A Small Sigma 180 f/2.8 OS Macro Issue

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10934"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10934"></a></div>
<strong>Issue with the new Sigma Macro


</strong>An issue with the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS Macro on the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847545-REG/Canon_5260A002_EOS_5D_Mark_III.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">5D Mark II</a>I and <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/827036-REG/Canon_5253B002_EOS_1D_X_EOS_Digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EOS-1D X</a> has been discovered by LensRentals.com. If this has caused anyone to pull their hair out, the solution is pretty simple, just turn off illumination correction.</p>
<p>Below is an image taken by LensRentals.com showing the phenomenon.</p>
<div id="attachment_10935" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/180macro.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-10935 " title="180macro" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/180macro-575x383.jpeg" alt="" width="575" height="383" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Sigma 180 f/2.8 OS Macro Issue – Click for larger</p></div>
<p><strong>The Findings</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>The phenomenon shows up on Canon 5D Mk III and 1Dx cameras only. T4i and 7D bodies with firmware upgrade do NOT do this, nor do any other older cameras we could test.</li>
<li>The Sigma 180 OS and Sigma 150 OS macro lenses both show the effect and it’s identical. No other Sigma lenses that we stock showed the effect, nor did any Tamron or Tokina lenses. Obviously I can’t test what we don’t carry.</li>
<li>If you turn off Illumination Correction in the menu the effect goes away. To repeat, though, Illumination Correction in the 7D and T4i, on or off, doesn’t cause the effect.</li>
</ol>
<p>The issue probably doesn’t show up on the APS_C cameras because of the image is about the same size as the circular anomaly in the center of the above image.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/sigma-os-macros-on-5diii-1dx-issue" target="_blank">Read More at LensRentals.com</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Deathlens]

I actually noticed this issue with the Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro as well...on the 5D MKIII.

 

[heptagon]

Why the heck are the new top line Canon cameras so broken?

 

[Random Orbits]

Why the heck are the new top line Canon cameras so broken?

Companies like Sigma reverse engineer Canon algorithms rather than license them. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

 

[lol]

I wonder what does the body report as the present lens in the PIC menu when this happens?

For example, simply as they're to hand right now, if I put a Zeiss 50mm on a 5D2 (I don't have a mk3) the PIC menu says 50mm lens - correction not available. If I put a Canon lens on, it will give the full name and may or may not offer correction depending on the lens.

 

[YoukY63]

Actually that is nothing new.
I found the same issue last year on my 5DmII coupled to a Sigma 50mm F1.4EX.
The lens report the code of the Canon 50mm F1.2L, and therefore the body corrects the illumination while it is not (that much) necessary.

 

[Random Orbits]

Why the heck are the new top line Canon cameras so broken?

Companies like Sigma reverse engineer Canon algorithms rather than license them. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

This isn't because of reverse engineering.

The Sigma lens is telling the Canon camera that it is Canon EF-ABCE and the 5D3/1DX have a built in map to address light falloff for the Canon EF-ABCE lens and apply that to the image created with the Sigma lens without knowing that it isn't required.

Sounds like it to me. Canon wrote the software and knows how the mapping works and Sigma does not. Sigma tries to find an entry that "works" without any adverse affects. Sigma doesn't know what the correct code should be. Sigma tests their new lens on existing bodes (pre-5DIII and 1DX) and thinks they have their settings correct. New cameras come out with new properties for the existing table entries (i.e. for lens correction in camera) Sigma gets caught with an improper entry. If Sigma had licenses, then they would have had the tables and possibly have their own lens profiles loaded into the newer cameras like Canon did.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Why the heck are the new top line Canon cameras so broken?

Companies like Sigma reverse engineer Canon algorithms rather than license them. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

This isn't because of reverse engineering.

The Sigma lens is telling the Canon camera that it is Canon EF-ABCE and the 5D3/1DX have a built in map to address light falloff for the Canon EF-ABCE lens and apply that to the image created with the Sigma lens without knowing that it isn't required.

