# Sigma lenses incompatible with 1DX II



## AvTvM (Jun 3, 2016)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/9300647005/sigma-says-three-of-its-lenses-are-not-fully-compatible-with-the-canon-eos-1d-x-ii

once again. That's why I will never again buy thirdparty lenses for Canon. Just too much risk and hassle.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 3, 2016)

Well, that's why Sigma designed their docking station. Makes firmware corrections easy and makes it harder for manufacturers to brick their lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 3, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Well, that's why Sigma designed their docking station. Makes firmware corrections easy and makes it harder for manufacturers to brick their lenses.



Fine, but...



> The company is developing firmware to correct the issue.



No ETA? Sure, a temporary brick isn't as bad as a permanent brick or a brick you need to ship off for a fix...but none of those options are really palatable. It's June...wedding season. A portrait lens and environmental portrait lens are affected. If I used those lenses and depended on them to put food on my table, 'we are working on the problem' wouldn't cut it. 

I'm with AvTvM on this, Canon lenses for a Canon body. Only exception is my Rokinon 14/2.8, but it's firmware-less.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 3, 2016)

I know, that 99% of the problem is on Canon's side who make succinct changes to their lens protocol and firmware all the time - of course proprietary & undocumented - just to make life as miserable as possible for their own customers if they (also) dare to use thirdparty lenses. 

But, I am not willing to swallow the constant hassle and risk of all sorts of incompatibilities.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, a temporary brick isn't as bad as a permanent brick or a brick you need to ship off for a fix...but none of those options are really palatable. It's June...wedding season. A portrait lens and environmental portrait lens are affected. If I used those lenses and depended on them to put food on my table, 'we are working on the problem' wouldn't cut it.
> 
> I'm with AvTvM on this, Canon lenses for a Canon body. Only exception is my Rokinon 14/2.8, but it's firmware-less.


Agreed!

That said, I have 2 non-Canon lenses..... One very wide zoom (11-16mm at F2.8 ) and the Tamron 150-600. If the Tamron "bricked" I would be heading into town the next day and coming back with a 100-400 II. I really don't trust third party lenses to stay compatible and would never spend a lot of money on one.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 3, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Well, that's why Sigma designed their docking station. Makes firmware corrections easy and makes it harder for manufacturers to brick their lenses.



What evidence do you have to support that idea? I'd think Canon have much better things to do than worry about third party compatibility, or spend time and money actively trying to break it.

I'd think it far more likely that the third parties did a relatively poor job of reverse engineering the lens protocols in the first place. Now how could they work round that? Oh yes, the Japanese companies, Sigma, could buy a license then Canon would support them..........


----------



## unfocused (Jun 3, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that's why Sigma designed their docking station. Makes firmware corrections easy and makes it harder for manufacturers to brick their lenses.
> ...



I really wasn't being serious. You are right. If a lens ends up "bricked" it's most likely a coincidence because neither Canon nor Nikon are under any obligation to make sure their bodies work with every third party manufacturer.


----------



## Refurb7 (Jun 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that's why Sigma designed their docking station. Makes firmware corrections easy and makes it harder for manufacturers to brick their lenses.
> ...



I use Sigma and Tamron (and Canon) lenses for weddings. No problems. No bricks. But I use them on 5D3 and 6D.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 3, 2016)

You are the programming team at Canon...... You create a table of lens characteristics for each Canon lens and another entry for unknown........

The lens is placed on the body, the camera queries the lens, the lens reports back, and away you go..... Obviously, Canon has only put the characteristics of Canon lenses into the table, so a second party lens either reports back as unknown, or it picks the closest Canon lens to its characteristics....things such as AF units, acceleration/deceleration times for driven elements, max element speed, etc...

Now Canon comes out with a new body, one with the ability to drive lens elements faster than the old cameras, and all those lenses are going to behave differently and that choice of "like an 100l" that a third party made to describe their lend characteristics is no longer valid and things just don't work right.

And that is just one characteristic.....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 4, 2016)

As much as I dislike Sony's continually obsoleting their products and dropping support, this is a area where you can purchase a third party lens and expect it to work, because Sony gives free licenses for their lens operating system. They did it to quickly build lens support for their cameras. You can use a Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, and soon, a Rokinon that have the proper firmware to work with a Sony camera.


----------

