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

[GirlsAreBeautiful]

RF lenses are outrageously expensive for what they offer, and it's all thanks to the monopoly that Canon enforces on the mount. These kind of things should not even be legal in my opinion.
Sigma lenses are great. I have two Art ones and no complaints. I very much doubt that they are allowed to do full frame ones since nobody else did either.
Also, to be totally fair, Sigma is not producing the lens that I want for other mounts either. So at this moment I am good in general. There are tons of EF lenses that work great. Buying new lenses make no sense.

 

[Bob Howland]

Are you talking about the big green thing in post #50?
A real lens, used to be the most expensive (apart from Canon's 1200 f/5.6 that is a rarity) but Canon's RF800/1200 make it look cheap.

The big green is the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8. It was introduced after Sigma introduced their 120-300 f/2.8 and 300-800 f/5.6 lenses, weighed 35 pounds and, the last time I saw it listed, had a price of $27,000. I was posting on DP Review when it was introduced and the ridicule it got at introduction was severe. I was extremely disappointed because I wanted a 200-500 f/4. The Sigma CEO said that it was a dream of his father's and it had to be made or the father would haunt him..

It seems that this generation's oddity is the BF. Maybe they should have considered a very compact APS-C L-mount body to compete with Sony's 6X00 series and provide a market for APS-C L-mount lenses..

If Neuro is correct about the Canon-Sigma RF-mount licensing agreement, and he probably is, there is probably also a penalty clause if Sigma releases the details of that agreement, specifically the amounts of the licensing fees. Canon is hardly blameless in this situation. Buyer-seller relationships are inherently adversarial.

 

[AlanF]

The big green is the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8. It was introduced after Sigma introduced their 120-300 f/2.8 and 300-800 f/5.6 lenses, weighed 35 pounds and, the last time I saw it listed, had a price of $27,000. I was posting on DP Review when it was introduced and the ridicule it got at introduction was severe. I was extremely disappointed because I wanted a 200-500 f/4. The Sigma CEO said that it was a dream of his father's and it had to be made or the father would haunt him..

It seems that this generation's oddity is the BF. Maybe they should have considered a very compact APS-C L-mount body to compete with Sony's 6X00 series and provide a market for APS-C L-mount lenses..

If Neuro is correct about the Canon-Sigma RF-mount licensing agreement, and he probably is, there is probably also a penalty clause if Sigma releases the details of that agreement, specifically the amounts of the licensing fees. Canon is hardly blameless in this situation. Buyer-seller relationships are inherently adversarial.

It's currently available as a special order at £15,000, and has dedicated TCs. I know someone who has one for astrophotography.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well, with that barrel diameter on the AI generated camera+lens image there should be no problem for Canon, as the barrel seems rather to small to fit the RF mount ....!!
I am not a super fan of AI generated images for that sort of things.

Edit: On second inspection it may not even be AI generated, but just a composite where lens and camera are not to scale??

Are you talking about the big green thing in post #50?

No, @AcaPixus was referring to anorexic lens mount on the image in the main site post for this topic. Here’s that image compared to the real thing…

 

[Ozarker]

Sorry, I have the completely opposite opinion.
Why should Sigma (or any other 3rd party lens manufacturer) be 'required' to make enough RF lenses to fulfill a very high demand in short time?
and later they can decide to increase production capacity if the demand justifies it.

In a free market, any supplier can offer as many product units as he wants, while there is no obligation to produce a very large quantity, even if an initial short supply might disappoint some prospective buyers. After a while production capacities will adjust to the demand.

Additionally, all RF and RF-S cameras use the same RF mount, only the image circle of an RF-S (APS-C) lens is smaller than FF.
Consequently, there is no additional 'technical difficulty' to overcome or any 'reverse engineering' needed for FF RF compared to APS-C RF-S. Note that there are already several 3rd party autofocus RF-S lenses available, e.g. Sigma 15mm f/1.4 DC, so 3rd party manufacturers have already solved the 'technical difficulty'.

But Sigma has to make enough of those lenses to be PROFITABLE. That means more than "Sigma would simply sell as many lenses as they can make, be very happy with the revenue."

Revenue MUST cover expenses And return a profit. Obviously, Sigma hasn't figured out how to do that for RF yet. What if Sigma can only fit 500 lenses for ff RF into the current facility capacity and production schedule? Would that be PROFITABLE?

Sigma is in business to make money. Period. It is not in business to be altruistic.

Not as simple as people want to believe, then again, simple if you follow the $. "But demand would be through the roof! They'd make millions!" Nobody HERE knows that. Sigma would know better.

My guess is that RFs is a bigger market with much higher volume and potential sales/profit than ff.

 

[Bob Howland]

Two questions, actually a two part poll. Assume that Canon want licensing fees from Sigma for Sigma to sell FF and APS-C lenses. Sigma's 300-600 f/4 lens currently sells for $6600 at B&H in both L mount and Sigma E mount.

First question: How much of a licensing fee would Canon want for Sigma to sell each lens in RF mount?

Second question: If that amount became public knowledge, what would be the effect on Canon's reputation as a good company to buy stuff from, with the choices being: Damage greatly, Damage slightly, Neutral, Benefit slightly, Benefit greatly?

 

[Bob Howland]

But Sigma has to make enough of those lenses to be PROFITABLE. That means more than "Sigma would simply sell as many lenses as they can make, be very happy with the revenue."

Revenue MUST cover expenses And return a profit. Obviously, Sigma hasn't figured out how to do that for RF yet. What if Sigma can only fit 500 lenses for ff RF into the current facility capacity and production schedule? Would that be PROFITABLE?

Sigma is in business to make money. Period. It is not in business to be altruistic.

Not as simple as people want to believe, then again, simple if you follow the $. "But demand would be through the roof! They'd make millions!" Nobody HERE knows that. Sigma would know better.

My guess is that RFs is a bigger market with much higher volume and potential sales/profit than ff.

Assume that a lens (1) costs $50,000 to bring it to market (also known as Non-recurring expenses or NRE) (2) but only $400 in RE (Recurring expenses) to make each additional lens (3) and sells for $600. How would an increase in demand cause Sigma to suffer a loss, assuming that production is simply ramped up and there are no additional (capital) expenses such as enlarging the factory or buying equipment to automate the manufacturing process (or paying an enormous one-time licensing fee to make as many lenses as they can)?