Sigma to announce 5 new lenses shortly, including a new 70-200mm f/2.8 OS Sport & 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 OS Sport

[jolyonralph]

and once again...… what would happen if Canon did not allow third party lenses?

The store clerks tell the customer "Don't buy Canon, you can't use third party lenses with them".... and sales plummet......

You may get the odd sales clerk who does that, but I can't imagine most sales clerks would even mention it. The lack of third party EF-M lenses has hardly hurt that system.

Anyway, I've never had a Sigma lens I've been happy with. I wouldn't trust them to produce something that reliably focused on the RF mount.

 

[Ladislav]

IMO Sigma messed up with releasing two 150-600 before. Especially considering that they had the same main specs and most reviewers who compared both recommended the cheaper "C" version unless you really need the build of "S" version. In almost everything else "C" version was either better or about the same - including IQ and AF. If I remember correctly "C" version was even faster lens through zoom range because it went to slower aperture later in the zoom range.

I went for "C" because it was good value for money. It is not a superb lens but for now it is the best lens I can get and this new 60-600 does not change anything about it. If they did a very good 200-500/5.6 "S", I would be much more interested.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Wow!
This 40mm F1.4 has an 82mm filter diameter...
Even larger than 50 Art.

 

[Etienne]

Some Sigma lenses are nice (I have the 18-35 f/1.8), but the AF noise ruins it for video. They cannot make a quiet AF system it seems. Pity

 

[[email protected]]

exactly! what's keeping sigma and tamron from making the same lenses they make for sony E available for canon M?
i have a hard time believing it's about the mechanics of the EF-M mount since samyang along with numerous chinese manufacturers have been making countless manual EF-M lenses

The canon EF-EFM adapter is not at all like any of the Sony adapters. You really lose quite a lot in terms of AF speed and accuracy with the Sony adaptation. As a result, making a lens with the native Sony mount presents a decent market. The Canon adapter shows pretty much no degradation of performance whatsoever, so there really isn't a screaming need to have a different mount from the one they already make. If I were Sigma, I would not have made ef-m lenses for this reason.

Yes, I know, adapters are inconvenient, and they, plus the EF lenses make for larger kit, etc. Still, I'd much rather see Sigma update its 35 Art to the modern standards - or, better still, launch another unprecedented new lens - than release any of the bunch in EF-M.

 

[[email protected]]

A lot has happened in the time since the EF mount was launched, especially in cryptography. Unless Canon are extremely dumb they will require all RF lenses and RF->EF adaptors to be digitally signed making it pretty much impossible for anyone without NSA-level resources to reverse engineer the protocol.

Plus, there will be patents galore to deal with.

No third-party RF lenses unless Canon allow them.

They certainly have the capacity to do this. Whether it would be advisable is another question.

I know for my part that if Canon eliminates compatibility with third party lenses, then I'll be deciding between the other manufacturers. I have relied on Tamron and, particularly, Sigma to fill in holes Canon hasn't had the capacity to fill. I don't think I'd be happy limiting myself to a single manufacturer. So many of my images I'd have missed had I tried to box myself into a single camera manufacturer's system.

Indeed, the fact that RF is here and that there is tumult means that it's the time to do one's due diligence. If RF is compatible with the legacy third party EF glass and the RF mount is available for future third party development, it looks like the horse to ride - at least from this distance. We'll see when the cameras are delivered. If you take out that capability, though, Sony and the Z mount both move above.

This isn't some "stupid Canon" complaint post. I'm just pointing out that Canon is unlikely to make this move because it would suffer a loss of body share in trying to protect its lens share. And body share is where the future is, especially at the moment you opt to switch mounts on your millions of customers.

 

[Avenger 2.0]

rather strange yes, that Sigma and Tokina and Tamron (except 1 anemic 18-200) make lenses for all sorts of "minority niche mounts" but not for APS-C market leading Canon EF-M. Probably they have just not been able to hack the lens-mount communications protocol yet ...

Because the M mount isn't open, Sigma and Tamron need to reverse engineer compatibility.
The Tamron 18-200mm for example gives problems with the newer M series camera's.
Canon builds in compatibility patches in their new camera firmware for older (EF-M) lenses.
So Sigma and Canon would need to reverse engineer and test their lenses with newer M body's.

It will be interesting to see whether third-party EF-mount lenses will have additional limitations (additional to the ones applying to Canon EF lenses) when adapted to EOS R bodies. Would not be surprised if Canon pulled a few tricks on the EF/RF communications interface/protocol once more. ;-)

If the EF-RF adapter (that can be firmware updated by canon) has identification and/or patches for every canon lens inside (sound like that is the case), it is possible third-party EF-mount lenses won't function at all (or in very limited and restricted compatibility mode) with the new RF body's.

No third-party RF lenses unless Canon allow them.

Is certainly possible. But that would make Sigma and Tamron focus their attention on Sony E-mount lenses.
Can make a lot of people switch to Sony mirrorless instead of Canon R. Not everyone has the money to buy Canon lenses.

 

[andrei1989]

Because the M mount isn't open, Sigma and Tamron need to reverse engineer compatibility.
The Tamron 18-200mm for example gives problems with the newer M series camera's.

