SIGMA will address the RF mount in 2022 [CR3]

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
350
I think his point is that all EF mount lenses regardless of brand will work on R bodies, with a simple adapter.
So why would anyone buy RF lenses by that logic? The reasons why they would, the answers to that question, are the points that Czardoom is not addressing, or refusing to acknowledge.

I've seen so many posts on this forum with reasons why people either want to buy new RF lenses as first time buyers of a certain focal length/aperture combination, or want to change over their existing EF lenses to their RF counterparts. Kind of an inconvenient truth that... :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

SNJ Ops

EOS 90D
Jul 27, 2021
125
117
I think his point is that all EF mount lenses regardless of brand will work on R bodies, with a simple adapter.
Making a setup larger and heavier. Sigma have been working to improve their lenses by making them smaller, lighter and optically better to the point where their Art lenses compare very
well to Sony’s GM line. Plus their I series line includes lenses that Canon probably won’t ever make.

For Tamron they are doing some interesting things with their zooms. Coincidently this has been announced today https://www.tamron.com/news/press_release/20220830.html# - Tamron have just announced their 1st lens for Z mount.
 
Upvote 0

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
1,011
362
Sony executives must soooo happy losing potential GM line customers to Sigma & co.
Well, it is possible they may be happy enough about it. Sony is trying to maximise its profits, no doubt. If Sony would sell the same number of cameras if third party lenses were not available, presumably it would be better for Sony if there were no third party lenses available for the Sony platform, because then Sony would be getting all of whatever sales of lenses there were for Sony's mount. However, if the availability of third party lenses increases the sale of Sony cameras, it is possible Sony could end up doing better overall by virtue of selling more cameras and perhaps even selling more lenses (because of the increased number of Sony camera owners to potentially buy lenses). Assuming Sony sells its cameras and lenses at a profit, that could lead to higher overall profit than if the third party lenses were not there, notwithstanding the fact some people might end up buying a third party lens in preference to a Sony lens.

How does/would it actually work out in practice? I don't know. However, I am going to assume that companies like Sony and Canon have a lot of data which is relevant to that question, and employ people to put a lot of time and energy into analysing that data and other market information to try to come up wtih an answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

SNJ Ops

EOS 90D
Jul 27, 2021
125
117
Sony executives must soooo happy losing potential GM line customers to Sigma & co.
Sigma make a mix of lenses that directly compete with Sony’s offerings and ones that Sony have no equivalent for at all and not every Sony shooter can afford or will pay GM prices even of they can.
So while its true that 1 user might choose the 85mm f1.4 DG DN over the 85mm GM that same user might also opt to buy the 35mm f1.4 GM over Sigma’s 35mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.2.

In my personal kit it’s mostly GM and G lenses but my 24-70mm is the Sigma because at the time it was the best option in that range on emount. I also own Voigtländer’s 50mm f1.2 Nokton, which I use for some of my street photography. Sony don’t and probably won’t make any manual focus lenses. I’m considering more Voigtländer lenses, waiting on a potential 105mm f1.4 DG DN and a potential 85mm f1.2 GM. The key thing here is that I and all Sony users can choose. On Canon it’s whatever they decide to release and that’s it.
 
Upvote 0

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
200
83
Please stop confusing what you don't like with what is unethical or illegal. Yes, from the point of view of those of us who would like to buy Sigma or Tamron or other third party lenses for our R series cameras it sucks that Canon will not license the protocol to third party lens makers. And for people who own Sony, it's great for them that Sony does. This decision by Canon may be bad for their business, or it may be good for their business; presumably they believe that the money they make on lens sales will more than compensate for people who may chose not to buy Canon because they cannot get third party lenses for the R. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. It sucks for us, but that does not make it unethical for Canon, and it certainly doesn't make it illegal. Canon's priority is maximizing profit, just like most companies. It is within their rights to keep their lens protocols to themselves. Just because I don't like the way they do business doesn't make it unethical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Johnw

EOS R6
Oct 10, 2020
108
111
In a strictly legal sense Canon do not have a monopoly

Canon does not have a monopoly in ANY sense.

