Look at the manufacture’s MTF curves. Sigma uses the same set of curves for Sony, Canon, and Nikon.
DXO scores are insanely biased and essentially jibberish. For example, the 50F1.8, canons cheapest lens, is rated higher than the 600F4, their most expensive lens.I meant the DxOMark scores should not be much different.
do not expect IS in these shorter focal lengths especially as most mirrorless brands already have IBIS. and historically, its canon that's been milking customers several times over with several iterations of the same lenses (just how many variations of 70-200 does canon have???).IS is a must at this point. Sigma's popular lenses without one is a very sad move. Obviously, Sigma will try to milk us twice. So I am not buying a Sigma lens without IS.
i will hold my breath. sigma will most likely announce their RF counterparts in the far far future. reverse engineering is a very difficult challenge. even until now, sigma has not yet perfected their AFs for EF and F mounts. and is the market demand for RF enough to sustain their development costs?
Exactly. Tamron 45mm and 100-400mm VC worked on my EOS R but AF is very slow and sometimes they refuse to AF (in this case I have to play with focus ring to bring the focus close to my subject, then AF works). I haven't tried any Sigma lens yet though.After a Tamron 85mm didn't adapt to my Canon M5, I decided to start buying native Canon lenses as much as possible. When I put my Canon 85mm or the Canon M5, it works perfect, just like it does on my 5DS or my EOS R ...
As for Sigma, not only are they 3rd party, but I thought it was sort of budget design the way their latest lenses skip IS in most everything. But the fact that my Canon lenses are working with all my Canon bodies is most important right now.
i see no reason to worry at all about Canon RF mount. don't see anything that would keep it from commanding 50%+ market share, just like EF did.... and is the market demand for RF enough to sustain their development costs?
Big misconception. The larger mount gives more freedom when concerning the various design parameters. It doesn't necessarily mean that the customers will see it or that the RF version will be better than the FE version.35mm F1.2
If as Canon claims that RF Mount has advantage, Sigma 35mm F1.2 Canon RF version vs Sony E version:
RF version should have better IQ, or Same IQ with cheaper price, because easy to develop/produce.
They might have figured out how the EF-RF adapter signals the camera an EF lens is mounted, so it would fall back to EF protocol. From there, it's just using their EF implementation + adding the appropriate length to the barrel.It seems a bit too soon for me, but maybe it doesn't take all that long to do. I haven't yet reverse engineered anything other than an omelette. Or maybe there will be some kind of development announcement and any RF mount lens releases will be in the distant future.
That means Canon it’s own lenses will be superior than same-formula-multi-mount lens providers like Sigma, Zeiss, etc. if RF Mount really has advantage over, saying E mount.Big misconception. The larger mount gives more freedom when concerning the various design parameters. It doesn't necessarily mean that the customers will see it or that the RF version will be better than the FE version.
For example. All things the same in terms of performance, the RF should be (potentially) cheaper. However, it makes a little to no sense for sigma to go with multiple optical designs unless they have to. So you may very well get a lens that is designed for the RF flange distance while keeping FE in mind. That way they can end up with lenses for two mounts following the same optical formulas. Such a lens will not take full advantage of the shorter flange distance of the FE, nor would it take full advantage of the canon mount diameter.
Maybe they design a lens with that sort of similar RF 35 design, where the back element protrudes into the mount. While at the same time be flush with the FE mount interface. That element would have to fit sony's mount diameter and keep FE performance in mind. But as mentioned before, this would mean not taking advantage of the RF mount diameter.
But we will see. If it is cheaper to make/design for canon, then sigma may very well go with two different designs. Perhaps design wise it is just tweaking the design from one mount to another.
In-lens IS is essential for telephoto lenses, and so Olympus, Panasonic etc have added in-lens IS to their telephotos (Olympus 300 f/4, Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm etc).Everyone company and i mean EVERYBODY has IBIS except canon , so IS in lenses can go on the backburner except for canon users to this date. SOny, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, and even Nikon have IBIS. Canon is just beating around the bush as usual waiting for us to buy all the cameras up before giving us more convenient tech. It's actually insane how they treat their customers when they have all that money
true btu witrh sigma. their most popular lenses or popular lens in general arent telephotos unless you count the 135mmIn-lens IS is essential for telephoto lenses, and so Olympus, Panasonic etc have added in-lens IS to their telephotos (Olympus 300 f/4, Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm etc).