If the EF-RF adapter (that can be firmware updated by canon) has identification and/or patches for every canon lens inside (sound like that is the case), it is possible third-party EF-mount lenses won't function at all (or in very limited and restricted compatibility mode) with the new RF body's.

as they have reverse engineered all the EF lenses until now...

the EOS R was tested with a sigma EF lens with the adapter, there's a video on youtube..i believe it was the 35 (?)
everything worked fine

 

[masterpix]

Sorry, but this makes no sense. If you have the light for a fast enough shutter speed then simply having a 600mm focal length doesn't mean you have to use support. I just shot wildlife with 800mm from a moving zodiac and if you have the light, it's totally doable. There's no dark art to this, it's simply a case of getting a fast enough shutter speed. If you're on stable ground and using a 4-stop IS system then sharp shots are possible with a 600mm at just a few hundredths of a second. Sure, support is nice to have, but let's not perpetuate some myth that it's absolutely necessary...

As you said "if you have the light"... which is not the case every time. While such a lens wold be heavy, as some mentioned before that the 150-600 sport is already very heavy to hold for a long time.

 

[Foxdude]

I am still surprised how Sigma can develop so many optically excellent lenses in such a short time.

Because they don't have to develop constant and precise AF

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Because they don't have to develop constant and precise AF

Haha, and all that - but I can only assume you've never actually used one...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

As you said "if you have the light"... which is not the case every time. While such a lens wold be heavy, as some mentioned before that the 150-600 sport is already very heavy to hold for a long time.

It still doesn't fly.

I routinely use my Canon 500mm f/4 Mk II at 700mm (hardly ever "native" at 500mm, far more often out to 1000mm) in 5 digit ISO light, handheld - I never, ever use a tripod or monopod, and it's fine.

I'm neither big; nor muscled like a body-builder; nor in my first flush of youth - and I manage perfectly well for hours at a time.

The trick?

I just do it. It's only "too hard" to do if you start from the position of believing that it will be...

 

[jolyonralph]

But that would make Sigma and Tamron focus their attention on Sony E-mount lenses.
Can make a lot of people switch to Sony mirrorless instead of Canon R. Not everyone has the money to buy Canon lenses.

This is something only Canon's accountants and managers know the answer to. How many body sales will they lose by not allowing third party lenses vs how many lens sales will they lose by allowing it?

We can all guess one way or the other which way is better for Canon, but we can never know for sure.

 

[derekbez]

Bit disappointed with the 60-600. Appreciate that it is the reincarnate of the Bigma, which in itself is its own cult niche. However, I would much rather see a new version of the 150-600C that is designed for crop sensors.

I use the 150-600C on a 7D, and just about every other one of these lenses I've seen in the wild has been on a crop sensor camera. Given the smaller sensor, it would seems to make sense to have either:
- a smaller/lighter version with slightly less glass, or
- same physical size, but with a slightly larger aperture.

The 150-600S could stay full-frame. It seems a bit silly to have two virtually identical lenses.

 

[snoke]

So that is the new Bigma

It would be nice if they could reverse engineer the RF mount and make versions of these compatible straight to the EOS R system.

Why anyone do this?

Just get license from Canon like Sigma & Tamron.

 

[Foxdude]

Haha, all that - but I can only assume you've never actually used one...

Actually I have, four of them. Two was utterly hopeless, two of them was good. I loved 35mm Art, always dead-on focus on my 6D. Tried 50mm Art, and it has very inconsistent, so afma wasn't helping. 70mm macro was... well it was bad. Now I have 100-400mm C, that seems to be good so far. Still, No matter how good these lenses will perform, I'm not buying Sigmas anymore.I think I'm not the only one.

 

[Arod820]

Dear Sigma

RF mount sigma Art zooms please, f1.8.

Thank you

 

[Arod820]

Actually I have, four of them. Two was utterly hopeless, two of them was good. I loved 35mm Art, always dead-on focus on my 6D. Tried 50mm Art, and it has very inconsistent, so afma wasn't helping. 70mm macro was... well it was bad. Now I have 100-400mm C, that seems to be good so far. Still, No matter how good these lenses will perform, I'm not buying Sigmas anymore.I think I'm not the only one.

Did you give up before the lens dock came out, my Art lens zooms are spot on even at 1.8. I had a 17-50 2.8 that was iffy but since the new art lenses came out I haven’t had a bad experience.

 

[Foxdude]

Did you give up before the lens dock came out, my Art lens zooms are spot on even at 1.8. I had a 17-50 2.8 that was iffy but since the new art lenses came out I haven’t had a bad experience.

Yes. 50mm Art AF was really inconsistent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but usb-dock cant correct this? Plus, I don't want all that extra hassle, I prefer to pay a bit more for first party AF that I can rely.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Actually I have, four of them.

My point still stands - Sigma is more than capable of providing extremely accurate and precise AF in its lenses.

I spent several years with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 120-300mm f/2.8 as my lens "quiver" - always used hand-held, generally with a 1.4x or 2x TC in the mix - and both were excellent, happily dealing with any task I presented them with, whether wide-open; or shooting birds in flight; or fast aircraft (this one is on the pilot's wall over his fireplace); or panning to follow racing motorbikes or British Touring Cars - they did it all, and did it all really well.