# Is SIGMA getting ready to announce their first RF mount lenses? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 3, 2019)

> 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
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Photo Hack (Jul 3, 2019)

Just as I was getting ready to be done with Sigma after the full move to RF..... the price tag and value is always so tempting, even though I curse some of the auto focusing, especially in low light.

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.


----------



## ozturert (Jul 3, 2019)

Have they been able to reverse engineer the mount already?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 3, 2019)

ozturert said:


> Have they been able to reverse engineer the mount already?



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.


----------



## woodman411 (Jul 3, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Just as I was getting ready to be done with Sigma after the full move to RF..... the price tag and value is always so tempting, even though I curse some of the auto focusing, especially in low light.
> 
> 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.



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.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jul 3, 2019)

woodman411 said:


> 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.


Yeah, I struggled with the 135 ART for hours on the USB dock before sending it back. The older 50 f1.4 was junk, our 85 ART is decent in good lighting but awful in low light. Our 35 & 50 ARTs are most consistent, maybe more forgiving focal lengths has to do with it.

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.


----------



## edoorn (Jul 3, 2019)

From what I believe, Sigma EF lenses do well with adapter on the R so I suppose there's potential


----------



## bellorusso (Jul 3, 2019)

IS is a must at this point. Sigma's popular lenses without one is a very sad move. Obviously, Sigma will try to milk us twice. So I am not buying a Sigma lens without IS.


----------



## 6degrees (Jul 3, 2019)

35mm F1.2
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.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 3, 2019)

6degrees said:


> 35mm F1.2
> 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.


----------



## 6degrees (Jul 3, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> 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:





__





Lenses Database - DXOMARK







www.dxomark.com


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 3, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Check DxOMark ranking. For any DSLR lens, Nikon version is always better than Canon version.



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.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 3, 2019)

Remember not all RF lenses are going to be true RF mount. RF is a combination of a new mount and new faster protocols. Third party RF lenses are far more likely to be RF physical mount using the old EF protocols (as it would be with an adapted EF lens.) Add to this that the optical designs of the new generation full frame mirrorless lenses will be for the lowest common denominator (ie Sony FE) and you'll see Canon won't have anything to fear with this competition.


----------



## max_sr (Jul 3, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> IS is a must at this point. Sigma's popular lenses without one is a very sad move. Obviously, Sigma will try to milk us twice. So I am not buying a Sigma lens without IS.



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.


----------



## 6degrees (Jul 3, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> 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.



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


----------



## dlmartin81 (Jul 3, 2019)

My guess is their lenses won't have a Control Ring. Is that a fair assumption?

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.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 3, 2019)

6degrees said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



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?


----------



## edoorn (Jul 3, 2019)

DxOMark is so 2016...


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 3, 2019)

Another DXO example: Canon EF 600mm F/4L IS II USM is better in every parameter than Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR and 13 points higher in sharpness (37 vs 24), yet the overall score is only 4 points higher, 32 vs 28.


----------



## 6degrees (Jul 3, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> 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.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jul 3, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> 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?


Are you telling me I could’ve been using the nifty fifty over all these big expensive lenses all these years? Ugh Canon marketing!!!!! 



dlmartin81 said:


> My guess is their lenses won't have a Control Ring. Is that a fair assumption?
> 
> 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.


if they’re just staying with original lens designs and slapping an adapter on these, I would think they could put control rings on the lenses.

They can’t move the lens any closer to the sensor than DSLR correct? Therefore leaving a 24mm or so extension on the RF lens?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 3, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Check DxOMark ranking. For any DSLR lens, Nikon version is always better than Canon version:



The fact that Sigma offers a mount conversion service for their lenses pretty much shoots a hole in the idea that they design lenses with optical formulas matched to specific mounts.


----------



## 6degrees (Jul 3, 2019)

unfocused said:


> The fact that Sigma offers a mount conversion service for their lenses pretty much shoots a hole in the idea that they design lenses with optical formulas matched to specific mounts.



