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 the 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)?

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

A figure of 30% has been suggested.

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?

I doubt that anyone outside of a relatively minuscule handful of forum participants would even know…or care. The average lens buyer wouldn’t care beyond whether or not the lenses were available. “We” do not represent the market.

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.

Do you really think a 33% margin on a $600 lens is reasonable? Seems very far fetched.

But run with that…with a 30% license fee, your hypothetical lens would then have a 3.3% margin, $20 per lens. 2,500 units just to recoup the NRE. Do you think a company planning a 50% markup would be happy giving up 90% of that in licensing fees?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

I have a EF 135mm f2.0 L and a EF 85mm f1.2 II L for that very reason, they are just amazing portrait lenses. The 135L is versatile and very easy to use, way easier than the 85IIL. The 85IIL needs careful use due to it's razor thin DOF, but in the right hands can produce beautiful results.

Well, if I ever need some one to ask 135mm advice from...I'll ask you! For me, I only want one lens of a certain type and for me and my personality type, I need that lens to simply be the "best of breed". The Canon Rf 135mm f1.8 LIS is a lens I greatly admire...but I actually prefer the smaller legacy EF f2.0 version.

I think the EF 85mm f1.4 LIS is actually a fair bit sharper than the older EF 85mm f1.2 II L (wide open). It's AF is vastly superior and you can crank out High Speed 12fps with it, where as the f1.2 is only 8fps and the AF struggles to keep up. However, I just love the images I get out of my f1.2 lens. I really should upgrade to the RF variant, but it's a difficult investment when the EF lens is still giving me great results.

I have a friend here in Wiltshire who is a Canon gear collector and he as pretty much every variant of every white Canon lens. It's what he does and it's his hobby. We all have our different reasons / use case scenario to buy and have certain kit and this is his. He's a really nice guys and he knows everything there is to know about each lens. Each one is pampered and looked after. He's an amazing resource and he's often keen for me to take out some of his lenses to see how I would use them. For me, it's great way of trying out some lenses for a few hours and see how they fare. He's not bothered with the RF 400L and RF 600L because they are so similar to the EF mkIII's.