If you want to take pictures with an ILC, you do not have to use a Canon body, or a Canon lens.

And as has been pointed out, even IF you WANT to use a Canon body, you do not HAVE to use a Canon lens.

The assertion that Canon has a monopoly in any sense in the ILC market is completely illogical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Johnw

EOS R6
Oct 10, 2020
108
111
Why would anyone buy a brand new RF camera and buy legacy lenses from the previous mount?

So then because you personally wouldn’t do that, you are discounting the competition that exists via that route by people who do choose to do that. Got it, thanks for clarifying your position on that.

As I previously stated, I did just that recently when I purchased a Sigma 12-24 for my R6. Why did I do it? Oddly enough, it was primarily a criticism that you yourself have leveled at some of the Canon lenses and that is their poor optical correction at wide angles. The Sigma 12-24 is better corrected optically at 12 than the Canon 14-35 is at 14, it weighs a bit more to achieve this of course, but I’m mainly going to be using it with a tripod so that didn’t factor into my decision too much. I’m hoping the Canon 10-24 will have better optical correction at UWA and I may consider it at that time.
 
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,914
7,995
As I previously stated, I did just that recently when I purchased a Sigma 12-24 for my R6. Why did I do it? Oddly enough, it was primarily a criticism that you yourself have leveled at some of the Canon lenses and that is their poor optical correction at wide angles. The Sigma 12-24 is better corrected optically at 12 than the Canon 14-35 is at 14, it weighs a bit more to achieve this of course, but I’m mainly going to be using it with a tripod so that didn’t factor into my decision too much. I’m hoping the Canon 10-24 will have better optical correction at UWA and I may consider it at that time.
After optical correction using a good RAW converter (DxO PhotoLab), the Canon RF 14-35/4 14mm yields an FoV of ~13.5mm and corner sharpness equivalent to the Canon EF 11-24/4 (where the latter has almost no distortion).

Unless the extra 1.5mm on the wide end is critical to you, I think the Canon RF 14-35 is a better choice than the Sigma 12-24 Art. Similar cost, half the weight, takes 77mm front filters, and delivers slightly better IQ.

I’m really not sure why people are so bothered by a lens needing digital correction for geometric distortion, if that correction yields image quality as good as the optical correction on other lenses.
 
Upvote 0

Johnw

EOS R6
Oct 10, 2020
108
111
Unless the extra 1.5mm on the wide end is critical to you

Well that was part of it. I already have the 24-105L which does very well at 24+. The 14-35 is clearly optimized for the long end rather than the UWA end. The Sigma lens seems better designed for UWA rendering, and actually goes wider as well and I wanted a lens that was more focused on UWA. I had excellent results with the Sigma 14-24 as well which probably factored in to my decision. I can't afford the EF 11-24 or the notional RF 10-24 at present anyway even though one of those would probably be the one I most want out of Canon's UWA offerings.

I think the Canon RF 14-35 is a better choice than the Sigma 12-24 Art

Totally fair of you to think so. I'm just pointing out there is room in the market for disagreement on that, and for someone to still favor a third party option over a Canon lens, if they so choose.
 
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,914
7,995
Well that was part of it. I already have the 24-105L which does very well at 24+. The 14-35 is clearly optimized for the long end rather than the UWA end. The Sigma lens seems better designed for UWA rendering, and actually goes wider as well and I wanted a lens that was more focused on UWA. I had excellent results with the Sigma 14-24 as well which probably factored in to my decision. I can't afford the EF 11-24 or the notional RF 10-24 at present anyway even though one of those would probably be the one I most want out of Canon's UWA offerings.

Totally fair of you to think so. I'm just pointing out there is room in the market for disagreement on that, and for someone to still favor a third party option over a Canon lens, if they so choose.
Of course! I do have the EF 11-24, but find myself taking the 14-35 unless I know I’ll need wider. The combination of RF 14-35/4, 24-105/4 and 100-500 makes an excellent travel kit – broad range, relatively light, all take 77mm filters.
 
