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

Sep 16, 2016
26
32
Mars
#81
Why anyone do this?

Just get license from Canon like Sigma & Tamron.
Not sure that's possible, Canon licenses their EF mounts to body makers like BlackMagic and Panasonic, but I don't think they ever licensed the EF mount to lens manufacturers. Did Zeiss licensed their ZE/Milvus (one that had electronic contacts) from Canon? or they just simply reverse engineered the thing?
 
Likes: Chaitanya
Sep 1, 2014
306
9
29
#82
Not sure that's possible, Canon licenses their EF mounts to body makers like BlackMagic and Panasonic, but I don't think they ever licensed the EF mount to lens manufacturers. Did Zeiss licensed their ZE/Milvus (one that had electronic contacts) from Canon? or they just simply reverse engineered the thing?
everybody reverse engineered the EF mount. if canon would licence to anyone you'd have the following:
1) lens would be reported correctly in LR (doesn't happen always, only with some lenses)
2) peripheral illumination correction or whatever it's called would work
3) no issues with newly launched bodies
 
Sep 19, 2018
4
0
#84
Yes. 50mm Art AF was really inconsistent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but usb-dock cant correct this? Plus, I don't want all that extra hassle, I prefer to pay a bit more for first party AF that I can rely.[/QUOTE
Yes. 50mm Art AF was really inconsistent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but usb-dock cant correct this? Plus, I don't want all that extra hassle, I prefer to pay a bit more for first party AF that I can rely.
I’m not 100% sure if the dock would fix it, that sucks. I’ve got a Canon 50 1.4 but I got it before Sigma came out with theirs. Don’t give up on Sigma though, they’ve got some really nice glass these days like the art zooms that you can’t get through Canon. But I definitely see your point.
 

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
286
23
51
#85
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.
This is an updated, improved (most likely), and extended version of the "BIGMA", the older Sigma 50-550 lens...which is hand-holdable in limited 'quantities'. But we shall see. I didn't make note is it going to be a "S" (Sport) or a "C" (Contemporary)?
 

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
4,137
335
#86
This is an updated, improved (most likely), and extended version of the "BIGMA", the older Sigma 50-550 lens...which is hand-holdable in limited 'quantities'. But we shall see. I didn't make note is it going to be a "S" (Sport) or a "C" (Contemporary)?
It's in big letters on the Home Page - Sport.
 
Likes: FramerMCB

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
286
23
51
#87
everybody reverse engineered the EF mount. if canon would licence to anyone you'd have the following:
1) lens would be reported correctly in LR (doesn't happen always, only with some lenses)
2) peripheral illumination correction or whatever it's called would work
3) no issues with newly launched bodies
It should be noted that the most recent Sigma lenses do have that in-camera body lens correction "visibility" for different lens aberrations. The 135mm f1.8 and the 105mm f1.4, and I believe the 14mm f1.4 does as well... so something has changed there. I don't know if they have a back-door relationship with Canon now or just how this was achieved...
 
May 8, 2015
283
28
#89
When I shoot motor sport, I shoot shoulder-to-shoulder with a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Mk II user: my Siggy 70-200mm matches it in every regard, on identical bodies for both of us.

It's a superb lens, and I don't doubt the new one will be better again...
That's fine for you, but it's no mystery that 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are predominantly used in portraiture, news reporting/journalism, and event coverage, and at those closer distances the Sigma 70-200s have, historically, been the worst of the 'main' bunch; Tamron do a little better, then Nikon, and the Canons have always been the best of the lot. (These days i'd put Sony's up there between Nikon and Canon; Fuji's is also very nice, though it is an f/4 equivalent.)

I'm not saying Sigma can't make a good 70-200 now, just that, so far, their track record hasn't been the best and so it'd be smart to approach any new 70-200 they make with some trepidation.
 
Sep 16, 2016
26
32
Mars
#90
everybody reverse engineered the EF mount. if canon would licence to anyone you'd have the following:
1) lens would be reported correctly in LR (doesn't happen always, only with some lenses)
2) peripheral illumination correction or whatever it's called would work
3) no issues with newly launched bodies
Just to be clear, are you saying that Canon Lenses won't display correction and Metadata settings when used on EF mount Black Magic and Panasonic (or even RED) video cameras?
 

docsmith

EOS Rebel T7i
Sep 17, 2010
765
92
#93
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 $$$$ :)
Thanks Beegee, Bryan/TDP did a nice write up:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-500mm-f-4-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx

Overall, it seems like the Sigma is a very good lenses. If you want to split hairs, the Canon is just a bit better (IQ/focus shift AF). But that could be sample variation. But, also, you could also basically stop reading the review when Bryan calls it a "pro grade lens." In all my years reading Bryan's reviews, it is cues like this that he provides. It isn't a number, or stars (he did try that once)….but if he calls it "pro grade" it is a very good lens. He provides additional not so subtle cues, such as the conclusion calling the lens a "really nice one."

That said, if you want to split the hairs, when he compares it to the EF 500 f/4 II, he found the Canon to be very slightly better.
 
Likes: beegee

docsmith

EOS Rebel T7i
Sep 17, 2010
765
92
#94
Not anytime soon. It may not even be possible to reverse engineer the RF mount.
I really wonder if Canon has made the electronics more advanced that will cause the performance of third party lenses to suffer. They have to be careful about doing so intentionally to thwart 3rd party lens manufacturers, as that could be construed as "anti competitive" by different groups (EU, USA, etc), but I am sure some complexities in a modern system could have occurred naturally.
 
Sep 1, 2014
306
9
29
#95
intentionally to thwart 3rd party lens manufacturers, as that could be construed as "anti competitive" by different groups (EU, USA, etc),
good point which i don't think i've seen mentioned anywhere
being hit with a fine might be worse than losing a bit of lens sales...
 
Aug 23, 2014
10
0
#96
I really wonder if Canon has made the electronics more advanced that will cause the performance of third party lenses to suffer. They have to be careful about doing so intentionally to thwart 3rd party lens manufacturers, as that could be construed as "anti competitive" by different groups (EU, USA, etc), but I am sure some complexities in a modern system could have occurred naturally.
Canon is in no way obligated to allow 3rd party lenses on their cameras and no other manufacturer would be sueing that Canon made reverse engineering harder.
It would only be an issue if the RF mount would be an open standard (like mFT) and you would impair the performance of lenses from other brands.
 

Chaitanya

EOS Rebel T7i
Jun 27, 2013
887
30
32
Pune
#97
I really wonder if Canon has made the electronics more advanced that will cause the performance of third party lenses to suffer. They have to be careful about doing so intentionally to thwart 3rd party lens manufacturers, as that could be construed as "anti competitive" by different groups (EU, USA, etc), but I am sure some complexities in a modern system could have occurred naturally.
Every manufacturer has a right to protect its intellectual property best luck trying to sue either Nikon/Canon for locking out 3rd party makers of propietary lens protocols.
 

docsmith

EOS Rebel T7i
Sep 17, 2010
765
92
#99
Canon is in no way obligated to allow 3rd party lenses on their cameras and no other manufacturer would be sueing that Canon made reverse engineering harder.
It would only be an issue if the RF mount would be an open standard (like mFT) and you would impair the performance of lenses from other brands.
This could come down to wording. There are instances where companies have gotten into trouble for intentionally taking steps in one product line to favor another product line or for having a very large market share in one product line and using that to potentially stymie competition in another product line. A quick example would be Microsoft a few years ago when the EU sued them saying that Microsoft was using the "Windows Platform" business to favor their "applications" business (word, excel, Explorer, etc) and prevent fair competition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission

So "obligated to allow"...Agreed that Canon does not have to do something like share their protocols. At least, not yet, read to the bottom of the Microsoft situation, the EU is insisting upon for Microsoft to make changes to promote competition but their market share is larger than Canon's. I would think Canon should not do something that intentionally inhibits the ability of a 3rd party lens to be used on their bodies.

