SIGMA and Tamron discontinue most of their DSLR lenses

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
Yes - but that is the answer at a theoretical level. At a practical level, the next question is whether or not it is actually possible to make an RF lens without violating Canon's patents. It seems to be possible for a fully manual lens (based on the fact various manual RF lenses seem to be staying on the market). For a lens with AF or other electronics though, it may or may not be (I certainly don't know), but it seems no one has managed to find a way to do it so far.
Yep, modern lenses incorporate a lot of chips and circuitry that "speaks" to the camera, especially to the AF system. The lens and body electronics are intertwined. It's pretty easy to copy the physical mount and the electrical contacts, but it's entirely another matter to unravel the mysteries of the circuitry, understand the protocols, and get the lens to work efficiently and without errors or malfunctions. Canon, Nikon and Sony can't even make their own cameras and lenses work without occasional freezes occurring, so what hope have Sigma and Tamron got?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
...Canon, Nikon and Sony can't even make their own cameras and lenses work without occasional freezes occurring, so what hope have Sigma and Tamron got?
I don't know about Nikon and Sony, but I have followed the freezing issue pretty closely with Canon (mainly because I have had the issue with two R5s and one R3). I have not seen any evidence (credible or not) that the phenomenon is lens-related. I have also not seen any cases where adapted lenses using the Canon RF adapters have any relationship to freezes. It may be difficult for third-parties to produce a mount that does not infringe on Canon's patents, but given how flawlessly both native and third-party EF mount lenses work with adapters, I don't see any reason why third-parties are facing any greater challenges with RF lens mounts than they were with EF lens mounts. Perhaps you have information to the contrary that you can share.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I don't know about Nikon and Sony, but I have followed the freezing issue pretty closely with Canon (mainly because I have had the issue with two R5s and one R3). I have not seen any evidence (credible or not) that the phenomenon is lens-related. I have also not seen any cases where adapted lenses using the Canon RF adapters have any relationship to freezes. It may be difficult for third-parties to produce a mount that does not infringe on Canon's patents, but given how flawlessly both native and third-party EF mount lenses work with adapters, I don't see any reason why third-parties are facing any greater challenges with RF lens mounts than they were with EF lens mounts. Perhaps you have information to the contrary that you can share.
I agree that native EF lenses work flawlessly via adaptors (although not as fast as RF lenses). However, I think it's possible that the extra RF contacts may allow additional functionality on future Canon body and lens combinations. Sigma and Tamron could certainly manufacture RF mount lenses that didn't make use of the extra contacts, but they'd probably prefer to wait until they've been licenced (or have figured out the RF-specific protocols), to ensure full compatibility. Only guessing of course, and I could be completely wrong...

As to whether the freezing issues are in any way related to the lenses, I agree that it's unlikely, but the fact that Canon have been unable to pinpoint the cause(s) indicates that lenses could be one of the factors involved, especially as the electronics of the bodies and lenses are intertwined. In my case, I've only had freezing issues when using EF100-400mm and RF100-500mm, but that's probably due the fact that they are the only lenses that I use for burst shooting - all my freezes have occurred when shooting bursts.
 
Upvote 0
All the Sigma lenses listed are ancient and none are from the current GV (Art, Sports, Contemporary) lineup. As far as I know very few GV lenses have been discontinued (maybe just the 120-300 and perhaps one other I've forgotten). All of these discontinued lenses for Sigma have actually been unavailable for years.

On the other hand, there is no sign of any major discontinuations of the current Sigma Art lineup. A number of the Art primes are sold in the same optical formula for Canon EF and Sony E. I would be very surprised to see those discontinued for quite some time. Especially as Sigma is literally still promoting these lenses in the latest updates on their official blog: https://blog.sigmaphoto.com/ --- one of the last posts is about how great the 2019 primes are on the Canon R6 (https://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2022/ge...h-the-sigma-28mm-40mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lenses/).

I don't know about Tamron, but Sigma seems like they're not getting rid of their EF lenses anytime soon. They also manufacture cine lenses, and the new ones they just announced are available in EF, though of course cine is its own thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
The nice thing about Sigma is that they have a mount conversion service. So for $100 or so you can convert your lens to another mount. The optical formula has to be compatible of course. Some lenses are only possible for mirrorless cameras. However you could buy a used Sigma lens for a Nikon DSLR and convert it to fit on the EF mount.
 
