SIGMA will address the RF mount in 2022 [CR3]

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,033
868
www.flickr.com
Well, in all other market areas monopolies tend to drive prices up and increased competition tends to drive them down. But I understand you think the lens market is uniquely different in some way. I - for one - also hate the adapter even if you may like it.
General economic theory would say that monopoly behaviour will have the highest prices but the R mount protocols are a proprietary system design and anti-competition regulatory bodies would never intervene. It is simple enough for Sigma/Tamron etc to release R mount lenses today using their reverse engineered EF protocols.

The CPL/ND adapter is unique in that it enables filters for wide angle TSE and EF 11-24mm to avoid dinner plate sized front filters. It ends up being a cheaper option than front filters so the adapter is a benefit for those users.
The adapter enables all EF lenses to be used for R mount. That in itself is a major plus for the R system. It would have been extremely difficult for DLSR Canon users to move to mirrorless if our EF lenses couldn't be used.
I don't see a need to upgrade to the RF14-35mm or EF100 macro and can't upgrade my EF8-15mm to RF.

The adapter is necessary for the success of the R mount system in my view.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,033
868
www.flickr.com
Sigma’s DG DN lenses designed for mirrorless and currently available for E and L mount.

14-24mm f2.8 Art
24-70mm f2.8 Art
28-70mm f2.8 Contemporary
150-600mm Sport
100-400 Contemporary

I-Series

24mm f2
24mm f3.5
35mm f2
45mm f2.8
65mm f2
90mm f2.8

35mm f1.4 Art
35mm f1.2 Art
85mm f1.4 Art
105mm f2.8 Macro Art

That above list excludes the DG HSM options that fit natively but are the older DSLR designs. That’s a lot of options that Canon shooters are missing out on.
Strangely enough, there is no lens in this list that I would want/need. I would be tempted by a 14mm/1.4 though if the coma was good.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,529
4,285
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...If I was Canon and adamant about restricting 3rd parties then I would encrypt the communications end to end. Reverse engineering would be extremely difficult - if not impossible then.
If the past is any indication, it seems as though Canon has never been adamant about restricting 3rd parties. They aren't going to make it easy, but they are content to let them reverse engineer their mounts. To me, this makes perfect sense. An overly aggressive approach might alienate customers.

There have been some cases (according to people on the internet) where in the past Canon changed lens protocols and some third party lenses quit working or quit working well. Some people claim that was a deliberate effort by Canon to undermine the competitors, but I believe the official explanation, which makes sense, is that Canon doesn't feel any obligation to make sure third party products work with their products when they need to make changes to improve the performance of their own products. Presumably, one reason why Sigma and Tamron have gone to consoles that enable user-updatable firmware has been to make sure their lenses stay compatible with manufacturer's products.
 

SNJ Ops

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 27, 2021
52
37
Another factor that people on this forum are conveniently ignoring is the risk of trying to compete with an immature product line. Third party lens makers survive by offering niche lenses not offered by the big guns. With a mature line like EF, it was much easier to identify the holes and try to fill them. But with RF, they don't yet know where those holes are.

Case in point: for years, the 600mm zooms have been cash cows for both Sigma and Tamron. They met a need that Canon didn't seem interested in filling.

Now, here comes the RF lineup and Canon nuked the market. A 100-500 zoom closes much of the gap between 400 and 600 plus it's lighter than the third party zooms and super responsive and sharp. Canon follows that up with low cost 600 and 800 mm primes and a super light, low-cost 100-400 zoom. It's hard to see where the 600mm zooms fit in and if I were Sigma or Tamron, I wouldn't be spending a penny adapting those lenses for RF.

Another example, the 16mm f2.8 lens that is finding its way into the bags of virtually every R system owner.