Upvote 0

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
585
1,320
Just wow! :) So much flawed logical thinking I just don't know where to start. Probably because it's all emotive...

You haven't pointed out a single flaw in my logic. And I think most would agree that it is your posts that are overly 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!
It is not a monopoly as has been explained both in my post and others. The fact thatayou don't know what a monopoly is does not make it so.

The fact that you think Canon's prices are unreasonable is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. My opinion is that - on the whole - they are not that much higher than similar lenses put out by Nikon and Sony. If Canon at some point sells licenses to others so they can make RF lenses, they can charge whatever they want. They are in business to make a profit.


Oh goodness, so using adapted EF lenses, which will eventually cease to be manufactured is your definition of choice?

Yes it is a choice. Lenses can easily last 20, 30 years or more. Since you can use adapted EF lenses on an RF camera and many RF camera users are doing so, means that it is a choice by definition. By definition - not just MY definition.

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.
1) Because they work just fine - or even better according to the many users who have made comments about it.
2) Because you have lenses for the EF mount that don't exist yet, and maybe won't ever exist, for the RF mount.
3) Yes, because they are cheaper, which is, of course, one of your main arguments as to why 3rd party lenses should be allowed by Canon to be made for the RF mount.

Why even run a website like Canon Rumors if people don't want or need RF lenses for their RF camera bodies?

No one ever said that people don't want RF lenses. All I said was that they don't need them. You have said absolutely nothing to prove in any way that people NEED them. you do understand the difference between want and need, I hope.

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.

Well, sorry to say this is complete Bullcrap. They do need an adapter, as I stated. Nor have I ever said that eliminating 3rd party lenses doesn't reduce people's choice. Yes, no 3rd party lenses means less choice. But you do understand the difference between less choice and no choice, I hope.

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.

Yes eventually. Neither you nor I know when that will happen.

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?

Again, you twisted my words. I said that some people may look at making lenses smaller and lighter as being technological progress. The drawback is darker apertures. Not sure why you can't understand that not everyone has your point of view. For some, smaller and lighter is progress. The fact that you don't agree - and that darker apertures are more important to you - does not make it a universal opinion, or a fact. Canon, let's not forget, is making lenses to make a profit.

Canon absolutely loves people who believe their hype. That's pretty good marketing spin doctoring that borders on to Orwellian doublespeak.

You do seem to be an expert at doublespeak! Sorry, couldn't resist!

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:;)
If you want lightweight lenses with darker apertures for a cheap price, you have numerous RF lenses to choose from. Apparently you forgot that has been one of your major gripes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,914
7,995
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.
A lack of knowledge can be equally difficult to deal with.


There are two 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount from Rokinon, at least. I’m pretty sure two is more than none.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,914
7,995
I ordered some gear literally minutes before the prices went up, that was back-ordered for months, and when it finally showed up it was trading for more used than I paid old-price-new.
That’s the pandemic for you. I bought a new car in July, 2020 and it’s estimated value today is still more than I paid for it even though it’s >2 years old.
 
Upvote 0

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
350
You haven't pointed out a single flaw in my logic. And I think most would agree that it is your posts that are overly emotive.


It is not a monopoly as has been explained both in my post and others. The fact thatayou don't know what a monopoly is does not make it so.

The fact that you think Canon's prices are unreasonable is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. My opinion is that - on the whole - they are not that much higher than similar lenses put out by Nikon and Sony. If Canon at some point sells licenses to others so they can make RF lenses, they can charge whatever they want. They are in business to make a profit.




Yes it is a choice. Lenses can easily last 20, 30 years or more. Since you can use adapted EF lenses on an RF camera and many RF camera users are doing so, means that it is a choice by definition. By definition - not just MY definition.


