SIGMA will address the RF mount in 2022 [CR3]

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,933
2,296
That would be in the area of native Canon RF mount AF lenses, you know the ones, the lenses for Canon's new cameras, that don't need to be manually focused, which nearly everyone uses and wants to buy, that make up approximately 99.99% of the discussions on this forum, nothing really that important lol! ;)

"As a matter of fact, I'm using a Sony, where's the Canon monopoly?" (just kidding...) :oops:
Not a single EF lens needs to be manually focused...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,334
16,806
Not a single EF lens needs to be manually focused...
You can AF your manual Leica lenses on Sony using the latest Techart adapter, which will drive the MF for you.

and to Nikon Z.
 
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,933
2,296
That would be in the area of native Canon RF mount AF lenses, you know the ones, the lenses for Canon's new cameras, that don't need to be manually focused, which nearly everyone uses and wants to buy, that make up approximately 99.99% of the discussions on this forum, nothing really that important lol! ;)

"As a matter of fact, I'm using a Sony, where's the Canon monopoly?" (just kidding...) :oops:
Not a single EF lens needs to be manually focused...
You can AF your manual Leica lenses on Sony using the latest Techart adapter, which will drive the MF for you.

and to Nikon Z.
You can AF your manual Leica lenses on Sony using the latest Techart adapter, which will drive the MF for you.

and to Nikon Z.
I know, but that would mean buying a Sony again, what a horrible thought! (I once owned an A7 which I hated).
And manual focusing is so easy with an R , since I only use M lenses from 35 to 90mm on my R.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,334
16,806
Not a single EF lens needs to be manually focused...


I know, but that would mean buying a Sony again, what a horrible thought! (I once owned an A7 which I hated).
And manual focusing is so easy with an R , since I only use M lenses from 35 to 90mm on my R.
I am not suggesting you do, but it shows Sony and Nikon are willing to share their protocols with 3rd parties, which is to their credit, and it may well be to their advantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

SNJ Ops

EOS 90D
Jul 27, 2021
125
117
Well, that is certainly an interesting development if true. Wondering if they are sending out cease and desist letters. I also wonder if it is a temporary strategy as I can't imagine it would be good for Canon to be the only camera manufacturer that native mount third party lenses are available for. Finally, I'm curious if Sigma may have enough resources to get around Canon's patents.
Not according to the Sigma rep I spoke to in June, I was told Sigma are waiting on a license in order to release RF mount lenses. With what Viltrox said about Canon telling them to stop making RF products it seems like reverse engineering is not going to happen. As for this being a temporary situation the RF mount is nearly 4 years old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,933
2,296
I am not suggesting you do, but it shows Sony and Nikon are willing to share their protocols with 3rd parties, which is to their credit, and it may well be to their advantage.
It is indeed an advantage for the customers, having a much wider choice of lenses. Some Sigmas are really tempting.
Some Tamrons too.
But would it be an advantage for Canon? Sales will tell.
 
Upvote 0

dlee13

Canon EOS R6
May 13, 2014
314
210
Australia
It is indeed an advantage for the customers, having a much wider choice of lenses. Some Sigmas are really tempting.
Some Tamrons too.
But would it be an advantage for Canon? Sales will tell.
I personally think it would be an advantage for Canon. If someone wants to use one of these DN lenses for example, they’d need a RF mount body which Canon would be making money from. Plus if they license out their AF protocol, they’d be making money from that while keeping their customers happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
350
It is a shame that there are no real journalists covering Canon (or any photography) news, so when something like this comes up there is no site to turn to where a reporter has actually dug into the facts.
Unfortunately, it's all just discussion and leaks on online forums that have revealed what we know!
 
Upvote 0

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,395
2,523
The Netherlands
So does the Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro, that's a manually focused native EF lens.

Where is neuro these days? He's slipping in his game here, he's the master of picking up exceptions to general statements! We're missing his skills here! :)
The MP-E is actually a fixed-focus lens, no way to focus, manually or electronically. And like the TS-E lenses, the MP-E is not called 'EF' by Canon.
 
Upvote 0

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
585
1,320
Totally agree, corporations exist to make a profit, but there are legitimate and illegitimate ways to achieve that goal

You keep insinuating that Canon is doing something illegitimate but, as far as I know, have offered absolutely no evidence. Funny that you continue to insinuate that Canon is being unethical, while making false accusations is definitely unethical in my opinion. If you know Canon is violating some laws please do let us know.

