Sigma: No plans to release RF full-frame lenses yet

[Richard CN]

‘Affordable’ is a tricky qualifier, since it can genuinely and correctly mean different things to different people.

I find it less contentious to compare it to other lenses, like ‘EF 3rd party’, ‘EF non-L’ and ‘RF non-L’.
For example, the RF24 non-L is very close to the price I paid for the EF100L (€850 vs €900). My feeling is that the RF lenses are much more expensive than the EF lenses I bought over a decade ago. My feelings are of course ignoring inflation

I’m also spoiled by having benefited from the EF-M lens pricing, the 22 and 11-22 were in hindsight very cheap. Cheaper than what Sigma is asking for their RF-S lenses. The Sigma lenses are excellent, so they are not overpriced, but still expensive.
For the people here with an R6II or R5, it would very much be affordable, but for the 20D using me 20 years ago, no.

I hear you on the EF-M spoiling. now there was some excellent value lenses.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

did you read the post?

Sigma and Tamron are making RF-S.

F/2.8 zoom lenses are never in the affordable bracket. We have become obsessed with wide apertures for low light photos.

Where is the 50/1.8 or 35/2? These old, cheap EF lens that produce fantastic images for under $200 still have no RF equivalent The 50/1.4 was a bit more of a problem child.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

I’m also spoiled by having benefited from the EF-M lens pricing, the 22 and 11-22 were in hindsight very cheap. Cheaper than what Sigma is asking for their RF-S lenses. The Sigma lenses are excellent, so they are not overpriced, but still expensive.

1000% this. It is like MILC are for rich playboys only.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Maybe some folks forgot Sony purposedly throttle Sigma lens AF speed on Sony cam? Yes I believe Canon is doing the right thing, instead of opening the mount and later throttle the 3rd lenses

So that Sony users cannot shoot astro at 30 fps with their Sigma 14mm 1.4...

 

[DhlcadR6]

F/2.8 zoom lenses are never in the affordable bracket. We have become obsessed with wide apertures for low light photos.

Where is the 50/1.8 or 35/2? These old, cheap EF lens that produce fantastic images for under $200 still have no RF equivalent The 50/1.4 was a bit more of a problem child.

RF50/1.8 is here, Yongnuo has the 35mm f2 RF version.

There's RF16 & RF28 as well.

 

[bbasiaga]

I seem to recall last year Sigma saying they had no plans to release RF lenses at all. Then this year we got APSc. So don't lose hope!

I suspect that the global supply chain is mucking this up for everyone. Canon is behind on releases of bodies and lenses based on their original plans. Sigma has complained about production capacity in a couple of places over the last few years. Every new release is in short supply Hopefully one of theses days it'll all break loose, and a we'll have more of everyone's lenses.

Brian

 

[YuengLinger]

"Because Canon's selection of RF lenses is still very limited..."

What year did you write this in?

In what way is this listing from just one retailer "limited"?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/canon-eos-rf-lenses/ci/40361

 

[rbr]

Really, I just want a great ultra wide angle lens to mount on my R5 that is sharp and bright from corner to corner without a lot of field curvature at close range in the extreme corners. I don't care who makes it. Sigma makes them. Canon doesn't.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Remember that a not-so-long time ago, many people were screaming because Canon didn\'t allow Sigma or Tamron to produce any RF lenses \"at all\".
A couple of years after, Sigma proposes RF mount APSC AF lenses.

Now they’re screaming about the lack of FF. Moving goalposts. It’s in the syllabus for Trolling 101.

 

[Bob Howland]

I want Sigma to introduce a 50-135 f/2.8 DC DN OS Contemporary lens, lighter than Canon's RF 70-200 f/4 L. I have a closet full of EF FF lenses so I can wait a while for FF Sigma RF lenses.

 

[scyrene]

To me I don't care (very mich) who produces the lenses I will use. Sigma/whoever -vs- Canon ... it's hard to tell the difference. But I'm shooting for "web presence"
and not for largest+highest quality print images. I'm an amateur birding photographer. I want more choices in terms of longer zoom lenses - but weight is also
very important to me because I want to carry the camera+lens and shoot hand held. I have the Canon Rf 100-400mm with the 1.4 extender. It's a nice sized
package and the weight is very useful. I'd -like- a longer zoom that is just as light and just as small physically ... not holding my breath for that. *G*

I'm not sure how many more long zooms we can expect from Canon, especially if/when the release a 200-500. Also not sure how a longer zoom can be the same size? Unless the aperture is throttled even more.

 

[YuengLinger]

Yes, some RF lenses are massively overpriced, like the 24 1.8 (it's not even that good) or the 100-500 (this one is at least stellar).
But some lenses are really good value, like the 15-30 (it's £299 on grey market). The 28mm 2.8 is also great value but could be cheaper compared to EF 40 and 24mm (EF-S) lenses.

I just picked up a 24mm f/1.8 new for $399 USD, big retailer. I understand this was a sale price; however, if somebody can't afford this lens, how can they afford a body? Are you keeping up with 2024 pricing for food, housing, and energy? I wish those things hadn't gone up so much, or camera gear, but to single out Canon for price isn't in line with today's market at all.

