Sigma will launch 2 RF mount lenses to start [CR1]

[SwissFrank]

remember it's tested on 30mpx R vs 42mpx Sony body, so has some slight advantage, that would likely make them almost indistinguishable if tested on the same body

I agree with the rest of your note, but just wanted to say this portion is not something we can determine without testing it. Even RF lenses far less sharp than the 50/1.2 actually can image single-pixel details quite well on the R5. Search this forum's lens topic for SHOOTOUT for some easy-to-understand (I hope!) tests.

 

[lote82]

Canon would have to be crazy to let Sigma produce a 150-600....that is the lens I see(with people who can't afford a prime big white ) while out in the field on many bird shooters andI'm not sure but if there were some advantage in them using a Rf lens from Sigma they would move over to sigma to save money ..not sure how much.. but it might be attractive.Would Canon give that piece of the market away ...(for what )it would cut right into their 100-500 piece.What advantage would Canon have to do that ? I think it would hurt them ..not help in any way .If Canon has been so tight with third parties why would they start with a big Sigma seller (if thats true I don't know). But as Sigurd2 says ...I would not believe it till I see the lens actually announced.But a good question is which lens would the give to Sigma ... would not any lens cut into there market ? Well ....they have been letting third parties into their lineup for years ,there must be some advantage of Canon ... I just am not smart enough to know how this business works . Is the RF ,Mirrorless thing different for years past ...why did the do it at all ... just some questions that I;m sure you guys and girls know ..I just can't understand it unless Canon get a very big piece of the pie from Sigma. One thing I do know is that Canon is way,way overpriced with this whole Rf thing . But again I'm not a businessman just someone who has paid Canon enough money to Buy a House ...LOL

I don't think a Sigma RF 150-600 would significantly affect sales of the Canon RF 100-500.
They have a different zoom range, aperture and (most importantly!) price point ... and (most unimportantly!) different colors!
Overall the benefit of having more variety of lenses would positively affect the sales of RF cameras.

 

[unfocused]

I don't think a Sigma RF 150-600 would significantly affect sales of the Canon RF 100-500.
They have a different zoom range, aperture and (most importantly!) price point ... and (most unimportantly!) different colors!
Overall the benefit of having more variety of lenses would positively affect the sales of RF cameras.

The big difference to me is the weight and size. If you want a lens that you can carry around for hours and not have a big bazooka hanging off your neck, the 100-500 is the clear winner. The improved performance, weather sealing and reliability of the Canon is icing on the cake.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Canon would have to be crazy to let Sigma produce a 150-600....that is the lens I see(with people who can't afford a prime big white ) while out in the field on many bird shooters andI'm not sure but if there were some advantage in them using a Rf lens from Sigma they would move over to sigma to save money ..not sure how much.. but it might be attractive.Would Canon give that piece of the market away ...(for what )it would cut right into their 100-500 piece.What advantage would Canon have to do that ? I think it would hurt them ..not help in any way .If Canon has been so tight with third parties why would they start with a big Sigma seller (if thats true I don't know). But as Sigurd2 says ...I would not believe it till I see the lens actually announced.But a good question is which lens would the give to Sigma ... would not any lens cut into there market ? Well ....they have been letting third parties into their lineup for years ,there must be some advantage of Canon ... I just am not smart enough to know how this business works . Is the RF ,Mirrorless thing different for years past ...why did the do it at all ... just some questions that I;m sure you guys and girls know ..I just can't understand it unless Canon get a very big piece of the pie from Sigma. One thing I do know is that Canon is way,way overpriced with this whole Rf thing . But again I'm not a businessman just someone who has paid Canon enough money to Buy a House ...LOL

I don't see Bigma 150-600 is threatening RF 100-500L. Birders with tripod will grab Bigma. Others who look for lightweight package will get RF 100-500L.

 

[unfocused]

I'm not entirely sure I'll believe this until the lenses are actually announced with AF

But I could have wished for an RF version of the Sigma 150-600 C (or something similar).
I find the autofocus in the EF version to be frustrating in use with eye focus active. And Canon's RF 100-500 is just too expensive.

What makes you think a Sigma RF version would be any different? All they are going to do is integrate an adapter on the existing design.
Sigma will not design lenses for the R mount. They need to use designs across multiple brands and add adapters in order to get the economies of scale needed to make a profit. That’s how their EF lenses worked and that’s what they will do with RF.

 

[roby17269]

The EF version is already good enough, except if you pixel peep at 200% and/or print on billboards (and look them from 1m); don't see the RF version being worse then the EF.

Maybe you were lucky? I had the EF 50 1.4 and really disliked it a lot. it was almost unusable. For the record I had the EF 1.8 and the EF 1.2L as well (in different times) and disliked all of them.
The RF 50 1.2L was the first 50mm Canon that did not let me down and it has rekindled my liking for this specific focal length.

Actually, we all have already seen the mirrorless 50 f1.4 from Sigma, in e-Mount, and the (supposed) RF would be the very same lens:

If you compare it with the Canon RF

then you'll see they have basically the same performance wide open (when you stop down I dare anybody to discern them in a blind test); the Canon has a minuscule (but indeed visible) advantage when seen at 100%, but remember it's tested on 30mpx R vs 42mpx Sony body, so has some slight advantage, that would likely make them almost indistinguishable if tested on the same body.

And my R6 has 20mpx, so I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to discern the Sigma from the Canon, while the first cost (in Sony mount) almost exactly a third compared to the Canon. That's why Canon is so hardly protecting the RF mount from third party AF lenses, they know that Sigma and Tamron can manufacture stuff costing 50 to 70% less then genuine stuff, with comparable optical qualities; if they "open" the mount, their lens share on pro lenses would reduce to less then half (at least).

I am just saying that your predictions in your previous post were exaggerated. At this point I wouldn't get rid of a perfectly satisfactory lens for another lens just because the new one would be cheaper. Unless I could resell the RF 50 1.2L at the same price I paid for it as new it wouldn't make sense to me. And if people moved en masse as you said, the economics of the downgrade would make even less sense

 

[lote82]

The big difference to me is the weight and size. If you want a lens that you can carry around for hours and not have a big bazooka hanging off your neck, the 100-500 is the clear winner. The improved performance, weather sealing and reliability of the Canon is icing on the cake.

I'm sure the RF 100-500 is an excellent lens but I'm not willing to pay the price. My wife would kill me immediately (or rather slow and painful?) when she finds out that it's not even very useful for family photos.

All I can say is that my copy of the Sigma EF 150-600 is very good and therefore I'm still very happy with it. Even if the AF performance lacks, it's still manageable. I hope and wait for the RF 150-600.

 

[koenkooi]

I'm sure the RF 100-500 is an excellent lens but I'm not willing to pay the price. My wife would kill me immediately (or rather slow and painful?) when she finds out that it's not even very useful for family photos.[...]

At the risk of outing myself as a Dutchman: the RF100-500 is excellent for taking pictures of your kids learning to ride their bikes. And taking pictures is much less effort than being the one to run along

 

[lote82]

What makes you think a Sigma RF version would be any different? All they are going to do is integrate an adapter on the existing design.
Sigma will not design lenses for the R mount. They need to use designs across multiple brands and add adapters in order to get the economies of scale needed to make a profit. That’s how their EF lenses worked and that’s what they will do with RF.

I'm not an expert for protocols. But if the RF protocol has advantages over the EF protocol (and I think it is undeniable) these advantages could also be used by 3rd party manufacturers (even when it's reverse engineered). Furthermore the new lens design would be optimized for mirrorless cameras (but I'm not sure if this is affecting AF performance).

 

[lote82]

At the risk of outing myself as a Dutchman: the RF100-500 is excellent for taking pictures of your kids learning to ride their bikes. And taking pictures is much less effort than being the one to run along

As a German I highly respect the effort the Dutchmen put in their cycling infrastructure!
Photographing and cycling are my favourite hobbies (especially combined!)

 

[Deepboy]

Maybe you were lucky? I had the EF 50 1.4 and really disliked it a lot. it was almost unusable. For the record I had the EF 1.8 and the EF 1.2L as well (in different times) and disliked all of them.
The RF 50 1.2L was the first 50mm Canon that did not let me down and it has rekindled my liking for this specific focal length.

I was referring to the EF version "of the Sigma 50 f1.4 ART" that I still have, you can spot it in my signature; the thread is about Sigma lenses for RF, so I thought that, when talking about the possibility of a new Sigma 50 f1.4 for RF, that "the EF version is already good enough to rival the Canon RF L" was clear enough to be referred to a Sigma, and not to the ancient Canon from 1993 (yeah, 30 years from the last 50 f1.4 from Canon...)

BTW I also had the Canon EF 50 f1.4 and it was by far the worst Canon lens I've ever used; I bought it in place of my EF 50 f1.8 first series, but @f1.4 it was ugly soft and without any hint of contrast, and from f1.8 to f4 was still inferior to the smaller brother, then they were exactly the same on narrower apertures (I probably had luck having a good copy of the f1.8 vs a bad copy of the f1.4), so I end up reselling it and buying a much more expensive EF 35 f1.4 L even if the focal was a little too wide for my taste as my preferred go-to-lens bright lens.
The moment Sigma released the 50 ART, I saw a couple of test and bought it immediately, reselling the 35 L that had never fully satisfied me; never looked back since, as the other alternative, the EF 50 f1.2 L, sucks compared to the Sigma.

 

[sryan]

I'd really like to see contemporary prime lenses like the 65mm f2 dg dn. I think all of these chunky RF lenses give me a yearning for something a little different.

 

[roby17269]

I was referring to the EF version "of the Sigma 50 f1.4 ART" that I still have, you can spot it in my signature; the thread is about Sigma lenses for RF, so I thought that, when talking about the possibility of a new Sigma 50 f1.4 for RF, that "the EF version is already good enough to rival the Canon RF L" was clear enough to be referred to a Sigma, and not to the ancient Canon from 1993 (yeah, 30 years from the last 50 f1.4 from Canon...)

BTW I also had the Canon EF 50 f1.4 and it was by far the worst Canon lens I've ever used; I bought it in place of my EF 50 f1.8 first series, but @f1.4 it was ugly soft and without any hint of contrast, and from f1.8 to f4 was still inferior to the smaller brother, then they were exactly the same on narrower apertures (I probably had luck having a good copy of the f1.8 vs a bad copy of the f1.4), so I end up reselling it and buying a much more expensive EF 35 f1.4 L even if the focal was a little too wide for my taste as my preferred go-to-lens bright lens.
The moment Sigma released the 50 ART, I saw a couple of test and bought it immediately, reselling the 35 L that had never fully satisfied me; never looked back since, as the other alternative, the EF 50 f1.2 L, sucks compared to the Sigma.

D'uh! My bad I saw EF and I assumed the Canon one.
No arguments here.
Apart from... I do like 35mm as FL. I am keeping all my fingers crossed for a new RF 35mm 1.2L
I had the EF 35mm 1.4L (mkI) and liked it on my 5D mkII and 1D X, but when I tried it on the R5 I was disappointed so I sold it assuming Canon would have released a 35L for RF soon. Well I am still waiting Canon!
I know I know the EF 35mm 1.4L II is great, but I can't see myself spending non-trivial money on EF glass now, unless I find some super deal on big white exotics

 

[unfocused]

I'm not an expert for protocols. But if the RF protocol has advantages over the EF protocol (and I think it is undeniable) these advantages could also be used by 3rd party manufacturers (even when it's reverse engineered). Furthermore the new lens design would be optimized for mirrorless cameras (but I'm not sure if this is affecting AF performance).

That's possible, but...

1) We haven't really seen these advantages. Canon seems content to just add adapters to some of the their lenses, particularly some of the big whites. And, in the case of RF lenses that mirror the EF versions (Like the 24-105) there don't seem to be any advantages incorporated into the lenses other than the control ring, which is available in a mount adapter. The major differences seem to be in lenses specifically designed for the RF mount such as the 16mm f2.8.

2) Sigma or Tamron would have to decide it is worth the cost to add those protocols to an RF mount version of the lens, which likely means they would have to have a separate version for Canon that differs from their Nikon and Sony mount versions. As I said previously, their business model is based on switching out mounts for identical lenses in order to sell the same lens in Sony, Nikon, Canon and Sigma mounts. (And, in Sigma's case, to offer customers the option of sending their lenses in to have them remounted should they switch systems.)

Granted, if the cost of customization for a particular mount is low enough, they might do it. But I wouldn't expect them to invest a lot of money in customizing their lenses for one particular mount. Especially if they can basically bolt on an RF mount adapter.

 

[unfocused]

I'm sure the RF 100-500 is an excellent lens but I'm not willing to pay the price. My wife would kill me immediately (or rather slow and painful?) when she finds out that it's not even very useful for family photos.

All I can say is that my copy of the Sigma EF 150-600 is very good and therefore I'm still very happy with it. Even if the AF performance lacks, it's still manageable. I hope and wait for the RF 150-600.

If you can only afford or wish to buy only one lens, then yes, the Contemporary 150-600 is the lowest cost option. On the other hand, you can substitute the Canon 100-500 for both the 100-400 EF and the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary at less cost.

 

[neuroanatomist]

1) We haven't really seen these advantages. Canon seems content to just add adapters to some of the their lenses, particularly some of the big whites. And, in the case of RF lenses that mirror the EF versions (Like the 24-105) there don't seem to be any advantages incorporated into the lenses other than the control ring, which is available in a mount adapter. The major differences seem to be in lenses specifically designed for the RF mount such as the 16mm f2.8.

I disagree.

For example, regarding the 24-105/4L IS compared to the EF MkII, the RF version is sharper, the focusing group was redesigned to make it lighter (enabling use of the quieter and smoother Nano USM vs. Ring USM), has a 1-stop better IS system, and reduced the size/weight by 1 cm and 95 g (back down to the same dimensions as the EF MkI). Maybe optical improvements, smoother AF, better IS and lower size/weight don't seem like advantages to you...they sure do to me. Granted, those aren't massive improvements...but they are meaningful, especially when you consider that the RF version launched at the exact same price as the EF MkII.

Even lenses like the 400/2.8 and 600/4 that are optically identical to their EF predecessors and thought to be 'the same lens with an adapter bolted on' gained 0.5-stops in IS performance with the RF mount.

Agree that the main benefits of the RF mount are with wide/ultrawide lenses. Lenses like the 16/2.8 are where the RF mount benefit is most evident, that lens would have been much more expensive as an EF lens. Same for the RF 15-30, and the RF mount is why the 14-35/4 is 2mm wider but keeps the same 77mm filter. The 28-70/2 would probably been possible for EF, but it would have been even more massive and optically not as good. OTOH, lenses like the RF 100-400 could have been made for the EF mount at a similar price point.

To say that we haven't seen advantages in RF lenses over their EF counterparts is simply not true. The RF 24-105/4L notwithstanding, those advantages can cost a pretty penny, and they won't be worth the cost for everyone.

 

[tangerine_sedge]

People upthread seem to be posting that Canon will have some control over what lenses Sigma will be 'allowed' to produce.

I'm happy to be corrected on this point (I'm no corporate lawyer), but as I understand it, Sigma will license the RF interface for their lenses. Canon won't be able to dictate how that is used as that would likely breach restraint of trade or anti-competition conditions in various markets.

I think that Sigma will just design whatever lenses they want, with business dictating that they focus on the ones that make them the most money either through volume of sales (i.e. standard zooms) or margin (specialist lenses).

 

[neuroanatomist]

People upthread seem to be posting that Canon will have some control over what lenses Sigma will be 'allowed' to produce.

I'm happy to be corrected on this point (I'm no corporate lawyer), but as I understand it, Sigma will license the RF interface for their lenses. Canon won't be able to dictate how that is used as that would likely breach restraint of trade or anti-competition conditions in various markets.

I think that Sigma will just design whatever lenses they want, with business dictating that they focus on the ones that make them the most money either through volume of sales (i.e. standard zooms) or margin (specialist lenses).

It certainly does not have to be an all or none license. Terms are always negotiable. Canon could stipulate a limited number of lenses per year, limit types of lenses or proscribe certain specific lenses.

 

[unfocused]

I disagree...

I painted with too broad of a brush stroke. Let me clarify.

I was thinking in terms of the RF mount protocols which were under discussion. Yes, Canon has improved the designs on many of their lenses from the EF to RF comparables. I say comparables, because some of the most significant improvements have been in Canon's new offerings that indirectly replace previous EF lenses (100-500 vs 100-400, EF 16-35 vs. RF 14-35 f4, 70-200 f2.8) There were of course trade-offs with the 70-200 f2.8 lens, but I think the RF version is a better lens overall

Perhaps I misunderstand the term "protocols." I think of it in terms of the communication between lens and body in general and in particular, the addition of extra contact points in the RF mount. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but have these changes translated into major improvements? Or do the improvements you mention have more to do with new lens designs? Would those improvement necessarily be incorporated into third-party lenses?

I was talking specifically about the Sigma 150-600 lenses and questioning whether we would see any improvements in performance over the EF mount versions. My assumption (which of course could be wrong) is that lenses would need to be redesigned to take advantage of the RF mount improvements and I question if the economies of scale would allow a third party manufacturer to completely redesign an existing lens solely for the Canon mount. Third-parties design a lens to work with multiple lens mounts and then attach the relevant mount to the lens.

Do you disagree that Sigma, were they to offer a lens like the 150-600 in RF mount, would not redesign the lens from the bottom up for Canon? I would expect they would take the same basic design and add the appropriate mount adapter. What do you think?

 

[rbr]

I'd really like to see contemporary prime lenses like the 65mm f2 dg dn. I think all of these chunky RF lenses give me a yearning for something a little different.

That's a lens that I also find intriguing and would love to see in RF mount.