Of course, it is quite possible that they are doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Perhaps the patent laws and other proprietary codes permit Canon a certain period of exclusivity for selling RF mount products similar to how drug companies have a 6 year period of exclusivity for their new products before generic versions can be made. I hope you haven't been or never are in that situation, but for folks prescribed a non-generic drug it might mean the difference between serious illness and living a normal life if they can't afford the non-generic version and have to wait until the generics are available. For folks who have been in that situation, your seemingly over-the-top reaction to buying what amounts to a luxury item for most people totally lacks perspective. Every person can wait to buy a lens - either waiting until 3rd party lenses become available or waiting for used or refurbished RF lenses from Canon. No one needs to buy these lenses, a point you seem unable to come to grips with.

And, of course, the other obvious answer for anyone so annoyed or pissd off, or thinking unethical things are happening, you can buy another brand of camera. Buy another brand, buy whatever lenses are available for that brand. There is no monopoly. You have choices.

Yes, totally agree with what you said, "But the key point is - you don't have to buy them. Their R system cameras do not require you to buy them. All the EF lenses, whether made by Canon or made by Sigma, Tamron or others can be used on the R system cameras." Precisely my point. If the lenses are less than ideal, people don't have to buy them - if they have choice of third-party options.

Not sure why you don't get the fact that THEY DON'T NEED A CHOICE 3RD PARTY OPTIONS. There, all caps so maybe you get it this time. All EF mount lenses can be bought instead.

Yes, some of the new Canon lenses are cheap junk that's seriously afflicted by the Canon cripple hammer lol! No company is perfect, so there are bound to be a few duds in there, but it's the questionable cost-cutting measures are a bit much.
For you, in your opinion. You keep stating these things as if they are objective truths


Making RF lenses with darker apertures than were ever used on the EF and EF-S series because you can on mirrorless is hardly in the spirit of customer goodwill or technological process and actually regressive. That's on top of Canon's long history of mean-spirited miserliness which we all tolerate.

Again, in your opinion. Darker apertures allow lighter, smaller and cheaper lenses. I could just as easily call that goodwill on the part of Canon, as well as technologically progressive. Don't you get it? - you are applying your personal desires to your opinions. If someone was hoping that these new mirrorless lenses were smaller and lighter, than - if we apply their personal desires - these lenses are progressive. Somehow you keep assuming that the ability to make lenses smaller and lighter just doesn't count. Maybe for the majority of lens buyers, that counts more than keeping the same apertures as the EF versions.

We get that you don't like software corrected lenses. You don't have to keep repeating yourself as to how awful these lenses are. I think most would disagree that they are awful. In some cases corner sharpness after correction are better than similar EF lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,334
16,806
Of course, it is quite possible that they are doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Perhaps the patent laws and other proprietary codes permit Canon a certain period of exclusivity for selling RF mount products similar to how drug companies have a 6 year period of exclusivity for their new products before generic versions can be made.
They have the standard patent length over their camera mount and any proprietary communication codes. But, they have no rights over anyone making and selling a lens mount to fit on their patented camera mount and similarly anyone is entitled to reverse engineer a communication protocol that works but not copy the Canon one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

dlee13

Canon EOS R6
May 13, 2014
314
210
Australia
Not sure why you don't get the fact that THEY DON'T NEED A CHOICE 3RD PARTY OPTIONS. There, all caps so maybe you get it this time. All EF mount lenses can be bought instead.
Many EF options are more expensive (depending on where you live), heavier/larger and not as good optically as Sigma DN lenses or Tamron’s newer lenses. But actually you’re right, who would want to buy a $1000 AUD Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DN Art when you could get a EF 16-35mm f/4L for $1800 AUD….
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
6,952
5,090
69
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
Many EF options are more expensive (depending on where you live), heavier/larger and not as good optically as Sigma DN lenses or Tamron’s newer lenses. But actually you’re right, who would want to buy a $1000 AUD Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DN Art when you could get a EF 16-35mm f/4L for $1800 AUD….
I think his point is that all EF mount lenses regardless of brand will work on R bodies, with a simple adapter.
 
