# Canon to buy Sigma? (Per Sigma Rumors site)



## ScottyP (Sep 23, 2015)

Probably nonsense, but:

http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/09/canon-to-acquire-sigma/


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 23, 2015)

I received this on September 13, 2015.



> Canon is in acquisition talks with Sigma, which has rejected Canon's initial offer but is considering its 2nd offer. I know nothing regarding the new offer, but the first offer was about 7x current Sigma's net business value. No idea what will happen with Sigma products if the company is bought by Canon.


----------



## that1guyy (Sep 23, 2015)

Sure hope its nonsense. Canon branded Sigma lenses are going to be double the price and that means no Nikon or Sony Sigma lenses, which is a shame.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 23, 2015)

I don't know what Sigma brings to the table. I am sure Canon's lens technology is superior and if Canon wanted to market less expensive lenses they could do that. I can't see them diluting the brand by offering Sigma lenses under the Canon name.


----------



## gsealy (Sep 23, 2015)

Usually when one company buys another they do so to acquire something they don't have such as a market, a niche, a technology, etc.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 23, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> Sure hope its nonsense. Canon branded Sigma lenses are going to be double the price and that means no Nikon or Sony Sigma lenses, which is a shame.


If Canon bought Sigma, I am sure that they would still make lenses for other brands...


----------



## distant.star (Sep 23, 2015)

.
I see no business sense in such a move.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2015)

distant.star said:


> I see no business sense in such a move.



That is because you don't know what Sigma have on the table or what Canon are looking for.

One patent could be valuable enough for Canon to throw down that kind of money. Sigma must have a shed load of patents on the Foveon sensor design as well as a mutlitude of lens layouts. 

Imagine a Sigma lens line without AF issues, they could call it the Art+ or something ;D


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > I see no business sense in such a move.
> ...


Or perhaps rename it as Canon Art Luxury ??? and put two red rings on it  and double the price. :


----------



## TeT (Sep 23, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



Sigma Lenses are good but they are not that good...


----------



## tolusina (Sep 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> .... Sigma must have a shed load of patents on the *Foveon* sensor design....


Very interesting possibilities there, doesn't seem Sigma has has fully explored and exploited Foveon tech.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 23, 2015)

Anyone can start a rumor, but to be credible sets a much higher bar.

Even if true, anti trust regulators in Europe and USA would be pretty tough and might set requirements that Canon would not accept.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 23, 2015)

Sigma's magic is a small collection of people doing design, and a gutsy CEO with a vision. I love Canon, but neither would be well homed in Canon. 

What Sigma is doing is indeed a threat to Canon in an indirect fashion. In the absence of Tamron and, especially, Sigma, Canon would have an unassailably dominant professional/prosumer lens lineup. As it is, Sigma Art lenses are, at times, the best in their class, and they can be sold for just about what they originally cost. You don't even need Sigma's mount changing service. You can just sell your Art lens and buy it in another mount. This makes using Nikon and Sony much more attractive than they'd be otherwise. 

If Canon were looking to put a stake in Nikon's heart, retiring the Sigma brand would be helpful. It would be terrible for photographers, including Canon shooters.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 23, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> I see no business sense in such a move.


It would be purely strategic and is as follows:

EAT YOUR MOST SERIOUS COMPETITION


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2015)

Aglet said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Seriously? Sigma are tiny compared to Canon and they offer very few similar items, Sigma certainly don't present Canon with any serious competition, let alone their _"most serious competition"_. 

Canon's most serious competitor has always been Nikon, second at this time, though who knows in a few years (they probably won't still be making cameras), would be the Sony camera division that I am sure Sony would quite happily spin off.

If Canon bought Sigma they would be buying a state of the art lens manufacturing facility and the skilled workforce that is there actually in Japan, they would also be buying the patents and intellectual property, and I suspect there is a good amount of value to that. 

But I doubt if there is anything to this, the Canon share price hasn't reacted to these rumours and they would be the first to know and approve or disapprove of the idea.


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 23, 2015)

Why? Foveon sensors.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 23, 2015)

If this rumor is real and no nonsense than i see only two reasons for that move:

1. patents or production techniques (more likely):


tolusina said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > .... Sigma must have a shed load of patents on the *Foveon* sensor design....
> ...


Either the Foveon tech or something we don't have on the screen yet.

2. exogenic growth (less likely - esp. for the rumored price):


Aglet said:


> It would be purely strategic and is as follows:
> 
> EAT YOUR MOST SERIOUS COMPETITION


If Canon sees Sigma as the "most serious" competition I would be really surprised. 
I think that honor still belongs to SonNikon.

And to say that the portfolio of Sigma would add something up that Canon was not able to do themselves is likely unbelievable (except for patent restrictions, see 1.)

Time will tell, what's the truth.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 23, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I hope that anti-trust regulators stop this ...


+1



> Sigma, as a lens maker, provides much needed competition and variety to the consumer market.
> ...
> I'd much prefer to see a licensing deal between Canon & Sigma such as Canon gets the rights to Sigma's Foveon technology, Sigma gets the rights to Canon's AF protocols and non-conflicting lens IDs plus whatever else.


+1, too 

I don't know if the the Foveon patents are worth the rumored price. A licensing deal should be much cheaper if well-negotiated. 
Let's hope Sigma will stay independent.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Imagine a Sigma lens line without AF issues, they could call it the Art+ or something ;D



Sigma F. F = functional.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



Seriously, that's like saying Toyota should buy Sparco in order to eat its most serious competition.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 23, 2015)

What precedent are people using to determine that an anti-trust suit would find anything wrong with Canon buying Sigma? The market is flush with competition.
If Canon was going to buy... Sigma Tamron Tokina and Samyang, and maybe you would even need to include Zeiss (basically impossible at this point) then you might have a point. But even then, you have other camera systems, even with all the third party lens manufacturers gone there's plenty of competition. If Canon were the only pro-body manufacturer out there you might have a point, but there's a a bazillion companies making cameras, and not joke consumer products like the iPhone, high performance photography equipment.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2015)

I don't see antitrust coming into this at all. I don't even see how the USA or Europe could regulate one medium sized Japanese corp buying a much smaller Japanese corp in Japan, especially in a market as comparatively open as the camera market.


