# A Small Sigma 180 f/2.8 OS Macro Issue



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 10, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10934"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10934"></a></div>
<strong>Issue with the new Sigma Macro


</strong>An issue with the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS Macro on the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847545-REG/Canon_5260A002_EOS_5D_Mark_III.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">5D Mark II</a>I and <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/827036-REG/Canon_5253B002_EOS_1D_X_EOS_Digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EOS-1D X</a> has been discovered by LensRentals.com. If this has caused anyone to pull their hair out, the solution is pretty simple, just turn off illumination correction.</p>
<p>Below is an image taken by LensRentals.com showing the phenomenon.</p>
<div id="attachment_10935" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/180macro.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-10935 " title="180macro" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/180macro-575x383.jpeg" alt="" width="575" height="383" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Sigma 180 f/2.8 OS Macro Issue – Click for larger</p></div>
<p><strong>The Findings</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>The phenomenon shows up on Canon 5D Mk III and 1Dx cameras only. T4i and 7D bodies with firmware upgrade do NOT do this, nor do any other older cameras we could test.</li>
<li>The Sigma 180 OS and Sigma 150 OS macro lenses both show the effect and it’s identical. No other Sigma lenses that we stock showed the effect, nor did any Tamron or Tokina lenses. Obviously I can’t test what we don’t carry.</li>
<li>If you turn off Illumination Correction in the menu the effect goes away. To repeat, though, Illumination Correction in the 7D and T4i, on or off, doesn’t cause the effect.</li>
</ol>
<p>The issue probably doesn’t show up on the APS_C cameras because of the image is about the same size as the circular anomaly in the center of the above image.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/sigma-os-macros-on-5diii-1dx-issue" target="_blank">Read More at LensRentals.com</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Deathlens (Aug 10, 2012)

I actually noticed this issue with the Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro as well...on the 5D MKIII.


----------



## heptagon (Aug 11, 2012)

Why the heck are the new top line Canon cameras so broken?


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 11, 2012)

heptagon said:


> Why the heck are the new top line Canon cameras so broken?



Companies like Sigma reverse engineer Canon algorithms rather than license them. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.


----------



## lol (Aug 11, 2012)

I wonder what does the body report as the present lens in the PIC menu when this happens?

For example, simply as they're to hand right now, if I put a Zeiss 50mm on a 5D2 (I don't have a mk3) the PIC menu says 50mm lens - correction not available. If I put a Canon lens on, it will give the full name and may or may not offer correction depending on the lens.


----------



## YoukY63 (Aug 11, 2012)

Actually that is nothing new.
I found the same issue last year on my 5DmII coupled to a Sigma 50mm F1.4EX.
The lens report the code of the Canon 50mm F1.2L, and therefore the body corrects the illumination while it is not (that much) necessary.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 11, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > heptagon said:
> ...



Sounds like it to me. Canon wrote the software and knows how the mapping works and Sigma does not. Sigma tries to find an entry that "works" without any adverse affects. Sigma doesn't know what the correct code should be. Sigma tests their new lens on existing bodes (pre-5DIII and 1DX) and thinks they have their settings correct. New cameras come out with new properties for the existing table entries (i.e. for lens correction in camera) Sigma gets caught with an improper entry. If Sigma had licenses, then they would have had the tables and possibly have their own lens profiles loaded into the newer cameras like Canon did.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 11, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...


The solution is fairly painless, turn off illumination correction when shooting jpeg. Use RAW if you can, and do not turn it on in DPP if you use it.
Canon is not going to reverse engineer or modify camera software to support lenses that they have no control over. Sigma could pick a Canon lens with a similar properties to report to the camera.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Looks like sigma always picks silly lens-IDs...

The illumination/vignetting correction doesnt work right at any non-canon lens...


----------



## heptagon (Aug 11, 2012)

So Canon doesn't provide a proper way for other manufacturers to make EF lenses without paying horrendous licensing fees. Then it purpously breaks compatibility with existing 3rd party lenses with new bodies. That doesn't sound good to me. All Canon would have to provide would be a proper way to ID the lenses. A simple manufacturer ID + item ID would be sufficient.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 11, 2012)

This is a (more or less) funny example of our believing in data correction algorithms etc.
I see a tendency to suspend development for better lenses in terms of vignetting, chromatic aberrations, distortions because you can correct them easily AFTERWARDS. I have seen such tendencies just in experimental setups ... but the best way is always to get the best raw data you can and decide THEN if you correct the data by a smaller amount.

And it is a funny example for (more or less unexpected) side effects in a more and more complex world.
But on the other hand it is phantastic how good the stuff works in general despite the complexity of the equipment and its interactions.


