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

[nadroj]

Thanks for the clarification - this helps a lot. I've noticed that the lens corrections appeared to be working despite what I thought the menu was saying. I know that the Sigma Contemporary lenses lean heavily on digital corrections, and the embedded jpegs don't show noticible distortion. It makes sense that the distortion correction is forced on, because it's an integral part of the design of these lenses.

You bet! Happy to hear you're experiencing the same. I'm over the moon with Sigma lenses on Canon bodies and I am excited for the R7 Mark II because of it. Should be a stunner with the 17-40mm f/1.8 which I adore.

 

[nadroj]

Canon wants 30% of the sale price as a fee for anyone using the RF mount. Pay or get sued.

It does seem like there's something like this going on -- but have you found evidence for it being 30%? I think we're all curious what the backroom deals really are, but I haven't seen any proof yet.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It does seem like there's something like this going on -- but have you found evidence for it being 30%? I think we're all curious what the backroom deals really are, but I haven't seen any proof yet.

Someone on YouTube said it. I mean, that's proof, right?

 

[zapper]

You bet! Happy to hear you're experiencing the same. I'm over the moon with Sigma lenses on Canon bodies and I am excited for the R7 Mark II because of it. Should be a stunner with the 17-40mm f/1.8 which I adore.

I'm a bit jealous. I was so excited when the 18-50 f2.8 was announced that I pre-ordered it. I rarely do that, preferring to see what the critics say first. But I had confidence in Sigma, having had several of their DSLR APS-C lenses in the past. But ... I had no inkling that a 17-40mm f1.8 was in the pipeline! I'll spring for one eventually I'm sure. But the R7ii is the first priority.

 

[P-visie]

I recommend you stop with the corporate bootlicking before the boot polish gives you cancer.

You have reached a new low. Cancer kills millions of people each year.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I often bought new Leica gear in the -distant- past. They were expensive, but still not in an excessive way. And quality, apart from the R4, was top. Few Japanese lenses could compete.

In fact, Nikon made some better lenses in the 1950s, but in Western countries nobody knew that until the famous photographer David Douglas Duncan started to use a 2/85mm Nikkor lens (and later other Nikkor lenses) on his Leicas. Pro colleagues were impressed, and that made Nikon well-known quickly. In Wetzlar, they were the first time really under pressure by the Japanese optical industry to improve some of their lenses. Here's the story:

NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights No.36 | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights | Nikon Consumer

Btw Norbert Rosing, a German wildlife photographer famous e.g. for his polar bear images he shot for National Geographic, used a Leica R system with big glass (and slide film, of course), here are some of his famous images:

Norbert Rosing Archives - National Gallery of Fine Art

Born in northern Germany in 1953, Norbert Rosing is a passionate nature and wildlife photographer with special dedication to the Arctic, North American landscapes, and the national parks of Germany. In 1980, Rosing published his first photograph in a German photo magazine. Since then he has...

ngfineart.com

Edit: As I wrote in another post, I am more than happy that I can now use even the Leica M UWA lenses without issues on the R5 II. "Italian flag": Gone!

I got a Novoflex M39-RF adapter and have a lot of fun using it on my R5II with some of my beloved Canon M39 lenses from late 1950s and 1960s, in particular Canon's wonderful and rare 85mm f/1.8 lens.

Sorry, but for the price of one single M11, I can get two R5 II + an RF 50mm f/1,4...
I still like the M, but not what it is now meant to represent.

The only M Leicas I personally would be interested in are the M4-6 film cameras. M3 is too much hyped and too expensive, and from that time I prefer my Canon 7 s"z", despite Canon's rangefinder viewfinders aren't a complete match with Leica's very complex VF, but they were parallax controlled, too, and good enough to get reliable in-focus images even with very fast glass in most settings.

 

[Del Paso]

In fact, Nikon made some better lenses in the 1950s, but in Western countries nobody knew that until the famous photographer David Douglas Duncan started to use a 2/85mm Nikkor lens (and later other Nikkor lenses) on his Leicas. Pro colleagues were impressed, and that made Nikon well-known quickly. In Wetzlar, they were the first time really under pressure by the Japanese optical industry to improve some of their lenses. Here's the story:

NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights No.36 | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights | Nikon Consumer

Btw Norbert Rosing, a German wildlife photographer famous e.g. for his polar bear images he shot for National Geographic, used a Leica R system with big glass (and slide film, of course), here are some of his famous images:

Norbert Rosing Archives - National Gallery of Fine Art

Born in northern Germany in 1953, Norbert Rosing is a passionate nature and wildlife photographer with special dedication to the Arctic, North American landscapes, and the national parks of Germany. In 1980, Rosing published his first photograph in a German photo magazine. Since then he has...

ngfineart.com

I got a Novoflex M39-RF adapter and have a lot of fun using it on my R5II with some of my beloved Canon M39 lenses from late 1950s and 1960s, in particular Canon's wonderful and rare 85mm f/1.8 lens.

