Sigma will launch 2 RF mount lenses to start [CR1]

[lote82]

Yes, people are so caught up in the specs that they overlook actual performance. I do not have the Sigma, and no doubt it is a fine lens and many folks seem to be using it on Canon cameras, but it is quite possible that the Canon 100-500 will resolve as well if not better at 500 and cropped to the same field of view as the Sigma at 600. Maybe someone who has used both will chime in. I know that my non-L Canon EF 70-300 mark II was sharper at 300mm cropped to the same FOV as my Sigma 100-400 at 400. So the extra 100mm "reach" of the Sigma was misleading. Had 2 copies of the Sigma...maybe it was just bad luck.

Speaking about performance. Indeed, in the end, only the final image matters. And no matter how good the Canon RF 100-500 is, it isn't the winner in every situation.

To give an example:
Let's say this picture is with the Sigma (which it is) @600mm f6.3 and uncropped (which it isn't exactly but just to have a starting point).
There are two ways to achieve the same composition with Canon RF 100-500mm.
1. You could make the same picture @500mm and crop.
2. You could make the same picture @500mm and walk (if possible and let's say it is) closer to the bird.

No matter which way you would choose (while having more effort), do you really think the final result of the 500mm would be better looking than the 600mm?

It would be definitely harder to get a good shot with the Sigma because it's heavier and the AF slower.
But if you get a good shot the image would be probably better looking than the the one of the Canon 100-500 (at the long end).
Probably sharpness would be better (even when you lose some by cropping) with the Canon.
More sharpness is always good but if sharpness is already 'good' the visual effect of having a nicer looking bokeh is more important. Even more when the picture is finally processed and (for example) printed out.

Having a shorter focal length with a smaller maximum aperture is still a downside, no matter how sharp and light the lens is.

 

[neuroanatomist]

More sharpness is always good but if sharpness is already 'good' the visual effect of having a nicer looking bokeh is more important. Even more when the picture is finally processed and (for example) printed out.
Having a shorter focal length with a smaller maximum aperture is still a downside, no matter how sharp and light the lens is.

This is 400mm f/5.6, essentially the same max aperture as 500/7.1 but even shorter focal length. Does your example image have better bokeh?

 

[DhlcadR6]

I think Canon is really slow in the case of consumer-level products. The company might be interested in more up-level cameras and lenses. in my country (Bangladesh), most of the mid and beginner level switched to Sony as well as Fuji cameras.
A friend from a local popular camera shop told me that, out of 10 sales:

1. the SONY camera with Viltrox/sigma lens takes 7,
2. Fuji takes 2 and
3. Canon sale is 1 nowadays.

The R10 had high hope if it was equipped with C-log3, and some good fast zoom lenses as well as some third-party lenses like Sigma Trio. Canon needs to upgrade its APS-c Kit lens and improve R10 software to enable C-log. There are thousands of consumers around the world and they need affordable lenses.

Example-
My situation: I use M50 since 2019- now I want to upgrade myself within my 1500USD budget where I have a fit body, an around travel lens, and a fast prime. It may have a log profile to upgrade my skill.

My options:
1. Fuji XS-20 with 18-55mm and Viltrox 23mm f1.4 but it will cost 1900USD.
2. Canon R10 with 18-150mm and a lens equivalent to 35mm with IS. (but no option as 24mm is equivalent to 38mm) no log profile.
3. A6400 with 16-50mm IS kit lens and Sigma/Viltrox 23mm F1.4 (A6400 is three years old body).

What should I do??

I can understand buy Sonys but...Fuji? are they not caring about AF-C accuracy and reliability? Other than XH-2S, Fujis are only capable in AF-S.

Since you mentioned Clog3, I guess you are into videography work. You might as well drop down to ZV-E10 and get another monitor screen to compensate the terrible Sony 92K screen. ZV-E10 still has Slog.

The 3 cameras you mentioned aren't good upgrades from M50. IMO I would advise look into used markets as well.

Regardless new or used, my 2cents suggestions are as follows:
1. Canon R7 with EF 24-70mm f4 IS USM&Viltrox EF-R3 speedbooster. If possible, grab an EF 24/28mm f2.8 IS USM. A bit more heavy but dual SD card and oversample 4K30 is a big step up from M50.
2. Sony ZV-E10 with Sigma 18-50/2.8, and Yonguno 16mm f1.8. Sensible but defintely need 5 more 50W batteries and a extrenal LCD for outdoor work. Horrendous handling.
3.Canon R with RF24-105STM, and a EF 35mm f2 IS USM. Has Clog but cropped 4K, extremely capable in FHD though. And full frame is a step up from APS-C.
4.Panasonic S5, 20-60. Totally forgets AF-C and focus on decent video spec.
5.Nikon Z6, Z 24-70 f4, plus any Chinese 3rd party primes. I don't know your local prices, on B&H it's still over your budget, but ridiculous cheap in HK. Just an idea for you.

 

[koenkooi]

Seems like Sigma did their homework ...

The "old" EF 150-600mm C has a Maximum Magnification Ratio of 1:4.9

The "new" SIGMA 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Sports has a Maximum Magnification Ratio of 1:2.9

Yes, this is still worse than the Canon RF 100-400mm, but slightly better than the Canon RF 100-500mm.
And yes, my main focus would be bigger creatures than Dragonflies.

