem to me to be even less likely.

Anyone want to suggest any other possibilities?
 
Upvote 0