----------



## Kathode-Ray (Aug 11, 2012)

YoukY63 said:


> Actually that is nothing new.
> I found the same issue last year on my 5DmII coupled to a Sigma 50mm F1.4EX.
> The lens report the code of the Canon 50mm F1.2L, and therefore the body corrects the illumination while it is not (that much) necessary.



Yep, the 50mm does the same here with my 60D. No big issue, unless you're a JPG shooter  :

Ray


----------



## Kathode-Ray (Aug 11, 2012)

That's a bit blunt, it has nothing to do with QC. The lens ID happens to be the same as a Canon lens.


----------



## heptagon (Aug 11, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> typicall for sigma.
> you wonder if they have a quality management at all.
> 
> how can such an issue not be noticed and fixed when developing a lens?


Maybe because it is Canon who broke the compatibility?


----------



## traveller (Aug 11, 2012)

heptagon said:


> So Canon doesn't provide a proper way for other manufacturers to make EF lenses without paying horrendous licensing fees. Then it purpously breaks compatibility with existing 3rd party lenses with new bodies. That doesn't sound good to me. All Canon would have to provide would be a proper way to ID the lenses. A simple manufacturer ID + item ID would be sufficient.



I think that you're being a touch unfair on Canon here, why should Canon go out of their way to help third party manufacturers compete with them for lens sales? I don' think that you'll find many other manufacturers doing that. The only exception that I can think of is Sony, who have 'open-sourced' the E-mount protocols. If you think about the reason for this, you'll realise why it doesn't make sense for Canon: the NEX range is still very new and lacks lenses. From Sony's perspective, they are seeking to trade future competitive advantage in lens sales for short term gain in market share of the system (assuming that having more lenses available makes NEX more attractive to potential buyers). Canon on the other hand, has one of the largest lens ranges available and these are at the heart of the EOS system's competitive advantage. Why would they jeopardize potential sales of their EF lenses just to assist a competitor? 

As for "purpously breaks compatibility", I don't think they give it that much thought!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Aug 11, 2012)

mb66energy said:


> This is a (more or less) funny example of our believing in data correction algorithms etc.
> I see a tendency to suspend development for better lenses in terms of vignetting, chromatic aberrations, distortions because you can correct them easily AFTERWARDS.



I'd rather easily correct in post processing than face the sticker shock accompanying those new lenses.


----------



## YoukY63 (Aug 11, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Freelancer said:
> 
> 
> > typicall for sigma.
> ...


You are very unfair and I totally disagree.

Canon's business is too sell Canon products, not Sigma or Tamron or any other brands.
When Sigma sells 1 lens, Canon does not receive any yen/dollar for that. Why should they care about them? Sigma should already feel happy that Canon doesn't try to definitely inactivate their reverse tech and making their products unusable --> end of business.


----------



## janvehrenkamp (Aug 11, 2012)

This issue might be more of an 5D3 issue than a lens one.
I did some night shots yesterday and just now noticed similar issues with my 5D3+24-105, it's almost not visible in the untouched raw file(I didn't notice it, until I accidentaly found it), but once I crank up the dials it becomes clearly visible.
I think it's visible all the time, but at least I couldn't tell until I dialed up almost all the development settings to the max, where I suddenly started to see a white circle in the frame.
Might not be an issue though, as I can't think of a scenario where I'd push the processing to the extend that I did in my tests (trying out new stuff). But if you search for it I'm sure you'll be able to find the white circle too.
Funny that I found this now.. :|


----------



## heptagon (Aug 11, 2012)

dilbert said:


> YoukY63 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


If Canon makes a good lens, it will sell. If the competitor is better, Canon needs to "protect their market". If they fall behind not only in the Sensor development but also with the lenses, Canon will have a big problem, because then there's little reason to buy a Canon camera. The lens prices are still up and it's a good time to sell now.


----------



## traveller (Aug 11, 2012)

dilbert said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > heptagon said:
> ...



Whilst the issue of making a lens mount open or closed is an interesting argument, the fact of the matter is that you know full well that the EF mount is currently a closed system. On that basis, it is not fair to bang one's fists on the table and demand a solution to a problem caused by a competitor's unauthorised reverse engineering of Canon's product. Dare I quote the old phrase: "you get what you pay for"...? Should it seems that I'm being arrogant and heartless, I also own third party lenses, which were bought on cost grounds. In return for the lower purchase price, I accepted that there were long term compatibility questions; it is part of the deal and one reason why Sigma _et al._ cannot charge as much for their lenses. 

Suggesting that Sony has some deep understanding of the consumer electronics industry is laughable; this is a company that has suffered massive retrechment of its market share (and big financial losses) as the competition has outperformed it in key markets. I see Sony's decision to open-source the E-mount specification as an indictment of their commitment to produce lenses for the system.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Aug 11, 2012)

heptagon said:


> If Canon makes a good lens, it will sell. If the competitor is better, Canon needs to "protect their market".



That would stifle competition, which is bad for consumers. Canon should compete by making a better lens.

