How To Fix Weird Visual Behaviour When Pairing the EOS-1D X Mark II & Sigma Lenses

[tron]

To their discredit I was declined support for my old EOS compatible AF Sigma 14mm.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

If Canon would offer lenses with all specifications and quality that third parties have to offer, I wouldn't complain, but unfortunately they do.

Looking forward for that list of specs and qualities canon does not offer in their lens line-up...

Um, f/2.8 wide angle zoom with image stabilization? Fast 85mm prime with image stabilization?

Of course I have the freedom to choose RAW, a lot of professionals have customers demanding jpegs straight out of the camera :/

Who is the pro here? The customer or the photographer? I also don't tell my carpenter to use the tree that he just yesterday chopped off...

Well, the pro obviously isn't you. Many clients have good reasons for needing immediate jpegs. Don't criticize people if you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

To their discredit I was declined support for my old EOS compatible AF Sigma 14mm.

I had five Sigma EOS compatible lenses, only one could be upgraded to work with Canon DSLR's, and the charged me over $100 to do that. The others still worked, but only for older Canon film bodies.

I also had a 28mm f/2.8 rebranded Sigma, (Quantaray). No luck and no upgrade. It came with a used film camera, so it cost me nothing.

If I purchase a new car, the manufacturer does not guarantee that it will work with Weathertech floor mats, its up to the accessory maker to assure they fit. Same for radios or any accessory. I have a hard time trying to figure out why Canon would be responsible to make their camera work with every poorly engineered accessory in the past, and the future. New model cameras are actually designed in the past, at least two years. So expecting it to work on a new 3rd party lens is a bit of a stretch, since no one new of that lens when the camera was designed.

 

[Besisika]

Of course I have the freedom to choose RAW, a lot of professionals have customers demanding jpegs straight out of the camera :/

Who is the pro here? The customer or the photographer? I also don't tell my carpenter to use the tree that he just yesterday chopped off...

Of course the customer is the pro. Don't do what they ask you to do and soon enough you will be out of profession.
Major sport events require you to shoot in JPEG at the max resolution of your camera only. For the ones I do, I can see my photos only on the back of my camera, and as soon as I am done someone takes my card away, I use a back up until I get that one back, returned formatted.
He is not talking about wedding or model photo-shoot here.

 

[ritholtz]

On top of that old Canon lens seem to be working without any issues.

 

[jebrady03]

Also... if that's an actual representation of the issue, it looks like it could have some actual usage for certain types of images. Kind of neat

 

[koenkooi]

Of course I have the freedom to choose RAW, a lot of professionals have customers demanding jpegs straight out of the camera :/

Who is the pro here? The customer or the photographer? I also don't tell my carpenter to use the tree that he just yesterday chopped off...

I might be misremembering, but Scott Kelby says he's jpeg only for sports shoots due to customer demands. There was also a big outrage on the internet about reuters a while back, but I think that turned out to be more nuanced than the internet could handle in the end.

 

[Mikehit]

I might be misremembering, but Scott Kelby says he's jpeg only for sports shoots due to customer demands. There was also a big outrage on the internet about reuters a while back, but I think that turned out to be more nuanced than the internet could handle in the end.

That is what i remember as well. But he isn't the only one and it isn't limited to sports - events journalists in general are turning to jpeg only where they are providing images for online news agencies. It is so competitive it is less about absolute image quality and more about who can get their images to the editor's desk as quickly as possible: when using wifi raw files take far longer to transfer than jpeg and raw files need processing.

Shot to global distribution in 90 seconds:
http://gizmodo.com/the-inside-story-of-how-olympic-photographers-capture-s-1521746623

 

[tron]

To their discredit I was declined support for my old EOS compatible AF Sigma 14mm.

I had five Sigma EOS compatible lenses, only one could be upgraded to work with Canon DSLR's, and the charged me over $100 to do that. The others still worked, but only for older Canon film bodies.

I also had a 28mm f/2.8 rebranded Sigma, (Quantaray). No luck and no upgrade. It came with a used film camera, so it cost me nothing.

If I purchase a new car, the manufacturer does not guarantee that it will work with Weathertech floor mats, its up to the accessory maker to assure they fit. Same for radios or any accessory. I have a hard time trying to figure out why Canon would be responsible to make their camera work with every poorly engineered accessory in the past, and the future. New model cameras are actually designed in the past, at least two years. So expecting it to work on a new 3rd party lens is a bit of a stretch, since no one new of that lens when the camera was designed.

Sorry but this is not a valid comparison:

1. Canon "cars" err old (and some excellent) lenses I mean would still work though!
2. If you read my post you will notice that the specific (Tokina) lens didn't work even with 1996's EOS50E (the lens was bought in 1993!). It's a shame!
3. You are right about knowledge. One more reason (for me) to ignore 3rd party lenses (although with firmare updates they do have some hope to last longer).