If same optical structures, IQ should stay near the same, correct?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 3, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> If they’re just staying with original lens designs and slapping an adapter on these, I would think they could put control rings on the lenses..



I guess that's the big question -- are they designing new mirrorless-specific lenses and varying the mounts by manufacturer, or are they adding a built-in adapter to existing DSLR designs? In either case, I'm guessing they could easily add the control-ring function once they reverse-engineer the protocols. I would also guess that they would place the control ring at the back of the lens, just like the Canon adapter, rather than near the front like R lenses. (Makes it easier to make different lens mounts for different brands and continue to offer mount conversions)


----------



## unfocused (Jul 3, 2019)

6degrees said:


> If same optical structures, IQ should stay near the same, correct?


Are you saying it doesn't? Or, are you saying the DXO measurements differ by lens/camera combination? Two different things.


----------



## 6degrees (Jul 3, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Are you saying it doesn't? Or, are you saying the DXO measurements differ by lens/camera combination? Two different things.



I meant the DxOMark scores should not be much different.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 3, 2019)

what would be the point. all they would do is make a lens with the adapter built in. maybe put a control ring on it as an incentive. arent some of the sony ones longer because they are just "adapters" at the end


----------



## magarity (Jul 3, 2019)

ozturert said:


> Have they been able to reverse engineer the mount already?


The really tricky part is reverse engineering the, what is it 3 or 4, pins that are still "reserved". Meaning Canon's designers have a vague idea in mind but no camera or lens of theirs yet uses them but will some day. Thus, only get dock compatible (update-able) third party lenses for R. 
Can Canon's own R lenses be updated by end users?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 3, 2019)

magarity said:


> Can Canon's own R lenses be updated by end users?


Canon can use a camera firmware update to update the lens. Third party lenses need a dock.


----------



## Trey T (Jul 3, 2019)

Art series FTW!!! Go Sigma!!


----------



## AlanF (Jul 3, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Canon can use a camera firmware update to update the lens. Third party lenses need a dock.


The Sigma and Canon docks are very useful for tweaking the properties of lenses and tailoring AF distance ranges to your own requirements, and it would be useful if Canon provided a dock.


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 3, 2019)

I m hoping they will release some lightweight lenses! All those ART lenses are really (to)heavy!


----------



## unfocused (Jul 3, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The Sigma and Canon docks are very useful for tweaking the properties of lenses and tailoring AF distance ranges to your own requirements, and it would be useful if Canon provided a dock.


I don't disagree. I was just saying that currently, rather than providing a dock, Canon lenses are updated by firmware that is installed while the camera is attached to the lens. Example Here


----------



## unfocused (Jul 3, 2019)

6degrees said:


> I meant the DxOMark scores should not be much different.


The variable is the camera, not the lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 3, 2019)

I'll just stick to Canon.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 3, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> what would be the point. all they would do is make a lens with the adapter built in. maybe put a control ring on it as an incentive. arent some of the sony ones longer because they are just "adapters" at the end


If that is all they are doing. It's possible they could design lenses specific to mirrorless. We won't know that until they release a lens. Those who have an aversion to adapters might prefer to have one permanently attached. If they are just adapting DSLR lenses, then I would expect that most users would rather have the versatility of being able to use the lens on a DSLR and use an adapter with mirrorless.


----------



## Brown (Jul 3, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It seems a bit too soon for me


They already have the protocol of the EF standard, wouldn't they just have to analyze the EF-RF adapter?


----------



## Kit. (Jul 3, 2019)

6degrees said:


> If same optical structures, IQ should stay near the same, correct?


I wonder... do you include sensor coating into your "optical structure"?


----------



## Tom W (Jul 3, 2019)

ozturert said:


> Have they been able to reverse engineer the mount already?



They probably reverse-engineered the adapter and are using the EF technology with the electrical adaptation built in, but optically, an RF lens.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 3, 2019)

what is canon's words on fully functional third party RF lenses


----------



## unfocused (Jul 3, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> what is canon's words on fully functional third party RF lenses


Same as EF as far as I know: Buy our lenses. Not theirs.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 3, 2019)

Hmmm the recent massive price cut to the 35mm f/1.4 Art means this could actually be true.


----------



## canonical (Jul 3, 2019)

Should optical design of these Sigma RF-mount lenses be based on same/minimally adapted formula they are using for Sony E-mount version, they definitely are wasting a lot of potential.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 3, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Check DxOMark ranking. For any DSLR lens, Nikon version is always better than Canon version:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look at the manufacture’s MTF curves. Sigma uses the same set of curves for Sony, Canon, and Nikon.

DXO rates lenses based on sensor performance


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 3, 2019)

6degrees said:


> I meant the DxOMark scores should not be much different.


DXO scores are insanely biased and essentially jibberish. For example, the 50F1.8, canons cheapest lens, is rated higher than the 600F4, their most expensive lens.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Jul 4, 2019)

After a Tamron 85mm didn't adapt to my Canon M5, I decided to start buying native Canon lenses as much as possible. When I put my Canon 85mm or the Canon M5, it works perfect, just like it does on my 5DS or my EOS R ...

As for Sigma, not only are they 3rd party, but I thought it was sort of budget design the way their latest lenses skip IS in most everything. But the fact that my Canon lenses are working with all my Canon bodies is most important right now.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 4, 2019)

ozturert said:


> Have they been able to reverse engineer the mount already?


I think they can use the old protocol and just change the lens mount for a lens with a similar back focus figure.

The EF Sigma lenses generally focus well when adapted to the R.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jul 4, 2019)

I’m a little confused by the comments on Sigma not producing lenses with IS. At the time of release, nearly all of their zooms and Macros with exception of ultra wide, have IS. Even their 24-70 2.8 has IS compared to Canon’s non IS offering. 

As far as all the primes go in the ART series, what equivalent lenses did Canon have with IS at the time those lenses came out? 

It seems to me the market Sigma was aiming to get were those of us who are looking for exceptionally sharp and well built lenses that rival Canons L lenses but at a fraction of the price. In that Regard, Sigma really outdid themselves. 

I guarantee they took a big chunk out of Canon’s L lens sales with the ART line. 

We’ll see how long that will last as we slowly move towards mirrorless. It seems Sigma is going to have to make some hard decisions about how to stay competitive long term.


----------



## miggyt (Jul 4, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> IS is a must at this point. Sigma's popular lenses without one is a very sad move. Obviously, Sigma will try to milk us twice. So I am not buying a Sigma lens without IS.


do not expect IS in these shorter focal lengths especially as most mirrorless brands already have IBIS. and historically, its canon that's been milking customers several times over with several iterations of the same lenses (just how many variations of 70-200 does canon have???).


----------



## miggyt (Jul 4, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


 
i will hold my breath. sigma will most likely announce their RF counterparts in the far far future. reverse engineering is a very difficult challenge. even until now, sigma has not yet perfected their AFs for EF and F mounts. and is the market demand for RF enough to sustain their development costs?


----------



## ozturert (Jul 4, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> After a Tamron 85mm didn't adapt to my Canon M5, I decided to start buying native Canon lenses as much as possible. When I put my Canon 85mm or the Canon M5, it works perfect, just like it does on my 5DS or my EOS R ...
> 
> As for Sigma, not only are they 3rd party, but I thought it was sort of budget design the way their latest lenses skip IS in most everything. But the fact that my Canon lenses are working with all my Canon bodies is most important right now.


Exactly. Tamron 45mm and 100-400mm VC worked on my EOS R but AF is very slow and sometimes they refuse to AF (in this case I have to play with focus ring to bring the focus close to my subject, then AF works). I haven't tried any Sigma lens yet though.


