EOS 5D Mark IV Compatibility Warning from Sigma

[mpollock]

At Photokina I found out I have to send in some of my Tamron lenses (who don't work anymore with the 5D4 and 1DX2) so they can get a new firmware. Canon is trying hard to change protocols so third party manufacturers look bad - who in many cases now have better products or lenses with specs Canon doesn't offer. Thanks Canon.

Hi,
The problem with this theory is that old Canon lens still works on new Canon camera and new Canon lens still works on old Canon camera.

Have a nice day.

Interesting observation that new Canon lenses work with old cameras and old lenses work with new cameras - but not particularly relevant. For most lenses the camera body can query for identity. If a camera manufacturer were so inclined they would just need to put a line in the firmware such as

If (lens not made by Canon) then (do something subtly nefarious to cause problems with image)

As a software engineer I write code like this all the time - not for nefarious purposes, but to tailor software behavior to particular hardware configurations. In my opinion though, if 'foreign' lenses that I own stop working with Canon bodies, it makes it more likely that I will switch to another brand of camera body. I have multiple thousands of dollars invested in high-quality third party lenses, most of which offer features that Canon doesn't. If my lenses suddenly stopped working with my camera body I would no longer have a financial reason to stick with Canon since I would need to replace my lenses regardless of which camera body I chose.

 

[mpollock]

At Photokina I found out I have to send in some of my Tamron lenses (who don't work anymore with the 5D4 and 1DX2) so they can get a new firmware. Canon is trying hard to change protocols so third party manufacturers look bad - who in many cases now have better products or lenses with specs Canon doesn't offer. Thanks Canon.

Hi,

Have a nice day.

Of course any 1st party product must work. I work for xbox. Any new accessory must work with any old console, and any new console must work with any old accessory. Normal business. We even try to make sure all 3rd parties work too, but 1st party products are priority of course.

Seems to me the real problem here is that Canon is applying lens corrections to an image for some lens other than what is attached to the camera. OK, they probably don't have correction info for Sigma lenses and even if they did I wouldn't expect Canon to apply them. But to modify images incorrectly seems to me to border on malicious. As a software engineer looking as some of the things Canon engineers do in firmware, I can assure you it's not due to incompetence on the part of Canon engineers that this image modification is happening.

 

[mpollock]

So I wonder at what point you can make an anti-trust case against Canon?

In this case you cannot file an antitrust lawsuit or one for fair trade with FTC. 3rd party manufacturers by reverse engineering are basically infringing on patents that Canon/Nikon or any other camera manufacturer had filed. So if anyone wants to file a lawsuit it would be Canon who might drag Sigma to court over infringement.

Third party lensmakers aren't reverse-engineering Canon lenses - they are reverse engineering the communication API between the lens and the camera because Canon won't divulge it. There are numerous instances of anti-trust wins where a manufacturer of a device refuses to divulge API's to peripheral devices due to this lack of transparency.

 

[Mikehit]

But to modify images incorrectly seems to me to border on malicious.

What do you mean by 'modify images incorrectly'? By using the word 'malicious' You seem to be suggesting that the Canon software is (at worst) saying 'Here is a sigma lens, boys. Let's screw it up' or (at best) 'I know this is not a Canon lens but let's mess with it anyway'. Why does Canon have any responsibility to say 'This is not a Canon lens so let's do something different' - you may want them to, there is even merit to saying it may benefit them to draw in users of 3rd party lenses, but that is quite different to suggesting they are screwing things up on purpose 'maliciously'.
Maybe Sigma is not feeding the camera the right information for the camera to act in the right way, and that would be Sigma's responsibility. Maybe Sigma are selling you gear that is not compatible with the equipment it claims to be compatible with - and maybe that is what you should be hacked off about.
As I read it, Canon spend time and resource developing a product, you want to deprive Canon of the income to maintain that development yet demand they spend even more time and resource to give the same image quality to someone actively reducing their profits.

Be thankful. In some consumer products your warranty can be invalidated by even trying to use third party parts. Yet CaNikon are quite happy to support cameras where people use third party lenses.

 

[Loswr]

Seems to me the real problem here is that Canon is applying lens corrections to an image for some lens other than what is attached to the camera. OK, they probably don't have correction info for Sigma lenses and even if they did I wouldn't expect Canon to apply them. But to modify images incorrectly seems to me to border on malicious. As a software engineer looking as some of the things Canon engineers do in firmware, I can assure you it's not due to incompetence on the part of Canon engineers that this image modification is happening.

