Canon Says it’s up to Sigma to Make Full-Frame RF Lenses

[AlanF]

I think currently the best mount is Z!
You can use Z, F, EF and FE!

And Sigma has already the data for the mount re-engineerered…. Go Sigma Go!!

Nikon has a strict licensing agreement with Sigma that allows it to make only only lenses complementary to their own and not compete. So far, only crop lenses have been released (3 I believe), but some FF are in the pipe line. There are also fps limitations. Nikon has clamped down with lawsuits on Chinese makers.

 

[Del Paso]

I don’t think so. When the RF mount first came out, there were no third-party lenses for it. That is a recent development, and only for crop lenses.

What you are referring to are issues with peripheral image correction on third-party EF lenses, those were caused by the camera incorrectly identifying the lens. Such lenses spoof Canon lens ID numbers, and the RF mount made that problematic.

Since those were EF lenses, they required the mount adapter, and thus the distance from the lens to the sensor was the same as that on a DSLR. Optics was not the problem, electronics/software was the issue.

Just a little off topic, but still about the sensor.
I often adapted Leica M lenses to my EOS R. From 35mm focal length: No issue. But shorter focals, including 28mm, couldn't be used, the generated ugly magenta and greenish sides. (Nicknamed "Italian flag).
For fun, I tried again M lenses from 15mm to 28mm on my EOS R 5II, and was stunned. They could all be used without producing this color cast on the picture sides. And even with excellent sharpness from center to the farthest edges... Something must have changed, was it the sensor's protective glass ?
For those interested, I successfully checked 15, 18, 24 and 28mm M lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Something must have changed, was it the sensor's protective glass ?

The only thing I know for sure that changed is the AA filter. The R used the sensor from the 5DIV, with the old-style AA filter (‘4-point’). The R5II uses the newer ‘16-point’ AA filter. That new design is the reason that the 24 MP R1, R3 and R8 deliver higher resolution than the 30 MP R/5DIV (and a prime example of why resolution does not equate to MP count).

 

[jeff89]

Wow! You have a lot of 135mm primes. Are they not suffient in some way or are you curating a personal collection? That's a lot of investment into a lot of very similar glass.
The RF 100-300/2.8 is vastly superior to the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS in every regard. With both lenses, you are getting what you pay for. Please don't be deluded in thinking that your bargain Sigma is the equal to the Canon, it simply isn't.

It’s my second favorite focal length behind 85mm, it was the first lens that I was able to get the shallow depth of field in portraiture photography and once I had great bokeh, it was hard to go back.

With my background, I enjoy the physics of optics, so you are spot on, that photography has developed into an opportunity to collect gear, and I suffer from GAS, as much as the next guy.

I don’t imagine the Sigma is on par with the Canon, but I don’t do a lot of wildlife photography and the ROI on the Great Whites isn’t there for me personally. I became fond of Sigma for their build quality when I wasn’t comfortable paying the price of L glass, and thought the Sigma was a better value than the non-L Canon lenses as far as optics and build quality. Sigma took that to a new level with the introduction of their Art and Sports line of lenses. Once I started buying L lenses, I still hung on to all my Sigma lenses. I was late to the mirrorless party, as was Canon.

Plus Canon had to do a great job in the ability to adapt EF lenses to the RF mount because of its late arrival, and the lack of RF lens options, so old personal favorites such as the EF 85 1.4L still held their magic for me. Is it as good optically as the RF 85 1.2L, no, but the sentimental attachment is still there. You stay with the girl that you brought to the dance.

 

[Del Paso]

The only thing I know for sure that changed is the AA filter. The R used the sensor from the 5DIV, with the old-style AA filter (‘4-point’). The R5II uses the newer ‘16-point’ AA filter. That new design is the reason that the 24 MP R1, R3 and R8 deliver higher resolution than the 30 MP R/5DIV (and a prime example of why resolution does not equate to MP count).

This was also what I suspected.
It prevents me from buying an ovepriced M body in order to keep using my M WA and UWA lenses. Too many quality issues with the latest Leica M bodies...

 

[AlanF]

I would gladly buy the Sigma 300-600mm if they released it in either EF or RF mounts.

It's a 4.3 kg behemoth. The Sony 300mm f/2.8 is only 1.74 kg, and according to the-digital-picture site is sharper with the 2xTC attached at 600mm. If I had the choice of two such lenses for Canon, I'd 100% go for the light prime despite my general preference for tele zooms.

 

[Etnaphele]

It's a 4.3 kg behemoth. The Sony 300mm f/2.8 is only 1.74 kg, and according to the-digital-picture site is sharper with the 2xTC attached at 600mm. If I had the choice of two such lenses for Canon, I'd 100% go for the light prime despite my general preference for tele zooms.

