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

[roby17269]

DPR has interviewed Sigma's CEO
Sigma Interview

FWIW, here is a quote which is relevant to this discussion:

He says full‑frame still has the highest demand, which means it has to be Sigma's priority for now. But he still sees the value in APS‑C, and that opinion goes beyond the fact that Nikon and Canon have primarily allowed APS-C lenses from third-parties

He then goes on extolling the benefits of crop cameras.

 

[DocInfoSci]

It would be nice to see Canon focus on top-tier gear and essential (if it's not there, why bother with the body) lenses. Canon can produce the best of the best for L, and the most pragmatic for entry cameras (~ 15mm -> 200mm).

Third party could be permitted, within certain quality parameters so as not to tarnisht he brand, mid-tier bridging the gap. A perfect example is Sigma's 300-600 f/4 — solid for prosumers, but likely Canon's 300-600 will be the lighter and better refined money maker pro's need.

Or if Canon's specialty is transitioning to prime-like zooms (increasingly since the EF 11-24, it appears so) then let the third parties tick all the major boxes with mid-grade primes (24, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500).

I'm sure the worlds can coexist to make the best combination of tier coverage, quality, profitability, and corporate resources split among R&D / manufacturing / marketing / support.

But, not holding my breath.

 

[DocInfoSci]

DPR has interviewed Sigma's CEO [...] He then goes on extolling the benefits of crop cameras.

But of course, that's where all of the Sigma RF lenses are at the moment.

 

[roby17269]

Third party could be permitted, within certain quality parameters so as not to tarnisht he brand, mid-tier bridging the gap. A perfect example is Sigma's 300-600 f/4 — solid for prosumers, but likely Canon's 300-600 will be the lighter and better refined money maker pro's need.

I'd argue that Sigma's 300-600 f/4, and specifically its price point, is one of the reasons Canon does not want to open RF FF AF to 3rd parties.
The RF 300-600 f/5.6 (?), assuming it will materialize as rumored, will likely cost double, more or less, than Sigma lens. Actually well-heeled prosumers (i.e. us ) are more likely to go for the RF native lens - pro photographers are more sensitive to money and would give Sigma's a long look. That lens is a competitor to a number of big whites.

But, not holding my breath.

Yeah, me neither

 

[DocInfoSci]

I'd argue that Sigma's 300-600 f/4, and specifically its price point, is one of the reasons Canon does not want to open RF FF AF to 3rd parties.

I do worry that's the case. I like Canon gear at the L tier and I own a bunch of it, but I just don't see myself and a variety of others ever spending $10k+ in today's dollars on a single lens. There are simply other life priorities of equal pleasure and competitive expense.

But do I want a nice, more-or-less sealed 300-600 with constant aperture? Oh yeah. So, I admit, Canon would technically lose my dollars to Sigma. OTOH, they're not getting my dollars for that lens anyhow, but at least they sold the body to me.

Actually well-heeled prosumers are more likely to go for the RF native lens - pro photographers are more sensitive to money and would give Sigma's a long look. That lens is a competitor to a number of big whites.

Interesting. I don't know enough pros personally to make a call, but I do understand business and business decisions.

Myself, I've stuck with the still great yet cheaper EF lenses at this time. But, the truth is that the driving factors are:

1. I already had EF lenses when RF came out and I prefer to expand capability rather than replace capability, so there was inertia.
2. The initial RF lenses that I tried all sucked when it came to full time manual focus override in servo. Af is great on the R6, but it isn't that great. The one R3 I've seen in the field still gets tricked as well. Plus, some of the lenses seem to shift focus backward when acquiring it suddenly, like when an animal appears suddenly in the frame. A lot of that seems to be fixed now by hearsay on this forum and a few personal trials of a limited nature, but again... inertia.

So cheaper is probably a pleasant coincidence more than anything else. And that really depends on the lens: some RF lenses are quite competitively priced with their EF counterparts.

I'm happy to sacrifice some aperture, critical sharpness, edge-to-edge matching sharpness, weight, or wall-to-wall sealing for 1/2 to 2/3rds the price. I don't know if I'd ultimately go with a Sigma 300-600 f/4 vs Canon's, but for the price I'd sure as heck borrow one to find out.

I'd love to see Canon or third parties recreate the spirit of the EF 300mm f/4 IS and EF 400mm f/5.6 in the modern era. Something like a silver-ring set of 300mm, 400mm, 500mm f/5.6 primes to go with the 200-800 in terms of sealing, sharpness, quality, and cost — as an example, pencil in other wishes as appropriate. If Canon does this and excludes Sigma, fine. If Canon cannot get around to it, then I'm happy for Sigma (or Fred, or Sally, or...) do something similar.

I know, I know... all beaten to death. Just daydreaming while waiting for a process to finish...

Yeah, me neither

My whisky is tipped in your direction

 

[roby17269]

But do I want a nice, more-or-less sealed 300-600 with constant aperture? Oh yeah. So, I admit, Canon would technically lose my dollars to Sigma. OTOH, they're not getting my dollars for that lens anyhow, but at least they sold the body to me.

Better than nothing! But we've been told many times that for manufacturers there is more money in the lenses than in the cameras

Interesting. I don't know enough pros personally to make a call, but I do understand business and business decisions.

I know a few pros in the fashion photography turf (my passion) and I'm a nobody and some of them have spreads on Vogue / Harper Bazaar / Numero, etc.... but my toys beat theirs all the time.
Clearly they are more talented than me But to the point, they treat camera / lenses / lights as tools for their work. For me they are tools for my hobby. Those tools need to make money for them, while they need to make joy for me. Different phylosophies.

I'm happy to sacrifice some aperture, critical sharpness, edge-to-edge matching sharpness, weight, or wall-to-wall sealing for 1/2 to 2/3rds the price. I don't know if I'd ultimately go with a Sigma 300-600 f/4 vs Canon's, but for the price I'd sure as heck borrow one to find out.

I'd love to see Canon or third parties recreate the spirit of the EF 300mm f/4 IS and EF 400mm f/5.6 in the modern era. Something like a silver-ring set of 300mm, 400mm, 500mm f/5.6 primes to go with the 200-800 in terms of sealing, sharpness, quality, and cost — as an example, pencil in other wishes as appropriate. If Canon does this and excludes Sigma, fine. If Canon cannot get around to it, then I'm happy for Sigma (or Fred, or Sally, or...) do something similar.

I know, I know... all beaten to death. Just daydreaming while waiting for a process to finish...

I'm actually not on the market for a long exotic tele... love them but I've only rented them for safari so far.
But I'd like a 35 1.2 thank you very much
Sigma and Nikon make one.
Sigma's new 135mm and 200mm are interesting to me as well.

My whisky is tipped in your direction

I'm more of a wine / Aperol Spritz type of guy but I'd drink with you

 

[DocInfoSci]

Better than nothing! But we've been told many times that for manufacturers there is more money in the lenses than in the cameras

The Champaign of printer ink in the modern era!

I know a few pros in the fashion photography turf (my passion) and I'm a nobody and some of them have spreads on Vogue / Harper Bazaar / Numero, etc.... but my toys beat theirs all the time.

Very cool!

Clearly they are more talented than me But to the point, they treat camera / lenses / lights as tools for their work. For me they are tools for my hobby. Those tools need to make money for them, while they need to make joy for me. Different phylosophies.

Talent is on a multi-point scale — I'd be surprised if most people here can't knock something epic out of the park in the right context. But I hear you, and the time I invest vs. some people I know shows in the final work, and so I regularly stand humbled.

OTOH, I'm not above buying lunch to pick their brain!

I'm actually not on the market for a long exotic tele... love them but I've only rented them for safari so far.
But I'd like a 35 1.2 thank you very much
Sigma and Nikon make one.
Sigma's new 135mm and 200mm are interesting to me as well.

I love my 24 / 50 / 100 combo for people in all manners of situations, and the Godox AD400 is excellent for outdoors or rustic locations. I'd love to add a great 35 to the collection, but for the cash Canon charges for modern 35s I think I need to shore up my > 400 range. My 300 + 1.4x extender + DLO is absolutely solid for lots of stuff in motion and makes a great base to start edits from, but the 2x extender is just OK and the AF is slow. Good for deer and birdhouses, but not for things moving at a pace when combined with EVF blackout.

Decisions, decisions...

I'm more of a wine / Aperol Spritz type of guy but I'd drink with you

Haha! That would be awesome.

 

[roby17269]

Talent is on a multi-point scale — I'd be surprised if most people here can't knock something epic out of the park in the right context. But I hear you, and the time I invest vs. some people I know shows in the final work, and so I regularly stand humbled.

It's quite nuanced in fashion photography... a lot depends on the quality of the team (models, stylists etc.): it's very much a team effort, while other types of photography tend to be much more individual - I've found that access to better models (say) is more important than many other factors.

Also other types of toys (lights and modifiers) can be more important than cameras and lenses.

I am not saying that the photographer's skills / artistic vision do not matter, they do. A lot. But networking and other "soft" skills count almost as much.

Haha! That would be awesome.

Let me know if you happen to pass by Jersey City / NYC

 

[DocInfoSci]

It's quite nuanced in fashion photography... a lot depends on the quality of the team (models, stylists etc.): it's very much a team effort, while other types of photography tend to be much more individual - I've found that access to better models (say) is more important than many other factors.

My kiddo was the topic of interest for far-flung parents, but a cooperative model she was not! But the face pics do reflect an honesty of the moment.

Also other types of toys (lights and modifiers) can be more important than cameras and lenses.

Very true!

I am not saying that the photographer's skills / artistic vision do not matter, they do. A lot. But networking and other "soft" skills count almost as much.

Makes sense. To the chagrin of many would-be employees we interview as much for soft skills as we do technical.

Let me know if you happen to pass by Jersey City / NYC

Will do! We have a client with a branch in the region, so when it comes time I’ll shout out.

 

[roby17269]

My kiddo was the topic of interest for far-flung parents, but a cooperative model she was not! But the face pics do reflect an honesty of the moment.

My daughter goes thru phases... sometimes she wants me taking photos of her, sometimes she loathes it.
Most kids are not models and don't know how to pose / emote.
That's why I much prefer taking photos from a distance when she is playing with friends (like at a bday party): you get the best happy / intense expressions and I've taken a lot of great portraits of her that way. All natural light, no flashes and no photoshop.
It's very very different from fashion / beauty photography... but I cannot deny that having learnt how to take photos of people for fashion has helped me taking photos of kids

Makes sense. To the chagrin of many would-be employees we interview as much for soft skills as we do technical.

I interview quite a bit of candidates for the bank and so true it's difficult to find people that have both sides

Will do! We have a client with a branch in the region, so when it comes time I’ll shout out.

 

[GirlsAreBeautiful]

Better than nothing! But we've been told many times that for manufacturers there is more money in the lenses than in the cameras

Pretty clearly. Lenses prices are outrageous and building a camera seems like hell in comparison.