As long as Canon is willing to come out of left field with incredibly popular and unexpected lenses, the risks to Tamron, Sigma and Tokina are huge. Makes perfect sense for them to proceed with caution.
Here in the UK

Sigma 150-600 DG DN Sport = £1199
Tamron 150-500 = £1379
Canon 100-500 RF = £2979

What risk is there to the 3rd parties when their options are less than half the price of Canon’s equivalent? I’d say it was the other way around. Not everyone can or is prepared to pay nearly £3K for a telephoto superzoom.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,082
12,733
Here in the UK

Sigma 150-600 DG DN Sport = £1199
Tamron 150-500 = £1379
Canon 100-500 RF = £2979

What risk is there to the 3rd parties when their options are less than half the price of Canon’s equivalent? I’d say it was the other way around. Not everyone can or is prepared to pay nearly £3K for a telephoto superzoom.
You missed the £699 pricing of the RF 100-400mm. It’s a tremendous little featherweight lens that I think is likely to be a major seller. Canon could well capture both the top end and the bottom end of the zoom market. (I have both of them.)
 

SNJ Ops

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 27, 2021
52
37
You missed the £699 pricing of the RF 100-400mm. It’s a tremendous little featherweight lens that I think is likely to be a major seller. Canon could well capture both the top end and the bottom end of the zoom market. (I have both of them.)
If someone wants to get to 500/600mm but for a reasonable price a 100-400 won’t cut it for a lot of people.

On a similar note if someone wants an 85mm f1.4 Canon doesn’t offer that in mirrorless at the moment. But Sigma do for £999, Canon’s 85mm f1.2 are £2869 and £3299 for the DS version. Yes Canon offer the 85mm f2 Macro but f2 isn’t f1.4 and besides the Sigma is one of the very best 85mm primes on any platform 2nd only to the Canon RF but again for less than half the price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,033
868
www.flickr.com
If the past is any indication, it seems as though Canon has never been adamant about restricting 3rd parties. They aren't going to make it easy, but they are content to let them reverse engineer their mounts. To me, this makes perfect sense. An overly aggressive approach might alienate customers.

There have been some cases (according to people on the internet) where in the past Canon changed lens protocols and some third party lenses quit working or quit working well. Some people claim that was a deliberate effort by Canon to undermine the competitors, but I believe the official explanation, which makes sense, is that Canon doesn't feel any obligation to make sure third party products work with their products when they need to make changes to improve the performance of their own products. Presumably, one reason why Sigma and Tamron have gone to consoles that enable user-updatable firmware has been to make sure their lenses stay compatible with manufacturer's products.
Seeing that there is a 3rd party control ring R mount adapter then the protocols are probably not encrypted but that should be simple to reverse engineer vs combined IBIS/OIS. I would be surprised if Canon allowed IBIS/OIS to be independently switched off in the next firmware but it would be needed for the 3rd parties to get stabilisation working well.

The Magic Lantern project was the big one for the 5Diii in my opinion. The 5Dii is renowed for combining video/stills hybrid but if Canon marketing allowed even some of the features of Magic Lantern into the production model firmware of the 5Diii then it would have been remarkable. Even now, ETTR isn't a specific feature. Allowing the R5 engineers to let loose caused the overheating drama that has never gone away unfortunately. Despite improving record times significantly with new firmware and external recorders providing a perfect solution for those that need it. First impressions do count.
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
390
849
Here in the UK

Sigma 150-600 DG DN Sport = £1199
Tamron 150-500 = £1379
Canon 100-500 RF = £2979

What risk is there to the 3rd parties when their options are less than half the price of Canon’s equivalent? I’d say it was the other way around. Not everyone can or is prepared to pay nearly £3K for a telephoto superzoom.
For those wanting to avoid the high RF prices, you can get the Sigma EF versions and get the adapter. Their Contemporary, Sports, and Art line of lenses are all compatible with the "R system" cameras, as far as I know. Not sure about Tamron. And, of course, most of the Canon EF lenses are available considerably cheaper. So for those who really want to get quality, but less expensive lenses for their R series cameras, the options are there and fairly obvious. For those who are unwilling to accept these options, there really is no reason to complain - other than just wanting to whine and complain on a forum, which seems to be a popular pastime.

it seems quite reasonable to expect Canon to do all they can to restrict 3rd party lenses. Sigma, Tamron and all the others didn't pay a penny of all the R&D costs for the 5 R system cameras and all the new lenses. If the time comes when Canon believes that the amount they will make by granting the licensing to 3rd party makers is worth it, then it will happen.
 

preppyak

EOS R
Oct 18, 2011
1,026
80
"The biggest roadblock for SIGMA is apparently manufacturing capabilities beyond just the issues from the pandemic."