150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Sports | Lenses | SIGMA Corporation

Basic information for 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Sports.

www.sigma-global.com

I find it a bit strange that the spec sheet says it has the best magnification at 180mm, I'd expect it at either of the extremes, not 'slightly zoomed'.

 

[Kit.]

I find it a bit strange that the spec sheet says it has the best magnification at 180mm, I'd expect it at either of the extremes, not 'slightly zoomed'.

I guess this lens is very far from being parfocal.

 

[dlee13]

Even if you only want to use Canon branded lenses, third party options should be a must. Canon is nowhere near competitive with their pricing outside the US so third party options would give them reason to be so.

So even if you want Canon branded RF lenses only, you’d still benefit from the added competition.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Even if you only want to use Canon branded lenses, third party options should be a must. Canon is nowhere near competitive with their pricing outside the US so third party options would give them reason to be so.

So even if you want Canon branded RF lenses only, you’d still benefit from the added competition.

Makes sense, except for one thing: How does any of that help Canon?

 

[dlee13]

Makes sense, except for one thing: How does any of that help Canon?

Maybe body sales since people would need RF bodies to use these RF lenses?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe body sales since people would need RF bodies to use these RF lenses?

Maybe. However, the fact that Canon specifically calls out expected profits from RF lenses in their financial reporting argues against it.

 

[dlee13]

Maybe. However, the fact that Canon specifically calls out expected profits from RF lenses in their financial reporting argues against it.

And if their users swap to pretty much any other system they can have access to modern third party lenses, then those RF lens sales will go down regardless.

 

[SNJ Ops]

And if their users swap to pretty much any other system they can have access to modern third party lenses, then those RF lens sales will go down regardless.

This is just one example and very anecdotal however its a sentiment that is felt by many in the industry.

I recently spoke to a long time Canon shooter who is very unhappy with the lack of 3rd party options on the RF mount and is seriously considering leaving for another system.

The issue here in the UK and across Europe is Canon’s pricing is astronomical. Taking the 24-70mm f2.8 as an example the prices for brand new mirrorless options here are.

Canon - £2359
Sony - £2099
Nikon - £2119
Sigma - £1099 (E and L mount)
Samyang - £828 (E mount)

Canon is already competing with 3rd party glass just not directly on their own platform.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And if their users swap to pretty much any other system they can have access to modern third party lenses, then those RF lens sales will go down regardless.

Sure. But the market share data suggest that’s not happening. For 2022, Canon took the #1 MILC sales position in Japan away from Sony. We’ll see what global 2022 data look like in 4Q23.

@SNJ Ops - anecdotes and feelings aren’t data. Data are data.

 

[dlee13]

This is just one example and very anecdotal however its a sentiment that is felt by many in the industry.

I recently spoke to a long time Canon shooter who is very unhappy with the lack of 3rd party options on the RF mount and is seriously considering leaving for another system.

The issue here in the UK and across Europe is Canon’s pricing is astronomical. Taking the 24-70mm f2.8 as an example the prices for brand new mirrorless options here are.

Canon - £2359
Sony - £2099
Nikon - £2119
Sigma - £1099 (E and L mount)
Samyang - £828 (E mount)

Canon is already competing with 3rd party glass just not directly on their own platform.

That’s exactly what convinced me to swap my main body to Sony too. In Australia Canon charge absurd prices for their lenses as well.

Sony 90mm Macro - $1099 AUD (on sale)
Canon RF 100mm Macro - $1934 (on sale)
Canon EF 100mmL Macro - $1529 AUD (on sale)
Sigma 105mm DN Macro - $1199 reg ($879 on Sale)(E and L Mounts)

So you can get a much new design Sony or Sigma lens than a 10* year old EF design on Canon. I bought the Sigma 105mm DN Macro for almost half the cost of the EF Canon lens which is insane.

 

[SNJ Ops]

That’s exactly what convinced me to swap my main body to Sony too. In Australia Canon charge absurd prices for their lenses as well.

Sony 90mm Macro - $1099 AUD (on sale)
Canon RF 100mm Macro - $1934 (on sale)
Canon EF 100mmL Macro - $1529 AUD (on sale)
Sigma 105mm DN Macro - $1199 reg ($879 on Sale)(E and L Mounts)

So you can get a much new design Sony or Sigma lens than a 10* year old EF design on Canon. I bought the Sigma 105mm DN Macro for almost half the cost of the EF Canon lens which is insane.

Yes there are instances here where the cost of new EF glass is higher than new E mount glass from Sony.

35mm f1.4 L II = £2199
35mm f1.4 GM = £1499
35mm f1.4 DG DN = £749
35mm f1.2 DG DN = £1459

 

[dlee13]

Yes there are instances here where the cost of new EF glass is higher than new E mount glass from Sony.

35mm f1.4 L II = £2199
35mm f1.4 GM = £1499
35mm f1.4 DG DN = £749
35mm f1.2 DG DN = £1459

The 35GM is around $800 AUD cheaper than the EF 35L II which is insane when you consider how old the EF lens is now.

All you can hope is that Canon lose more and more sales until they realize the error in their ways and give their users more options. If they make the best lens in that given focal range at a fair price, people will pay the premium for it.

 

[erader]

I agree. Not only is the 100-500 expensive it is also not long enough. Canon should have made something like the Sigma or the Sony 200-600.

you mean a monster lens that you'll never have with you when you need it