Sigma to announce 5 new lenses shortly, including a new 70-200mm f/2.8 OS Sport & 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 OS Sport

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,870
117
Vancouver, BC
#41
I like to consider myself normal, and I could hand hold the 150-600mm S but the C is so much more comfortable. With all of these things, some can manage to hand hold a particular lens, others find it too much of a strain. Some can hand hold a 600mm II. Others find a 100-400mm II as much as they can take. In general, it is better to keep lenses light.
In my mind, physically being able to hold a lens and take a sharp photo doesn't make a lens a handheld lens. I mean, by that definition, even very large and heavy lenses could be "handheld", because, yes, if you really wanted to, you could do what it takes to hold it and take a shot without it getting a blurry image.

Handheld lenses, to me, need to have a mounted weight, balance, and size that is comfortable for someone who engages in a lot of photography with heavier lenses to shoot as a handheld shooter for many hours (at least, the length of an event) without fatigue. I cannot imagine using the 150-600S for the duration of even a two hour event (never mind a half-day sports event) handheld and not having fatigue hit pretty early - I'd be lowering the camera to give my arm a rest frequently, probably missing moments, and that to me makes it non-handheld.
 
Likes: AlanF

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
942
127
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
#42
It would be nice if they could reverse engineer the RF mount
A lot has happened in the time since the EF mount was launched, especially in cryptography. Unless Canon are extremely dumb they will require all RF lenses and RF->EF adaptors to be digitally signed making it pretty much impossible for anyone without NSA-level resources to reverse engineer the protocol.

Plus, there will be patents galore to deal with.

No third-party RF lenses unless Canon allow them.
 

rbr

EOS M50
Sep 11, 2010
71
1
#44
I could see Canon itself introducing such a lens for the new R mout now that they re no longer constrained by the f5.6 limit they seem to have for their EF lenses.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,870
117
Vancouver, BC
#45
A lot has happened in the time since the EF mount was launched, especially in cryptography. Unless Canon are extremely dumb they will require all RF lenses and RF->EF adaptors to be digitally signed making it pretty much impossible for anyone without NSA-level resources to reverse engineer the protocol.

Plus, there will be patents galore to deal with.

No third-party RF lenses unless Canon allow them.
I'm not sure why Canon wouldn't want third party lenses. They're a net positive for the ecosystem.

On the subject of device encryption, obviously it's possible, as the latest Canon (or Sony) chipped batteries are very hard for third parties to knock off -- it's often a long time before there are compatible batteries, and the first few generations often don't communicate fully, for example, not showing battery life remaining.
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
942
127
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
#46
As far as I know, Canon have never licensed their EF mount to any third party manufacturers. Sigma reverse engineered the EF mount.
I'm not sure why Canon wouldn't want third party lenses. They're a net positive for the ecosystem.

On the subject of device encryption, obviously it's possible, as the latest Canon (or Sony) chipped batteries are very hard for third parties to knock off -- it's often a long time before there are compatible batteries, and the first few generations often don't communicate fully, for example, not showing battery life remaining.
Well, a battery has a much simpler electronic system than a lens and probably doesn't justify more than a rudimentary security (which still takes a long time to crack). But a lens can be built with all sorts of technical and legal protection that would be pretty much impossible to get around.

So, even without encryption consider this.

When powered up the lens CPU receives a message from the camera saying "who are you?".

It then responds, in plain ASCII code, electronically, "The manufacturer of this lens acknowledges that this lens contains proprietary code and technology belonging to Canon Inc, and this message confirms that in the case of no binding licence agreement being in place a $5,000 USD licence fee per lens manufactured will be paid by the manufacturer to Canon, Inc."

IF that EXACT message is not received by the camera, the camera will refuse to accept the lens.

So, it would be trivial in court for Canon to get a trusted third party to hook up an analyser to a third party lens and make it display that message.

Game over for Sigma, or whoever. No way their lawyers would ever risk putting out a lens that transmits that message on startup!
 
Sep 1, 2014
301
7
29
#47
No third-party RF lenses unless Canon allow them.
canon should welcome 3rd party manufacturers to use their mount...at least in my mind...they have their reasons for sure...
but we would probably have had twice the amount of autofocus EF-M lenses by now if they would have been more open..
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,870
117
Vancouver, BC
#52
Well, a battery has a much simpler electronic system than a lens and probably doesn't justify more than a rudimentary security (which still takes a long time to crack). But a lens can be built with all sorts of technical and legal protection that would be pretty much impossible to get around.
Either way, it's just either a dedicated chip, or programming for a multipurpose chip. Whether it's a battery or a lens, it doesn't really matter - there's ample space in either because these things are tiny.