 

[tphillips63]

I simply avoid the issue by only using Canon lenses.
I know other brands try to make compatibility but for me the focus issues of 'working' lenses are enough to not take a chance, ever. No amount of marketing would get me to change my mind.
I would use a different brand manual focus lens though.

 

[Rudeofus]

Not necessarily. Doesn't sound like the tinkerers attempted to figure out which Canon lenses no longer functioned if they received code 16 instead of 17.

Since all Canon cameras prior to 10D sent command '16' instead of command '17', and since all Canon lenses worked (and still work) with these older Canon camera bodies, we can safely assume that Canon lenses handled command '16' and command '17' as the same thing. Canon lenses probably didn't check the least significant bit when decoding this one. Sigma falsely assumed that command '17' would not be issued and therefore their lenses failed to work with Canon camera bodies since 10D.

Note, that while Canon's sleezy move from command '16' to command '17' may have been aimed at 'traitors who bought non-Canon glass', it at the same time hurt loyal Canon customers, particularly those who already had a Canon camera and then upgraded to a newer Canon body.

To their discredit I was declined support for my old EOS compatible AF Sigma 14mm.

I had five Sigma EOS compatible lenses, only one could be upgraded to work with Canon DSLR's, and the charged me over $100 to do that. The others still worked, but only for older Canon film bodies.

A number of unfortunate facts came together:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Flash memory was considerably more expensive than one time programmable memory. Changing firmware of an existing device meant replacing the memory chip holding the firmware. Since Sigma operated mostly in the low cost segment these days, their lenses had to be "rechipped" in order to make them work with newer Canon camera bodies. Obviously this is no longer an issue with more recent lenses, and every lens today can be firmware updated, as long as the vendor supplies updates.
[*]ROHS was introduced in this time frame, which made it illegal to sell electronics soldered with lead solder. Sigma would have had to gut out the entire electronics of their old lenses and replace them with lead free soldered ones. In most cases such a repair would have been much more expensive than buying a new lens.
[*]Sigma decided to throw their customer base under the bus when Canon screwed them over with the new lens protocol. Sigma could have offered new lenses to replace old, now dysfunctional ones at great discount, they could have done something to make their customer base happy, but they decided not to spend money on this and rather sit out the crisis. This decision hopefully cost them a great deal of money in the long run, and their reputation rightfully still suffers badly from this very bad decision they made in 2003.
[/list]

So to sum it up: Canon chose the perfect time frame to strike at all existing Sigma lens owners, and Sigma was cheap, dumb and greedy enough to turn a modest crisis into a huge reputational disaster.

 

[wallstreetoneil]

I own a 1Dx II and also the Tamron 45 & 85 - all three of the new Tamrons are affected - turn off the peripheril illum corr and it is all fixed - not a big deal.

 

[NaturaLight]

I use a Sigma 24-105 and 150 - 600 with that body. No issues at all, no matter what those settings.

 

[ashmadux]

I might be misremembering, but Scott Kelby says he's jpeg only for sports shoots due to customer demands. There was also a big outrage on the internet about reuters a while back, but I think that turned out to be more nuanced than the internet could handle in the end.

That is what i remember as well. But he isn't the only one and it isn't limited to sports - events journalists in general are turning to jpeg only where they are providing images for online news agencies. It is so competitive it is less about absolute image quality and more about who can get their images to the editor's desk as quickly as possible: when using wifi raw files take far longer to transfer than jpeg and raw files need processing.

Shot to global distribution in 90 seconds:
http://gizmodo.com/the-inside-story-of-how-olympic-photographers-capture-s-1521746623

Quoted for truth. I covered this past fashion week for a LARGE entertainment site, and it was jpeg only (thank god- and the jpegs from 5d3 look AWESOME). Im pretty sure that their editorial department wouldn't have a single person to handle raw files anyways.

Even with jpg only, I was sending 8gb of files every night- there is no upload service or connection outside of t1 lines I can think of that would be able to handle the raw equivalent of those file sizes to get over to the client 'fast'. In fact, it is something I'm researching at the moment, as my home cable line is upload-limited, and thankfully I was able to use my 4x faster t-mobile phone as a modem - sending two huge zip files at a time from both connections.

I actually never shot jpeg at all before this client work, however now i always shoot in raw+jpeg after that experience.

 

[TommyLee]

my tamron 15-30 works 100% on 5d3...
my Tamron lens is one of the earliest ones..
on the 1dx2 the 15-30 did not do live view or video but worked great as slr mode...
I will get it back from its update tuesday may31st
...

we will see...

I may have had the perif setting on on 1dx2...not sure... but now we can know....

thats the nature of the 3rd part stuff ..at the moment...

I will add BACK to this thread...results...
...if it still here after I get my updated lens next week....