Sigma: Hopefully One More Mount in 2022

[Blue Zurich]

On the other hand, if they don't free up their proprietary tech at least to the extent of allowing third party lenses (assuming that the lack of third party lenses is actually do to IP issues), do they risk losing out because people choose not to buy into the Canon system at all? Canon will have huge amounts of market data and smart people working out how to maximise their profit, so I'm going to assume Canon knows what it is doing from that point of view. However, for what it's worth, as someone who has shot Canon for about 20 years, I'm very jealous of the lenses availalbe for the Sony system and about two years ago Sony became my default recommendation when anyone asked me which system they should go with. I say default recommendation, as it always comes down to what the person wants to shoot, and perhaps what lenses they already own. (For example, if someone has the use (and budget) for the 28-70 f/2L, that might be a reason to go with Canon.) But for many people, I think the Sony system offers much better options and value than the Canon system (which in the main offers lenses which are either large, heavy and very expensive or reasonably small and light but underwhelming at least in the 24mm to 100mm focal length range). And all the people I know who have gone with Sony (and I accept that is not many in the context of a worldwide camera market!) have been very happy with the choice. If Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, etc, were producing RF lenses (yes, I know Samyang has made a few), I expect I would still be enthusiastically recommending the Canon system. As things stand, I don't feel able to do that.

I know Canon Rumors is a pro-Canon website so what I'm saying may be unpopular, but since the introduction of the R system, I just cannot get excited about what Canon is offering, as optically fantastic as lenses such as the RF 85L may be. I haven't bought into the R system and I have no plan to do so. The existence of third party lenses for the R system would help Canon sell me a camera (and no doubt some lenses, flashes, etc, over time). The question is, how many people feel like I do, and how much (if at all!) does that hurt Canon's profit? I can only assume Canon is pretty confident the answer is not enough people to worry about.

Well, they have never done it before so if you think maybe now things are different then keep hope alive.
I for one would love it, I just won't hold my breath. I am in the camp that believes a huge gaping hole exists with the lack of non L 1.4 glass. That is the pricepoint and optical level I would enjoy using.
I will be patient since the RF lineup is in it's infancy (ok, toddler phase) and if you do your own research into the history of EF lenses, the catalog didn't suddenly become full overnight by any means.

Insert Veruca Salt quote

 

[Blue Zurich]

I don't buy this BS for a second. Other companies are doing fine making 3rd party lenses for RF. The new Viltox 85mm that just came out seems to be working great so far. If I had a choice of believe this or that Canon offered them x amount of $$$ to NOT make them I would believe the later first as Canon cant just prevent them from making a lens.

Once again, they haven't licensed before and I would eat my hat if they did all of a sudden. I'm not saying I personally would be unhappy, I enjoy the odd Siggy or Tammy lens, esp the SP and G2 lines. They are an old school business and with their marketshare, why change things now? Not sure why stating the fact about how Canon has and is doing business is BS. Those boutique mfgs are nothing like Sony and Nikon to Canon....most likely hardly noticeable in the grand scheme of things. Chapeau to them, more is always better. As for anything being BS, hmmmm. Interesting how you gleaned that

 

[jd7]

Well, they have never done it before so if you think maybe now things are different then keep hope alive.
I for one would love it, I just won't hold my breath. I am in the camp that believes a huge gaping hole exists with the lack of non L 1.4 glass. That is the pricepoint and optical level I would enjoy using.
I will be patient since the RF lineup is in it's infancy (ok, toddler phase) and if you do your own research into the history of EF lenses, the catalog didn't suddenly become full overnight by any means.

Insert Veruca Salt quote

Fair enough, but even if Canon didn't licence the IP previously, third party manufacturers reverse engineered things and seem to have been able to make lenses without infringing Canon's IP, and there were many third party lenses available. That is a very different situation to the present RF situation, where there is very little third party activity in relation to lenses. Whether that is because third party manufacturers have not yet reverse engineered things, because they have been unable to find a way to make lenses without infringing Canon's IP, or because they simply think it's not worth spending their time/money on the RF system, I do not know (although I find it hard to imagine it is because they don't think it would be worth making RF lenses). Whatever the reason though, the lack of third party RF lenses hurts the RF system in my eyes.