That's beside the fact that the above statement simplifies things, e.g. there's a competition on price/performance.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 11, 2012)

traveller said:


> Canon also has to take care not to create precedence - include a fix for one lens and you'll be asked why all the other stuff doesn't get the same treatment. Suddenly the blame for flaky behavior gets shifted from the manufacturer to a 3rd party who doesn't even want to be involved or has the means to solve them as they can
> t fix problems on the far side of the mount.
> I wonder how long it will take until some lens declares itself capable of working with all 61Points without restrictions when in reality less optimism would be prudent. Same basic problem, but much subtler yet more troublesome effect...


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 12, 2012)

dilbert said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst the issue of making a lens mount open or closed is an interesting argument, the fact of the matter is that you know full well that the EF mount is currently a closed system. On that basis, it is not fair to bang one's fists on the table and demand a solution to a problem caused by a competitor's unauthorised reverse engineering of Canon's product.
> ...



It's your right to give your opinion. It is Canon's right to protect their IP, and it is their right to change their protocols without letting unlicensed users know. Ultimately, you have the choice of where you spend your money whether it be on Sony, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, etc. Unless you have some legal ground to force Canon to make their IP open, then that's the way it is and you can only "vote" with where you spend your money. If enough people agree, then Canon might be persuaded if it starts affecting sales/profits, but I don't think that will happen any time soon.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Aug 12, 2012)

dilbert said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst the issue of making a lens mount open or closed is an interesting argument, the fact of the matter is that you know full well that the EF mount is currently a closed system. On that basis, it is not fair to bang one's fists on the table and demand a solution to a problem caused by a competitor's unauthorised reverse engineering of Canon's product.
> ...



I'm not a lawyer or U.S. citizen, so I might very well be missing something, but doesn't the DMCA put some limits on reverse engineering?


As Sigma completes Canon's line of lenses, IMHO, Canon would benefit from having their cameras avoid such SNAFUs. Examples would be fisheyes - until the 8-15mm, Canon made only a diagonal fisheye for FF, and Sigma made circular fisheyes for APS-C & FF + diagonal for APS-C.


----------



## heptagon (Aug 12, 2012)

So can we conclude that Canon lenses should be protected like printer ink (more expensive than blood). This can be done with a little security chip built into the lens which identifies it as a genuine Canon. From a certain date on e.g. 1/1/2014 all other lenses will be disabled or set to full manual (no aperture control). It's about time for Canon to step up to these product pirates!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Aug 12, 2012)

There was a similar problem with Tamron lenses over a year ago - Canon apparently limited the functionality of focus points for some of it's lenses, and Tamron lenses which used the same IDs were hurt as well.

The more lens-specific-processing Canon adds to it's cameras, the more this kind of problems will occur, giving Canon bad rep as the brand that does not play well with others.

IMHO, the best solution for Canon would be to set aside a block of IDs for lenses by companies that reversed engineer the mount protocols, and not doing any lens specific processing for lenses that use an ID in that block.


----------



## heptagon (Aug 12, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> IMHO, the best solution for Canon would be to set aside a block of IDs for lenses by companies that reversed engineer the mount protocols, and not doing any lens specific processing for lenses that use an ID in that block.


This would be a very good idea for a start.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 12, 2012)

heptagon said:


> This would be a very good idea for a start.



They actually might have done that - but for an outside party the only way to differentiate between reserved for 3rd party and reserved for future lenses would be to ask.

But a basic problem remains: Canon doesn't do lens specific processing for fun, but because advanced techniques work only with certain lenses or at need specific data for others. That was a problem in the past when Sigma lenses only reported AF parameters for consumer bodies but lacked the second set for area-type sensors. Most of the time only the pro bodies were affected, and the 7D is using the center of most lenses, but if the 5d3 is an indicator for upcoming high end prosumer bodies...


----------



## heptagon (Aug 12, 2012)

As far as i know, some (all) lenses aren't identified in the EXIF-Data of the image by lens-ID but by parameters like aperture and focal length ranges. Programs have to sort out which lens it actually is from that data. This might be one of the causes for the problem and i don't know how it is done for new lenses.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Aug 12, 2012)

Lawliet said:


> heptagon said:
> 
> 
> > This would be a very good idea for a start.
> ...



Or Canon could publish a list of lens IDs on it's web site that goes "ID A lens a, ID B lens b, ...., L through P reserved for reverse engineered lenses, ..."


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Aug 13, 2012)

Lawliet said:


> But a basic problem remains: Canon doesn't do lens specific processing for fun, but because advanced techniques work only with certain lenses or at need specific data for others. That was a problem in the past when Sigma lenses only reported AF parameters for consumer bodies but lacked the second set for area-type sensors. Most of the time only the pro bodies were affected, and the 7D is using the center of most lenses, but if the 5d3 is an indicator for upcoming high end prosumer bodies...



