SIGMA will announce a 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS shortly

[AlanF]

our knowledge of IBIS efficiency of Canon R5 or any other Canon camera is somewhat limited at this stage. Isn't it?
Let's keep our options open for now and see what opportunity Canon mirrorless tech combined with IBIS may offer.

Canon has announced: "The EOS R5 takes Canon’s cutting-edge image stabilisation technology to the next level, by including a newly Canon-developed, in-camera optical image stabilisation system – which works in combination with the lens stabilisation system"

More Canon EOS R5 specs revealed – “the camera will shoot comfortably on high-end production sets” - Canon Press Centre - Canon Europe

www.canon-europe.com

This follows the now well-established combination of in-camera and in-lens IS by other manufacturers like Olympus and Panasonic - the synchronization of IS is reality already. However, it is restricted to manufacturers' own lenses on their own bodies so far, unless I have missed it has changed. In practice, the IBIS has added about another stop to the IS of telephoto lenses.

 

[SecureGSM]

Canon has announced: "The EOS R5 takes Canon’s cutting-edge image stabilisation technology to the next level, by including a newly Canon-developed, in-camera optical image stabilisation system – which works in combination with the lens stabilisation system"

More Canon EOS R5 specs revealed – “the camera will shoot comfortably on high-end production sets” - Canon Press Centre - Canon Europe

www.canon-europe.com

This follows the now well-established combination of in-camera and in-lens IS by other manufacturers like Olympus and Panasonic - the synchronization of IS is reality already. However, it is restricted to manufacturers' own lenses on their own bodies so far, unless I have missed it has changed. In practice, the IBIS has added about another stop to the IS of telephoto lenses.

+++++ Canon has announced: "The EOS R5 takes Canon’s cutting-edge image stabilisation technology to the next level, by including a newly Canon-developed, in-camera optical image stabilisation system – which works in combination with the lens stabilisation system"

A..M. That’s a nice marketing piece. That’s all It is. let’s see how really efficient this tech is. It may or may not be sufficient enough..

 

[AlanF]

+++++ Canon has announced: "The EOS R5 takes Canon’s cutting-edge image stabilisation technology to the next level, by including a newly Canon-developed, in-camera optical image stabilisation system – which works in combination with the lens stabilisation system"

A..M. That’s a nice marketing piece. That’s all It is. let’s see how really efficient this tech is. It may or may not be sufficient enough..

Sufficient enough for what?

 

[SecureGSM]

Sufficient enough for what?

To supplement the Sigma 100-400 C mediocre IS... remember where we started?
my point was: Sigma 100-400 C image stabilisation Is only 2-3 stops Strong. Not so great. However in combination with the R5 IBIS it maybe good enough.

 

[AlanF]

To supplement the Sigma 100-400 C mediocre IS... remember where we started?
my point was: Sigma 100-400 C image stabilisation Is only 2-3 stops Strong. Not so great. However in combination with the R5 IBIS it maybe good enough.

But, as I pointed out in the post:

This follows the now well-established combination of in-camera and in-lens IS by other manufacturers like Olympus and Panasonic - the synchronization of IS is reality already. However, it is restricted to manufacturers' own lenses on their own bodies so far, unless I have missed it has changed. In practice, the IBIS has added about another stop to the IS of telephoto lenses.

So, it would be against precedence for the Sigma to work in combination with Canon IBIS.

 

[SecureGSM]

But, as I pointed out in the post:

So, it would be against precedence for the Sigma to work in combination with Canon IBIS.

lets wait and see. It remains an assumption for now.

 

[secant]

Since SIgma didn't really announce that this will be available for Canon RF yet but we are already expecting it to happen. Anyone also interested in the Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 and think it might be available for RF? I don't think Tamron has any lenses available for RF yet. There are a lot of mirrorless lenses that might potentially be added to the RF lens option. Samyang 45mm F1.8, Sigma 45mm F2.8, Tamron 28-75mm F2.8, Tamron 70-180mm F2.8, etc.

 

[slclick]

I tried out 4 copies of the EF Sigma 100-400mm and reported the results here. This was my last post on it;

Review: Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C

The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the brand new and aggressively priced Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C lens.From TDP:The AF accuracy could be slightly improved and a tripod ring would be nice to at least optionally have available, but otherwise, the 100-400 C gives you a...

www.canonrumors.com

"Photozone aka optical limits has finally reviewed the lens: http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1045-sigma100400f563c
They found what I found in the 4 copies I looked at courtesy of the local dealer; the IS in the viewfinder is terrible and not much good in practice. Their summary is: "Thus even though the Sigma is quite capable in optimal conditions, we'd suggest to look elsewhere."
My experience of the Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3 wasn't good either. I made the mistake of buying one because I thought it would be light for travel but eventually sold it as the tracking of birds in flight was hopeless. The Sigma and Tamron 150-600mms are much, much better and really worthy of consideration."

The Tammy is the way to go if you don't have the clams for the Canon. I have owned the Siggy, the Tammy and the Canon Mark 2. Of course we know which is the best in all aspects except price but the Tamron is remarkably good for the price.

 

[Ozarker]

The Tammy is the way to go if you don't have the clams for the Canon. I have owned the Siggy, the Tammy and the Canon Mark 2. Of course we know which is the best in all aspects except price but the Tamron is remarkably good for the price.

Thanks for the recommend. In these times I am having to dismount my high horse and consider 3rd party brands. I used to own the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC and it was a great lens. I just bought the Tamron SP 45mm f1.8 Di VC to replace the RF 50mm f/1.2L and RF 28-70mm f/2L I had to sell. It is also a great lens for $399. The purple fringing can be bad, but that is easy enough to fix. I've wondered about the Tamron super zoom vs the Sigma. I've about given up on making any money at this. I was right on the edge of actually making some money (profit) when the pandemic hit. I have not booked a portrait session since early March.

Reality: Composition and lighting make all the difference. The lens? Yes, it helps. But it isn't the big picture. I have seen fantastic photos taking with 3rd party lenses. I think Tamron makes lenses that are more than good enough. Thanks again. While I would love the mental self-kudos of carrying all RF "L" Canon lenses, it just is not going to happen right now. Hoping I can hang on to my RF 85mm f/1.2L.

 

[Del Paso]

Thanks for the recommend. In these times I am having to dismount my high horse and consider 3rd party brands. I used to own the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC and it was a great lens. I just bought the Tamron SP 45mm f1.8 Di VC to replace the RF 50mm f/1.2L and RF 28-70mm f/2L I had to sell. It is also a great lens for $399. The purple fringing can be bad, but that is easy enough to fix. I've wondered about the Tamron super zoom vs the Sigma. I've about given up on making any money at this. I was right on the edge of actually making some money (profit) when the pandemic hit. I have not booked a portrait session since early March.

Reality: Composition and lighting make all the difference. The lens? Yes, it helps. But it isn't the big picture. I have seen fantastic photos taking with 3rd party lenses. I think Tamron makes lenses that are more than good enough. Thanks again. While I would love the mental self-kudos of carrying all RF "L" Canon lenses, it just is not going to happen right now. Hoping I can hang on to my RF 85mm f/1.2L.

Hmmmm....
Sorry to read that, hope times will be changing soon.
Have you ever considered buying a used EF 100-400 II? It works real good on the EOS R...and can be found for the price of a Tamron.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Canon has not opened up the mount, so it will be harder for the 3rd parties. It will change in time. For now Canon is coming out with some great glass and you can use the old with an adapter. For the Sony users this is good news, there are lots of new options. Now this Sigma better be inexpensive. The Canon and Sony options are very nice, expensive but nice.

I don't see why, considering the Canon EF-RF adapter is dumb, it's just adjusting for the flange distance. They could make an EF version with RF mount.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I don't see why, considering the Canon EF-RF adapter is dumb, it's just adjusting for the flange distance. They could make an EF version with RF mount.

RF lenses have more than just a mount difference. True, you can machine the rear of a EF lens so it would mount on a R camera, but it would have none of the RF features. To me, a EF lens plus adapter makes more sense than the same lens with modified rear end. But, they sell, just check Samyang / Rokinon. They use the same lens with a longer rear housing.

 

[Cryhavoc]

I tried out 4 copies of the EF Sigma 100-400mm and reported the results here. This was my last post on it;

http://[URL][URL]https://www.canonr...-400mm-f-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-c.32797/#post-668504

[/URL][/URL]

"Photozone aka optical limits has finally reviewed the lens: http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1045-sigma100400f563c
They found what I found in the 4 copies I looked at courtesy of the local dealer; the IS in the viewfinder is terrible and not much good in practice. Their summary is: "Thus even though the Sigma is quite capable in optimal conditions, we'd suggest to look elsewhere."
My experience of the Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3 wasn't good either. I made the mistake of buying one because I thought it would be light for travel but eventually sold it as the tracking of birds in flight was hopeless. The Sigma and Tamron 150-600mms are much, much better and really worthy of consideration."

Looking forward to the L mount version. Been contemplating the Ef version with an adapter. Now I can look forward to the native version

 

[Cryhavoc]

This lens makes zero sense when you already have a 150-600 f/5-6.3 on the market. I use the Sport version on my EOSR.
Why are all these manufacturers making these pointless zooms right now. This, Canon talking about a 700mm f/8...etc

The size and weight difference is pretty big. I carried both on day trips on Kauai. After the first day, the 150-600 stayed in the room since the 100-400 on my Eos R was good enough and definitely lighter to haul around all day. The bigger lens was used when we weren't going to be travelling all day and just walk to the beach to shoot surfers.

 

[Ozarker]

Hmmmm....
Sorry to read that, hope times will be changing soon.
Have you ever considered buying a used EF 100-400 II? It works real good on the EOS R...and can be found for the price of a Tamron.

I'll have to look into that. Thanks! I'm very happy with the fact that Canon has given a great solution with the adapter.

 

[slclick]

Hmmmm....
Sorry to read that, hope times will be changing soon.
Have you ever considered buying a used EF 100-400 II? It works real good on the EOS R...and can be found for the price of a Tamron.

Here's new....I could write all sorts of rebuttals to your statement but with how Canon holds it's value, I'll just leave it at that and this screenshot from B&H, ok?

 

[AlanF]

Canon hit the sweet spot with the 100-400mm II. I have two of them for when my wife and I go out together. They are tack sharp edge-to-edge and have really fast AF, and the IS is superb with the image rock steady in the viewfinder. The bare lens is nearly as sharp as my 400mm DO II was - see https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout. I really like my Sigma 150-600 C but when it comes to BIF or dragonflies in flight, it's no contest.

 

[jolyonralph]

Sigma needs to dissect an R5 before they introduce RF lenses. Clearly a lot the RF protocol that isn't in any body currently released and even the Canon RF lenses will probably need a firmware update to be on board.

I don't think third parties are going to bother with RF protocol. They'll stick to the EF protocol over the RF interface (which mimics an adapted EF lens) as that's what they already know and has far less risk.

I don't think *true* RF lenses are really possible in the way that Canon lenses are - there's no capabilities for proper in-body correction etc.

 

[jolyonralph]

But, as I pointed out in the post:

So, it would be against precedence for the Sigma to work in combination with Canon IBIS.

None of us know how it works at the moment (or at least, those do aren't allowed to say).

Can lens IS and in-body stabilization work at the same time without conflicting if they are not designed to communicate with each other and interact? If so good. But if not, then I'm assuming that Canon will by default disable IBIS when lens IS is detected except when the two are able to work together, which no doubt means Canon RF lenses only.

 

[AlanF]

None of us know how it works at the moment (or at least, those do aren't allowed to say).

Can lens IS and in-body stabilization work at the same time without conflicting if they are not designed to communicate with each other and interact? If so good. But if not, then I'm assuming that Canon will by default disable IBIS when lens IS is detected except when the two are able to work together, which no doubt means Canon RF lenses only.

As you say, we don't know yet. However, Panasonic and Olympus collaborate (to some extent) and their lenses combine IBIS and IS only when they are Oly/Oly or Panny/Panny and not Oly/Panny. EF lenses (Canon or Sigma) mounted on a Sony with IBIS with an adaptor don't combine IS and IBIS. So, my guess is that only RF lenses will work fully IS + IBIS.