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

[Kit.]

If you can only afford or wish to buy only one lens, then yes, the Contemporary 150-600 is the lowest cost option.

"...the lower cost option".

RF 100-400 costs even less, and in many scenarios will give you more keepers.

 

[AutoMatters]

Canon used to make an EF 28-300 f.3.5-5.6L. You might be able to find a used one in good condition. Should work great on your R3 with the Canon EF-RF adapter.

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, that Canon lens has had some pretty scathing negative reviews. Furthermore, it was very expensive, and is does not benefit from the latest technology. Rather than buy a used one (still very expensive) and an EF to RF adapter, I will continue to use my 24-240mm Canon RF lens while I wait for someone to make an RF lens in the zoom range that I need.

 

[AutoMatters]

I would like to have a native 105mm macro too. A good alternative to 24-70 and 16-35 would be interessting in. Tele, well, i don't need a 150-600 as rf version with similar values like the ef one again. 120-500 would be interest me.

I really like Canon's 100-500mm RF lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I painted with too broad of a brush stroke. Let me clarify.

I was thinking in terms of the RF mount protocols which were under discussion. Yes, Canon has improved the designs on many of their lenses from the EF to RF comparables. I say comparables, because some of the most significant improvements have been in Canon's new offerings that indirectly replace previous EF lenses (100-500 vs 100-400, EF 16-35 vs. RF 14-35 f4, 70-200 f2.8) There were of course trade-offs with the 70-200 f2.8 lens, but I think the RF version is a better lens overall

Perhaps I misunderstand the term "protocols." I think of it in terms of the communication between lens and body in general and in particular, the addition of extra contact points in the RF mount. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but have these changes translated into major improvements? Or do the improvements you mention have more to do with new lens designs? Would those improvement necessarily be incorporated into third-party lenses?

I was talking specifically about the Sigma 150-600 lenses and questioning whether we would see any improvements in performance over the EF mount versions. My assumption (which of course could be wrong) is that lenses would need to be redesigned to take advantage of the RF mount improvements and I question if the economies of scale would allow a third party manufacturer to completely redesign an existing lens solely for the Canon mount. Third-parties design a lens to work with multiple lens mounts and then attach the relevant mount to the lens.

Do you disagree that Sigma, were they to offer a lens like the 150-600 in RF mount, would not redesign the lens from the bottom up for Canon? I would expect they would take the same basic design and add the appropriate mount adapter. What do you think?

Gotcha. Reportedly (by Bryan/TDP), the 400/2.8 and 600/4 got a built-in mount adapter and ‘new wiring’ and that resulted 0.5-stop IS improvement. So that may be ‘protocols’ related.

I agree that Sigma would most likely just use the EF lens design with a new mount. But I don’t know if they are or will be putting out new designs for MILCs, since those all have a shorter flange distance. If so, and to the extent they can make a range of RF lenses, they can make new base designs with only the short-flange mount differing for the ‘big three’, which would work better economically than new designs for just Sony and Nikon.

 

[justaCanonuser]

There is no guarantee that the AF would be any better on an RF version.
There are many EF lenses that autofocus fine.

I am sceptical, too. My experience with 3rd party lenses over many years is in a nutshell: if AF performance is important, buy a Canon lens. This applies to tele lenses for sports or wildlife as well as to macro lenses.

 

[Del Paso]

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, that Canon lens has had some pretty scathing negative reviews. Furthermore, it was very expensive, and is does not benefit from the latest technology. Rather than buy a used one (still very expensive) and an EF to RF adapter, I will continue to use my 24-240mm Canon RF lens while I wait for someone to make an RF lens in the zoom range that I need.

A friend of mine owns the EF 28-300. This lens is not an option in my opinion, unless for lovers of strong distortion and soft pictures. It deserves well all the negative criticism.

 

[lote82]

I was talking specifically about the Sigma 150-600 lenses and questioning whether we would see any improvements in performance over the EF mount versions. My assumption (which of course could be wrong) is that lenses would need to be redesigned to take advantage of the RF mount improvements and I question if the economies of scale would allow a third party manufacturer to completely redesign an existing lens solely for the Canon mount. Third-parties design a lens to work with multiple lens mounts and then attach the relevant mount to the lens.

Do you disagree that Sigma, were they to offer a lens like the 150-600 in RF mount, would not redesign the lens from the bottom up for Canon? I would expect they would take the same basic design and add the appropriate mount adapter. What do you think?

You seem not well informed about actual Sigma offerings.

There is no need to redesign the 150-600 for the RF mount because there is already a mirrorless design available for e-mount and L-mount.

New design combined with newer protocol should give a performance boost.

Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS 'Sports' lens field review

Sigma's designed-for-mirrorless 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS 'Sports' lens provides great image quality across a wide zoom range – get all the ins and outs of how this lens performs in our field review.

m.dpreview.com

 

[jaygould]

I would be interested in Sigmas "Contemporary" lenses, like the 17mm, 20mm, 35mm, 45mm, 50mm, 65mm and 90mm primes. I have zero interest in their humongous Art lenses or zooms.

Most of all I want Cosina to release the 35, 50 and 65mm f2 Apo-Lanthars. Those are manual focus and already available on the Z Mount.

 

[jaygould]

The EF version is already good enough, except if you pixel peep at 200% and/or print on billboards (and look them from 1m); don't see the RF version being worse then the EF.

Actually, we all have already seen the mirrorless 50 f1.4 from Sigma, in e-Mount, and the (supposed) RF would be the very same lens:

If you compare it with the Canon RF

then you'll see they have basically the same performance wide open (when you stop down I dare anybody to discern them in a blind test); the Canon has a minuscule (but indeed visible) advantage when seen at 100%, but remember it's tested on 30mpx R vs 42mpx Sony body, so has some slight advantage, that would likely make them almost indistinguishable if tested on the same body.

And my R6 has 20mpx, so I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to discern the Sigma from the Canon, while the first cost (in Sony mount) almost exactly a third compared to the Canon. That's why Canon is so hardly protecting the RF mount from third party AF lenses, they know that Sigma and Tamron can manufacture stuff costing 50 to 70% less then genuine stuff, with comparable optical qualities; if they "open" the mount, their lens share on pro lenses would reduce to less then half (at least).

All 50mm prime lenses have the same performance stopped down. You can compare the 50mm f1.8 STM to the 50mm f1.2L on the-digital-review.com (or with your own camera) at f8 and you will see that there is zero difference in sharpness/resolution, even in the corners.

The only reason you buy a heavy and expensive 50mm is so that you can get the same high resolution wide open.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I'm happy to be corrected on this point (I'm no corporate lawyer), but as I understand it, Sigma will license the RF interface for their lenses. Canon won't be able to dictate how that is used as that would likely breach restraint of trade or anti-competition conditions in various markets.

That is completely incorrect.
Canon is in no way a monopoly and can put whatever stipulations they want in their contract.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A friend of mine owns the EF 28-300. This lens is not an option in my opinion, unless for lovers of strong distortion and soft pictures. It deserves well all the negative criticism.

I had one for a while, used it with a 5DII and a 1D X. I found it to optically equivalent to the 24-105/4L IS MkI (i.e. good but not stellar optics) but over a much larger zoom range. Eventually, I switched to using the 24-70/2.8 II and the 70-300L, but the optics of the 28-300L were pretty good.

Criticism for being a large, heavy beast...yes. I bought it used, sold it after a couple of years for a bit more than I paid.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I don't think a Sigma RF 150-600 would significantly affect sales of the Canon RF 100-500.
They have a different zoom range, aperture and (most importantly!) price point ... and (most unimportantly!) different colors!
Overall the benefit of having more variety of lenses would positively affect the sales of RF cameras.

The big difference to me is the weight and size. If you want a lens that you can carry around for hours and not have a big bazooka hanging off your neck, the 100-500 is the clear winner. The improved performance, weather sealing and reliability of the Canon is icing on the cake.

There are a lot of good reasons to get a Canon RF 100-500L versus a Sigma (or Tamron) 150-600. Size/weight, zoom range, and MFD are just a few that I've seen mentioned here.

But there are also a lot of users who don't see those advantages as being worth a 2.5x price premium.

Canon has to look at the big picture in deciding if the pros (from their financial perspective) outweigh the cons in allowing third party RF lenses.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

That's possible, but...

1) We haven't really seen these advantages. Canon seems content to just add adapters to some of the their lenses, particularly some of the big whites. And, in the case of RF lenses that mirror the EF versions (Like the 24-105) there don't seem to be any advantages incorporated into the lenses other than the control ring, which is available in a mount adapter. The major differences seem to be in lenses specifically designed for the RF mount such as the 16mm f2.8.

2) Sigma or Tamron would have to decide it is worth the cost to add those protocols to an RF mount version of the lens, which likely means they would have to have a separate version for Canon that differs from their Nikon and Sony mount versions. As I said previously, their business model is based on switching out mounts for identical lenses in order to sell the same lens in Sony, Nikon, Canon and Sigma mounts. (And, in Sigma's case, to offer customers the option of sending their lenses in to have them remounted should they switch systems.)

Granted, if the cost of customization for a particular mount is low enough, they might do it. But I wouldn't expect them to invest a lot of money in customizing their lenses for one particular mount. Especially if they can basically bolt on an RF mount adapter.

I suspect the RF and EF mount protocols and electrical signaling start the same when a lens is initially attached. That allows EF lenses, Canon and third party, to work without issue with the EF-RF adapter. That also explains why there are so many cheap third party adapters out there. If there was any "smarts" in the adapter, Canon would surely assert some patent to prevent third party adapters too.

For the same reason, the control ring interface is probably something pretty simple and not patentable, like a simple two-channel quadrature encoder.

So why can't a third party lens maker just take their existing EF lenses and add an RF physical connector (simply building in an adapter)? There must be something that Canon was able to patent in order to prevent that. Your guess is as good as mine.

To your first point, there may be additional features in the RF mount that become available once a lens is recognized as being "native" RF. Maybe the data rate speeds up so the lens responds faster. Or maybe there is more current available to speed autofocus on the big whites. Despite being the same optical designs, perhaps the RF big whites aren't really just the EF designs with an adapter bolted on.

 

[neuroanatomist]

To your first point, there may be additional features in the RF mount that become available once a lens is recognized as being "native" RF. Maybe the data rate speeds up so the lens responds faster. Or maybe there is more current available to speed autofocus on the big whites. Despite being the same optical designs, perhaps the RF big whites aren't really just the EF designs with an adapter bolted on.

The RF mount explained

The RF lens mount is at the heart of Canon's EOS R System. Find out about the many technical innovations and design improvements it has made possible.

www.canon-europe.com

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

The RF mount explained

The RF lens mount is at the heart of Canon's EOS R System. Find out about the many technical innovations and design improvements it has made possible.

www.canon-europe.com

Interesting. Thanks for posting that.

 

[unfocused]

You seem not well informed about actual Sigma offerings.

There is no need to redesign the 150-600 for the RF mount because there is already a mirrorless design available for e-mount and L-mount.

New design combined with newer protocol should give a performance boost.

Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS 'Sports' lens field review

Sigma's designed-for-mirrorless 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS 'Sports' lens provides great image quality across a wide zoom range – get all the ins and outs of how this lens performs in our field review.

m.dpreview.com

Well, I'm always happy to be corrected. Yes, I don't really follow either Sigma nor Sony, so I was unaware of this Sports (not Contemporary) lens.

Perhaps you know if an lens designed for the e-mount and L-mount can easily be converted to the RF mount. I don't know what that might require. Would it also be able to take advantage of Canon's RF protocols, since it wasn't designed with the RF mount in mind?

I did note one red flag in the review:

"If there's a weak spot for the Sigma 150-600mm in comparison to its nearest rivals, it would have to be its autofocus performance."

I wonder how that would translate for the RF mount.

 

[mimbu]

I thought Canon blocking third parties from making RF lenses because they were evil, greedy and mean. Now, you're telling me that they are just making sound business decisions. How could all the forum experts be wrong?

There's a lot of overlap between those two things. What is best for a company's bottom line is often not what is best for consumers.

 

[mimbu]

Well, I'm always happy to be corrected. Yes, I don't really follow either Sigma nor Sony, so I was unaware of this Sports (not Contemporary) lens.

Perhaps you know if an lens designed for the e-mount and L-mount can easily be converted to the RF mount. I don't know what that might require. Would it also be able to take advantage of Canon's RF protocols, since it wasn't designed with the RF mount in mind?

I did note one red flag in the review:

"If there's a weak spot for the Sigma 150-600mm in comparison to its nearest rivals, it would have to be its autofocus performance."

I wonder how that would translate for the RF mount.

Sigma now has magnetic linear drive motors, and is putting them in their new lenses in this price range. I expect to see a v2 of their 150-600 S lens that includes these motors and addresses the slower AF.

 

[mimbu]

There are so many wanting a Sigma 150-600mm. But, don’t they realise that Sigma has a 60-600mm that is even better?

Sigma has a long list of excellent mirrorless lenses, as does Tamron. Even Samyang and Viltrox have a number of excellent offerings at very low prices. There is a lot that is missing from RF.

 

[koenkooi]

There are a lot of good reasons to get a Canon RF 100-500L versus a Sigma (or Tamron) 150-600. Size/weight, zoom range, and MFD are just a few that I've seen mentioned here.

But there are also a lot of users who don't see those advantages as being worth a 2.5x price premium.

Canon has to look at the big picture in deciding if the pros (from their financial perspective) outweigh the cons in allowing third party RF lenses.

I had been eying the EF100-400LII for a while when the RF100-500L was announced, my main use case being close-up photography. The EF-mount 150-600 lenses weren't interesting since they didn't have a decent magnification ration.

But Canon now has the RF100-400 non-L, which has pretty much all the features I wanted from the EF100-400LII, at a much lower price and weight. I'm not sure which lens I'd pick today if I were in the market for such a zoom lens, but it still wouldn't be a 150-600, unless they become a lot better at close ups.

But I'm fairly sure the people wanting such a zoom have targets larger than a dragonfly or frog in mind