Upvote 0

dlee13

Canon EOS R6
May 13, 2014
314
210
Australia
I think his point is that all EF mount lenses regardless of brand will work on R bodies, with a simple adapter.
As I mentioned the issue with that is if you don’t already own EF lenses, many are more expensive than both first party options from Sony and much more than much newer DN lenses from Sigma. Plus not all people want to bother with adapters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
350
You keep insinuating that Canon is doing something illegitimate but, as far as I know, have offered absolutely no evidence. Funny that you continue to insinuate that Canon is being unethical, while making false accusations is definitely unethical in my opinion. If you know Canon is violating some laws please do let us know.

Of course, it is quite possible that they are doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Perhaps the patent laws and other proprietary codes permit Canon a certain period of exclusivity for selling RF mount products similar to how drug companies have a 6 year period of exclusivity for their new products before generic versions can be made. I hope you haven't been or never are in that situation, but for folks prescribed a non-generic drug it might mean the difference between serious illness and living a normal life if they can't afford the non-generic version and have to wait until the generics are available. For folks who have been in that situation, your seemingly over-the-top reaction to buying what amounts to a luxury item for most people totally lacks perspective. Every person can wait to buy a lens - either waiting until 3rd party lenses become available or waiting for used or refurbished RF lenses from Canon. No one needs to buy these lenses, a point you seem unable to come to grips with.

And, of course, the other obvious answer for anyone so annoyed or pissd off, or thinking unethical things are happening, you can buy another brand of camera. Buy another brand, buy whatever lenses are available for that brand. There is no monopoly. You have choices.



Not sure why you don't get the fact that THEY DON'T NEED A CHOICE 3RD PARTY OPTIONS. There, all caps so maybe you get it this time. All EF mount lenses can be bought instead.


For you, in your opinion. You keep stating these things as if they are objective truths




Again, in your opinion. Darker apertures allow lighter, smaller and cheaper lenses. I could just as easily call that goodwill on the part of Canon, as well as technologically progressive. Don't you get it? - you are applying your personal desires to your opinions. If someone was hoping that these new mirrorless lenses were smaller and lighter, than - if we apply their personal desires - these lenses are progressive. Somehow you keep assuming that the ability to make lenses smaller and lighter just doesn't count. Maybe for the majority of lens buyers, that counts more than keeping the same apertures as the EF versions.

We get that you don't like software corrected lenses. You don't have to keep repeating yourself as to how awful these lenses are. I think most would disagree that they are awful. In some cases corner sharpness after correction are better than similar EF lenses.
Just wow! :) So much flawed logical thinking I just don't know where to start. Probably because it's all emotive...

Enjoy your wide range of choice of third-party AF RF lenses in the "non-monopoly" that Canon doesn't have. Oh that's right, there aren't any after four years and there might not be any!!! Cognitive dissonance is a nasty thing to deal with sometimes. Let's hope Sigma gets sold a license to the RF system soon, and it's not made too expensive intentionally to force their prices up and make them uncompetitive in an effort to make Canon's price gouging look more reasonable!

Oh goodness, so using adapted EF lenses, which will eventually cease to be manufactured is your definition of choice? Why would anyone buy a brand new RF camera and buy legacy lenses from the previous mount? You're missing the difference between lack of choice and lack of funds here. Why even run a website like Canon Rumors if people don't want or need RF lenses for their RF camera bodies? Heck, why would people even bother posting about what they want in new RF camera bodies at all? Nice try to define away the reality of a lack of choice through some sematic summersaults. By your reasoning, they have a greater choice of EF, EF-S and EF-M camera bodies, and the first two work fine with EF-lenses, and they don't need a $100 EF-RF adapter either. Never mind that all is going to be phased out eventually, and at some point won't be replaceable or repairable, and that some people actually look to the future before shelling out hundreds or thousands of dollars in camera gear.

So darker apertures are a feature and a sign of technical progress, rather than a limitation, and a sign of technical regression, cost cutting and flagrant money-grabbing? Canon absolutely loves people who believe their hype. That's pretty good marketing spin doctoring that borders on to Orwellian doublespeak. Okay. lets follow through this line of reasoning. If you really want lightweight camera gear with dark apertures lenses for a really cheap price, that can take the wide choice of EF lenses which somehow eliminate the monopoly on RF AF lenses, I'll let you in on the secret. The perfect solution has been around for a while, they call it the Rebel series of APSC cameras in the US, and apparently it's extremely popular. :oops:;)
 
Upvote 0