Upvote 0

Kharan

R6, RP, bunch of lenses
Nov 9, 2018
61
59
Here we go again. There is nothing stopping them from making RF lenses, so long as they don't violate Canon's patents.
There is. Samyang were using their EF lens protocol on their RF lenses. This version must be clean, because it's been in use for many years and Canon didn't threaten them before (and they probably would've if it were). This, in turn, means that no patents have been infringed (there's broad consensus among people who know about patents that the bayonet itself cannot be thus protected). And yet they were threatened into submission by Canon... who have big offices in many countries, and probably lawyers on retainer there, who could easily file multiple parallel lawsuits against a smaller company. Sigma and Tamron are tiny in relation to Canon, and most certainly don't have lawyers on retainer in most markets. The cost of fending these suits off could be very high, and might prove a pyrrhic victory in the end.

There's something very real stopping third parties from going into RF: Canon "speaking softly and carrying a big stick". There won't be third-party AF lenses for RF unless one of three things happen: 1) 20 years pass from the time the patents were granted (so, around 2038); 2) a brave company decides to fight the lawsuits and wins, opening the floodgates; or 3) consumer backlash is intense and Canon see themselves forced to reverse course.

I'm ready to chip in for a "Viltrox Defense" GoFundMe. I think it's the only reasonably realistic chance we have.
 
Upvote 0

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,678
2,592
The nice thing about Sigma is that they have a mount conversion service. So for $100 or so you can convert your lens to another mount. The optical formula has to be compatible of course. Some lenses are only possible for mirrorless cameras. However you could buy a used Sigma lens for a Nikon DSLR and convert it to fit on the EF mount.
I'm going to guess that they build the actual optical assembly as one part, and then attach what is essentially an adapter on the back of that for the mount in question. So their service just has to change back ends. No actual machine work needed!
 
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,219
1,716
Oregon
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,219
1,716
Oregon
I haven't been able to find a new Sigma 180mm for sale (in the Netherlands) the past 3 years. Which is one of the reasons I went with the Canon 180L instead.
It has been formally discontinued on Sigma's web site for about that long. I found a decent used one about a year ago and it is a tad sharper than the 150, which I have had for about a decade. Both are very sharp lenses and the R5 focus stacking feature seems to work with both as well. The downside of the 180 is that it is a heavy beast. The Canon is not as fast (f/3.5 vs f/2.8), but it is substantially smaller and much lighter. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=109&LensComp=919
 
Upvote 0

SwissFrank

1N 3 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
497
333
1) I wonder how much of their modern lens design sales are from EF mount lenses that are adapted to RF. I bet they sell more of those than Fuji mount lenses.
2) Since both Sigma and Tamron make lenses and lens elements for the larger OEM lens/camera makers, I wonder how much those commercial relationships cause them to be cautious in entering into direct competition with Nikon/Canon. We may find out in the future that lens elements in the $3k Canon lenses were produced by Tamron, for instance.
I'm using the 28/1.4 Sigma on an adapter, a bit. I bought it last year, so like three years after selling my EOS-1DsIII and buying the R.

I don't know optics in Japan but I've worked in both electronics and finance sectors in Japan. I would assume that any kind of arrangement you could imagine is either being done, being planned, or being talked about. They're all working to make money both now and long term and there are lots of ways to accomplish that.

Third-party makers may be propositioning Canon with entire lens designs for Canon to make. Just because Canon is an optics specialist, they'll buy in a design in a second if it fits their needs and they can make a buck on it. This may be especially possible if the third-party has patents.

Canon may be licencing patents from third-parties. Third parties may be licensing the RF mount from Canon. Sometimes this is done whereby no money changes hands and they simply cross-license and this can have benefits for finance and possibly for tax.

Canon may design something and have a third party manufacture it. I don't know if Canon's done it in the past but everyone does do it. (Porsche contracted out construction of the Boxter to a no-name car manufacturer, I believe, and all Porsches have had huge numbers of parts for things like AC, navigation system, windshield wipers, etc. sourced from VW.)

Canon may contract with a third party to design and manufacture something. (BMW got Steyr-Puch to design and build the first X3 for instance.)

The simplest case is that Canon may be licensing the RF mount for about as much as it could hope to profit on making and selling the lens itself, so if there's no idle factory and workers sitting around on the payroll who could do the job in effect for free, Canon would totally be up for that.

There's endless reasons Canon, who of course is a behemoth in lens design and lens manufacture would nonetheless contract out work. I've been in firms that get contracts to provide financial services to global top-ten financial institutions that could totally do the job themselves but just didn't want to bother or expense. I've been in a global #12 financial player that likewise used a huge number of brokers, contracting out work we could have done ourselves. Ditto in software, in both directions.
 
Upvote 0
Glad I managed to get the 24-70 2.8 from Tamron. Works perfectly with the RP
I'm with ya. I got my G2 some years ago, for maybe $900.. on ebay from an Aussy seller, so maybe no USA warranty. Never needed it, of course. But, I use it less now as I got the RF 24-105 f/4 with my R5. Both have superb QC and optics.
 
Upvote 0