The big question about that particular lens, which is typical for Sigma…is it sharp at its longest focal length? Does it suffer from horrendous flare and focal breathing and what’s it like with tele converters?
Why? I honestly don’t get comments like that. Except from trolls, or people with zero business acumen. Why lie when you can just leave it at ‘no comment’ (which was the main answer anyway). It could easily be true that the lack of 3rd party FF autofocus lenses is the choice of the 3rd parties, technically…Canon sets the terms, and if they don’t want such lenses made they just need to set terms to make it undesirable. 3rd parties won’t make the lenses if Canon’s licensing fee makes them unprofitable. It’s not personal, it’s business.
You mean R6 III.
Would be a fine lens reaching the outer limits of ultra wide lenses and is 32 ... 112 equiv on APS-C which is a very usable range for my use cases.
Please note that 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, 3rd party lens manufacturers face no additional 'technical' difficulty for FF autofocus compared to RF-S (APS-C) autofocus. Actually, there are already several 3rd party autofocus RF-S lenses available, e.g. Sigma 15mm f/1.4 DC, but no FF autofocus.
I know. I think you misunderstood my point, which was ‘technically’ in the sense of a technicality. I wrote in response to a claim that Canon was lying. If Canon sets license terms that effectively make it unprofitable for a 3rd party to make a certain lens, then when the 3rd party doesn’t make that lens, Canon can truthfully say it’s the 3rd party’s choice to not make the lens…and be technically correct.
Sure. Well, it’s not libel but only because you’re irrelevant to Canon and thus incapable of causing them harm.
I somewhat agree. However, judging from Sigma's lens mount conversion service, the additional effort and cost to port their existing FF lenses to Canon RF is pretty trivial. As I recall, they quoted me about $250 per lens to convert two lenses from EF-M to RF and that included removing old parts and putting in new replacement parts. How much more could it cost to make all their existing FF lens in RF mount also? I don't know exactly why Sigma doesn't do it but Canon saying/implying that it's all Sigma's and Tamron's fault just seems like manipulative BS. Craig may be right that Sigma doesn't have the factory capacity now but I think Sigma would somehow make it work even if it means adding onto their factory and hiring more people.
Personally, for the purposes for which fast primes are made, I am okay with the RF 45mm's performance. It delivers decent sharpness where it’s crucial, as well as an amount of bokeh that is otherwise hard to obtain. For me, though, 45mm is not the focal length I prefer. I would be happy to see something three times longer; just as the 45mm is a 'reimagined' EF 50mm f/1.2L, an RF 135mm f/2 STM would be sweet as a modernization of the EF 135mm f/2L. With more plastic in the construction, modern coatings, and an STM motor, a price point around €1,000 would be perfect.I’d very happily welcome a budget RF 28mm f/1.4 STM, it would be a perfect sister to the 45mm f/1.2.
I know you like your old-ish lenses, but you should inform yourself about Sigma lenses... they've come a long way since a decade ago.
Agreed
Agreed
Canon haven't been 100% honest in the past though - same as Sony with the A mount, they kept making noises about the M mount not being dead well after the decision had been taken to kill it. They will say whatever they think we want to hear and honesty and candor are not a priority. Like any other corporation.
