CineD mentioned something interesting in their review of the Sigma 28-45mm F1.8 DG DN Art lens. Sigma has already announced that they will launch the following Sigma APS-C lenses for the RF mount – the first three are on my Christmas wish list (Craig if you are listening – ahem).

  • Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC DN
  • Sigma 10-18mm F2.8 DC DN
  • Sigma 56mm F1.4 DC DN
  • Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC DN
  • Sigma 16mm f1.4 DC DN

But notably missing were any full-frame lenses, but CineD mentioned this in their review;

According to Yamaki-san, the goal is to launch all of their current APS-C lenses in RF mount by the end of this year. Moreover, he added that they currently don’t have a plan to release full-frame RF mount autofocus lenses, but “they will do their best” to meet customers’ needs.

https://www.cined.com/sigma-28-45mm-f-1-8-dg-dn-art-24-70mm-f-2-8-dg-dn-ii-art-first-look/

Now we can tinfoil hat this one that Canon didn't allow them to create any full-frame lenses for the RF mount. But there could be several different more practical reasons such as Canon asking both them and Tamron to come out with APS-C lenses first since that is where Canon is more lacking. Or it could also be that both Tamron and Sigma looked at Canon's lens lineup and decided their greatest potential for earnings was in RF-S lenses.

Assuming that the Sigma lenses are fully 100% operational on RF cameras, it may take additional time to prepare the full-frame lenses for release. We don't know the level of connectivity between the lens and the camera yet. Sigma did mention aberration correction, but not the extent of it – will this extend to DLO? Tamron did not mention any details in regards to connectivity in their press release that would shed more light on this.

We have another month to wait before we find out, as the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC DN is expected to be released in July.

Source: CineD via Digi-Came

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

Go to discussion...

143 comments

  1. Well, that's going to disappoint a lot of people, tin-foil hatted or not! Why would there be a significantly different connectivity issue as between APS-C and full frame RF lenses?

    I mean it's possible Sigma itself just sees a bigger commercial opportunity with APS-C RF lenses, given the general lack of Canon versions. And the available development time has been devoted to those first.

    Good luck with your Xmas gift list BTW :)
    • 0
  2. Well, that's going to disappoint a lot of people, tin-foil hatted or not! Why would there be a significantly different connectivity issue as between APS-C and full frame RF lenses?

    I mean it's possible Sigma itself just sees a bigger commercial opportunity with APS-C RF lenses, given the general lack of Canon versions. And the available development time has been devoted to those first.

    Good luck with your Xmas gift list BTW :)

    I am thinking that it just may take them time and they are doing the work serially - so the RF full frame lenses may be coming out after the work on the APS-C ones are done.

    But it really depends on what Sigma meant by corrections.
    • 0
  3. In this new world, third parties are only allowed to make lenses that Canon/Nikon are not interested in making. What does this tell us about Canon's interest in the APS-C RF system?
    • 0
  4. Well, that's going to disappoint a lot of people, tin-foil hatted or not! Why would there be a significantly different connectivity issue as between APS-C and full frame RF lenses?

    There isn't. Same as Nikon, Canon is tightly controlling which licensed AF lenses are and are not allowed onto RF mount. They do not want to share sales, so there will not be amazing Sigma lenses like the ART series 14/1.4, 35/1.2, 50/1.2, or 85/1.4. on RF. Nor will there be the great collecton of "i series" lenses loved by many, nor the incredible Sports series 500/5.6 ultra compact super tele prime.

    Canon believes this is what is best for their bottom line. Unfortunately people buying into RF get to pay the price.
    • 0
  5. Maybe some folks forgot Sony purposedly throttle Sigma lens AF speed on Sony cam? Yes I believe Canon is doing the right thing, instead of opening the mount and later throttle the 3rd lenses
    • 0
  6. Maybe some folks forgot Sony purposedly throttle Sigma lens AF speed on Sony cam? Yes I believe Canon is doing the right thing, instead of opening the mount and later throttle the 3rd lenses
    Oh no, only 15fps. How terrible.

    It's not the 30fps or 120fps of A9 or A1 cameras, but it's faster than almost every SLR type camera ever made, and faster than any of Sony's A7 cameras. Considering Sigma is the much lower cost (but still very high quality) option, A7 series users are very common buyers.