1) Because they work just fine - or even better according to the many users who have made comments about it.
2) Because you have lenses for the EF mount that don't exist yet, and maybe won't ever exist, for the RF mount.
3) Yes, because they are cheaper, which is, of course, one of your main arguments as to why 3rd party lenses should be allowed by Canon to be made for the RF mount.



No one ever said that people don't want RF lenses. All I said was that they don't need them. You have said absolutely nothing to prove in any way that people NEED them. you do understand the difference between want and need, I hope.



Well, sorry to say this is complete Bullcrap. They do need an adapter, as I stated. Nor have I ever said that eliminating 3rd party lenses doesn't reduce people's choice. Yes, no 3rd party lenses means less choice. But you do understand the difference between less choice and no choice, I hope.



Yes eventually. Neither you nor I know when that will happen.



Again, you twisted my words. I said that some people may look at making lenses smaller and lighter as being technological progress. The drawback is darker apertures. Not sure why you can't understand that not everyone has your point of view. For some, smaller and lighter is progress. The fact that you don't agree - and that darker apertures are more important to you - does not make it a universal opinion, or a fact. Canon, let's not forget, is making lenses to make a profit.



You do seem to be an expert at doublespeak! Sorry, couldn't resist!


If you want lightweight lenses with darker apertures for a cheap price, you have numerous RF lenses to choose from. Apparently you forgot that has been one of your major gripes.
Looks like we have a knack for misunderstanding each other, no offence taken! ;)

Simply put, buying products from a superseded model range that is being gradually phased out and end-of-life is not the most attractive option for new buyers, nor does it inspire existing users to buy more of it, the reasons for which should be obvious. Yes, there are choices, and there are choices lol! There are choices to remain on EF and buy second-hand lenses only (Canon would love that) also choices to buy into other company's systems that have a more comprehensive range of native lenses too!

I see we do agree that there's no universal opinion as to what suits everyone's needs, and since all designs are compromises, some compromises suit some more than others. Want a light, compact system? Great if you're hiking or travelling. Doesn't mean that people can use that as a defense that those lenses are great lenses. Great for what? Some people make the mistake that everyone else's needs should be like theirs, and if they're happy, nobody should complain. That's what I'm highlighting. It's the Canon R5 overheating denial saga all over again lol! In that case and here, we're just seeing lots of confirmation bias, which is typical human behaviour.

We're seeing lots of mixed emotional reactions and rationalisations that keep shifting these threads.
"My favourite company would never do the wrong thing"
"My favourite company would never do the wrong thing to me"
"My favourite company may be doing something that I can't explain, but there's probably a simple explanation that everything is okay"
"My favourite company is doing something that I don't like, but there are good business reasons for it, which makes it justified"
The next line is predictable, like it was with the R5 overheat issue, it went from denying it was even possible to whining that the firmware update was taking too long. Fanboys will be fanboys, don't buy into this nonsense lol! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
350
That’s the pandemic for you. I bought a new car in July, 2020 and it’s estimated value today is still more than I paid for it even though it’s >2 years old.
And out of control inflation around the world, and a shrinking camera market! All my EF lenses also appear to have appreciated in value! :D
 
Upvote 0

Johnw

EOS R6
Oct 10, 2020
108
111
Plus not all people want to bother with adapters.

As neuro has also pointed out, for some lenses like the Sigma 12-24 and the Canon 11-24, the need for an adapter is actually an advantage because it provides a more robust option for filters than even existed when the lens was originally designed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

dlee13

Canon EOS R6
May 13, 2014
314
210
Australia
As neuro has also pointed out, for some lenses like the Sigma 12-24 and the Canon 11-24, the need for an adapter is actually an advantage because it provides a more robust option for filters than even existed when the lens was originally designed.
Well I never said no one has a use for them, simply that many don’t want to deal with an adapter. For example I wouldn’t wouldn’t use a lens that can’t take front filters and I personally wouldn’t bother with old EF lenses when there’s newer third party options being released constantly.
 
Upvote 0