But the experts on this forum keep telling us that it is Canon's fault that Sigma has not yet released any RF lenses. Don't tell me they are wrong!
Pretty simple, this one. EOS R released in 2018, and we still have no Sigma or Tamron lenses. Sigma obviously worked with Panasonic to release their entire lineup with L-mount. Once the Sony FE mount had market penetration (building to the a7III, really), they developed lenses for that.

Canon already had the market penetration for Sigma/Tamron to build those lenses if they licensed them. Hell, the Tamron 28-75 raked it in for both Tamron and Sony in terms of people moving to the a7III. Canon just, as usual, protected their own margins at the expense of faster adoption rates.

Doesnt seem to have hurt them as Nikon continues to flail, and the L-Mount hasnt really taken off (because its just as pricey and large)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Howland and AJ

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
611
526
If someone wants to get to 500/600mm but for a reasonable price a 100-400 won’t cut it for a lot of people.
Add a 1.4x extender (about £500?) and you'll get to that range, at a comparable or lower price, with decent results (although nowhere near the RF 100-500 L).
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,529
4,285
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Here in the UK

Sigma 150-600 DG DN Sport = £1199
Tamron 150-500 = £1379
Canon 100-500 RF = £2979

What risk is there to the 3rd parties when their options are less than half the price of Canon’s equivalent? I’d say it was the other way around. Not everyone can or is prepared to pay nearly £3K for a telephoto superzoom.
I suspect there are more than a few enthusiasts who bought both the Canon 100-400 and one of the 600mm zooms. I bought the Sigma Contemporary because I wanted the extra reach of the 600 zoom. I could have used a 1.4 extender with the 100-400, but with a DSLR that meant you were restricted to only the f8 autofocus points, which in the case of the 7DII, meant having only one center point.

With the Sigma I could use all the autofocus point selections because it "fooled" the Canon DSLRs into thinking it was an f5.6 lens. But, the 100-400 was a much easier lens to pack and carry and I preferred the sharpness and responsiveness of the 100-400 most of the time.

With the 100-500, I can replace both the 100-400 EF lens and the Sigma 600 zoom. Consolidating to one lens means that the total cost is less than the two combined, plus I get a lighter lens and no longer have the hassle of choosing which lens to carry.

But, as others have said, it's not just about the 100-500, there are also the budget 600 and 800 lenses and the new 100-400 budget lens.

My point is that the combination of these four Canon lenses significantly reduced the market for the 600mm zooms.

As I said, these lenses were cash cows for Sigma and Tamron, but I have to think it would be much harder for them to slap on an RF mount and sell these same basic lenses, given the options Canon is providing. Could Sigma and Tamron come up with new lenses that fill a niche Canon isn't meeting with the RF lenses. Yes, but that requires new lens designs. Thus my point that Sigma and Tamron need to study the market and determine what niche they can fill.
 

Otara

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2012
434
255
I suspect the real competition is the EF 600mm zooms - probably most people wanting one already had one, so you're asking them to sell off the EF to get the RF, which isnt too likely without some kind of real advantage features wise, and other than price there probably isnt much they can do.

Bird watching has grown during lockdowns but I suspect the number of truly new RF 600mm zoom type users is still fairly small.
 

tangerine_sedge

I'm New Here
May 27, 2021
10
21
If your production facilities are already running short of needed parts and materials while trying to meet current demand, adding a new product line that will increase demand and further strain your available resources isn't a good business decision. If that new product line also requires changes in design and modifications in your production lines, it might not be a good idea to make those changes in the middle of a supply shortage. If you are making those changes to meet potential demand for a relatively new product, exercising some caution and not diverting resources from already successful products also makes sense.

In case you haven't noticed, getting product to market is the single biggest challenge facing manufacturers today. Thus, what @Canon Rumors Guy 's sources have told him makes sense. He has a lot more experience and a lot better sources than random people on this forum. I have no reason to doubt him. Why do you think you know more about the situation than his sources do?
At some point Sigma will have to start making RF lenses, and at the moment there are huge holes across the RF range, begging to be filled. I'm surprised that Sigma is not not dipping a toe in the RF market with a single lens just as a discovery activity to understand the issues. Sigma already has excellent EF lens designs for many of those gaps therefore the engineering effort to convert them to RF is relatively small (in comparison).

The market for EF is obviously shrinking (see the regular announcements from Canon about EF lenses being discontinued and stocks run down). It would be poor business sense for Sigma to remain stuck in the EF world ignoring where all the growth is going to come from. Sigma could easily swap out one of the existing lense production lines and start building a single RF lense, why can't they do that? They've had a few years of RF mount to start planning that...

I have no better sources than what @Canon_Rumours_Guy has said, but it seems an excuse rather than a reason. We've already heard 2 reasons why Sigma are not producing RF lenses (they can't manufacture them/Canon won't let them), and this is a rumour forum, so I'll throw my opinion into the mix too :)
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
180
66
Canon seems to be trying to turn their mount into some sort of creepy cult isolated from the rest of the photographic world. That's the way it feels sometimes. If you buy into the Canon system you become forced to use their and only their optical designs and get cut off from the outside world and all the innovations that are taking place elsewhere from lens makers such as Zeiss, Sigma, and Tamron.
I don't know about "creepy cult", but yes, Canon is trying to force customers to buy Canon lenses for their Canon cameras. Annoying to those of us interested in third party lenses, but not that surprising given Canon's history. Their primary goal is making money, and they seem to believe (perhaps correctly) that this will make them more money.
 

tiggy@mac.com

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
735
647
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
The manager of my local camera shop was told something very similar by a Sigma UK rep. He also mentioned that that Sigma had an agreement with Canon to NOT produce RF lenses for the 1st 3 years of the RF mount.

Also I recently watched a YT video by Grays of Westminster who are a Nikon store exclusively. They mentioned being told by a Sigma UK rep that Sigma won’t reverse engineer any lenses for mirrorless. If they don’t get the AF protocols for a mount they won’t support it.

I've seen references indicating EF protocols were never licensed to third party lens makers, but that the reverse-engineering simply got good enough. Seems like there is much contradictory info out there.

We do know that Sony actively tried to get third parties to make lenses back when it had few lenses to offer itself. This is true now of Fuji too.

We may later find in retrospect that the RF protocol's encryption element was enough of a fear-inducing element that some third parties didn't want to create a customer base that later could be stranded by a future firmware update.

My RF 85mm f/1.4 Samyang is a fantastic lens. Has all RF pins, but I assume it's essentially a dressed-up EF lens with a thin adapter in there. In any case, it can take better pictures than I'm capable of composing. Of the list of Sigma mirrorless lenses, there are three I would purchase on day one if they were to offer them in RF.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
683
377
they're significantly bigger than the EF versions and with the smaller mirrorless bodies they just don't balance well

I don't really buy this line. The heavier the lens, the more we hold the lens and the less we hold the body, I think. I've never note that a 50/1.8 Mk I balances better or worse than the 50/1.0, that the 70-200/2.8 is better or worse than the 135/2.0, etc. I'll grant the center of gravity is different. They don't feel the same, for sure. And some are just too heavy, of course. There's surely some amount of shooting which is going to be tiring with the RF 50/1.2 but not the EF 50/1.2 I can imagine. But mere bad balance? I don't get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slclick