----------



## canonical (Jul 4, 2019)

miggyt said:


> ... and is the market demand for RF enough to sustain their development costs?



i see no reason to worry at all about Canon RF mount. don't see anything that would keep it from commanding 50%+ market share, just like EF did.

as soon as new tilt-shift lenses for mirrorless FF are launched, the wheat (RF, Z) will quickly separate from the chaff (E). 

only new mount i'd not invest in is L. technically ok, but nowhere near enough market potential. Sigma does pour money into L, but i don't think they'll ever recoup it, much less make any profits. same as with their cameras. rather erratic decisions by their owner-CEO.


----------



## lawny13 (Jul 4, 2019)

6degrees said:


> 35mm F1.2
> 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.



Big misconception. The larger mount gives more freedom when concerning the various design parameters. It doesn't necessarily mean that the customers will see it or that the RF version will be better than the FE version. 

For example. All things the same in terms of performance, the RF should be (potentially) cheaper. However, it makes a little to no sense for sigma to go with multiple optical designs unless they have to. So you may very well get a lens that is designed for the RF flange distance while keeping FE in mind. That way they can end up with lenses for two mounts following the same optical formulas. Such a lens will not take full advantage of the shorter flange distance of the FE, nor would it take full advantage of the canon mount diameter. 

Maybe they design a lens with that sort of similar RF 35 design, where the back element protrudes into the mount. While at the same time be flush with the FE mount interface. That element would have to fit sony's mount diameter and keep FE performance in mind. But as mentioned before, this would mean not taking advantage of the RF mount diameter. 

But we will see. If it is cheaper to make/design for canon, then sigma may very well go with two different designs. Perhaps design wise it is just tweaking the design from one mount to another.


----------



## uri.raz (Jul 4, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> 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.



They might have figured out how the EF-RF adapter signals the camera an EF lens is mounted, so it would fall back to EF protocol. From there, it's just using their EF implementation + adding the appropriate length to the barrel.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 4, 2019)

We are so lucky to have experts here who know and can predict Sigma's market share and their technology better than Sigma does.


----------



## 6degrees (Jul 4, 2019)

lawny13 said:


> Big misconception. The larger mount gives more freedom when concerning the various design parameters. It doesn't necessarily mean that the customers will see it or that the RF version will be better than the FE version.
> 
> For example. All things the same in terms of performance, the RF should be (potentially) cheaper. However, it makes a little to no sense for sigma to go with multiple optical designs unless they have to. So you may very well get a lens that is designed for the RF flange distance while keeping FE in mind. That way they can end up with lenses for two mounts following the same optical formulas. Such a lens will not take full advantage of the shorter flange distance of the FE, nor would it take full advantage of the canon mount diameter.
> 
> ...



That means Canon it’s own lenses will be superior than same-formula-multi-mount lens providers like Sigma, Zeiss, etc. if RF Mount really has advantage over, saying E mount.

We will see.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Jul 4, 2019)

Would a SIGMA 12-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM specifically designed for mirrorless systems have a front filter thread? Or would that also be a bulbous lens?


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 4, 2019)

Everyone company and i mean EVERYBODY has IBIS except canon , so IS in lenses can go on the backburner except for canon users to this date. SOny, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, and even Nikon have IBIS. Canon is just beating around the bush as usual waiting for us to buy all the cameras up before giving us more convenient tech. It's actually insane how they treat their customers when they have all that money
.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 4, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Everyone company and i mean EVERYBODY has IBIS except canon , so IS in lenses can go on the backburner except for canon users to this date. SOny, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, and even Nikon have IBIS. Canon is just beating around the bush as usual waiting for us to buy all the cameras up before giving us more convenient tech. It's actually insane how they treat their customers when they have all that money
> .


In-lens IS is essential for telephoto lenses, and so Olympus, Panasonic etc have added in-lens IS to their telephotos (Olympus 300 f/4, Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm etc).


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> In-lens IS is essential for telephoto lenses, and so Olympus, Panasonic etc have added in-lens IS to their telephotos (Olympus 300 f/4, Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm etc).


true btu witrh sigma. their most popular lenses or popular lens in general arent telephotos unless you count the 135mm


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 4, 2019)

6degrees said:


> If same optical structures, IQ should stay near the same, correct?