    It's also worth noting that many types of photography will never use 30fps or 120fps. Or even 15fps.

    Are the lenses limited? Yes. Is limited but available better than not available at all? Yes.

    Edit: And if you mean that Sony is literally throttling the speed of AF on Sigma lenses then no, that does not happen. Sony uses magnetic linear drive (MLD) motors that are the fastest focusing motors ever put into camera lenses. Sigma used to use stepper (STM) motors, like Canon and Nikon use in many lenses. These are much, much slower than MLD motors. But Sigma now has MLD motors too, and the 500/5.6 with these motors has been reviewed as incredibly fast focusing.

    So yes, lenses with slow motors focus more slowly. Lenses with fast motors focus faster. Shock & surprise....
    • 0
  7. I just don't care, the RF lenses are excellent, why should I buy something else?
    Yet, I understand some will be disappointed and a few others will cry out loud: Canon is d....d...
    No one is forced to accept Canon's decision, there's enough competion around...
    • 0
  8. I just don't care, the RF lenses are excellent, why should I buy something else?
    Because Canon's selection of RF lenses is still very limited, and even after they finish building things out, Sigma will be less expensive and will offer some lenses that Canon doesn't. For example, Sony has a 14/1.8 but Sigma offers a 14/1.4 and a 15/1.4 fisheye. Sony offers a 20/1.8 but Sigma offers a 20/1.4. Sigma has the fantastic "i series" lenses, including the superb 65/2.

    More choice is better than less, epseically when having more choice carries no downside for consumers.
    • 0
  9. There isn't. Same as Nikon, Canon is tightly controlling which licensed AF lenses are and are not allowed onto RF mount. They do not want to share sales

    Name a company on this planet that would like to share sales Captain Obvious
    • 0
  10. Because Canon's selection of RF lenses is still very limited, and even after they finish building things out, Sigma will be less expensive and will offer some lenses that Canon doesn't. For example, Sony has a 14/1.8 but Sigma offers a 14/1.4 and a 15/1.4 fisheye. Sony offers a 20/1.8 but Sigma offers a 20/1.4. Sigma has the fantastic "i series" lenses, including the superb 65/2.

    More choice is better than less, epseically when having more choice carries no downside for consumers.
    And I still don't care... :p
    What is true for you mustn't be true for me. In EF times, I didn't buy Sigmas or Tamrons, but Canon and Zeiss lenses, and do not have any plans to change.
    To be honest, if I felt restricted by Canon's lens offer, I'd have switched over to Panasonic or Nikon long time ago instead of complaining. The customer can decide!
    • 0
  11. I hope that Canon will allow 3rd parties to release RF (or EF!) versions of existing Sigma lenses where Canon has no plans to release their own lens.
    Even manual focus would be fine for the astrolandscape lovers eg 14/1.4 :)
    • 0
  12. Because Canon's selection of RF lenses is still very limited, and even after they finish building things out, Sigma will be less expensive and will offer some lenses that Canon doesn't. For example, Sony has a 14/1.8 but Sigma offers a 14/1.4 and a 15/1.4 fisheye. Sony offers a 20/1.8 but Sigma offers a 20/1.4. Sigma has the fantastic "i series" lenses, including the superb 65/2.

    More choice is better than less, epseically when having more choice carries no downside for consumers.
    True, yet I have no intentions of buying any third party lenses anymore, other than the manual lenses. Every time there is a change, I struggle using them. I have both Sigma and Tamron lenses and they are relatively useless with R5 right now. I add an ND filter and they don't focus, while EF lenses are still ok. I can't sell them because I still use my 1DX II.
    I know that choice is great, but the pain I have to pay for that choice, my own opinion, is not worth it.
    I envy Sony guys having these choices, but then again, I look at my own Sigma lenses and all of a sudden the envy is gone.
    Lenses are supposed to last "forever", third party negates that. In my eyes, they are only a temporary solution to Canon shortage.
    • 0
  13. Because Canon's selection of RF lenses is still very limited, and even after they finish building things out, Sigma will be less expensive and will offer some lenses that Canon doesn't. For example, Sony has a 14/1.8 but Sigma offers a 14/1.4 and a 15/1.4 fisheye. Sony offers a 20/1.8 but Sigma offers a 20/1.4. Sigma has the fantastic "i series" lenses, including the superb 65/2.

    More choice is better than less, epseically when having more choice carries no downside for consumers.

    I agree, more choice is better for the consumer.
    That being said, I've got a canon mirrorless camera because I felt they could meet my needs at a significantly lower price than any competitor, including sigma. For shooters that like to use zoom lenses, canon has done a decent job of fleshing out the lineup remarkably quick. I probably would buy a sigma prime for astrophotography if they were to get released some day, but until then I'm happy with what I have.

    Also, has sigma or canon ever said anything officially about canon "not allowing them to make lenses". I assume there's some kind of IP dealing with the communication protocol on the lens, so there could be merit to the fact that the two sides haven't been able to agree on a contract, but do we know any details for sure or is everything people say here just speculation? I feel like it's possible that sigma is constrained by the same supply issues as canon, feels they have a good thing going with their sony line, and just don't want to spread their resources too thin. Also possible that canon won't give them as good of a deal that sony has, but I've never actually seen what kind of agreements sony or canon has with sigma.
    • 0
  14. To me this is disappointing. My best wide angles on the R5 are my Sigma ART lenses in EF mount with an adapter. I would live to be able to use the DG DN 14-24. I really don't like Canon's RF wide angle zooms at all. If you like them and want to use them, then good for you, but they don't work well for my uses.
    • 0
  15. I really don't like Canon's RF wide angle zooms at all.
    Personally, I find it disappointing that the RF14-35 f/4 is not an internal zoom lens. This focal length (in my case EF16-35 f/4) is used by me for urban photography and certainly also landscape photography. Weather conditions also apply to landscape photography. Then you actually want maximum protection against weather influences. An internal zoom is better than external zooming in and out of the 14-35. That is why I did not purchase this lens and will stick with the EF 16-35 f/4 for the time being. For me, the current wide angle DSLR Sigma lenses are either too heavy (bulky), not the right focal length. I'm hoping for an RF14-35 II with internal zoom. That will take some years. Perhaps Sigma released an internal zoom Canon FF mirrorless wide-angle lens before then. Then that is of course worth testing.
    • 0
  16. In this new world, third parties are only allowed to make lenses that Canon/Nikon are not interested in making. What does this tell us about Canon's interest in the APS-C RF system?
    Nikon still hasn't updated the 2019 Z50. At least Canon cares about APS-C bodies. Canon cares about unit sales, and in their last set of financial documents they singled out the R50 as selling well.
    • 0
  17. Remember that a not-so-long time ago, many people were screaming because Canon didn\'t allow Sigma or Tamron to produce any RF lenses \"at all\".
    A couple of years after, Sigma proposes RF mount APSC AF lenses.

    I understand Canon don\'t love the fact that Sigma and Tamron could sell tons of RF mount lenses, but time will tell. It\'s not impossible for the near future.
    Sigma won\'t tell us what they plan fort the next months and years about RF lenses ! Just arguing they will do their best \"to meet customers’ needs\" ! Everything is possible then.
    • 0
  18. Personally, I find it disappointing that the RF14-35 f/4 is not an internal zoom lens. This focal length (in my case EF16-35 f/4) is used by me for urban photography and certainly also landscape photography. Weather conditions also apply to landscape photography. Then you actually want maximum protection against weather influences. An internal zoom is better than external zooming in and out of the 14-35. That is why I did not purchase this lens and will stick with the EF 16-35 f/4 for the time being. For me, the current wide angle DSLR Sigma lenses are either too heavy (bulky), not the right focal length. I'm hoping for an RF14-35 II with internal zoom. That will take some years. Perhaps Sigma released an internal zoom Canon FF mirrorless wide-angle lens before then. Then that is of course worth testing.
    Would the zoom method used on the 17-40L be a good compromise? It moves the front element, inside the hood.
    • 0
  19. In this new world, third parties are only allowed to make lenses that Canon/Nikon are not interested in making. What does this tell us about Canon's interest in the APS-C RF system?
    They are interested enough to release new APS-C bodies but probably can't (or don't want to) free enough production capacity for dedicated APS-C glass when they still struggle to meet demand for other lenses that came out.
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment