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

[Sigurd2]

"...the lower cost option".

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

I have both, Sigma 150-600 C and RF 100-400.
The weight, size and minimum focus distance are of course an advantage of the RF 100-400.

But there is a big difference in reach between 600mm and 400mm.
And the sigma 150-600 C has a aperture of f5.6 up to 387mm

So if Sigma launched an RF version of the 150-600 with fairly well functioning autofocus (the EF version works really bad when enabling eye detect AF on RF cameras.), I would not hesitate to replace my EF 150-600 C, RF 100-400 and RF 800 f11 for this lens instead.

 

[Deepboy]

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.

I would have never thought that, what a great insight! Thank you bro!

 

[lote82]

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.

The problem with the AF of the adapted Sigma EF 150-600 C is about consistency (not speed!). And I'm sure Sigma is well aware of this. Therefore they will surely address this issue for an assumed RF version.

Please don't make a "which lens is better" discussion by comparing two very different lenses.
I don't expect the AF speed (but not consistency!) on par with the Canon AF 100-500. But looking at the prices (and other specs), this won't be a surprise to me.

 

[lote82]

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

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

 

[Del Paso]

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.

My friends 28-300 must have been a Japanese "Oktober Fest version" equivalent (that's how troublesome BMWs are nicknamed by a competitor). His lens had extremely soft, even mushy corners at every focal length.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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.

Slower AF is not the main issue.
The issue is that the focus pulses back and forth.
Sigma has outright stated that they do not support DPAF II.
It seems to be more of an issue with firmware.
That being said, most people seem to want the cheaper Contemporary version which Sigma is not indicating that they will make a mirrorless version of.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Sigma has outright stated that they do not support DPAF II.

When/where did Sigma say that? I’ve seen and heard people say that before, mainly in online forums and YouTubers, but I’ve never seen a statement from Sigma to that effect.

 

[lote82]

Slower AF is not the main issue.
The issue is that the focus pulses back and forth.

Right!

Sigma has outright stated that they do not support DPAF II.

What is the source of this statement? No offend, just to make sure it has credibility.

That being said, most people seem to want the cheaper Contemporary version which Sigma is not indicating that they will make a mirrorless version of.

Introducing the EF 150-600mm as a Contemporary AND a Sports version simultaneously(!) was the weirdest product lineup decisions by Sigma I have ever seen!

(I guess like many others) I decided to go with the Contemporary and save weight and money. Optically there isn't a big difference. As far as I can remember, some people claim the Sports is slightly better, some claim the Contemporary is better. Of course build quality and weather seeling of the Sports version is better, but after 6 years of intensive use I think a made the right decision ...

Regarding an assumed Sigma RF 150-600mm I also think there won't be a Contemporary version anymore. But I couldn't care less what name they put on the lens if the performance is right. IF Sigma will make an RF version of the 150-600mm it's very likely it will have the same design as the SIGMA 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Sports ... and I would be very happy about it!

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

 

[shadowsports]

We are still a ways off at CR1. As a current Sigma lens owner, I'll be happy for the additional RF options if nothing more.

I love the 150-600c, but compared to the RF100-500 its freaking heavy. If Sigma can pull this FL off, it will make a lot of people happy.

I hope the APS-C folks get a Sigma 17-50 or 70 f2.8~4. The 17-70 was my first Sigma lens and it completely blew me away. One of the sharpest lenses I ever owned and super affordable.

 

[chrysoberyl]

My preference is the 20mm Art, especially if the throw can be increased to make precise manual focussing easier.

 

[ghalib737]

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??

 

[AlanF]

We are still a ways off at CR1. As a current Sigma lens owner, I'll be happy for the additional RF options if nothing more.

I love the 150-600c, but compared to the RF100-500 its freaking heavy. If Sigma can pull this FL off, it will make a lot of people happy.

I hope the APS-C folks get a Sigma 17-50 or 70 f2.8~4. The 17-70 was my first Sigma lens and it completely blew me away. One of the sharpest lenses I ever owned and super affordable.

The Sigma 150-600mm for mirrorless is 210g (~ 1/2 lb) heavier than the C version, and 630 g heavier than the RF 100-500mm when complete with tripod rings and hoods. Have to add that to the pros and cons.

 

[lote82]

The Sigma 150-600mm for mirrorless is 210g (~ 1/2 lb) heavier than the C version, and 630 g heavier than the RF 100-500mm when complete with tripod rings and hoods. Have to add that to the pros and cons.

Let' see ...
210g more (and a higher price) while being smaller, having an overall better optical performance, (probably) better AF, higher Maximal Magnification Ratio, better build quality, better weather sealing sounds very fair (at least to me). Read the reviews, they vary from good to very good (highly recommended).

Sorry, but again, a comparision of a 600mm with a 500mm lens doesn't makes sense (at least to me).

 

[AlanF]

Let' see ...
210g more (and a higher price) while being smaller, having an overall better optical performance, (probably) better AF, higher Maximal Magnification Ratio, better build quality, better weather sealing sounds very fair (at least to me). Read the reviews, they vary from good to very good (highly recommended).

Sorry, but again, a comparision of a 600mm with a 500mm lens doesn't makes sense (at least to me).

It might not make sense to you, but comparing a 600mm lens with a 500mm does I would have thought to most weighing up the pros and cons of which lens they want to buy. All lenses are a compromise and you have to balance the focal length, aperture, weight, price and every other characteristic that is important for you. The Sigma weighs 630 g more than the RF100-500mm, which for some is a deal breaker whereas 600 vs 500mm is a deal breaker for others.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sorry, but again, a comparision of a 600mm with a 500mm lens doesn't makes sense (at least to me).

Sure it does. The use cases for a 100-500mm zoom are essentially that same as for 150-600mm zoom. I’d include a 100-400mm in that category, as well. One important consideration is final resolution, and that’s what makes such a comparison not only logical but very relevant.

For example, in DSLR days there were comparisons done by many people showing that on the same camera, the Canon 100-400L at 400mm delivered higher subject resolution than the Tamron 150-600 at 600mm when the former was cropped to the framing of the latter. With better resolution and better AF, and being smaller and lighter, the Canon lens was the clear winner for a long telephoto zoom…except for the cost (which is why the Tamron remained a very popular lens).

 

[AlanF]

Sure it does. The use cases for a 100-500mm zoom are essentially that same as for 150-600mm zoom. I’d include a 100-400mm in that category, as well. One important consideration is final resolution, and that’s what makes such a comparison not only logical but very relevant.

For example, in DSLR days there were comparisons done by many people showing that on the same camera, the Canon 100-400L at 400mm delivered higher subject resolution than the Tamron 150-600 at 600mm when the former was cropped to the framing of the latter. With better resolution and better AF, and being smaller and lighter, the Canon lens was the clear winner for a long telephoto zoom…except for the cost (which is why the Tamron remained a very popular lens).

"Never mind the quality, feel the width" was a BBC sitcom about two tailors in in the late 1960s when it came to a choice of material. It could be revived here: Never mind the image quality, feel the length.

 

[Czardoom]

Sure it does. The use cases for a 100-500mm zoom are essentially that same as for 150-600mm zoom. I’d include a 100-400mm in that category, as well. One important consideration is final resolution, and that’s what makes such a comparison not only logical but very relevant.

For example, in DSLR days there were comparisons done by many people showing that on the same camera, the Canon 100-400L at 400mm delivered higher subject resolution than the Tamron 150-600 at 600mm when the former was cropped to the framing of the latter. With better resolution and better AF, and being smaller and lighter, the Canon lens was the clear winner for a long telephoto zoom…except for the cost (which is why the Tamron remained a very popular lens).

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.

 

[lote82]

It might not make sense to you, but comparing a 600mm lens with a 500mm does I would have thought to most weighing up the pros and cons of which lens they want to buy. All lenses are a compromise and you have to balance the focal length, aperture, weight, price and every other characteristic that is important for you. The Sigma weighs 630 g more than the RF100-500mm, which for some is a deal breaker whereas 600 vs 500mm is a deal breaker for others.

I already know your reasons, understand them and also agree to most of them ... except one thing: Budget/price!

If you are a Redneck and you want to buy a sports car, you wouldn't compare a Camaro with a Ferrari. You would rather compare the Camaro with a Mustang.
If you are a Millionaire and you want to buy a sports car, you wouldn't compare a Ferrari with a Camaro. You would rather compare the Ferrari with a Lamborghini.

If you have watched my posted review by CF of the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN 'Sports' you saw a comparision between the mirrorless Sigma 150-600 and a (also new) Tamron 150-500mm in the end.
Indeed, this made sense, but only because they had a comparable price.

But comparing lenses where the price of one is more than two times higher is as ridiculous as comparing the Camaro with the Ferrari.
I mean, yes, it is possible, but does it really make sense? Maybe in a fun/comedy oriented show like 'Top Gear' but not in the real world.

 

[AlanF]

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.

My Sigma 150-600mm C at 600mm on the R5 was clearly outresolved by my RF 100-500mm at 500mm on it. However, the MTF charts of the new mirrorless sports version from Sigma do look very impressive.

 

[AlanF]

I already know your reasons, understand them and also agree to most of them ... except one thing: Budget/price!

If you are a Redneck and you want to buy a sports car, you wouldn't compare a Camaro with a Ferrari. You would rather compare the Camaro with a Mustang.
If you are a Millionaire and you want to buy a sports car, you wouldn't compare a Ferrari with a Camaro. You would rather compare the Ferrari with a Lamborghini.

If you have watched my posted review by CF of the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN 'Sports' you saw a comparision between the mirrorless Sigma 150-600 and a (also new) Tamron 100-500mm in the end.
Indeed, this made sense, but only because they had a comparable price.

But comparing lenses where the price of one is more than two times higher is as ridiculous as comparing the Camaro with the Ferrari.
I mean, yes, it is possible, but does it really make sense? Maybe in a fun/comedy oriented show like 'Top Gear' but not in the real world.

This is the point we were discussing, this and nothing more, nothing about budget/price, and my full response made it clear. In case you don't know, "redneck" is a derogatory description.

Sorry, but again, a comparision of a 600mm with a 500mm lens doesn't makes sense (at least to me).