Sounds like it to me. Canon wrote the software and knows how the mapping works and Sigma does not. Sigma tries to find an entry that "works" without any adverse affects. Sigma doesn't know what the correct code should be. Sigma tests their new lens on existing bodes (pre-5DIII and 1DX) and thinks they have their settings correct. New cameras come out with new properties for the existing table entries (i.e. for lens correction in camera) Sigma gets caught with an improper entry. If Sigma had licenses, then they would have had the tables and possibly have their own lens profiles loaded into the newer cameras like Canon did.

The solution is fairly painless, turn off illumination correction when shooting jpeg. Use RAW if you can, and do not turn it on in DPP if you use it.
Canon is not going to reverse engineer or modify camera software to support lenses that they have no control over. Sigma could pick a Canon lens with a similar properties to report to the camera.

 

[mememe]

Looks like sigma always picks silly lens-IDs...

The illumination/vignetting correction doesnt work right at any non-canon lens...

 

[heptagon]

So Canon doesn't provide a proper way for other manufacturers to make EF lenses without paying horrendous licensing fees. Then it purpously breaks compatibility with existing 3rd party lenses with new bodies. That doesn't sound good to me. All Canon would have to provide would be a proper way to ID the lenses. A simple manufacturer ID + item ID would be sufficient.

 

[mb66energy]

This is a (more or less) funny example of our believing in data correction algorithms etc.
I see a tendency to suspend development for better lenses in terms of vignetting, chromatic aberrations, distortions because you can correct them easily AFTERWARDS. I have seen such tendencies just in experimental setups ... but the best way is always to get the best raw data you can and decide THEN if you correct the data by a smaller amount.

And it is a funny example for (more or less unexpected) side effects in a more and more complex world.
But on the other hand it is phantastic how good the stuff works in general despite the complexity of the equipment and its interactions.

 

[Kathode-Ray]

Actually that is nothing new.
I found the same issue last year on my 5DmII coupled to a Sigma 50mm F1.4EX.
The lens report the code of the Canon 50mm F1.2L, and therefore the body corrects the illumination while it is not (that much) necessary.

Yep, the 50mm does the same here with my 60D. No big issue, unless you're a JPG shooter :

Ray

 

[Kathode-Ray]

That's a bit blunt, it has nothing to do with QC. The lens ID happens to be the same as a Canon lens.

 

[heptagon]

typicall for sigma.
you wonder if they have a quality management at all.

how can such an issue not be noticed and fixed when developing a lens?

Maybe because it is Canon who broke the compatibility?

 

[traveller]

So Canon doesn't provide a proper way for other manufacturers to make EF lenses without paying horrendous licensing fees. Then it purpously breaks compatibility with existing 3rd party lenses with new bodies. That doesn't sound good to me. All Canon would have to provide would be a proper way to ID the lenses. A simple manufacturer ID + item ID would be sufficient.

I think that you're being a touch unfair on Canon here, why should Canon go out of their way to help third party manufacturers compete with them for lens sales? I don' think that you'll find many other manufacturers doing that. The only exception that I can think of is Sony, who have 'open-sourced' the E-mount protocols. If you think about the reason for this, you'll realise why it doesn't make sense for Canon: the NEX range is still very new and lacks lenses. From Sony's perspective, they are seeking to trade future competitive advantage in lens sales for short term gain in market share of the system (assuming that having more lenses available makes NEX more attractive to potential buyers). Canon on the other hand, has one of the largest lens ranges available and these are at the heart of the EOS system's competitive advantage. Why would they jeopardize potential sales of their EF lenses just to assist a competitor?

As for "purpously breaks compatibility", I don't think they give it that much thought!

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

This is a (more or less) funny example of our believing in data correction algorithms etc.
I see a tendency to suspend development for better lenses in terms of vignetting, chromatic aberrations, distortions because you can correct them easily AFTERWARDS.

I'd rather easily correct in post processing than face the sticker shock accompanying those new lenses.

 

[YoukY63]

typicall for sigma.
you wonder if they have a quality management at all.

how can such an issue not be noticed and fixed when developing a lens?

This is NOT a Sigma problem.

It is a Canon problem.

You are very unfair and I totally disagree.

Canon's business is too sell Canon products, not Sigma or Tamron or any other brands.
When Sigma sells 1 lens, Canon does not receive any yen/dollar for that. Why should they care about them? Sigma should already feel happy that Canon doesn't try to definitely inactivate their reverse tech and making their products unusable --> end of business.