----------



## Luds34 (Sep 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't see antitrust coming into this at all. I don't even see how the USA or Europe could regulate one medium sized Japanese corp buying a much smaller Japanese corp in Japan, especially in a market as comparatively open as the camera market.



I completely agree on antitrust not coming into play here. The market is far too competitive.

However, both Canon and Sigma have divisions in the US. So the US would/could have something to say about that piece of the pie. But again, this is a moot point with the state of the market these days.

While Sigma is not Canon's biggest competitor looking at the full market, I'd argue they give an annoying, unique thorn in Canon's side. And that is they create very competitive lenses that work on Canon's cameras. While Canon competes with Sony and Nikon, they have the advantage that once they "win over a customer" they are locked in (to a certain degree) to the Canon system and buy lenses, etc. from Canon. Sigma's latest Art lenses have provided an alternative and have surely cost Canon sales. Sure Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. have always provided a 3rd party alternative, but those have historically been consumer based lenses. Pros and top photographers have always gone done the road of "L" glass. However, today there seems to be some real alternatives to pro glass for your EF mount camera.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 23, 2015)

If Canon bought Sigma I'd hope it was for the IP, not the people.

If bought for the people they'd have to leave the culture as is otherwise all the best people leave, I even know of one instance where a small tech firm was bought, most of the best people then left and setup a new firm, leaving the buyer with nothing for all their millions except for a few patents rapidly being overtaken by new inventions.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 23, 2015)

gsealy said:


> Usually when one company buys another they do so to acquire something they don't have such as a market, a niche, a technology, etc.



Or their rolodex (for those of you that know what that is). If this is true and it is for the lenses, it may also be a play to control the quality of lenses in the market should canon decide to stop making non-canon mount sigma lenses. It puts the pressure back on the other camera companies to make better lenses. 

Or looking at it from a different perspective, Canon makes money off of your sigma purchases no matter what camera you own. Imagine seeing someone with a Nikon D4 and a lens with canon written so big on it that it would serve as a billboard.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 23, 2015)

wsmith96 said:


> gsealy said:
> 
> 
> > Usually when one company buys another they do so to acquire something they don't have such as a market, a niche, a technology, etc.
> ...



Ha. A Canon lens on a Nikon body (with a native mount, no Franken-daptor). That would be interesting to see. Or vice versa really. Even if only done with one lens, in a category where the OEM's lens is weaker, would be an interesting move.


----------



## jrista (Sep 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > I see no business sense in such a move.
> ...



Given Canon's investment in layered sensor technology, I would be willing to bet it's the Foveon patents. 

I really do wonder if this is the best move for the industry, though. Sigma lenses have gotten really good, and offer a great alternative to the very highly priced Canon lenses. I don't see Sigma lenses sticking around over the long term if Canon bought Sigma...which would be a very, very sad and detrimental outcome indeed.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 23, 2015)

I don't get why Canon would want to buy the entire company, if all they really wanted was access to the Foveon sensor technology. It would make much more sense just to make a licensing deal, or even buying out the patents from Sigma, if that's what Canon needs.

To buy out the company, they are probably looking for something bigger - to either get rid of Sigma as a competitor on the lens side, or being able to tap into the Nikon/Sony lens markets.

I'm just guessing here, I have no business knowledge about Canon and Sigma.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 25, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Ya, seriously.
What other lens mfr is taking the wind out of Canon's sales? (pun intended) Tokina?... Tamron?.. Zeiss?..
it's a matter of pride
Sigma's producing glass that can mount on most major bodies, with optical performance near or even exceeding the best OEM glass, at prices that are significantly lower.

Canon doesn't _need_ anything from Sigma's portfolio, it would be just like the school bully putting the nerd into a locker. Shut 'em up and get them out of sight so there's no embarrassing comments to be heard as they try to talk the wallets out of customers' pockets.
it would just be basic business.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 25, 2015)

First I don't think Canon would buy Sigma,
If they did they would never spend that money to shut it down.
Thats like burning money.
They would buy it to supply lens to Canon and non-Canon cameras alike.
They would try to maximise Sigma sales but steer around certain Canon Cashcow lens.
They'd be mad to buy Sigma to stop it selling to Nikon or other users.
It would do more damage to Nikon by increasing Sigma Nikon sales.
Maybe Foveon sensors are the subject of interest for Canon but Sigma haven't done a great job with them so far.
Their cameras have never taken off.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 25, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> First I don't think Canon would buy Sigma,
> If they did they would never spend that money to shut it down.
> Thats like burning money.
> They would buy it to supply lens to Canon and non-Canon cameras alike.
> ...



Completely agree. This is a totally made-up rumor that is nothing more than click-bait. 

No matter how you look at it, there is no good business reason for Canon to buy Sigma.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 14, 2015)

Probably click-bait. However, there may be more patents around the Foveon sensor. I would have to say that one of the attractive features of Sigma is the now-high end manufacturing capacity in Japan. I have to say that there may be process improvements including and beyond the "QC every lens on a Foveon sensor-based automatic testing machine" that has helped Sigma achieve excellent optical consistency. All recent complaints about Sigma lenses are about AF issues, so far as I can tell. (About Sigma CAMERAS, the main complaint is the f*ing RAW conversion software!!!! - the main reason I get less use from my DP Merrill than expected).


----------