 

[Del Paso]

I would love a 35/1.0 or 35/1.2, and if the 14mm f/1.4 was available for Canon I'd probably buy one and try to take some astro photos. I've had the EF 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 and found the 35 too normal and 24 too wide, but got the Sigma 28/1.4 and really like the images. But I have to use the 28/1.4 on an adapter. It's my only EF-mount lens, so I leave the adapter on it and it's not inconvenient, but a 28/1.4 designed for mirrorless would be smaller and sharper. Meanwhile I'm pretty sure the 14/1.4 is exclusively for mirrorless and thus available to other camera owners but not Canon owners.

It's not enough to get me to buy a Sony or Nikon body, much enough to get me to switch systems of course. But it is annoying.

I'll agree with you in part: I don't think I'd ever buy a Sigma or say Zeiss 85/1.4 if Canon had an 85/1.4.

I understand you, my answer reflected exclusively my very own situation/opinion.
My intention wasn't to say no one should want 3rd. party lenses, some of them being excellent.
Fact is all the lenses I want already exist as RFs, or will be announced later (14 TS, 24mm F1,4...).

 

[scyrene]

Where is the 50/1.8 or 35/2?

Erm... the RF 50 f/1.8 and 35 f/1.8 are right there?

 

[mkamelg]

One of the forum members of the Polish Canon Board forum went to an event called the Fotoforma Festival, which took place on June 13-14 at the PGE Narodowy stadium in Warsaw. It is something like a photo-video fair organized by one of the companies in this industry. He returned from this event with, among other things, information that reads as follows:

- Sigma RF for full frame - in 2 years

His entire post can be found at this link https://www-canon--board-info.trans..._tl=en&_x_tr_hl=pl&_x_tr_pto=wapp#post1464389

 

[neuroanatomist]

Erm... the RF 50 f/1.8 and 35 f/1.8 are right there?

You can lead a troll to facts, but you can’t make him comprehend them.

 

[koenkooi]

I just picked up a 24mm f/1.8 new for $399 USD, big retailer. I understand this was a sale price; however, if somebody can't afford this lens, how can they afford a body? Are you keeping up with 2024 pricing for food, housing, and energy? I wish those things hadn't gone up so much, or camera gear, but to single out Canon for price isn't in line with today's market at all.

When I bought my first dslr, a 20D, I had saved up for some years to get the 20D, kit lens and the 100mm macro. And that depleted my toy budget for a long time.

The 24mm isn’t likely the first lens people get, so they already have a body with kit lens(es). And that lens is as expensive as their kit.

 

[Askeladden]

The strategy is probably to saturate the market with first party options, then when the used market has affordable lenses they will open up to third parties. That is my guess. Can't really blame them for wanting to get their products on the market first because they have made some terrific lenses lately.
I am sure they would lose a lot of money at least in the telephoto segment by opening up the RF mount completely as there are very few options for us mortals. Either we adapt EF glass, accept the extra weight and slightly lower quality or we can buy an expensive 100-500 or a cheap and slow 100-400.
The Sigma 500 5.6 I am sure would eat into the sales of the 100-500 by a considerable margin. For non-telephoto the 50 1.2 would probably outsell the Canon as well.
Either way I am impressed with what Sigma has been able to make lately, It isn't the company it used to be with all sorts of carp in their line-up.

 

[scyrene]

I am sure they would lose a lot of money at least in the telephoto segment by opening up the RF mount completely as there are very few options for us mortals. Either we adapt EF glass, accept the extra weight and slightly lower quality or we can buy an expensive 100-500 or a cheap and slow 100-400.
The Sigma 500 5.6 I am sure would eat into the sales of the 100-500 by a considerable margin. For non-telephoto the 50 1.2 would probably outsell the Canon as well.

There's considerably less of a gap in the (super)telephoto lineup than there was in EF days. There were no Canon lenses over 400mm for less than several thousand pounds/dollars. Now we have the RF 100-400, 600 + 800 f/11, and 200-800; the 100-500 is far cheaper than the EF 500 ever was. There is still perhaps a gap for a midrange prime like the 500 f/5.6 as you indicate, but I can't think it would be much cheaper than the 100-500. For reference, I just checked and the Sigma you mentioned is £2779 versus £2939 for the Canon zoom, hardly night and day (and the latter has had numerous discounts and rebates since its introduction).

 

[Juppeck]

I assume that canon did not license the full frame lenses to the thirds because the competition to their own STM line would be to great. If you have a choice a prime lense from sigma or a standard lense from canon - both for the same price, how would you choose?
Canon did not want to offer many APS-C lenses. Remember - they don't want to brings aps-c dslm on the market bevor. Canon change this decision later, because the competioner did this. I don't expect taht canon will ever license the ff-lenses to third parties, until they get so much money with their lense lineup. And - this seems to work, if you see the published reports. The finaly stroy is not written because the prime body is not on the market yet. Canon will get the leadership of the market and do all to get this.
Let's assume that the R1 comes onto the market with features that no other camera has yet implemented, and that they are so good that it would be worth changing brands. This would certainly be a good basis for selling more prime lenses and bodies. Why should a company should share the market with cheaper thirds?
For my opinion, the R5 is the last Canon body. The price policy of the brand is getting to be to expensive for just doing a hobby. If the R5 gets retired, i will take a look what's available on the market. I actually recomment Sony for newbies.