 

[janvehrenkamp]

This issue might be more of an 5D3 issue than a lens one.
I did some night shots yesterday and just now noticed similar issues with my 5D3+24-105, it's almost not visible in the untouched raw file(I didn't notice it, until I accidentaly found it), but once I crank up the dials it becomes clearly visible.
I think it's visible all the time, but at least I couldn't tell until I dialed up almost all the development settings to the max, where I suddenly started to see a white circle in the frame.
Might not be an issue though, as I can't think of a scenario where I'd push the processing to the extend that I did in my tests (trying out new stuff). But if you search for it I'm sure you'll be able to find the white circle too.
Funny that I found this now.. :|

 

[heptagon]

typicall for sigma.
you wonder if they have a quality management at all.

how can such an issue not be noticed and fixed when developing a lens?

This is NOT a Sigma problem.

It is a Canon problem.

You are very unfair and I totally disagree.

Canon's business is too sell Canon products, not Sigma or Tamron or any other brands.
When Sigma sells 1 lens, Canon does not receive any yen/dollar for that. Why should they care about them? Sigma should already feel happy that Canon doesn't try to definitely inactivate their reverse tech and making their products unusable --> end of business.

Does that then mean that you should buy Canon tripods, Canon monopods, Canon camera bags, etc?
Where do you draw the line?

Canon need to realise that it is the ecosystem around their products that keeps them alive.

If Canon makes a good lens, it will sell. If the competitor is better, Canon needs to "protect their market". If they fall behind not only in the Sensor development but also with the lenses, Canon will have a big problem, because then there's little reason to buy a Canon camera. The lens prices are still up and it's a good time to sell now.

 

[traveller]

So Canon doesn't provide a proper way for other manufacturers to make EF lenses without paying horrendous licensing fees. Then it purpously breaks compatibility with existing 3rd party lenses with new bodies. That doesn't sound good to me. All Canon would have to provide would be a proper way to ID the lenses. A simple manufacturer ID + item ID would be sufficient.

I think that you're being a touch unfair on Canon here, why should Canon go out of their way to help third party manufacturers compete with them for lens sales? I don' think that you'll find many other manufacturers doing that. The only exception that I can think of is Sony, who have 'open-sourced' the E-mount protocols. If you think about the reason for this, you'll realise why it doesn't make sense for Canon: the NEX range is still very new and lacks lenses. From Sony's perspective, they are seeking to trade future competitive advantage in lens sales for short term gain in market share of the system (assuming that having more lenses available makes NEX more attractive to potential buyers). Canon on the other hand, has one of the largest lens ranges available and these are at the heart of the EOS system's competitive advantage. Why would they jeopardize potential sales of their EF lenses just to assist a competitor?

Lets see. The last lens I bought for my Canon camera wasn't a Canon lens. It is quite possible that the next lens also won't be Canon. Why? Because Canon lenses fail to offer the same value as other brands.

Now if I couldn't use 3rd party lenses on Canon cameras but I could use 3rd party lenses on other cameras then that would be a very big disincentive to buy Canon cameras.

The main difference here is this:

Song gets consumer electronics.

Canon doesn't.

There's now talk of Sony allow 3rd party applications to be loaded onto the next NEX camera much like you do with smart phones. This is yet another sign that Sony understands the consumer electronics market and that Canon (and by extension Nikon) do not.

Whilst the issue of making a lens mount open or closed is an interesting argument, the fact of the matter is that you know full well that the EF mount is currently a closed system. On that basis, it is not fair to bang one's fists on the table and demand a solution to a problem caused by a competitor's unauthorised reverse engineering of Canon's product. Dare I quote the old phrase: "you get what you pay for"...? Should it seems that I'm being arrogant and heartless, I also own third party lenses, which were bought on cost grounds. In return for the lower purchase price, I accepted that there were long term compatibility questions; it is part of the deal and one reason why Sigma et al. cannot charge as much for their lenses.

Suggesting that Sony has some deep understanding of the consumer electronics industry is laughable; this is a company that has suffered massive retrechment of its market share (and big financial losses) as the competition has outperformed it in key markets. I see Sony's decision to open-source the E-mount specification as an indictment of their commitment to produce lenses for the system.