SIGMA RF mount lens information finally coming in February 2024? [CR1]

[Marximusprime]

My kingdom for the 28-70 2.8. And maybe the 18-50 for APS-C.
Edit: some of those sweet I-series primes would be nice, too.

 

[BBarn]

Based on past actions and comments, it would seem Canon will not allow certain 3rd party RF lenses (in compliance with existing laws and possible legal action). So, I would guess Canon will continue to block 3rd party RF lenses that compete with existing Canon lenses, or 3rd party RF lenses that would compete with planned Canon lenses. Therefore, if 3rd party RF lenses (AF in particular) become available, it would seem to point to RF products that Canon has no plans to provide.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

I own about 18 lenses, all Canon or Zeiss or Leica R for my EOS digitals.
Not one single Sigma. And certainly not a plasticky Tamron.
I guess it ain't gonna change...

I had Sigma lenses for EF mount:

70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro - optically excellent lens, perfection, even on R5... I sold it after many years of not using it,

17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG HSM - decent lens, fairly cheap, focused well on the R but was inconsistent in AF on DSLRs, replaced it with the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM.

I still have Sigma EF mount lenses:

50mm f/1.4 Art - optically excellent lens, very well made, quite cheap... The only downside is that it is a bit heavier than I would like,

35mm f/1.4 Art - optically very good lens, very well made, excellent price-quality ratio...

My experiences with Sigma lenses have only been positive (except for that mentioned AF inconsistency on the 17-35 lens). I am happy if they will really bring additional interest to the R system, although I personally stay with EF mount lenses because of the good features that the adapters bring me, especially the one with drop-in filters.

 

[bbasiaga]

Sigh, not even Sigma is making a 50 1.4.

I'm switching to Polaroid.

 

[Walrus]

Pretty much any Sigma prime would cause problems for Canon right now.

Why is that? Reading this forum seems no one would ever buy a Sigma (or Tamron, or Tokina, or Viltrox, etc) lens because Canon glass is sooo much better. Canon shouldn't be afraid of letting other lens manufactures bring more options in, as those others certainly wouldn't sell a single piece of gear, confirming the Canon superiority on lands and seas. I think Canon should allow them to enter, just to show that nobody will buy that crappy third party glass!

 

[Surab]

If this forum was representative (which it probably isn't) then Canon doesn't really have to fear 3rd party glass:

People either cannot/don't want to afford super expensive L glass or they care about that extra quality and pay for it.

Are there any that would not have gone L glass if they could have gotten 3rd party glass?

 

[Surab]

Why is that? Reading this forum seems no one would ever buy a Sigma (or Tamron, or Tokina, or Viltrox, etc) lens because Canon glass is sooo much better. Canon shouldn't be afraid of letting other lens manufactures bring more options in, as those others certainly wouldn't sell a single piece of gear, confirming the Canon superiority on lands and seas. I think Canon should allow them to enter, just to show that nobody will buy that crappy third party glass!

Woops you already wrote that.. haha

 

[Maximilian]

So…. 3rd party af lenses 5 years after r mount released vs 10 years after ef mount!

Still not fast enough for some.
*sarc mode
Canon should make all patents public domain - esp. the AF protocols - and reorganize itself to a non-profit organization
*/sarc mode

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another Sigma’s messin' around
They say you got an RF lens
It’s out by February’s end
They're talkin' about you and it's bringin' me down

But I know the CR neighborhood
And talk is cheaper when the story is good
And the tales grow taller on down the line
But I'm telling you, babe
That I don't think it's true, babe
And even if it is, keep this in mind

You take the CR1, baby
If that's the way you want it, baby
Then I don't want you around
I don't believe it
Not for a minute
You're under the gun
So you take the CR1

One of my favorite classic rock songs ever

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I owned the Sigma EF 20mm F1.4 for a while and I´ve shot with the 14-24mm F2.8 as well as the 14mm F1.8. So far, the IQ was good, not spectacular. The Sigma 35mm F1.4 had/ has great IQ imo, but I'm more than satisfied with the RF 35mm F1.8. The lenses were all super heavy, so I don't miss the lenses right now. I know Sigma is the process of making new lenses specifically designed for DSLM, but I haven't tested them yet. So, at the moment I can live without Sigma (I know others can´t and I hope their wishes will be fulfilled) and I would only be interested in a LIGHT 20mm F1.4. I don´t care if Sigma or Canon makes this lens.

 

[Surab]

OT: I'm not a lens expert hence I've been wondering: would Tamron be able to directly transfer their lenses to RF mount given that the E mount has the shorter flange distance?

Like do you know if they targeted 18mm? If so would it be problematic to extend the lens elements the extra 2mm behind the mount?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I have a hard time believing that.
I am not even sure which lenses Canon could let Sigma bring over.
Maybe some of their zooms since Canon zooms are pretty competitive.
Pretty much any Sigma prime would cause problems for Canon right now.

AS I've said many times before...i'm done with Sigma as a brand. Generally, their lenses drop in value like a brick because Sigma are constantly bringing out newer models. Then there's the weird build, they are usaully really heavy lenses vs Canon and that weight doesn't seem to bring better reliability...usually the opposite. Then there's the AF which is quircky...unreliable and less accurate than Canon. The IS systems are like a toy in comparision. That's my experiance and you are welcome to disagree.
Generally, you get what you paid for and there's a reason they are half the price of a good Canon lens.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

OT: I'm not a lens expert hence I've been wondering: would Tamron be able to directly transfer their lenses to RF mount given that the E mount has the shorter flange distance?

Like do you know if they targeted 18mm? If so would it be problematic to extend the lens elements the extra 2mm behind the mount?

The point of prime focus is a characteristic of the lens design, so I think it's very unlikely they'd be able to just "drag n drop" the lens onto a longer mount. But theoretically they could move all lens groups 2mm further away from the mount (by making the lens body 2mm longer) so that the prime focus is correct for the RF flange distance...? Maybe?

 

[[email protected]]

I have an itchy buy finger poised over future purchase button for these lenses in RF:
1) 35mm f/1.2 (used to own in Sony mount, and miss it)
2) 105mm f/1.4

I have 6 or seven EF mount Art lenses already, and they're great with a converter, so I feel no need to swap them for RF equivalents. I like having EF mounts because I can use them possibly with other mirrorless mounts with the proper converter, which I've done quite a bit. But the 35mm f/1.2 above and the other mirrorless-only lenses they make will only work on an RF camera with an RF native mount.

 

[David - Sydney]

Based on past actions and comments, it would seem Canon will not allow certain 3rd party RF lenses (in compliance with existing laws and possible legal action). So, I would guess Canon will continue to block 3rd party RF lenses that compete with existing Canon lenses, or 3rd party RF lenses that would compete with planned Canon lenses. Therefore, if 3rd party RF lenses (AF in particular) become available, it would seem to point to RF products that Canon has no plans to provide.

It would be almost like a Canon lens roadmap in that case!

 

[David - Sydney]

Why is that? Reading this forum seems no one would ever buy a Sigma (or Tamron, or Tokina, or Viltrox, etc) lens because Canon glass is sooo much better. Canon shouldn't be afraid of letting other lens manufactures bring more options in, as those others certainly wouldn't sell a single piece of gear, confirming the Canon superiority on lands and seas. I think Canon should allow them to enter, just to show that nobody will buy that crappy third party glass!

Sarcasm??
Clearly, CR contributors are not representative of the general buying public... but are not afraid to state what seems to be logical in the market. Canon has surprised us more than once.
I have been happy to buy second hand for lenses that I would rarely use eg EF100L, EF8-15/4, EF14/2.8 and EF20/1.4 but ended up using them more than I thought. All insured and would be replaced by new RF (if available).
Of course some users would buy a 3rd party RF lens.
Canon would not want direct competition though just to appease some indignation from the internet forums stamping their feet like a toddler.

 

[EricN]

Sarcasm??
Clearly, CR contributors are not representative of the general buying public... but are not afraid to state what seems to be logical in the market. Canon has surprised us more than once.
I have been happy to buy second hand for lenses that I would rarely use eg EF100L, EF8-15/4, EF14/2.8 and EF20/1.4 but ended up using them more than I thought. All insured and would be replaced by new RF (if available).
Of course some users would buy a 3rd party RF lens.
Canon would not want direct competition though just to appease some indignation from the internet forums stamping their feet like a toddler.

Exactly that.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

So…. 3rd party af lenses 5 years after r mount released vs 10 years after ef mount!

Sorry, I must be a little slow tonight. I don't understand the "10 years after ef" part of that comment.

The EF mount came out in 1987. I don't know exactly when the first EF Sigma AF lenses came out, but I know they were pretty widely available by about 1990-1991.

 

[becceric]

Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another Sigma’s messin' around
They say you got an RF lens
It’s out by February’s end
They're talkin' about you and it's bringin' me down

But I know the CR neighborhood
And talk is cheaper when the story is good
And the tales grow taller on down the line
But I'm telling you, babe
That I don't think it's true, babe
And even if it is, keep this in mind

You take the CR1, baby
If that's the way you want it, baby
Then I don't want you around
I don't believe it
Not for a minute
You're under the gun
So you take the CR1

Well, now I’ve been singing this all day.

 

[David - Sydney]

Sorry, I must be a little slow tonight. I don't understand the "10 years after ef" part of that comment.

The EF mount came out in 1987. I don't know exactly when the first EF Sigma AF lenses came out, but I know they were pretty widely available by about 1990-1991.

@DhlcadR6 wrote ;and I blindly assumed it was true the following…
I tried to find a list of all sigma lenses and date of release (just like Wikipedia has for canon) but couldn’t find anything. Before or maybe just when the internet started so not many articles.

“It was around 10 years right? EOS 650 introduced in 1987, and in 1998 Sigma has 28-70mm F2.8 EX ASPHERICAL. There's little info if there's other 3rd party”