 

[steen-ag]

Canon is foolish for not doing this with RF from the beginning. The market is too large for Sigma and Tamron to ignore, so they will likely reverse engineer RF (which really means reverse engineering the high speed data pins, the other pins are the same). But we could already have Sigma/Tamron RF lenses if Canon had offered licensing.

I will never buy a Tamron or Sigma lens with autofocus as it often gives focus problems du to the reverse engineering. If Canon make some update in their software, them these lenses may not wok properly. You can't update the lenses without buying af speciel USB adapter.. Canon and Nikon will not make there protocols open like Sony.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Fair enough, but even if Canon didn't licence the IP previously, third party manufacturers reverse engineered things and seem to have been able to make lenses without infringing Canon's IP, and there were many third party lenses available. That is a very different situation to the present RF situation, where there is very little third party activity in relation to lenses. Whether that is because third party manufacturers have not yet reverse engineered things, because they have been unable to find a way to make lenses without infringing Canon's IP, or because they simply think it's not worth spending their time/money on the RF system, I do not know (although I find it hard to imagine it is because they don't think it would be worth making RF lenses). Whatever the reason though, the lack of third party RF lenses hurts the RF system in my eyes.

I think you're just too early for what you desire. All those 3rd party EF lenses took many many years to arrive and pile up. I'm not certain why this point isn't being understood. You must give it time.

 

[HMC11]

Being waiting for Sigma to "address the R mount" since Canon launched the EOS R. Ended up owning 3L and 2 non-L RF lenses, so not sharing their lens protocol works for Canon in cases like mine.....sigh.

 

[jd7]

I think you're just too early for what you desire. All those 3rd party EF lenses took many many years to arrive and pile up. I'm not certain why this point isn't being understood. You must give it time.

You may be right - and I hope you are! Reading CR and other photography websites it's easy to get the feeling that almost everyone shooting Canon has an R system camera, but it would be interesting to know how many R cameras are actually out there. I guess it's not impossible that the size of the market for RF lenses still isn't large enough yet for third party manufacturers to be rushing to divert their resources into RF lens production.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

when Canon created R-mount the only lenses Canon had were old EF-mount lenses... Nikon had only old F-mount lenses... Sony had A-mount lenses .... so ?

--> A-mount were/ are nowhere near as good as the existing EF/ F-mount line-up. Using A-mount lenses on great e-mount cameras just was no real option. Even though the EF/ F mount are great, some people simply don't want to use an adapter, so even if the A-mount were great, they needed lenses fast. Just as Canon and Nikon need to fill their DSLM line-up to a certain degree and with a speedy pace as well.

and boy they did to the point that Nikon got trashed to 3rd place and both C&N were left scrambling to move from dSLR to dSLM... Sony literally made dSLR the thing of the past...

--> totally agree

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Once again, they haven't licensed before and I would eat my hat if they did all of a sudden. I'm not saying I personally would be unhappy, I enjoy the odd Siggy or Tammy lens, esp the SP and G2 lines.

I agree with you. Canon won't license any competitor... but I still believe that even if Sigma has to reverse engineer the protocol (or parts of it) with tremendous cost, there still is a lot of money to be earned for them, especially AT THE MOMENT because Canons line-up lacks a few significant holes. You stated, F1.4 non-L line-up is not existent, I agree.

For example:
RF 50mm F1.8 STM --> 229 €
RF 50mm F1.2 L --> 2.500 €


RF 16mm F2.8mm --> 339 €
RF 14-35mm F4 --> 1.819 €
RF 15-35mm F2.8 --> 2.599 €

There is a huge gap and Sigma would be more than welcome.

Imho, I think people who are demanding for Canon opening their protocols do believe Canon will never fill these gaps. If Canon weren't to fill these gaps, opening the protocol would actually make a lot of sense. It is my personal believe Canon will address these gaps within the next years and therefore isn't opening the protocol because they'd hurt future sales.
It would be very nice though to get a RF 50mm F1.4 non-L priced like the RF 35mm F1.8 or something similiar to show people these lenses are coming. Of course, in my case a reasonable priced UWA zoom would be welcome.

 

[chasingrealness]

Great news! I own Sigma’s 135mm f/1.8 and the 100-400mm EF Mount lenses and they’re superb. I would replace my 100-400 in a heartbeat, though, if they made an RF Mount option that’s as sharp as the one I have but with modern, competitive autofocus; that is the one aspect of that particular lens I find to be lacking. I don’t mind the weight when the sharpness is so on point. Attached image shot on ROS RP-mounted 100-400mm last August.