I think it would be appropriate to distinguish between two cases:

1. Lens specific processing is not applied, because 3rd party manufacturer did not pay for the benefit.

As long as the 3rd party manufacturer does not falsely advertise that the lens would benefit from lens specific processing, e.g. automatic illumination correction or area focus, I see no problem here. The consumer would make a conscious between features (price, IQ, lens specific processing), and do what he sees fit.

2. Lens specific processing is misapplied, because 3rd party manufacturer had it's lens ID itself as an other lens.

IMHO, both the OEM and 3rd party manufacturer should cooperate to avoid this case. When a consumer buys a lens, he does not know which lens specific features would be introduced in future cameras, and how much effort it would take to circumvent it's *mis*application.

In other words, I expect manufacturers to apply defensive design to avoid this cases.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 13, 2012)

heptagon said:


> So Canon doesn't provide a proper way for other manufacturers to make EF lenses without paying horrendous licensing fees. Then it purpously breaks compatibility with existing 3rd party lenses with new bodies. That doesn't sound good to me. All Canon would have to provide would be a proper way to ID the lenses. A simple manufacturer ID + item ID would be sufficient.


Third party manufacturers can assign their own lens ID, they do not need to use a Canon ID. They are merely trying to be clever, and it backfired.

However, the only way for a camera to know the optical and capable characteristics of a lens, is for the lens to be in the internal table that resides in the camera. So, Canon would have to maintain data for all the competitors lenses and issue camera firmware updates for them, and get complaints when problems occurred. 
Thats like saying car makers should design cars to work with all transmissions from other makes. Then, whenever they want to make a change or improvement, they must get everyone else to change.
Its not so simple as one might believe.
But, the lens correction feature is not mandantory, if a user wants to use a third party lens, he can turn it off. Canon has actually provided for third pasrty manufacturers, you merely cannot use the lens correction feature in camera.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 14, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> e.g. automatic illumination correction or area focus, I see no problem here. The consumer would make a conscious between features (price, IQ, lens specific processing), and do what he sees fit.
> 
> 2. Lens specific processing is misapplied, because 3rd party manufacturer had it's lens ID itself as an other lens.



That works only if specific processing is optional. But those cases are only the tip of the iceberg, the real trouble starts when the camera needs the processing to work properly. Sure, you could set the AF to "dumb as a rock" as long as there is no proper ID, which likely would result in accusions of deliberatly crippeling 3rd party lenses. Or you shift it down as needed - looks fine on paper, but some of the Sigma lenses either front- or backfocusing depending on the orientation of the test target is uncomfortably unpredictable. And thats with just the center point at constant distance, more fun if you introduce real life variables.
Some cosmetic changes that have no impact on RAW files wouldn't justify to much worrying, I'm more scared of hidden troubles creeping up. ???


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Aug 14, 2012)

Lawliet said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > e.g. automatic illumination correction or area focus, I see no problem here. The consumer would make a conscious between features (price, IQ, lens specific processing), and do what he sees fit.
> ...



IMHO, illumination correction is optional, e.g. the user can turn it off.

Furthermore, what would happen if a customer would mount a new lens without upgrading to a firmware version that knows how much illumination correction to apply? What if the firmware version that knows that happens to have a bug?

I think it's reasonable for the firmware to fallback to no illumination correction for lenses it doesn't recognize.



Lawliet said:


> But those cases are only the tip of the iceberg, the real trouble starts when the camera needs the processing to work properly. Sure, you could set the AF to "dumb as a rock" as long as there is no proper ID, which likely would result in accusions of deliberatly crippeling 3rd party lenses.



If that happens, Canon should reply those are unrealistic expectations, same as expecting it to buy such 3rd party lenses, invest man hours to measure it's light falloff, & add the appropriate illumination correction to the cameras's firmwares.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Aug 14, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> heptagon said:
> 
> 
> > So Canon doesn't provide a proper way for other manufacturers to make EF lenses without paying horrendous licensing fees. Then it purpously breaks compatibility with existing 3rd party lenses with new bodies. That doesn't sound good to me. All Canon would have to provide would be a proper way to ID the lenses. A simple manufacturer ID + item ID would be sufficient.
> ...



As long as Canon doesn't set aside those numbers (before or after the fact), it's possible Canon would happen to reuse that ID for one of it's own lenses later on, causing the problem to arise at that time.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> However, the only way for a camera to know the optical and capable characteristics of a lens, is for the lens to be in the internal table that resides in the camera.



That's not what I've suggested. My suggestion is to set aside lens IDs, then not perform any illumination correction. That would avoid the problem with practically zero effort and expense for Canon.


----------



## danski0224 (Aug 14, 2012)

Does Canon offer licensing options to 3rd party lens manufacturers?


----------