Batteries are "important" to secure, because they're very lucrative, and a lot of people buy at least one extra battery. If someone buys another $100 battery, that's probably another easy $90 profit :) Or, you can use it to entice people to buy a value pack or bundle, or whatever.
 
Jul 30, 2018
6
3
55
#53
I own the 150-600S. It is a great lens. I do handhold it. I have shared/loaned it several times. Those photographers also hand held it.

So I would reword Alan’s comment. It is a heavy lens. Be prepared, it is no 70-200 f/4 is. But if you are there to shoot, many normal people have handheld this lens.

I hope the 60-600 has good IQ. The IQ on the 150-600S is very good. But I thought the previous 50-500 lenses (pre global series) were a bit less than I would want. But post Global series Sigma has been on a roll.

So, looking forward to these lenses.
Spot on DocSmith. I had the 50-500 as my first long range lens. When I sacrificed the range and moved to the 100-400 LII the difference was night and day.

Is the 500 f/4 sigma worth it still looking for some good comparisons between the canon 500 f/4 II and the sigma. Any help with guiding me to some reference on this will be much appreciated and save me some $$$$ :)
 
Likes: docsmith
#54
Spot on DocSmith. I had the 50-500 as my first long range lens. When I sacrificed the range and moved to the 100-400 LII the difference was night and day.

Is the 500 f/4 sigma worth it still looking for some good comparisons between the canon 500 f/4 II and the sigma. Any help with guiding me to some reference on this will be much appreciated and save me some $$$$ :)
Unfortunately, I haven't owned the Canon version, but I can tell you that the Sigma is a heck of a lens. Very sharp and it takes TCs well (I have the 1.4x). I actually tried the Canon 400 DO II (with 1.4x and 2x TCs), and I kept the Sigma and returned the Canon. I gained half a pound, but saved $3000 (over Canon's 500). Here's the link to my Flickr page for the Sigma. I can't speak for that dove looking bird or the hummingbird, but the rest of the pictures were taken by me, mostly with the 7D Mark II and the extender added, and all SOOC JPEGs:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/4506280@N20/pool/
 
Mar 18, 2014
160
2
www.flickr.com
#55
You have to go to a Panny or a Sony for an f/4 24-600mm equivalent....
The problem with the Sigma 150-600mm Sport is that is too heavy and difficult to hand hold when the lens is fully extended. If they can keep the weight down to that of the C, then the 60-600mm will be more user friendly.
AlanF I'm sure you have looked into this but I read an interesting piece the other day that said the C was at the very least, as sharp as the Sport and basically said that even if they were the same price, they would still go with the C.
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,265
252
Canada
#56
A lot has happened in the time since the EF mount was launched, especially in cryptography. Unless Canon are extremely dumb they will require all RF lenses and RF->EF adaptors to be digitally signed making it pretty much impossible for anyone without NSA-level resources to reverse engineer the protocol.

Plus, there will be patents galore to deal with.

No third-party RF lenses unless Canon allow them.
and once again...… what would happen if Canon did not allow third party lenses?

The store clerks tell the customer "Don't buy Canon, you can't use third party lenses with them".... and sales plummet......
 

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
4,046
274
#57
AlanF I'm sure you have looked into this but I read an interesting piece the other day that said the C was at the very least, as sharp as the Sport and basically said that even if they were the same price, they would still go with the C.
I have read similar comments. But, there are some reports that the S is sharper. I think it boils down to copy variation, so a good copy of the C beats a bad S and vice versa. There are lots of happy 150-600mm C users in CR. I have a very good copy of the C, it's as sharp at 400mm as my 100-400mm II, perhaps a tad sharper and good at 600mm. But, the 100-400mm II is easier to handle and has fantastic AF. I do like the 150-600mm.
 
Likes: krisbell
Apr 21, 2015
72
2
#59
BOOM!!!!! WOOO HOOO!!!!!! :eek::eek::eek::D:eek::D:eek::D:eek::D
Sigma must have been reading my comments haha! :cry::cry::cry:
Ya right....
But I have been spamming this forum forever wanting a 28mm 1.4 because my 35mm 1.4ii is a little tighter then I want.
THANK YOU SIGMA! How do I order!!?? :cool: