SIGMA will address the RF mount in 2022 [CR3]

[bbasiaga]

Its been rumoured that Sigma refuse to reverse engineer for mirrorless and that they’ll only produce glass on mounts for which they have protocols provided to them by the OEM. I would guess that Sigma don’t want a situation where their emount glass has licensed support and the AF has near/matching native level performance but RF is reverse engineered and the AF is noticeably inferior compared to native RF glass.

Remember Tamron, Zeiss, Tokina and Voigtländer haven’t supported the RF mount yet either.

Zeiss and Voigtlander don't even require any new protocols! No AF. That means they could essentially build in an adapter and use EF protocols they already have.

Samyang/Rokinon HAVE made RF glass, even some that does AF. How did they do it? Using EF protocols? China has a reputation for ignoring patents and intellectual property, so it could also be that they got a copy of the RF protocols and used it without license.

It's the extra size and weight + have to carry the adapter too. When you have a small lens, the adapter adds significant extra size.

I suppose everyone is different, but what you mention is fully a non-issue for me. Once the lens is on, you don't even notice the adapter is there. If you are changing between EF lenses, you just push a different button for the lens release. Its almost fully transparent. The weight is negligible, and while you can measure than an RF equivalent would be an inch or two shorter and a couple of ounces lighter, in practice what you are using is not any larger or heavier than it was on a DSLR. I sometimes feel that people who say things like this about the adapter just haven't really tried it. Of course I'm sure there are people who shoot differently than I do, and maybe they are changing multiple lenses very often.

Brian

 

[SNJ Ops]

Zeiss and Voigtlander don't even require any new protocols! No AF. That means they could essentially build in an adapter and use EF protocols they already have.

Samyang/Rokinon HAVE made RF glass, even some that does AF. How did they do it? Using EF protocols? China has a reputation for ignoring patents and intellectual property, so it could also be that they got a copy of the RF protocols and used it without license.

I suppose everyone is different, but what you mention is fully a non-issue for me. Once the lens is on, you don't even notice the adapter is there. If you are changing between EF lenses, you just push a different button for the lens release. Its almost fully transparent. The weight is negligible, and while you can measure than an RF equivalent would be an inch or two shorter and a couple of ounces lighter, in practice what you are using is not any larger or heavier than it was on a DSLR. I sometimes feel that people who say things like this about the adapter just haven't really tried it. Of course I'm sure there are people who shoot differently than I do, and maybe they are changing multiple lenses very often.

Brian

A few points

The Zeiss Batis lenses all have AF.

Yes Voigtlander don't need AF protocols and yet they still haven't supported the RF or Z mount. They did however release a lens for X mount AFTER Fuji opened it up.

Samyang stopped making RF lenses very abruptly and never explained why, Rokinon don't sell lenses in Europe directly the only way to get them in this part of the world is to import but we wouldn't get a warranty which for many people here won't be an option.

There are many of us who simply only want native mount glass on our bodies, whether that's 3rd party or OEM. Then there's the fact that native mirrorless glass often is sharper, smaller, lighter, faster to focus, is designed to resolve more megapixels and designed to shoot at faster frame rates. Its perfectly fine if people want to adapt their DSLR lenses but for those don't their options are very limited at the moment.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Its perfectly fine if people want to adapt their DSLR lenses but for those don't their options are very limited at the moment.

There are 24 RF mount lenses. I wouldn’t call that ‘very limiting’.

 

[jd7]

Samyang/Rokinon HAVE made RF glass, even some that does AF. How did they do it? Using EF protocols? China has a reputation for ignoring patents and intellectual property, so it could also be that they got a copy of the RF protocols and used it without license.

FYI Samyang is a Korean company, not Chinese.

 

[SNJ Ops]

There are 24 RF mount lenses. I wouldn’t call that ‘very limiting’.

24 lenses is no where near a full line up.. Sony has loads more options and even emount is a fair way from being complete even with 3rd party options.