The only M Leicas I personally would be interested in are the M4-6 film cameras. M3 is too much hyped and too expensive, and from that time I prefer my Canon 7 s"z", despite Canon's rangefinder viewfinders aren't a complete match with Leica's very complex VF, but they were parallax controlled, too, and good enough to get reliable in-focus images even with very fast glass in most settings.

Should you buy an M6, don't forget to check the shutter , using an UWA. There could be some surprises...One lower seal could be worn.
As to the M3, whatever came afterwards represented a decrease in quality!

 

[justaCanonuser]

You have mentioned the EF 400/4.5 a couple of times. I got intrigued a few months ago when one was on sale from WEX. It was priced too high at about £1500 or so. At 25+ years old and focus by wire with no recourse to repair, I passed it by. At £500, I might have bought one for fun. I would guess that at the sacrifice of 1.3 stops, the RF 100-500mm is clearly sharper, and I would further guess that the RF 200-800mm is far sharper at 700mm.

You mean the EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM . It is an old lens now, and if its AF drive fails, the lens is dead. In fact, my copy still works, after more than 30 years now. Currently I have not enough time but if I could get a broken copy with a still mechanically good mount, I may use it to replace the quite worn-off mount of my copy, also the hood of my copy isn't in a good shape anymore (but one could also use a soft hood).

What I like about this lens is that it fits very good in my hands (medium size, male), it is 3 kg only (like Sigma's later 500mm f/4.5 HSM non-VR lens, my wife has one), very rugged, and delivers very good image quality for its age. At f = 4.5 it gets a little bit soft in the edges, but that's not really disturbing as it is sharp enough in the center for very good results, and stopping down to f = 5.0 improves IQ in the corners already very substantially.

One downside is that the 1st gen. USM drive is a bit slow so if an object is moving fast towards the photographer, it cannot follow it. But even speedy birds like puffins are no problem if they fly in a more parallel direction, and overall this AF drive is fast enough for most typical settings when you are birding.

The other downside is the lack of IS since one has to get used to the more nervous image in the viewfinder. For me that was not problem because I used Canon's EF 400mm f/5.6 for some years before I got the 500mm lens, so I already had my learning curve behind me. For stills images, I never missed IS much, because with a camera attached, you have already close to 4 kg in your hands. So you have a good, passive "inertia" IS that allows you to use quite slow shutter speeds with good results, I managed to get sharp images down to about 1/200 s with no problems. Another plus for me is that you don't have to switch any IS mode between "standard" 3D IS and 2D IS for panning when you shoot BIF, what is required with more modern 500mm and 600mm primes.

If videography is more important for you, that picture changes, and the lack of IS turns out to be a real problem, because even on a solid tripod with a good head, in a bit more windy conditions the lens starts to vibrate, in particular if you have the long hood on it. So I often put my arms on the lens to dampen it. But for video, you already have the great RF 200-800mm available, and video requires slow shutter speeds anyway if you want to have a natural look with no "edgy" movements.

Another nice feature I discovered was that this vintage lens worked very well with Canon's 1.4x TC III attached on it, so this was often my standard combo giving me 700mm @ f/6.3. The result of many years is, that I now ordered a new 1.4x TC III because I noticed that the mount on the lens side of my old copy has also some play after many years use with the 4.5/500mm, and I do not want to destroy the mount of my new EF 600mm f/4 III.

Here is an example for BIF with a speedy bird I shot with that lens and my old 7D2 - it was no in-focus hit by accident, I have a lot of such sharp images (mostly with my 5D3, only 6 fps but an in-focus hit rate of 60-80 % with that lens):

 

[justaCanonuser]

Should you buy an M6, don't forget to check the shutter , using an UWA. There could be some surprises...One lower seal could be worn.
As to the M3, whatever came afterwards represented a decrease in quality!

Thank you, I'd only buy a CLA'd copy from a professional seller, like I always do with more expensive used gear. But I am quite happy with my Canon 7 series rangefinders, you get good copies for nearly nothing compared to Leicas. Plus, if I want a more modern look, I prefer my New Mamiya 6 medium format system anyway, and this camera has a big, very bright, very good VF that no 35mm camera really can match.

Edit: Canon's 7 rangefinders have also the advantage of a steel shutter. Even wrinkled ones because of not so sensitive use work with no problems. And the shutter noise has something addicting at least to me: it isn't disturbingly loud and sharp, it sounds more like the closing door of a luxury car.

 

[AlanF]

Thank you, I'd only buy a CLA'd copy from a professional seller, like I always do with more expensive used gear. But I am quite happy with my Canon 7 series rangefinders, you get good copies for nearly nothing compared to Leicas. Plus, if I want a more modern look, I prefer my New Mamiya 6 medium format system anyway, and this camera has a big, very bright, very good VF that no 35mm camera really can match.

Edit: Canon's 7 rangefinders have also the advantage of a steel shutter. Even wrinkled ones because of not so sensitive use work with no problems. And the shutter noise has something addicting at least to me: it isn't disturbingly loud and sharp, it sounds more like the closing door of a luxury car.

Thanks! And a very nice image to boot.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah, I thought about changing that, but figured that even you would manage to figure it out. I guess maybe not?

Obviously, you thought about changing it after I pointed out how asinine and irrelevant your statements were.

Many of us have figured out that you’re asinine and irrelevant.

Or you just prefer to be a dick?

Name calling, really? You’ve already clearly demonstrated that you’re puerile. Maybe you need to look the word up. It seems you feel compelled to keep confirming that. The (situationally modified) adage you should take to heart is, better keep silent and be thought a fool than put fingers to keyboard and remove all doubt.

Meanwhile, Canon will continue to indefinitely block the sale of 3rd party FF AF glass, to the detriment of their customers.

So detrimental that customers keep buying Canon cameras in numbers that enable them to continue strongly leading the market.

You are free to continue not buying their gear in protest, and you are free to continue complaining about it on the Internet. You are also free to piss into the wind, which has about the same level of effectiveness.

And I will continue to be amused by the likes of you trying to defend Canon's behavior.

I recommend you stop with the corporate bootlicking before the boot polish gives you cancer.

Repeating myself, but you perceive statements of fact as 'defending Canon' because you're on the offense against them, as ineffectual as that is. I've agreed that Canon is blocking 3rd parties from making FF AF lenses for RF. They make the cameras, they own the IP, they get to choose. It's business. I understand that, but to you it's personal. Attack and defense. It’s sad for you that reality interferes with your pathetic little world view, the one where your opinion matters at all.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You have reached a new low. Cancer kills millions of people each year.

Personally, I helped develop a breakthrough cancer therapy that has benefited millions of patients so far. I wonder what @mimbu has done to benefit society? Evidently he doesn't realize that by being an insulting buffoon on an Internet forum, he benefits no one...least of all himself.

 

[mimbu]

Many of us have figured out that you’re asinine and irrelevant.

Yet, you cannot resist replying. You're like some sort of bot. Push buttons, get reply. It's very entertaining, I must say.

Repeating myself, but you perceive statements of fact as 'defending Canon'

Your delusions of grandeur have become so strong that you think your opinions are somehow fact. Interesting.

I've agreed that Canon is blocking 3rd parties from making FF AF lenses for RF.

That's about all there is to say on the matter then.

 

[mimbu]

You have reached a new low. Cancer kills millions of people each year.

How is recommending he stop doing something that might cause cancer a new low? Seems like a positive to me.

 

[mimbu]

Personally, I helped develop a breakthrough cancer therapy that has benefited millions of patients so far.

I'd be curious how you define "helped". By being the janitor? It's a critical job to society in general but I think it might be a bit of a stretch to equate it to helping with a cancer treatment.

I wonder what @mimbu has done to benefit society? Evidently he doesn't realize that by being an insulting buffoon on an Internet forum, he benefits no one...least of all himself.

I volunteer at animal shelters and donate as much as I can. Honestly dealing with people like you makes me much more inclined to help mistreated animals than much of the human population.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's about all there is to say on the matter then.

I stated that before you replied that it was all about FF cameras. So clearly you felt differently prior to posting that drivel. It's almost like you felt compelled to argue the matter. Like you were unable to resist replying. Like some sort of bot...and it's obvious which sort.

I'd be curious how you define "helped". By being the janitor? It's a critical job to society in general but I think it might be a bit of a stretch to equate it to helping with a cancer treatment.

Yes, that was it. Always happy to put my PhD and decades of drug development experience to good use.

I volunteer at animal shelters and donate as much as I can.

It's good that you help out with small, local problems, and even better that you provide assistance to creatures with more maturity than you possess.