svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - Sigma: Hopefully One More Mount in 2022

    Sigma: Hopefully One More Mount in 2022

    By Updated:58 Comments2 Mins Read Third Party Lenses

    Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki confirmed that the firm has been working on new mount options for its well-regarded third party lens options, and indicated that he'd like to launch at least one of them in this calendar year. The remarks came in an online question-answer video (Japanese).

    “From the standpoint of a lens manufacturer, I always want to support as many mounts as possible,” answered Yamaki. “I can't say which mount, but I think I could add at least one [mount] this year.”

    While it might seem obvious that the Canon RF mount would be the best logical choice, Sigma has been promising Fuji X-mount users lenses for more than a year. That smaller market may prove a more intensely-rich vein of demand given that there aren't many X-mount options aside from Fuji's own expensive OEM lineup. This may make most sense in an environment where Sigma previously indicated it can't keep up with production, even as it has added another major manufacturing building to its campus.

    [Update: On Feb. 9, Fujirurmors.com indicated it has information that the first new mount will, indeed, be X-mount, and that the first three Sigma lenses to release will be the existing Contemporary 16mm, 30mm and 56mm f/1.4 primes.]

    Previous interviews with the CEO, who is also the primary owner of the privately-held Sigma, revealed that the firm was experimenting with RF and Nikon Z mount options.

    The remarks reported this morning do not preclude the firm launching more than one new mount in 2022.

    Sigma's older Art lenses, while generally well-liked among Canon EF mount users, were never fully adapted to mirrorless, instead gaining internal adapters for the RF versions. The company's more recent designs have been true mirrorless lenses, but available only for Sigma's L-mount and Sony E-mount.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    58 comments

    2. The more lens options the better. For all mounts. I am guilty of never owning Sigma lens - Art are too heavy, others are worse than OEM ones I use(d), IMHO, but competition is always welcome.
    3. The more lense options the better. For all mounts. I am guilty of never owning Sigma lens - Art are too heavy, others are worse than OEM ones I use(d), IMHO, but competition is always welcome.
      Vladk, it's interesting you say that. The new lenses Sigma put out over the past 9 months have really been these cheap-and-cheerful DG DN lenses. Mostly wide vlogger primes. I don't personally have much interest in those, but am salivating over the 35mm f/1.2. I used to own it in Sony E mount back when I was toying with that system. It's the single thing I miss most about Sony.
    4. Two comments/questions. First, I don't understand some of their DG DN lens focal length choices, especially the 65mm and 24mm macro, and the order in which they are being introduced. Can somebody make sense of it?

      Second, are they really going to try to reverse engineer the Fuji X, Nikon Z and Canon R lens mounts or have they convinced the manufacturers to tell them the protocols?
    5. Sigma Art RF and Tamron SP RF will come I'm sure, we just need to be patient.
      Hopefully they willl fill some focal length gaps and address filter usage and non bulbous elements in UWA (Laowa 15 Zero D but with AF style)
      Pancakes are always welcome as well!
    6. THe mid-range lens segment on RF could be DOMINATED by Sigma if they released some stuff right now. A 150-600 update that is 80-90% as good as the 100-500, but $1000 less, a 70-200 2.8 that is optically as good as their last one (very close to the EF VII and III) but around $2k, a 50mm 1.4 ART at $1200 (the EF version is at least as good as the Canon 1.2, though obviously slower). A 35 and 85mm 1.4 offering...people would go nuts.

      I hope it happens. I'd love to see a 300 2.8 prime or a redux of the 120-300 2.8 zoom too. Places where Canon isn't interested in playing at the moment.

      Brian
    7. A 150-600 update that is 80-90% as good as the 100-500, but $1000 less, a 70-200 2.8 that is optically as good as their last one (very close to the EF VII and III) but around $2k, a 50mm 1.4 ART at $1200 (the EF version is at least as good as the Canon 1.2, though obviously slower). A 35 and 85mm 1.4 offering...people would go nuts.
      Throw a few of their great UWA options:
      14-24mm F2.8
      14mm F1.8
      20mm F1.4
      24mm F1.4

      If Sigma were able to keep the optical performance AND reduce some weight (the 20mm is awfully heavy) they'd sell out within minutes after the annoucement :)

      I´m patiently waiting for UWA options from Sigma for RF mount because Canons offering are great but too expensive.
    8. I would mostly hope for a compact and affordable standard zoom like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2 (so far only for Sony). The Sigma version for Sony (28-70mm f/2.8) even smaller and lighter and cheaper, but not quite as sharp as the Tamron, could be an alternative as well.
    9. Second, are they really going to try to reverse engineer the Fuji X, Nikon Z and Canon R lens mounts or have they convinced the manufacturers to tell them the protocols?
      Fujifilm recently opened the X mount to licensees.

      The three Sigma APS-C f/1.4 DC DN lenses with Fujifilm X mount are expected to be announced shortly.
    10. Fujifilm recently opened the X mount to licensees.
      Canon is foolish for not doing this with RF from the beginning. The market is too large for Sigma and Tamron to ignore, so they will likely reverse engineer RF (which really means reverse engineering the high speed data pins, the other pins are the same). But we could already have Sigma/Tamron RF lenses if Canon had offered licensing.
    11. Canon is foolish for not doing this with RF from the beginning. The market is too large for Sigma and Tamron to ignore, so they will likely reverse engineer RF (which really means reverse engineering the high speed data pins, the other pins are the same). But we could already have Sigma/Tamron RF lenses if Canon had offered licensing.
      Yeah. But you have to understand that Canon is a lens manufacturer with very good sales and profits on those lenses. From their perspective, why should they make it easy for a competitor to take sales away from them?

      when Sony opened their mount to third parties, the only lenses they had were old Minolta DSLR and SLR lenses. They needed lenses for their systems as fast as possible to try to have any hope of catching up to Canon and Nikon. Zeiss helped, but not enough, and their own efforts were just taking off. Both Canon and Nikon didn’t need that, so they kept their lens info to themselves.

      yes, we may want those third party lenses as fast as possible. But I don’t see any evidence that not having them is holding back RF camera, or lens sales.
    12. Canon should free up their proprietary tech and IP because members on Canon Rumors want a wider and less expensive lens selection. Ok.

      Every so often we need a few lessons on 'JBYWIDMCWDI'

      (Just because you want it doesn't mean Canon will do it)
    13. I owned the Sigma 85mm DN Art when I shot Sony and that lens is phenomenal, I’ll instantly sell my current 85mm when it comes out. The 105mm f/2.8 DN Macro is another must for me.

      Although Fuji doesn’t have much third party’s options, I feel with the price of Canon RF lenses Sigma would make a killing going with Canon first.
    14. Canon should free up their proprietary tech and IP because members on Canon Rumors want a wider and less expensive lens selection. Ok.

      Every so often we need a few lessons on 'JBYWIDMCWDI'

      (Just because you want it doesn't mean Canon will do it)
      On the other hand, if they don't free up their proprietary tech at least to the extent of allowing third party lenses (assuming that the lack of third party lenses is actually due to IP issues), do they risk losing out because people choose not to buy into the Canon system at all? Canon will have huge amounts of market data and smart people working out how to maximise their profit, so I'm going to assume Canon knows what it is doing from that point of view. However, for what it's worth, as someone who has shot Canon for about 20 years, I'm very jealous of the lenses availalbe for the Sony system and about two years ago Sony became my default recommendation when anyone asked me which system they should go with. I say default recommendation, as it always comes down to what the person wants to shoot, and perhaps what lenses they already own. (For example, if someone has the use (and budget) for the 28-70 f/2L, that might be a reason to go with Canon.) But for many people, I think the Sony system offers much better options and value than the Canon system (which in the main offers lenses which are either large, heavy and very expensive or reasonably small and light but underwhelming at least in the 24mm to 100mm focal length range). And all the people I know who have gone with Sony (and I accept that is not many in the context of a worldwide camera market!) have been very happy with the choice. If Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, etc, were producing RF lenses (yes, I know Samyang has made a few), I expect I would still be enthusiastically recommending the Canon system. As things stand, I don't feel able to do that.

      I know Canon Rumors is a pro-Canon website so what I'm saying may be unpopular, but since the introduction of the R system, I just cannot get excited about what Canon is offering, as optically fantastic as lenses such as the RF 85L may be. I haven't bought into the R system and I have no plan to do so. The existence of third party lenses for the R system would help Canon sell me a camera (and no doubt some lenses, flashes, etc, over time). The question is, how many people feel like I do, and how much (if at all!) does that hurt Canon's profit? I can only assume Canon is pretty confident the answer is not enough people to worry about.
    17. > when Sony opened their mount to third parties, the only lenses they had were old Minolta DSLR and SLR lenses."

      when Canon created R-mount the only lenses Canon had were old EF-mount lenses... Nikon had only old F-mount lenses... Sony had A-mount lenses .... so ?


      > They needed lenses for their systems as fast as possible to try to have any hope of catching up to Canon and Nikon.

      and boy they did to the point that Nikon got trashed to 3rd place and both C&N were left scrambling to move from dSLR to dSLM... Sony literally made dSLR the thing of the past...

      > Zeiss helped, but not enough, and their own efforts were just taking off.

      where all those Minolta people go ? Sony was making A-mount camera well before E-mount appeared
    18. > Fujifilm recently opened the X mount to licensees.

      not recently... I assume you do not use Fuji at all otherwise you shall be aware that Zeiss made Touit lenses for X-Mount as early as 2013 ... that will be what ? 9+ years ago :-)
    19. Canon should free up their proprietary tech and IP because members on Canon Rumors want a wider and less expensive lens selection. Ok.

      Every so often we need a few lessons on 'JBYWIDMCWDI'

      (Just because you want it doesn't mean Canon will do it)
      I don't buy this BS for a second. Other companies are doing fine making 3rd party lenses for RF. The new Viltox 85mm that just came out seems to be working great so far. If I had a choice of believe this or that Canon offered them x amount of $$$ to NOT make them I would believe the later first as Canon cant just prevent them from making a lens.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment