SIGMA RF mount lens information finally coming in February 2024? [CR1]

[GMCPhotographics]

Nikon has made one but Canon never has.
Canon should either make one or let Sigma bring theirs over.

Canon has the 85mm f1.2, 135mm f1.8 and 200mm f2.0
Is there any need for more bokeh masters in the range?

 

[EricN]

Sigma does indeed but I'd assume they design for the L mount with 20mm and just elongate the tube by 2mm for E mount. Their designs should be quite straightforward to transfer to RF, unlike Tamron.

That's the beauty of the Z mount: biggest mount and shortest flange distance.

Why wouldn't they design the lenses with both distances in mind?

 

[EricN]

I am pretty sure manufacturers would complain and going by here customers are never happy.

Some people are so focused on arguing for what they want, they don't seem to care about if it make sense or not

 

[EricN]

Canon has the 85mm f1.2, 135mm f1.8 and 200mm f2.0
Is there any need for more bokeh masters in the range?

The 200mm f/2 is pretty old. I think Canon (or Sigma) would at least lower the weight if not improve image quality and autofocus speed with a new design.

 

[SNJ Ops]

Sigma does indeed but I'd assume they design for the L mount with 20mm and just elongate the tube by 2mm for E mount. Their designs should be quite straightforward to transfer to RF, unlike Tamron.

That's the beauty of the Z mount: biggest mount and shortest flange distance.

From what I was told by a Sigma UK rep last year their DG DN lenses are for mirrorless cameras regardless of system and later they can make adjustments to account for the different mounts. They were/are waiting on a license from Canon and won’t be reverse engineering for mirrorless mounts.

Take for example Voigtländer’s 50mm f1, that lens is available on M, RF and Z, 3 very different mounts. The lens has been optimised for each but its the same overall design. I imagine Tamron would do the same for RF should they ever be granted a license from Canon.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The 200mm f/2 is pretty old. I think Canon (or Sigma) would at least lower the weight if not improve image quality and autofocus speed with a new design.

I’ve never been convinced that Sigma are capable of designing a lighter or smaller lens than the OEM brands. If you compare Sigma’s weight for their 105mm f1.4 to Nikon, it’s like night and day. The Nikon is a small and light sub 1kg lens. Literally, half way between their 85mm & 135mm offerings. The sigma is over 1.6kg and its size is only a little bit smaller than the Canon 200mm f2.0.
I’m sure it’s a great optic, but it’s massively heavy and over sized for what it is. This shouts of under-engineering. A well engineered lens is also a light lens for its class. I want a lens that is light as well as rugged.

 

[David - Sydney]

A cleanroom protects from copyright.
It is no protection whatsoever from a patent.
You do not need to even be aware of a patent to violate one.
That is why patents expire sooner than copyrights.
Sorry, it was 1995.

In re Beauregard, 1995 - Malhotra Law Firm, PLLC

Beauregard was a very important case in the History of Software Patents. In re Beauregard is the case that opened things up completely for software patents. It signaled the end of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s resistance to allow patent applications that contained algorithms...

www.patentsusa.com

Copyright would cover the software code. Reverse engineering by creating different code would not be an issue if developed in a 'cleanroom' scenario
A patent would cover any algorithm /process/invention.
The question that I have is what the communication protocol would be covered under. Clearly, 3rd party lenses using autofocus via AF were released long after 1995.

Canon didn't have an issue with the Magic Lantern project for reverse engineering the Digic 5+ processor firmware or at least never pursued it like they have with 3rd party RF lenses with AF
Magic Lantern worked out the EF protocol a decade ago... emulating instructions/electrical signals should not breach either patents or copyright.
https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3796.0
Once end to end encryption is used then reverse engineering becomes extremely difficult.

 

[Surab]

Why wouldn't they design the lenses with both distances in mind?

As far as I understand change the flange distance by 2mm (L to E) requires a new design of the optics.

So if they design it for 20mm, all they need to do to make it work with 18mm is add 2mm to be tube at the rear of the lens. Obviously the mount and electronics will have to be modified as well.

 

[Surab]

From what I was told by a Sigma UK rep last year their DG DN lenses are for mirrorless cameras regardless of system and later they can make adjustments to account for the different mounts. They were/are waiting on a license from Canon and won’t be reverse engineering for mirrorless mounts.