No, because DXO scores are highly dependent on the sensor. A higher resolution sensor will give higher score for the exact same lens.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 4, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> true btu witrh sigma. their most popular lenses or popular lens in general arent telephotos unless you count the 135mm


You move in different circles. The 150-600mm C is a very popular lens with nature photographers, for example, the S less so, but the 60-600mm could become popular. The Sigma 100-400mm is a cheap alternative to the Canon version. And the major manufacturers have either introduced or will do so combining in-lens with in-body IS to give even more effective IS.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 4, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Are you telling me I could’ve been using the nifty fifty over all these big expensive lenses all these years? Ugh Canon marketing!!!!!
> 
> 
> if they’re just staying with original lens designs and slapping an adapter on these, I would think they could put control rings on the lenses.
> ...


I'd bet that the control ring is covered by a host of patents, Any 3rd party will need to navigate thru them, Canon has not sold licenses to lens technology so far, but its possible that they would swap licenses to patents if it was a benefit.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 4, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> No, because DXO scores are highly dependent on the sensor. A higher resolution sensor will give higher score for the exact same lens.


DXO keeps the way they score products secret and no one has reverse engineered it. Possible its because its not totally related to lens performance, but to personal opinions. Certainly, their scores only apply to a certain lens / Camera model and can't be compared with a different camera. About all you can say is that a particular lens seems to work very well with a particular camera if tested in a warehouse.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 5, 2019)

6degrees said:


> 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:
> 
> ...


Look at the Otus on a 5D IV and other than the Otus being sharper at f/1.4 than the Canon at f/1.2 the two are almost a perfect overlay. Then put the Otus on a 5DSR and watch it outrun itself on the D800E. You are just looking at megapixels and AA filters and not lenses. The RF lens softens a bit at f/1.2, but that is no surprise. It will score very well when Canon releases a high MP R body.


----------



## degos (Jul 5, 2019)

Bashing Sigma for not having IS on their Art series is odd when the Canon RF 50, 85 and 28-70 don't have IS either....

I think some people just find it difficult to accept that optical excellence isn't reserved to Canon and Zeiss, so they look for other reasons to criticise.


----------



## lawny13 (Jul 5, 2019)

6degrees said:


> That means Canon it’s own lenses will be superior than same-formula-multi-mount lens providers like Sigma, Zeiss, etc. if RF Mount really has advantage over, saying E mount.
> 
> We will see.



Again... it depends. There is a lot more going on that what most people realize. Here is an example. 

Lets say you decide that you really want a small lens (normal FL), and that since you don't ever shoot faster than f8, you are going to design a lens that has a max aperture of f5.6 (to give yourself some room). 

For such a lens there is absolutely no lens mount advantage. Maybe flange distance (registration distance) plays a role, but ya... pretty much no advantage regardless of the mount (at least none that people tend to focus on). It wouldn't be much of a challenge and even in terms of cost it would be difficult to see how you would end up with a sony or canon lens with any significant price difference unless you take buid quality and such into account. 

The MAIN advantage about the wider lens mount is seen in fast glass. And then with what canon did with the 35 mm. They claim they chose the flange distance because they wanted a robust mount (presumably to mount those massive RF lenses, especially the inevitable bigger ones), and I pretty much agree with that approach. But the wider mount allows for lens like the RF 35, were the rear element protrudes past the mount interface by quite a bit. Having larger lens elements shifted to the back helps to provide a better lens + body balance in terms of center of mass. Simpler lens designs allow for better sample variations, cheaper manufacturing costs (hopefully passed on to us) etc. 

So if canon makes a 50mm f1.8 to compete against the 55 ZA lens, it probably won't perform better than it. It may very well end up costing about the same to be honest. And that would have to do with the fact that canon would probably use a more conventional design approach, while the 55 ZA is a sonnar design. So it isn't apples to apples. Instead lets take it a step further. I would wager that a RF 50f1.4 would perform on par as the FE 50 f1.4 ZA, for cheaper (say $900-$1000), with a center of mass closer to the rear of the lens. 

