In the next few weeks, SIGMA is rumoured to be announcing 4 new lenses for the Sony FE mount as well as their shared L mount with Panasonic and Leica.
- SIGMA 35mm f/1.2 DG HSM
- SIGMA 45mm f/2.8 DG HSM
- SIGMA 12-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM
- SIGMA 24-70mm f/2.8 DG HSM
It's now rumoured that SIGMA will also make these lenses for Canon's RF mount. It's unknown if they will be announced alongside their Sony counterparts.
It'd be a good move for SIGMA to get in early on making lenses for the RF mount, as Canon's RF lens lineup obviously needs some time to mature.
Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.
Curious to see how their autofocus performs on RF.... Plus making a f1.2 for Sony and an f2 zoom for DSLRs makes me wonder what they can do with RF. Hmmmmm.
We have a love - hate relationship going on here.
It seems a bit too soon for me, but maybe it doesn't take all that long to do. I haven't yet reverse engineered anything other than an omelette. Or maybe there will be some kind of development announcement and any RF mount lens releases will be in the distant future.
If Tamron + adapters is anything to go by, I would say Sigma autofocus would work significantly better on the R system versus a mirrored system, with caveats as usual. On the 5d4, Tamron autofocus was hit and miss for me, and I tried the latest 24-70 f/2.8 G2, 70-200 f/2.8 G2, 35/45 f/1.8 VC's, and more time than I'm willing to admit on microadjustments (both Tamron console and in-camera). Mounted on the R with an adapter, autofocus accuracy noticeably improved, although not as good as adapted EF or RF. For example, I would aim an autofocus point with the Tamron, and it would hunt back and forth, and when I put on an EF lens, it would lock instantly on the same autofocus point, same lighting (in this specific test, I compared a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 versus a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II). But overall, I would say on the R, the Tamron autofocus is about 85% of the autofocus speed and accuracy of an RF lens, whereas the adapted EF lenses are about 95% of the RF lens speed and accuracy, at least with the lenses I used and compared (I only have the RF 35 f/1.8 as my sole RF lens at this time).
One area though which was a disappointment with Tamrons (not sure about Sigmas), is video use. Tamron aperture is not "stepless", according to them, resulting in noticeable clicking noises as the aperture changes during video recording. The workaround is to use fixed aperture, but even then, the autofocus noise is also quite noticeable, much louder than any Canon EF lens I have.
In the days of micro adjustment on camera, it was a real pain....seeing that we have a ton of bodies we use. We gave up on Sigma until ART came out and sold some of our older L glass for those.
Our newer Sigma Macros seem ok....but we honestly use those in manual most of the time and can’t give much feedback.
We’ve learned to just go with Canons 2.8 Zooms for all the low light work when flash is needed and call it a day.
If as Canon claims that RF Mount has advantage, Sigma 35mm F1.2 Canon RF version vs Sony E version:
RF version should have better IQ, or Same IQ with cheaper price, because easy to develop/produce.
Don't think they will design 2 different version. For DSLR they usually design for the mount which is the easiest to adapt to other mounts and keep the optical formula the same.
Check DxOMark ranking. For any DSLR lens, Nikon version is always better than Canon version:
DXOMARK
I don't trust or care for DXOMark. But i believe the difference is because of the different sensor, better DR on Nikon.
The Sigma CEO stated in an interview that they usually design a lens for the most adaptable mount, based on flange distance and other parameters.
That's not really an issue, becauce the Sony and Panasonic bodies have IBIS. And those are the mounts these lenses are made for. They will of course sooner or later be adapted for the RF-mount and by that time Canon might have released a camera with IBIS as well.
I am not sure if I should trust DxOMark. But if their results indicate significant difference, I probably should give a consideration.
After Canon RF 50mm F1.2 comes out, praise all over the places. But check these:
Canon RF 50mm F1.2 scores pretty low at 38, ranks 174 in DxOMark ranking:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-RF-50mm-F12L-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-R__1262
Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L vs Zeiss Otus 1.4/55 ZF.2:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp...-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800E__1995_1262_1242_814
Canon 28-70mm F2 scores even worse at 33, ranks 417 in DxOMark ranking:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-RF-28-70mm-F2L-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-R__1262
Still, I'm a Sigma fan - currently own the 35 and 50 Art lens paired with the R. I would love to own Canon's RF L lenses but good Lord do you need some deep pockets! Sigma RF mount glass would be a nice compromise for sure. I've just gotten used to the Control Ring on my adaptor that it would be a shame to loose it when using 3rd party lens.
How can the Canon 50 1.8 get a score of 29 for sharpness compared to only 22 for the RF 50mm 1.2?
Of course it's because the 50 1.8 is tested on a 50MP sensor versus 30MP for the RF but anyone can honestly believe the
cheap plastic lens would be any sharper?
Good point. But Otus 1.4/55 Nikon does not score much higher than Canon 1.8/50. I assume the sensors are not much different.
Confusing.