Take for example Voigtländer’s 50mm f1, that lens is available on M, RF and Z, 3 very different mounts. The lens has been optimised for each but its the same overall design. I imagine Tamron would do the same for RF should they ever be granted a license from Canon.

I think that's true because they design for L mount which has the longest flange distance of all current systems (and equal to RF).

If they designed their lenses for a shorter flange distance then, as far as I know, it'll be more difficult or potentially impossible to modify the lens to be used on a mount with a longer flange distance.

 

[Del Paso]

I’ve never been convinced that Sigma are capable of designing a lighter or smaller lens than the OEM brands. If you compare Sigma’s weight for their 105mm f1.4 to Nikon, it’s like night and day. The Nikon is a small and light sub 1kg lens. Literally, half way between their 85mm & 135mm offerings. The sigma is over 1.6kg and its size is only a little bit smaller than the Canon 200mm f2.0.
I’m sure it’s a great optic, but it’s massively heavy and over sized for what it is. This shouts of under-engineering. A well engineered lens is also a light lens for its class. I want a lens that is light as well as rugged.

I guess the Sigma 105/f1,4 hasn't been produced in masses.
Yet, on MPB continental Europe alone, you'll find 17 (!) used ones for sale. Guess why (dislocated shoulders, crushed tripods?).

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Copyright would cover the software code. Reverse engineering by creating different code would not be an issue if developed in a 'cleanroom' scenario
A patent would cover any algorithm /process/invention.
The question that I have is what the communication protocol would be covered under. Clearly, 3rd party lenses using autofocus via AF were released long after 1995.

Canon didn't have an issue with the Magic Lantern project for reverse engineering the Digic 5+ processor firmware or at least never pursued it like they have with 3rd party RF lenses with AF
Magic Lantern worked out the EF protocol a decade ago... emulating instructions/electrical signals should not breach either patents or copyright.
https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=3796.0
Once end to end encryption is used then reverse engineering becomes extremely difficult.

The main thing is that no agreement from Canon would have been required before 1995.
I am not sure that we can learn much from that history which is why the dates were brought up in the first place.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Unhappy customers make companies work and improve, and help competition between companies; so as a customer I feel it's a duty to be critic and pretend always more from the companies I buy stuff from, them being camera companies, car companies, or any other.

I studied Customer Relations Management.
The worst thing companies do is devote too much time to unhappy customers instead of keeping happy customers happy.
Happy customers are the loyal ones.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The 200mm f/2 is pretty old. I think Canon (or Sigma) would at least lower the weight if not improve image quality and autofocus speed with a new design.

Most definitely.
It should not be a monopod lens.
Alternatively, they could turn it into a zoom.
Maybe 100-200 f/2 or something like that.

 

[Walrus]

I studied Customer Relations Management.
The worst thing companies do is devote too much time to unhappy customers instead of keeping happy customers happy.
Happy customers are the loyal ones.

But I don't work for a company, namely Canon, I'm a customer and I work for myself so I don't give a crap on how companies do what they do.
I'm on the other side of the fence, and I'm critic and defend my interests and the more I appreciate a company (and I use Canon since 1999 without interruptions, so believe me that I REALLY appreciate them), the more critic I am. I don't critic companies I've no interest in or business with.
If I wasn't appreciating Canon, I'll be already using something else, instead of complaining, don't you think?

Happy customers are the loyal one? Well, that's why they should be interested in turning unhappy people into happy ones.

I didn't study CRM, but I worked corporate as sales manager for 9 years in a biomedical equipments manufacturing company; our customers were private and public hospitals and clinics, pharma companies, Ministry of Health, and our products were blood banks, ultra low temperature freezer (the infamous -80°C freezer were you store the Pfeizer vaccine, we were one of the only two Italian companies manufacturing that kind of stuff), robotized deep freezer -180°C for sample storage, plasma shock freezers, robotized blood bank.
All top notch and premium money stuff, not your std household refrigerator.
So, a kind of especially demanding customers, and pretty much critical products, as a failure of a blood bank would lead to the loss of a very precious resource needed also for emergency, and a -80 or -180 freezer failure leading to sample loss can ruin invaluable research works done in the last 10 or 15 years, the work of a lifetime for a research fellow; and believe me, our focus was not on the happy customers, but on unhappy ones.

 

[EricN]

Most definitely.
It should not be a monopod lens.
Alternatively, they could turn it into a zoom.
Maybe 100-200 f/2 or something like that.

Canon's 300mm f/2.8s did change much in weigh, but if I remember the EF 400mm f2.8 dropped over 25% from the mark ii to mark iii. That's not saying it would definitely happen, but I think 2kg would be possible for more people to hand hold.
I imagine it would have to be even heavier, but I think a 200mm f/2 zoom could be popular too.

 

[Del Paso]

But I don't work for a company, namely Canon, I'm a customer and I work for myself so I don't give a crap on how companies do what they do.
I'm on the other side of the fence, and I'm critic and defend my interests and the more I appreciate a company (and I use Canon since 1999 without interruptions, so believe me that I REALLY appreciate them), the more critic I am. I don't critic companies I've no interest in or business with.
If I wasn't appreciating Canon, I'll be already using something else, instead of complaining, don't you think?

Happy customers are the loyal one? Well, that's why they should be interested in turning unhappy people into happy ones.

I didn't study CRM, but I worked corporate as sales manager for 9 years in a biomedical equipments manufacturing company; our customers were private and public hospitals and clinics, pharma companies, Ministry of Health, and our products were blood banks, ultra low temperature freezer (the infamous -80°C freezer were you store the Pfeizer vaccine, we were one of the only two Italian companies manufacturing that kind of stuff), robotized deep freezer -180°C for sample storage, plasma shock freezers, robotized blood bank.
All top notch and premium money stuff, not your std household refrigerator.
So, a kind of especially demanding customers, and pretty much critical products, as a failure of a blood bank would lead to the loss of a very precious resource needed also for emergency, and a -80 or -180 freezer failure leading to sample loss can ruin invaluable research works done in the last 10 or 15 years, the work of a lifetime for a research fellow; and believe me, our focus was not on the happy customers, but on unhappy ones.

Once again, apples and oranges.
On one side, Canon vs. Walrus, dissatisfied customer , as an individual, not important for huge Canon. You and me are 1 or 2 in millions.
On the other side, a freezer company, vs. as customer, Ministry of Health, Big Pharma, buying for huge sums.
So, it boils down to a question: who depends on whom?
Canon on you (no offence meant!) ? Definitely no!
Freezer company on Big Pharma and Ministry of Health as customers? Absolutely. If these customers are dissatisfied, freezer company can quickly go bankrupt.
Canon cannot pay attention to each and every individual customer, especially not, if those customers want Canon to facilitate for them access to competitor's products. Naive and unrealistic!

 

[EricN]

Once again, apples and oranges.
On one side, Canon vs. Walrus, dissatisfied customer , as an individual, not important for huge Canon. You and me are 1 or 2 in millions.
On the other side, a freezer company, vs. as customer, Ministry of Health, Big Pharma, buying for huge sums.
So, it boils down to a question: who depends on whom?
Canon on you (no offence meant!) ? Definitely no!
Freezer company on Big Pharma and Ministry of Health as customers? Absolutely. If these customers are dissatisfied, freezer company can quickly go bankrupt.
Canon cannot pay attention to each and every individual customer, especially not, if those customers want Canon to facilitate for them access to competitor's products. Naive and unrealistic!

Medical equipment failures to stay within perimeters would be likely to cause people to get sick or even die, where as Canon not licensing the RF mount to Sigma is unlikely to have any effect on anyone's health.

 

[dtaylor]

Canon cannot pay attention to each and every individual customer, especially not, if those customers want Canon to facilitate for them access to competitor's products. Naive and unrealistic!

It's very simple. As time goes on E-mount being open to 3rd party lenses makes Sony more and more competitive against Canon. There have been numerous quarters where Sony bragged about being #1 in FF mirrorless sales and/or #1 in FF lens sales for the quarter. That didn't happen by accident. Canon is very effective at the lower end of the market to retain the #1 position overall. But I seriously doubt they want to slip to a permanent #2 at the top end in a shrinking market. The top end is where the money is. The top end is where people buy multiple bodies and glass. Expensive, high profit margin bodies and glass.