 

[jd7]

Two comments/questions. First, I don't understand some of their DG DN lens focal length choices, especially the 65mm and 24mm macro, and the order in which they are being introduced. Can somebody make sense of it?

Second, are they really going to try to reverse engineer the Fuji X, Nikon Z and Canon R lens mounts or have they convinced the manufacturers to tell them the protocols?

Regarding your first point, I think Sigma sometimes just tries something a bit different, rather than always putting out lenses which have direct competitors already on the market. Personally I think the 65mm option is interesting, although I wish it was faster than f/2. I often feel like 50mm is too short (at least given I have a 35mm) but 85mm is tighter than I'd really like, so something about the 65mm focal length seems like potentially a good compromise for me to team with a 35mm. Samyang make a 75mm f/1.8 for the Sony system which also seems like an interesting option to me. When I use zooms, I seem to end up at 70mm quite frequently (whether using a 24-70 or 70-200) so a fast prime somewhere around that focal length might work for me. As for the 24mm macro, it's not a lens I've considered but the idea of being able to get close up to your subject while still having a reasonable amount of background in the shot sounds like it could have its uses.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Regarding your first point, I think Sigma sometimes just tries something a bit different, rather than always putting out lenses which have direct competitors already on the market. Personally I think the 65mm option is interesting, although I wish it was faster than f/2. I often feel like 50mm is too short (at least given I have a 35mm) but 85mm is tighter than I'd really like, so something about the 65mm focal length seems like potentially a good compromise for me to team with a 35mm. Samyang make a 75mm f/1.8 for the Sony system which also seems like an interesting option to me. When I use zooms, I seem to end up at 70mm quite frequently (whether using a 24-70 or 70-200) so a fast prime somewhere around that focal length might work for me. As for the 24mm macro, it's not a lens I've considered but the idea of being able to get close up to your subject while still having a reasonable amount of background in the shot sounds like it could have its uses.

Crop body with the EF 40 pancake is a somewhat popular choice as well. I won't get hemmed in with standard and famous focal lengths as I'm personally a frequent user of 21, 40 and 135mm.

 

[RexxReviews]

Once again, they haven't licensed before and I would eat my hat if they did all of a sudden. I'm not saying I personally would be unhappy, I enjoy the odd Siggy or Tammy lens, esp the SP and G2 lines. They are an old school business and with their marketshare, why change things now? Not sure why stating the fact about how Canon has and is doing business is BS. Those boutique mfgs are nothing like Sony and Nikon to Canon....most likely hardly noticeable in the grand scheme of things. Chapeau to them, more is always better. As for anything being BS, hmmmm. Interesting how you gleaned that

I have worked for Canon and Sigma

 

[Bob Howland]

I have worked for Canon and Sigma

In what capacity?

 

[Blue Zurich]

I have worked for Canon and Sigma

Actually you saying that now makes me think you should know better when it comes to their intellectual property and licensing of mount technology not to mention their business ideology.

 

[AJ]

In principle there is no need to reverse-engineer the RF communications protocol. RF also speaks EF. Sigma could use a physical RF mount and communicate through the EF protocol. In essence, the camera wouldn't know the difference between that an an EF lens with adapter.

 

[melgross]

On the other hand, if they don't free up their proprietary tech at least to the extent of allowing third party lenses (assuming that the lack of third party lenses is actually due to IP issues), do they risk losing out because people choose not to buy into the Canon system at all? Canon will have huge amounts of market data and smart people working out how to maximise their profit, so I'm going to assume Canon knows what it is doing from that point of view. However, for what it's worth, as someone who has shot Canon for about 20 years, I'm very jealous of the lenses availalbe for the Sony system and about two years ago Sony became my default recommendation when anyone asked me which system they should go with. I say default recommendation, as it always comes down to what the person wants to shoot, and perhaps what lenses they already own. (For example, if someone has the use (and budget) for the 28-70 f/2L, that might be a reason to go with Canon.) But for many people, I think the Sony system offers much better options and value than the Canon system (which in the main offers lenses which are either large, heavy and very expensive or reasonably small and light but underwhelming at least in the 24mm to 100mm focal length range). And all the people I know who have gone with Sony (and I accept that is not many in the context of a worldwide camera market!) have been very happy with the choice. If Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, etc, were producing RF lenses (yes, I know Samyang has made a few), I expect I would still be enthusiastically recommending the Canon system. As things stand, I don't feel able to do that.