A quick example, if Canon added code that turned the camera off if a non-canon lens was mounted....that would be anti-competitive.

As for companies suing Canon...sure they would, or at least file a complaint. Yelp and others have filed a complaint against Google/Alphabet. I've heard of complaints against Amazon. Microsoft is routinely in these situations. Corporations have legal departments for a reason.

Every manufacturer has a right to protect its intellectual property best luck trying to sue either Nikon/Canon for locking out 3rd party makers of propietary lens protocols.
I think I mostly agree with this...sure they have a right to protect their intellectual property. Also, they are not obligated to share proprietary information. But, that isn't really what I meant. If there are complexities in Canon's new codes that truly have a purpose that benefits the camera system, that is fine. If it makes it very difficult for 3rd party lens manufacturers, that is fine too (too an extent). But, if Canon takes steps to intentionally thwart the use of a third party lens, or if it is decided Canon has a monopoly or near monopoly in camera bodies and that monopoly unfairly favors the sale of their lenses/thwarts competition...well, that changes things.

As to if Canon has a monopoly, the knee jerk reaction would be of course not, there is Nikon/Sony/etc. But 60% market share is getting pretty high. I know a "monopoly" does not have to be 100% market share...but I do not know where the gray zone really starts.

----------
All this said, I was not trying to say I think Canon is doing this. It is just something that will be interesting to see how it plays out. How hard is it for third party manufacturers to reverse engineer the new protocols? If it becomes next to impossible....I could see a complaint being filed.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Chaitanya

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,324
314
Canada
This could come down to wording. There are instances where companies have gotten into trouble for intentionally taking steps in one product line to favor another product line or for having a very large market share in one product line and using that to potentially stymie competition in another product line. A quick example would be Microsoft a few years ago when the EU sued them saying that Microsoft was using the "Windows Platform" business to favor their "applications" business (word, excel, Explorer, etc) and prevent fair competition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission

So "obligated to allow"...Agreed that Canon does not have to do something like share their protocols. At least, not yet, read to the bottom of the Microsoft situation, the EU is insisting upon for Microsoft to make changes to promote competition but their market share is larger than Canon's. But they certainly should not do something that intentionally inhibits the ability of a 3rd party lens to be used on their bodies.

A quick example, if Canon added code that turned the camera off if a non-canon lens was mounted....that would be anti-competitive.

As for companies suing Canon...sure they would, or at least file a complaint. Yelp and others have filed a complaint against Google/Alphabet. I've heard of complaints against Amazon. Microsoft is routinely in these situations. Corporations have legal departments for a reason.



I think I mostly agree with this...sure they have a right to protect their intellectual property. Also, they are not obligated to share proprietary information. But, that isn't really what I meant. If there are complexities in Canon's new codes that truly have a purpose that benefits the camera system, that is fine. If it makes it very difficult for 3rd party lens manufacturers, that is fine too (too an extent). But, if Canon takes steps to intentionally thwart the use of a third party lens, or if it is decided Canon has a monopoly or near monopoly in camera bodies and that monopoly unfairly favors the sale of their lenses/thwarts competition...well, that changes things.

As to if Canon has a monopoly, the knee jerk reaction would be of course not, there is Nikon/Sony/etc. But 60% market share is getting pretty high. I know a "monopoly" does not have to be 100% market share...but I do not know where the gray zone really starts.

----------
All this said, I was not trying to say I think Canon is doing this. It is just something that will be interesting to see how it plays out. How hard is it for third party manufacturers to reverse engineer the new protocols? If it becomes next to impossible....I could see a complaint being filed.
Give me an R mount camera, I hook it up to one of the signal analyzers, and in ten minutes I will have a record of all the signals being exchanged between lens and body.... Then, you decode the signals... it is a very easy task with the right equipment, and it is almost inconceivable that Sigma, Tamron, and the others can not do this
 
Likes: docsmith