For more conventional lens design approach, for the faster lenses f2 and faster primes we will likely see how the lens mounts impact various design parameters (including price). For zoom... well zooms are always more complicated to gauge. We just need to see what the holy trinity zooms will look like, cost and perform before we can make a conclusion that they are "better" than their sony GM counter parts.


----------



## lawny13 (Jul 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> We are so lucky to have experts here who know and can predict Sigma's market share and their technology better than Sigma does.



I know right? Surprising that sigma isn't knocking on our doors begging we work for them as consultants


----------



## DaveGrice (Jul 5, 2019)

6degrees said:


> Check DxOMark ranking. For any DSLR lens, Nikon version is always better than Canon version:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How certain are you about this assertion? I did look at DxO, and here's what I found:






Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM on Canon EOS 5DS R vs Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G on Nikon D800E vs Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM A Nikon on Nikon D800E







www.dxomark.com


----------



## raptor3x (Jul 6, 2019)

DaveGrice said:


> How certain are you about this assertion? I did look at DxO, and here's what I found:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Those are completely different lenses you're comparing though.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 6, 2019)

Canon only. You're welcome.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 6, 2019)

DaveGrice said:


> How certain are you about this assertion? I did look at DxO, and here's what I found:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


DXO scores make absolutely no difference as to whether or not the photographer can take a good photo. Screw DXO scores... no matter which manufacturer they favor.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jul 6, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Everyone company and i mean EVERYBODY has IBIS except canon , so IS in lenses can go on the backburner except for canon users to this date. SOny, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, and even Nikon have IBIS. Canon is just beating around the bush as usual waiting for us to buy all the cameras up before giving us more convenient tech. It's actually insane how they treat their customers when they have all that money
> .



IS lenses will not go on the back burner because of IBIS. IBIS can substitute for OIS to a certain extent, but it performs so much better in conjunction with OIS.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Jul 6, 2019)

Are these new lenses or just the older DSLR ones with the mount changed?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 7, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> DXO scores make absolutely no difference as to whether or not the photographer can take a good photo. Screw DXO scores... no matter which manufacturer they favor.


So you say, but DXO tells me that the nifty fifty is a better lens than the 600F4, so that’s the lens we should be using to take pictures of grizzly bears and lions..... what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Dragon (Jul 7, 2019)

The Fat Fish said:


> Are these new lenses or just the older DSLR ones with the mount changed?


12-24 f/2.8 is definitely a new lens. The current f/2.8 is 14-24.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 7, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> IS lenses will not go on the back burner because of IBIS. IBIS can substitute for OIS to a certain extent, but it performs so much better in conjunction with OIS.


if that is true how many futures lens coming out have IS for all the mirrorless brands aside from telephotos. seems like much less incentive for it anymore and they can just focus on sharpness. It doesnt matter if you think it is a replacement for OIS. The companies are the ones that pay for it and will decide if it is a necessary expense.


----------



## DaveGrice (Jul 8, 2019)

raptor3x said:


> Those are completely different lenses you're comparing though.



No worries. Maybe you can add the link to the comparison you were asserting. You know, where the comparable Nikon lens is always better than the Canon lens.


----------



## raptor3x (Jul 8, 2019)

DaveGrice said:


> No worries. Maybe you can add the link to the comparison you were asserting. You know, where the comparable Nikon lens is always better than the Canon lens.



I think you're confusing me with someone else as I never said anything like that; actually I don't think anyone has said anything like that. Someone just pointed out that DxO scores Nikon mount versions of a given lens, like the Sigma 35 1.4 as an example, higher than the Canon versions. Some examples

Sigma 35 1.4
F-mount = 43
EF-mount = 41

Sigma 50 1.4
F-mount = 46
EF-mount = 44

Sigma 85 1.4
F-mount = 51
EF-mount = 47

Sigma 20 1.4
F-mount = 41
EF-mount = 40

Sigma 12-24 2.8
F-mount = 28
EF-mount = 24

and so on.


----------