More choice is always better, you mentioned two options not available with a Canon body. You are comparing a prime 300mm with an equally priced zoom starting at 300mm, with a full stop advantage at 600mm with 2×TC, I would hope there is a difference there. Canon prime 600mm F4 is 3kg, the Sigma less than 4kg, where does the "behemoth" line lie?

Much more interesting and sadly not much discussed are the actual focal lengths at MFD, with zooms loosing a bunch of magnifications when focused near (as they are often used). This could be much more of a dealbreaker than pixel peeping extremely sharp lenses, as they all are.

 

[roby17269]

That's a key point, most users of a 600mm f4, want the flexibilty of a sharp and convienient (relatively) 800mm f5.6, ie popping on a 1.4x TC. If the native lens isn't particularly sharp wide open at 600mm, what's it going to be like with a 1.4x tc? I'd never buy lens like a 300-600mm and then prat around with it at the wide end becuase that's where it's sharp. Surely it's long end performance that matters.

Do you have any links about the Sigma 300-600 4 being not good at 600mm? The reviews I have seen speak highly of that lens.

Also you keep comparing the Sigma 120-300 2.8 to the Canon RF 100-300 2.8. It's true that the Canon is the significantly better lens. But the Sigma is a 2012 $3800 (at launch) lens pre-mirroless, while the Canon is a 11 years younger $10500 lens. It seems unfair to me.

 

[roby17269]

In a recent published interview with French publication Phototrend.fr, a pretty big bit of information came from Canon themselves. It doesn't sound like the lack of third-party autofocus lenses for the RF mount has anything to do with Canon. Full Frame Sigma RF Lenses While I touched on it in the interview, I think the […]

See full article...

I am sorry but this new article adds objectively nothing to the previous discussion.
So if the aim was to convince people that Canon is not responsible for the current lack of 3rd party RF FF AF lenses, color me unconvinced yet.

There are a few points that make little sense to me. Firstly about Sigma's capacity. There's no law that says that a manufacturer needs to meet demand. It's typical to start with limited quantities to test the waters. Unless one sells stuff as loss-leaders, every single unit sold is a good thing. If capacity was a crippling issue, how come Canon is fine and yet every new lens they sell goes into the "sorry we can't make enough of these" list?

Also the RF mount may be complex but we have no information about material differences between the RF and RF-S mounts, so that point sounds suspect to me too.

Third about Canon execs not lying. Canon is a corporation. Corporations lie. It happens. Not all the times but sometimes it does. Sure they do it in a very careful way to avoid liabilities, but there simply are a lot of circumstances when honesty is bad for business. It is sad but it is what it is. I accept that.

And maybe they were not lying, but logic is not on their side on this one. Until we know more facts, or until Sigma RF FF AF lenses appear, I remain skeptical.

 

[AlanF]

Canon prime 600mm F4 is 3kg, the Sigma less than 4kg, where does the "behemoth" line lie?

That is not an easy question to answer. Behemoth is an evocative word term for something of monstrous size, power, or appearance. It is not defined by precise quantities but is something that you know to be huge when you see it. It is frequently used to describe large telephoto lenses. A quick search finds that the 300-600 has already been defined as a behemoth by a respected reviewer.

https://uk.pcmag.com/lenses/158089/sigma-300-600mm-f4-dg-os-sports

“After two weeks of lugging the Sigma 300-600mm F4 around for wildlife snaps at a refuge, the zoo, and my backyard, I walked away with some fantastic photos and a seriously sore shoulder. At 18.5 by 6.6 inches (HD) without the hood attached, and 8.8 pounds, the lens is a behemoth. That's big even among its peers.” And the reviewer recommends: "Keep your Chiropractor on Speed Dial"

So, I think that if there were a hypothetical line to be drawn, the Sigma is likely to be on the behemoth side. Though this guy might disagree.

 

[John Wilde]

Third about Canon execs not lying. Canon is a corporation. Corporations lie. It happens. Not all the times but sometimes it does.

Canon execs are well practiced in giving vague non-answers, so there is no reason for them to flat out lie.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon execs are well practiced in giving vague non-answers, so there is no reason for them to flat out lie.

Exactly my point. "We do not comment publicly on that," is a frequent answer from Canon to many questions.

Hypothetically, Canon tells Sigma they will license the RF mount for FF lenses and they want a percentage of each lens sold. If that percentage is high enough to make selling the lenses unprofitable for Sigma (i.e., higher than the profit margin on the lens at the price Sigma would want to sell it), Sigma would choose not to make them. Canon tells the truth, that Sigma could make the lenses if they want. Sigma doesn't want to.

 

[Dmcavoy]

The only thing I know for sure that changed is the AA filter. The R used the sensor from the 5DIV, with the old-style AA filter (‘4-point’). The R5II uses the newer ‘16-point’ AA filter. That new design is the reason that the 24 MP R1, R3 and R8 deliver higher resolution than the 30 MP R/5DIV (and a prime example of why resolution does not equate to MP count).

This is really interesting, didn’t know this! I’m still using the original R and really starting to see it lag behind newer cameras. It’s held up pretty well until the last couple of years but an upgrade is definitely on the horizon soon. This explains a lot.

 

[Etnaphele]

I am sorry but this new article adds objectively nothing to the previous discussion.
So if the aim was to convince people that Canon is not responsible for the current lack of 3rd party RF FF AF lenses, color me unconvinced yet.

There are a few points that make little sense to me. Firstly about Sigma's capacity. There's no law that says that a manufacturer needs to meet demand. It's typical to start with limited quantities to test the waters. Unless one sells stuff as loss-leaders, every single unit sold is a good thing. If capacity was a crippling issue, how come Canon is fine and yet every new lens they sell goes into the "sorry we can't make enough of these" list?

Also the RF mount may be complex but we have no information about material differences between the RF and RF-S mounts, so that point sounds suspect to me too.

Third about Canon execs not lying. Canon is a corporation. Corporations lie. It happens. Not all the times but sometimes it does. Sure they do it in a very careful way to avoid liabilities, but there simply are a lot of circumstances when honesty is bad for business. It is sad but it is what it is. I accept that.

And maybe they were not lying, but logic is not on their side on this one. Until we know more facts, or until Sigma RF FF AF lenses appear, I remain skeptical.

I read it as an April 1. prank article, I cannot fathom taking any of its content seriously

 

[DocInfoSci]

That is not an easy question to answer. Behemoth is an evocative word term for something of monstrous size, power, or appearance. It is not defined by precise quantities but is something that you know to be huge when you see it. It is frequently used to describe large telephoto lenses. A quick search finds that the 300-600 has already been defined as a behemoth by a respected reviewer.

https://uk.pcmag.com/lenses/158089/sigma-300-600mm-f4-dg-os-sports

“After two weeks of lugging the Sigma 300-600mm F4 around for wildlife snaps at a refuge, the zoo, and my backyard, I walked away with some fantastic photos and a seriously sore shoulder. At 18.5 by 6.6 inches (HD) without the hood attached, and 8.8 pounds, the lens is a behemoth. That's big even among its peers.” And the reviewer recommends: "Keep your Chiropractor on Speed Dial"

So, I think that if there were a hypothetical line to be drawn, the Sigma is likely to be on the behemoth side. Though this guy might disagree.

View attachment 228720

This lens is yesteryear tech totally worth playing with if you can find one. Our local London Drugs carried one for giggles for years. I don't know who bought it eventually, but just to demo it (under the very close supervision of the store) the Bigma was a hoot. My in-store photos never looked so awesomely ridiculous! (And justified the time at the gym for that one moment.)

 

[DocInfoSci]

Canon execs are well practiced in giving vague non-answers, so there is no reason for them to flat out lie.

One of my jobs at a tech company was to deliberately provide versions of a story to various people within the company as products were being developed. The news and competitor rumour mills would be watched and we could identify the leaker. Not 1:1 with your point, but corporate leaks and espionage are interesting things.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I read it as an April 1. prank article, I cannot fathom taking any of its content seriously

Then you didn't actually read the article, or if you did then you're missing the point.



Just to forestall a next comment, "mars" is French for "March" and does not mean the article was written by aliens.

 

[Etnaphele]

Then you didn't actually read the article, or if you did then you're missing the point.

View attachment 228722

Just to forestall a next comment, "mars" is French for "March" and does not mean the article was written by aliens.

Oh yes, but this article is a very far-fetched interpretation of two nothing-burger paragraphs of that interview

March and Mars have exactly the same etymology in romance languages, coming from Mars, the god of war. So I think you are into something!

 

[roby17269]

Exactly my point. "We do not comment publicly on that," is a frequent answer from Canon to many questions.

Hypothetically, Canon tells Sigma they will license the RF mount for FF lenses and they want a percentage of each lens sold. If that percentage is high enough to make selling the lenses unprofitable for Sigma (i.e., higher than the profit margin on the lens at the price Sigma would want to sell it), Sigma would choose not to make them. Canon tells the truth, that Sigma could make the lenses if they want. Sigma doesn't want to.

Ok ok, I was overdramatic. They're not lying, they're obfuscating. Better?

Whichever way Canon is doing it, the end result is that Sigma's recent FF offerings are not available on RF. That's what matters to me and someone else.
I guess it is possible that someone else, not Canon, is actually responsible, but as written, at this point I remain skeptical

 

[roby17269]

Canon execs are well practiced in giving vague non-answers, so there is no reason for them to flat out lie.

You either believe that it's Sigma's responsibility that we do not have Sigma's FF AF lenses for RF, or you don't.
Based on public knowledge I have access to, I don't.
I'm happy to be corrected, as long as new facts are unveiled.