It's not up to Canon if they want to "facilitate access to competitor's products" or not. The market is deciding this for them. For an increasing share of the market Canon simply does not have the choice between a customer who buys all Canon glass or a customer who buys some Canon and some 3rd party glass. The market is dictating to them that the choice will be between a customer who buys all Canon glass or a customer who buys no Canon glass because they move to another mount. I have personally witnessed this with a friend who dumped their Canon kit and went to Sony over this single, specific issue. They're gone, they're not coming back, and Canon lost out on selling a body (likely R5) and 3-4 Canon lenses, plus future sales, because they thought they could force the issue to sell 5-6 total lenses. All top end, so the profit lost probably equals dozens of low end kits.

I suspect Canon is starting to indicate that they are open to licensing, and we're starting to hear rumors about the results of that, because Canon already knows this. It's not catering to a few unhappy individuals. It's leaving a significant advantage on the table for a competitor who wants to be #1 at any cost, and is making progress in that direction in the most important and profitable segment of a shrinking market.

I don't know why this gets hand waved by some members of the forum. Unlike DR or even mirrorless in the early years, this is an issue that can cost Canon their #1 position in a tight and highly competitive market. Canon has a robust RF catalog now, and no professional buys only 3rd party glass. They should be courting Sigma and Tamron at this point. Their lenses are starting to give Sony the advantage at certain points. You want to keep the guy who wants that ART lens or that cheaper f/2.8 zoom. You want him to buy a Canon body and a few Canon lenses as well, to stay in the mount and be a loyal future customer. Not jump to Sony.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's very simple. As time goes on E-mount being open to 3rd party lenses makes Sony more and more competitive against Canon. There have been numerous quarters where Sony bragged about being #1 in FF mirrorless sales and/or #1 in FF lens sales for the quarter. That didn't happen by accident. Canon is very effective at the lower end of the market to retain the #1 position overall. But I seriously doubt they want to slip to a permanent #2 at the top end in a shrinking market. The top end is where the money is. The top end is where people buy multiple bodies and glass. Expensive, high profit margin bodies and glass.

It's not up to Canon if they want to "facilitate access to competitor's products" or not. The market is deciding this for them. For an increasing share of the market Canon simply does not have the choice between a customer who buys all Canon glass or a customer who buys some Canon and some 3rd party glass. The market is dictating to them that the choice will be between a customer who buys all Canon glass or a customer who buys no Canon glass because they move to another mount. I have personally witnessed this with a friend who dumped their Canon kit and went to Sony over this single, specific issue. They're gone, they're not coming back, and Canon lost out on selling a body (likely R5) and 3-4 Canon lenses, plus future sales, because they thought they could force the issue to sell 5-6 total lenses. All top end, so the profit lost probably equals dozens of low end kits.

I suspect Canon is starting to indicate that they are open to licensing, and we're starting to hear rumors about the results of that, because Canon already knows this. It's not catering to a few unhappy individuals. It's leaving a significant advantage on the table for a competitor who wants to be #1 at any cost, and is making progress in that direction in the most important and profitable segment of a shrinking market.

I don't know why this gets hand waved by some members of the forum. Unlike DR or even mirrorless in the early years, this is an issue that can cost Canon their #1 position in a tight and highly competitive market. Canon has a robust RF catalog now, and no professional buys only 3rd party glass. They should be courting Sigma and Tamron at this point. Their lenses are starting to give Sony the advantage at certain points. You want to keep the guy who wants that ART lens or that cheaper f/2.8 zoom. You want him to buy a Canon body and a few Canon lenses as well, to stay in the mount and be a loyal future customer. Not jump to Sony.

I just love it when a house of cards is propped up by solid evidence like personally knowing one person, “who dumped their Canon kit and went to Sony over this single, specific issue.”

Maybe putting it in italics makes that one person represent millions.

 

[Bahrd]

RF-S can use those RF IS STM primes and the pancake RF28. I wouldn't say EF-M has significant advantage. Sigma 16/23/30/56 f1.4 are quite big in comparison.

I think Canon should take every tenth lens from the 16/24/28/35/50/85 production line, rebadge it, and sell as a separate RF-S one...