unfocused
EOS-1D X Mark III
Same as EF as far as I know: Buy our lenses. Not theirs.
Is SIGMA getting ready to announce their first RF mount lenses? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Look at the manufacture’s MTF curves. Sigma uses the same set of curves for Sony, Canon, and Nikon.Check DxOMark ranking. For any DSLR lens, Nikon version is always better than Canon version:
Lenses Database - DxOMark
www.dxomark.com
DXO rates lenses based on sensor performance
DXO scores are insanely biased and essentially jibberish. For example, the 50F1.8, canons cheapest lens, is rated higher than the 600F4, their most expensive lens.
Last edited:
After a Tamron 85mm didn't adapt to my Canon M5, I decided to start buying native Canon lenses as much as possible. When I put my Canon 85mm or the Canon M5, it works perfect, just like it does on my 5DS or my EOS R ...
As for Sigma, not only are they 3rd party, but I thought it was sort of budget design the way their latest lenses skip IS in most everything. But the fact that my Canon lenses are working with all my Canon bodies is most important right now.
As for Sigma, not only are they 3rd party, but I thought it was sort of budget design the way their latest lenses skip IS in most everything. But the fact that my Canon lenses are working with all my Canon bodies is most important right now.
I think they can use the old protocol and just change the lens mount for a lens with a similar back focus figure.
The EF Sigma lenses generally focus well when adapted to the R.
I’m a little confused by the comments on Sigma not producing lenses with IS. At the time of release, nearly all of their zooms and Macros with exception of ultra wide, have IS. Even their 24-70 2.8 has IS compared to Canon’s non IS offering.
As far as all the primes go in the ART series, what equivalent lenses did Canon have with IS at the time those lenses came out?
It seems to me the market Sigma was aiming to get were those of us who are looking for exceptionally sharp and well built lenses that rival Canons L lenses but at a fraction of the price. In that Regard, Sigma really outdid themselves.
I guarantee they took a big chunk out of Canon’s L lens sales with the ART line.
We’ll see how long that will last as we slowly move towards mirrorless. It seems Sigma is going to have to make some hard decisions about how to stay competitive long term.
As far as all the primes go in the ART series, what equivalent lenses did Canon have with IS at the time those lenses came out?
It seems to me the market Sigma was aiming to get were those of us who are looking for exceptionally sharp and well built lenses that rival Canons L lenses but at a fraction of the price. In that Regard, Sigma really outdid themselves.
I guarantee they took a big chunk out of Canon’s L lens sales with the ART line.
We’ll see how long that will last as we slowly move towards mirrorless. It seems Sigma is going to have to make some hard decisions about how to stay competitive long term.
do not expect IS in these shorter focal lengths especially as most mirrorless brands already have IBIS. and historically, its canon that's been milking customers several times over with several iterations of the same lenses (just how many variations of 70-200 does canon have???).
i will hold my breath. sigma will most likely announce their RF counterparts in the far far future. reverse engineering is a very difficult challenge. even until now, sigma has not yet perfected their AFs for EF and F mounts. and is the market demand for RF enough to sustain their development costs?
Exactly. Tamron 45mm and 100-400mm VC worked on my EOS R but AF is very slow and sometimes they refuse to AF (in this case I have to play with focus ring to bring the focus close to my subject, then AF works). I haven't tried any Sigma lens yet though.
i see no reason to worry at all about Canon RF mount. don't see anything that would keep it from commanding 50%+ market share, just like EF did.
as soon as new tilt-shift lenses for mirrorless FF are launched, the wheat (RF, Z) will quickly separate from the chaff (E).
only new mount i'd not invest in is L. technically ok, but nowhere near enough market potential. Sigma does pour money into L, but i don't think they'll ever recoup it, much less make any profits. same as with their cameras. rather erratic decisions by their owner-CEO.
Last edited:
Big misconception. The larger mount gives more freedom when concerning the various design parameters. It doesn't necessarily mean that the customers will see it or that the RF version will be better than the FE version.
For example. All things the same in terms of performance, the RF should be (potentially) cheaper. However, it makes a little to no sense for sigma to go with multiple optical designs unless they have to. So you may very well get a lens that is designed for the RF flange distance while keeping FE in mind. That way they can end up with lenses for two mounts following the same optical formulas. Such a lens will not take full advantage of the shorter flange distance of the FE, nor would it take full advantage of the canon mount diameter.
Maybe they design a lens with that sort of similar RF 35 design, where the back element protrudes into the mount. While at the same time be flush with the FE mount interface. That element would have to fit sony's mount diameter and keep FE performance in mind. But as mentioned before, this would mean not taking advantage of the RF mount diameter.
But we will see. If it is cheaper to make/design for canon, then sigma may very well go with two different designs. Perhaps design wise it is just tweaking the design from one mount to another.
They might have figured out how the EF-RF adapter signals the camera an EF lens is mounted, so it would fall back to EF protocol. From there, it's just using their EF implementation + adding the appropriate length to the barrel.
That means Canon it’s own lenses will be superior than same-formula-multi-mount lens providers like Sigma, Zeiss, etc. if RF Mount really has advantage over, saying E mount.
We will see.
D
Deleted member 68328
Guest
Would a SIGMA 12-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM specifically designed for mirrorless systems have a front filter thread? Or would that also be a bulbous lens?
Everyone company and i mean EVERYBODY has IBIS except canon , so IS in lenses can go on the backburner except for canon users to this date. SOny, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, and even Nikon have IBIS. Canon is just beating around the bush as usual waiting for us to buy all the cameras up before giving us more convenient tech. It's actually insane how they treat their customers when they have all that money
.
.
In-lens IS is essential for telephoto lenses, and so Olympus, Panasonic etc have added in-lens IS to their telephotos (Olympus 300 f/4, Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm etc).
true btu witrh sigma. their most popular lenses or popular lens in general arent telephotos unless you count the 135mm
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