 

[neuroanatomist]

24 lenses is no where near a full line up.. Sony has loads more options and even emount is a fair way from being complete even with 3rd party options.

Agreed. But Sony started in FF MILCs several years before Canon (in fact, Sony started just after Canon entered the APS-C MILC market, and I'm sure that was not a coincidence). The RF mount is only three years old. Three years into the FE mount, Sony had put out 18 lenses.

 

[SteveC]

Agreed. But Sony started in FF MILCs several years before Canon (in fact, Sony started just after Canon entered the APS-C MILC market, and I'm sure that was not a coincidence). The RF mount is only three years old. Three years into the FE mount, Sony had put out 18 lenses.

24 lenses? Wow, that sneaked up on us over the years. I remember it was just a handful of medium focal length, wide-aperture lenses when I first started paying attention.

 

[newy_pics]

Looking forward to Sigma RF lenses. I'm currently deliberating on what wide angle lens to purchase for my canon R3. I have a 100-500 (RF), 70-200 (EF), 50mm (EF) and would love the 15-35 RF 2.8 however I'm all outta $$. Can anyone recommend a good cheapish EF lens (With max aperture of 2.8) to adapt for the R3? Currently considering the Samyang 14mm 2.8 AF EF. Samyang have an RF version however they've dropped the RF mount recently and I'm not confident firmware will be given much back end support.

 

[slclick]

It took 32+ years for the entire line of EF glass (191-ish lenses) I think the RF line is doing pretty well for having 24 by this point. Thinking there should be far more (during a pandemic and all that it brings) is shortsighted. Furthermore, Canon has never licensed their mounts. So no, that isn't a point up for debate.

 

[AlanF]

Looking forward to Sigma RF lenses. I'm currently deliberating on what wide angle lens to purchase for my canon R3. I have a 100-500 (RF), 70-200 (EF), 50mm (EF) and would love the 15-35 RF 2.8 however I'm all outta $$. Can anyone recommend a good cheapish EF lens (With max aperture of 2.8) to adapt for the R3? Currently considering the Samyang 14mm 2.8 AF EF. Samyang have an RF version however they've dropped the RF mount recently and I'm not confident firmware will be given much back end support.

I know you want f/2.8, but if you could go down a stop, the EF 16-35mm f/4 is a superb lens.

 

[rbr]

Looking forward to Sigma RF lenses. I'm currently deliberating on what wide angle lens to purchase for my canon R3. I have a 100-500 (RF), 70-200 (EF), 50mm (EF) and would love the 15-35 RF 2.8 however I'm all outta $$. Can anyone recommend a good cheapish EF lens (With max aperture of 2.8) to adapt for the R3? Currently considering the Samyang 14mm 2.8 AF EF. Samyang have an RF version however they've dropped the RF mount recently and I'm not confident firmware will be given much back end support.

The Sigma 14-24 is the best ultra wide angle lens I have ever used on a Canon camera. Check out Dustin Abbott's reviews. I have never used the latest f2.8 16-35 EF L lens, but it puts the 16-35f4L IS to shame. The Sigma is big and heavy, but it's awesome. I sure would like to try the DG DN version that is offered for Sony.

 

[tiggy@mac.com]

The Sigma 14-24 is the best ultra wide angle lens I have ever used on a Canon camera. Check out Dustin Abbott's reviews. I have never used the latest f2.8 16-35 EF L lens, but it puts the 16-35f4L IS to shame. The Sigma is big and heavy, but it's awesome. I sure would like to try the DG DN version that is offered for Sony.

I'm a big fan of that one too. I now have the 15-35 f/2.8, so I don't miss it but so much, but if I were to look for an inexpensive super wide zoom, that would certainly be the one.

 

[Chaitanya]

It took 32+ years for the entire line of EF glass (191-ish lenses) I think the RF line is doing pretty well for having 24 by this point. Thinking there should be far more (during a pandemic and all that it brings) is shortsighted. Furthermore, Canon has never licensed their mounts. So no, that isn't a point up for debate.

Canon does license their mounts to Red and in case of EF-M to sigma themselves.

 

[slclick]

Canon does license their mounts to Red and in case of EF-M to sigma themselves.

Thanks

 

[Bob Howland]

Canon does license their mounts to Red and in case of EF-M to sigma themselves.

Are you sure? The M-mount lens protocols are the same as the EF-mount protocols, which Sigma has reverse engineered.

 

[unfocused]

Agreed. But Sony started in FF MILCs several years before Canon (in fact, Sony started just after Canon entered the APS-C MILC market, and I'm sure that was not a coincidence). The RF mount is only three years old. Three years into the FE mount, Sony had put out 18 lenses.

I realize that 24 lenses is not a fully developed system, but it is also pretty clear that Canon's RF lens lineup now covers probably 80-90% of the most commonly sold and used EF lenses (either with direct RF replacements or comparable RF models that fill similar demands). Just a quick glance and I would say that the most common lenses that are missing are a 70-300 zoom and 24 and 28 mm primes. Most of the other missing lenses are specialized lenses, like an ultra-wide zoom, fisheye, tilt-shift or certain Big Whites. Others are ancient lenses like the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6, which Canon pretty much abandoned in the EF lineup.

Overall, I'm hard pressed to think of a commonly used focal length that isn't available either in prime or zoom form. If someone thinks the lenses lineup is "very limiting" they aren't trying very hard.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I realize that 24 lenses is not a fully developed system, but it is also pretty clear that Canon's RF lens lineup now covers probably 80-90% of the most commonly sold and used EF lenses (either with direct RF replacements or comparable RF models that fill similar demands). Just a quick glance and I would say that the most common lenses that are missing are a 70-300 zoom and 24 and 28 mm primes. Most of the other missing lenses are specialized lenses, like an ultra-wide zoom, fisheye, tilt-shift or certain Big Whites. Others are ancient lenses like the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6, which Canon pretty much abandoned in the EF lineup.

Overall, I'm hard pressed to think of a commonly used focal length that isn't available either in prime or zoom form. If someone thinks the lenses lineup is "very limiting" they aren't trying very hard.

Agreed! I don't think Canon feels compelled to recreate the entire current EF lineup in the RF mount. There are notable RF gaps in the 'main lenses', e.g. 24mm and 35mm L-series primes, but most are already released.

 

[LogicExtremist]

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.

The balance would be a bigger issue if the lens isn't held. Not sure if you've seen the newer generation of wedding and portrait photographers who hold their cameras at arms length by the body with two hands and shoot while viewing from the rear display, much like a smartphone? There's plenty on YouTube... Some claim they've gotten RSI in their wrists from using heavy lenses, and have been switching to the smaller, lighter RF lenses like the Rf 85mm f/2. Holding a heavy new RF lens this way for hours each day will definitely mess up your wrists. Bad way to hold a camera? Sure is!

 

[kaihp]

China has a reputation for ignoring patents and intellectual property, so it could also be that they got a copy of the RF protocols and used it without license.

Ten and fifteen years ago, this was a reasonable reputation. Over the last years, China have become much more interested in and willing to enforce IP rights, as it is now in their interest in doing so (Chinese companies have over the years aquired many companies which means that they now own a considerable amount of IPR).

 

[LogicExtremist]

Ten and fifteen years ago, this was a reasonable reputation. Over the last years, China have become much more interested in and willing to enforce IP rights, as it is now in their interest in doing so (Chinese companies have over the years aquired many companies which means that they now own a considerable amount of IPR).

That's not what the evidence shows... No, China still ignores Canon's questionable heavy-handed tactics when it comes to third-party lenses. Look at all the third-party RF lenses that are left on the market after Canon shut down the Korean Samyang/Rokinon RF offerings. You'll find they're all from China. Why? Because they don't give a flying f-stop about a Japanese corporation who can't do diddly squat to them about the situation. What are Canon going to do, complain to the Chinese government???