I know Canon Rumors is a pro-Canon website so what I'm saying may be unpopular, but since the introduction of the R system, I just cannot get excited about what Canon is offering, as optically fantastic as lenses such as the RF 85L may be. I haven't bought into the R system and I have no plan to do so. The existence of third party lenses for the R system would help Canon sell me a camera (and no doubt some lenses, flashes, etc, over time). The question is, how many people feel like I do, and how much (if at all!) does that hurt Canon's profit? I can only assume Canon is pretty confident the answer is not enough people to worry about.

Canon isn’t stopping any third party from reverse engineering any of their protocols, mechanical characteristics or electronics. Like Nikon, they’re just not giving, or licensing any of it. They can’t legally do so. So third parties are free to do whatever they need to, to make their lenses compatible.

you might note that Sigma, and others, have been waiting to see how sales are going before investing millions on new mounts. We can be sure they’ve at least done some investigation. Sigma stated a few months ago that they were going to come out with lenses on the RF mount. So we know it’s happening. They’ve also recently stated that the electronic part won’t be too hard as they already know what most of the pins do because they’re the same functions as those from the EF mount, for which they already make lenses. The mechanical part is easy. I could do that myself in my own shops, if I really wanted to.

 

[melgross]

In principle there is no need to reverse-engineer the RF communications protocol. RF also speaks EF. Sigma could use a physical RF mount and communicate through the EF protocol. In essence, the camera wouldn't know the difference between that an an EF lens with adapter.

That’s the basics. Canon has extra pins that transmit more information. It why Sigma said that they already knew MOST of what the pins are doing. Those are from the EF era. But the have to figure out what the rest do.

 

[Blue Zurich]

That’s the basics. Canon has extra pins that transmit more information. It why Sigma said that they already knew MOST of what the pins are doing. Those are from the EF era. But the have to figure out what the rest do.

I cannot quote a Sigma source but I was under the impression they were developing Fujifilm X mounts prior to any discussion about RF. One step at a time?

 

[jd7]

Canon isn’t stopping any third party from reverse engineering any of their protocols, mechanical characteristics or electronics. Like Nikon, they’re just not giving, or licensing any of it. They can’t legally do so. So third parties are free to do whatever they need to, to make their lenses compatible.

you might note that Sigma, and others, have been waiting to see how sales are going before investing millions on new mounts. We can be sure they’ve at least done some investigation. Sigma stated a few months ago that they were going to come out with lenses on the RF mount. So we know it’s happening. They’ve also recently stated that the electronic part won’t be too hard as they already know what most of the pins do because they’re the same functions as those from the EF mount, for which they already make lenses. The mechanical part is easy. I could do that myself in my own shops, if I really wanted to.

I'm not sure it is as simple as saying Canon isn't stopping third parties from reverse engineering their protocols. It is one thing to reverse engineer protocols to understand how they work, but once the third party has done that, the third party still needs to come up with a system which can achieve the desired results without infringing Canon's patents or any other relevant intellectual property. I'm sure that Canon can make that more or less difficult depending on how Canon designs its system, so the question is whether Canon's design of the RF system goes out of its way to make it hard for others to produce compatible products without infrining Canon's IP. The lack of third party lenses (and the fact Samyang seems to have stopped selling its RF 85mm f/1.4 AF lens, albeit I think that lens is still available under the Rokinon brand at least in some places) has fueled rumours online about Canon trying to block third party manufacturers, although I have no idea if there is any truth in any of that, and as you say it may be that third party manufacturers are simply waiting for the size of the market for RF lenses to increase before spending time/money developing products for it - or there may be some other reason. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think the answer may well be that they are simply waiting for the size of the RF market to increase. After all, I would have thought that if nothing else, a third party able to make EF lenses should be able to make an RF mount lens which works even if the camera thinks it's an EF lens (ie the lens would have effectively an adapter for the electronics even if it didn't need one for the optics). That would be less than ideal since it would mean the lens was unable to take advantage of everything the RF mount has to offer, but nevertheless if the market was big enough to make it commercially worthwhile, you would think it would be happening.

Are you able to provide a link to where Sigma has stated they are going to come out with RF lenses? I was not aware they had ever made a firm statement about that, and I would be interested to read it.