E mount Sigma lenses look suspiciously like they have an in built adapter as EF and F mounts don’t have this extension near the mount. I imagine this was easier for Sigma rather than attempting to create completely separate E mount lenses. L mount are the same so likely RF mount will be the same too.Why would Sigma limit themselves with converting E mount to RF mount.
Sigma has a couple different AF motors out there. The 35 is the worst, after they made the 24-35 they started using much better guts. AF speed and accuracy greatly improved. Caveat, this is for single shot, Servo not so much.
Yes, let's hope Sigma is willing to design lenses specifically for 20mm flange and 54mm diameter for Canon, which would also fit (with 4 mm spacer) the 16mm flange and 55mm diameter Nikon Z mount. That'd give them 100% of the design options that Canon has - and I hear they're pretty darn good at lens designs!About time, this is excellent news.
And I am so glad they aren't just converting existing lenses to have RF mount compatibility like Samyang and Rokinon do with their lenses across mounts.
To benefit from the RF mount's diameter and flange focal distance, they will have to design new lens from scratch. Glad they are taking this approach.
Great great news!
Sigma lenses have limited appeal i prefer tamron for my third party, i sold the old 400 and the fisheye ex, they were fine but compatibility and quality often went against sigma and their appeal seems to be pixel peepers and non shooters who never encounter real world use issues, in 4 years there will be a glut of parts lenses
To me, I cannot say one brand or the other. They both make a couple superior lenses which rival L glass yet have quite a few forgettable lenses as well. Some that stand out to me are the Tamron 35 1.4, Sigma 24-35, Sigma 40, Tamron 15-30....Same here. I like Tamron zoom lenses like my 24-70 f/2.8 f/2.8 VC, and in in some places they offer 5 or 6 years warranty. I think if Sigma started developing lenses for RF mount, Tamron will follow suit. Samyang has one AF lens for RF mount (AF 14mm F2.8 RF), but I am not sure how good the AF is, I think Dustin Abbot made a review about it on his YouTube channel.
I agree, all of us customers profit from competition. That's why I wouldn't like Canon to give up their sensor and electronics production and reside to buy Sony sensors only like Nikon - and like many guys in many photog threads strongly wish. If Sony would dominate sensor production in the camera market that much, it'll slow down progress. Same with lenses, in particular Sigma and Tamron are important.A bit of competition is always good
Unfortunately one major problems of 3rd party lenses is AF reverse engineering. I had one Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 that pumped heavily, despite MA. A second copy was doing better, but phase detection AF never was that reliable than with a Canon lens. Fortunately, with the ML cameras, this is getting better now.I used Sigma 85mm on a video shoot. The lens was sharp but made noises while servo focusing. Wish it did not as the noise would faintly get recorded on the talent's microphone.
Same with my Tamron lenses, it's a problem of reverse engineering Canon's phase AF system - never works as well as the original. Same with Nikon's DSLRs btw.All of my Sigma lenses autofocus flawlessly in Live View and using my EOS R, so it shouldn't be an issue. They were downright unreliable on my DSLRs.
Sony is a good example for how a handicap can drive progress. About a decade ago, they copied the fixed mirror from some of Canon's 1960/80 cameras for their SLT line, which restricted the number of photons hitting the sensor compared with mirror slappers. Plus, they created a smaller mount, also resulting in less light coming in. So this forced them to reduce the noise floor of their sensor tech more than the competition, say, Canon. Vice versa, if Canon now really would take advantage of their RF mount with a really competitive sensor tech, they really could beat SonyWhy would Sigma limit themselves with converting E mount to RF mount.
Basically I agree, but regarding mechanical quality both Sigma and Tamron have really changed from "cheapo" to decent or very good, at least with their better lenses. We have some quite nice lenses for our Canon and Nikon gears, e.g. Sigmas 105mm f/2.8 macro is a well-made lens and optically substantially better corrected that Nikon's much more expensive 105mm macro.this will simply expand what’s available in areas that Canon isn’t competing too heavily in. Canon’s new R lenses are state of the art, and Sigma will have a hard time duplicating the quality, both optical and mechanical.
Just curious: You mentioned "MA" and "ML". What do these abbreviations stand for?Unfortunately one major problems of 3rd party lenses is AF reverse engineering. I had one Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 that pumped heavily, despite MA. A second copy was doing better, but phase detection AF never was that reliable than with a Canon lens. Fortunately, with the ML cameras, this is getting better now.
That macro is old, so its not surprising the performance isn’t great. I have to admit that I haven’t used Sigma’s lenses that much, but from reports I read from some respected camera sites have it that the variability is a lot worse than Canon, which is the least Variable. Camera Rentals agrees with that. Canon’s mechanicals are up with the very best. Sigma’s can be pretty good. But the fact is that it requires expensive work, and cheaper lenses have to give way somewhere. I wouldn’t agree that Sigma is equal to Canon’s L series mechanically, and for the R series, they’ll have a really tough time equaling what Canon has done there.Basically I agree, but regarding mechanical quality both Sigma and Tamron have really changed from "cheapo" to decent or very good, at least with their better lenses. We have some quite nice lenses for our Canon and Nikon gears, e.g. Sigmas 105mm f/2.8 macro is a well-made lens and optically substantially better corrected that Nikon's much more expensive 105mm macro.
I highly doubt that people will stop buying L lenses because Sigma decides to move into the R mount. This was never a problem for Canon’s EOS lenses, and it won’t be a problem for them here. People who buy ART lenses either buy them because Canon doesn’t produce that lens, and that‘s what people want, or because they’re cheaper, meaning that people who buy the cheaper lens likely wouldn’t have bought the more expensive L lens anyway. No matter how you slice it, I don’t see more than a small number not buying an L lens because of Sigma.
this will simply expand what’s available in areas that Canon isn’t competing too heavily in. Canon’s new R lenses are state of the art, and Sigma will have a hard time duplicating the quality, both optical and mechanical.
If they do something better Art series, many will stop buying L lenses