3rd party lenses must use a Canon LensID to function with the camera, and sometimes that has unintended effects on the lens performance. The point is that while Canon can and should provide reasonable efforts to ensure forward and backward compatibility with their own products, they are under no obligation to undertake similar efforts to support 3rd party products. So, by purchasing 3rd party products you are taking on the risk that they will, at some point, cease to function properly with a newer camera. In some cases, the 3rd party vendor can modify the lens (kudos to Sigma for putting that in the hands of the users, vs. having to send a Tamron lens in for service).

I will note that sometimes Canon bodies lose full compatibilty with old lenses, as is the case for the peripheral cross-type AF points on the 40-60D and 7D which act as only single-orientation points with several Canon old lenses, all long-discontinued. However, since Tamron 'borrowed' the LensIDs for some of those old Canon lenses for several of their current lenses (including the popular 17-50/2.8 non-VC) those lenses were also affected.

The only 'problem' that I see here is that you are ascribing malicious intent on the part of Canon, with apparently no evidence that such intent exists. Do you have such evidence?

 

[gmon750]

This is precisely why I don't buy 3rd-party lenses. I just don't get the ignorance of the people fabricating conspiracy theories or accusing Canon of purposely changing the algorithms just to brick the lenses. It's downright stupid.

It's not Canon's responsibility to verify 3rd-party lenses with work. What WILL happen is someone blaming Canon when their cheap Tamron/Sigma lens stops working on a given camera.

You want to save a few bucks, go right ahead. My time is worth more than dealing with the headaches that 3rd-party lenses have from time-to-time. Just don't go complaining to Canon when they improve their products and leaving you in the dust.

 

[Zv]

Fantasy boardroom meeting at Canon: "Right guys we need to ensure EVERY 3rd party lens ever made plus lenses that will be made in future will work 100% with this brand new 5DIV. Let's redirect some time and resources to solve this pressing issue!."

Reality check - yeah that's not gonna happen. They're busy making sure their own stuff works properly first. Not that they don't give a toss about 3rd party. You still need a Canon body to operate that 3rd party lens, right? So why would Canon go about sabotaging their own equipment? And it's not like Canon is gonna hand over the keys to the AF kingdom either.

 

[pixel8foto]

FWIW my Sigma 24, 35 and 50 1.4 Art lenses work just the same on my 5D4 & 1DXii as they did on my 5D3 and 1DX mk1. I don't use any in-camera processing. In a quick test, the same seems to be the case for my Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC and 150-600 mk1.

 

[AlanF]

My Sigma 150-600mm C works perfectly with my 5DIV. But, then 3rd party software doesn't always on my Mac.

 

[Jack Douglas]

This is precisely why I don't buy 3rd-party lenses. I just don't get the ignorance of the people fabricating conspiracy theories or accusing Canon of purposely changing the algorithms just to brick the lenses. It's downright stupid.

It's not Canon's responsibility to verify 3rd-party lenses with work. What WILL happen is someone blaming Canon when their cheap Tamron/Sigma lens stops working on a given camera.

You want to save a few bucks, go right ahead. My time is worth more than dealing with the headaches that 3rd-party lenses have from time-to-time. Just don't go complaining to Canon when they improve their products and leaving you in the dust.

Exactly. It's a personal choice to save money however you choose and it's personal responsibility to accept that there is a risk and behave like an adult when things go awry. This has nothing to do with Canon.

Where I have a little sympathy is the historic perspective of the 70's when a lens was hardware only. These companies had only to worry about their optics and mechanical mount etc. and they entered the market with that expectation and now life is more challenging. I commend them for persisting and competing but that doesn't change my initial statement.

Jack

 

[Josh Denver]

Canon in-camera lens corrections require knowing the lens defects in order to correct it! They take a long long time correcting sll Canon EF lenses, but they will never do that for third party lenses, or even be able to.

It's a pretty simple issue. You turn vigenette correction ON and the body asks what's the lens? How much should I correct? Lens says I don't know, I am an un-identified third party lens that was not added to the correction information list. Issue happens.

Easiest way out is obviously turn it off. But you lose the benefit of having the new Canon feature if you want it.

Again, no conspiracy theories. If Canon wanted to hurt the use of Sigma lenses on Canon bodies, there would have been zero Sigma lenses working on Canon bodies. In fact, there probably there would have been zero Sigma EF lenses in existence.

 

[Antono Refa]

Seems to me the real problem here is that Canon is applying lens corrections to an image for some lens other than what is attached to the camera. OK, they probably don't have correction info for Sigma lenses and even if they did I wouldn't expect Canon to apply them. But to modify images incorrectly seems to me to border on malicious. As a software engineer looking as some of the things Canon engineers do in firmware, I can assure you it's not due to incompetence on the part of Canon engineers that this image modification is happening.

Sigma lenses identify themselves to the camera as if they were a similar Canon lens in order to get it working. I don't think Canon should go the extra mile to identify that the lens is actually a Sigma pretending to be a Canon and turn off lens correction.